User talk:In ictu oculi/Archive 2014

Saw your post on the Jesus talk page. I am not a scholar, but I follow most of the same Bible pages as yourself (I'm sure we've spoken/tangled once or twice on Talk pages) so even if/though you think I'm an idiot, if you ever need anyone to come in and take a look as a "referee" with a similar Wiki background to work from, I'd be happy to. I reviewed the thread you linked and aware of all the players - and somewhat surprised to see both the return of User:Ret.Prof and that he is the one spearheading this. Have a happy New Year! Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Thanks for your offer. However, right now I am trying to get away from Authentic Matthew and focus on the Oral Gospel tradition. You would be a welcome addition. You are no idiot! You are a respected Wikipedia editor! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ckruschke many thanks, yours is a User name I view with confidence. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think... ;-). Ckruschke (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Another Love (Stories song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ian Lloyd

Bats (South African band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Radio London

My Home (traditional pipe tune) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gurkha Rifles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page.
Message added 04:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

LFaraone 04:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Joseph O'Donnell page was changed to Joseph O'Donnell Sr., his father (16 Sept 2013 edit). Also, the original Joseph O'Donnell data was added to Enrique José O'Donnell, Conde de La Bisbal. I'm sure that you didn't intend to mix two people up, but the Joseph (or José) who fought at Battle of Zujar and Battle of Castalla (1812) was the brother of the Count of La Bisbal, commonly referred to in English-language sources as Henry. Please see Charles Oman's History of the Peninsular War: Volume IV and look in the index. There is Charles, Joseph and Henry (or Enrique José if you prefer). Henry fought at the Battle of La Bisbal and the Battle of Vich. Actually most of Henry's fighting is told in Oman's Volume III. In Oman's Volume V on page 567 is this note, "he [Joseph O'Donnell] entirely lacked the fiery determination of his brother Henry, the hero of La Bispal." Oman Vol. V page 567 Unless you can convince me that Oman is wrong, I plan to create a new page for Joseph O'Donnell different from his father's page. I know the feeling, because I've gotten Gabriel Venance Rey, Louis Emmanuel Rey and Jean-Pierre-Antoine Rey crossed up at one time or other. The last two were brothers who were generals in Spain at the same time and the sources unhelpfully just say "Rey". Djmaschek (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Check out this page: Familia de Héroes. It shows brothers Enrique José (1769-1834), José (1768-1836) and Carlos (1772-1830). Djmaschek (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Djmaschek, well spotted. Looking at the Spanish sources I think you are correct. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IIO. I've seen you're very au fait with Google Ngrams and Google Books and I'm trying to pull together Ngram stats for the discussion at Talk:Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope#Requested_move. As you can see from this link [1] using the colon renders the results useless. Any ideas? Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zarcadia, sorry have tried a couple of things but got nowhere. No idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for having a look. Zarcadia (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Great Hotel Murder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ernest Palmer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IIO. I closed the discussion at Talk:Listen to My Heart#Requested move. Can you check that article (which is now a DAB) to see if it looks right? I have not yet begun to check for incoming links that need to be updated. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at Chasing Shadows and see what you think? I have a feeling you might be able to help clean that up. In particular, some of those entries are probably duplicates. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, caught a few In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tana Li doesnt mention anything about champa and in "Dai Viet Su Ky Toan Thu" also doesnt mention anything about Ai Chau was populated by any Cham People. Ai Chau was one of Cửu Chân District during Chinese Dominiton. The truth is Dương Tiến Lục lead an attack by the local or native people of Ai Chau and Hoan Chau and planned to betray Lê Hoàn, they were Viet , not other race(archaeology evidences presented)In Dai Viet Sử ký toàn thư and Khâm Định Việt Sử Thông giám Cương Mục wrote : " Dương Tiến Lộc lấy hai Châu Hoan, Ái làm phản. Vua thân đi đánh, Tiến Lộc bị giết.Bấy giờ vua sai viên Quảng Giáp là Tiến Lộc đi thu thuế hai châu Hoan và Ái, Tiến Lộc đem người hai châu ấy XIN THEO VỀ VỚI CHIÊM THÀNH. CHIÊM THÀNH KHÔNG NHẬN. Vua nghe tin, đem các quân đến đánh Châu Hoan, Châu Ái, đuổi bắt được Tiến Lộc và giết người 2 châu ấy không biết bao nhiêu mà kể." Read the history book carefully before making any changes. I will have to remove the wrong line and fake edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiraki (talk • contribs) 09:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidental only with Cham battles' yes. added full source In ictu oculi (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nicol Sponberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable musician. See WP:MUSICBIO Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it hasn't been, there is no tag, and there shouldn't be. Reply to User on User's Talk page here. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User withdrew prod. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's the thing, in 2011, I got into trouble for doing a mass-move of changing article titles using its native capitalization (discussion of that can be found here, which I'm still ashamed of). I'm not saying your wrong, but rather where I'm coming from. I mean no offense on the talk page. Erick (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Brent (comedian) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial coverage. References are trivial at best. Fails WP:BIO and article fails to meet WP:42. reddogsix (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referred to article talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: according to this site: http://blog.ponderosastomp.com/2013/05/rip-george-perkins-1942-2013-soul-giant-behind-cryin-in-the-streets-remembered-by-jeff-hannusch/

Mr. Perkins is no longer living. Is this a good enough source to cite to justify adding a death date and category, etc.? I have not been able to find much else beyond a local La. obituary (linked in the above article). Please let me know what you think. Thanks--FeanorStar7 01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:FeanorStar7 yes, the obituary is by Jeff Hannusch, books on Amazon and a reliable music writer. I have added it, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:Does not have an article. Since you had some involvement with the MOS:Does not have an article redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1st Valley Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Development bank

John Brent (comedian) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Committee

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IIO. Recently I closed your RM at Talk:Come On Come On (Little Birdy song). My assumption is that, now that the article is disambiguated with the name of the group, the original page at Come On Come On (song) (now a redirect to the Little Birdy song) should be pointed to Come On Come On (disambiguation). I'll leave that to the discretion of others, since it doesn't need an admin and the move close doesn't necessarily determine what to do about it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You added some corrupted text to Friedrich Nicolaus Bruhns, in a fn. Could you fix please? Thnx, — kwami (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 corrupted characters in a 6,000k article creation. It happens. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Lova Falk. I noticed that you recently removed lots and lots of content from Posttraumatic stress disorder without explaining why. I guess this was a mistake, and I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Lova Falk talk 08:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Yes, I didn't mean to wipe the PSTD article, was making a minor hatnote edit, connectivity problem did the rest. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you moved Child of the Universe to Child of the Universe (Delta Goodrem album) as opposed to Child of the Universe (album). Why is this, considering there are no albums that share this title? Thanks Melonkelon (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the Barclay James Harvest compilation album, although I note that there is also a reggae album by Screwdriver (musician). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Compagnia del Madrigale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfonso Ferrabosco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Another editor has started a discussion at Talk:Blackwater Park (album)#Requested move regarding your move of Blackwater Park to Blackwater Park (album). Please join in the discussion. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the move as successful because there did not seem be a controversy. Since you appear to understand this, can you fix up any incoming links to the article or the DAB as you think best? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article When Love Calls Your Name (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-compliant disambiguation page.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sort of disamugation necessary? It's very complicated and unnecessary, in my opinion. What's wrong with the simpler one we had before? It worked well for David Bowie's two eponymous albums, why couldn't it work here? I don't think i'll ever meet someone who would be bothered to type in "Embrace (Embrace (English band) album)" into the search engine, honestly. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well no one will ever type in any ( ) dab, and Google copes with that. I have come across it before and that is the model of how it is done, there are other examples Bleach (Bleach (American band) album) vs Bleach (Bleach (Japanese band) album). The reason Bowie works is that is two albums by the same artist, this isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a RM at Talk:Bleach (album), let's find out whether that ( ( ) ) style really is the norm or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw that you moved Julian Velásquez to Julián Velásquez and I was wondering on what basis you made that change. Could you let me know? Canadian Paul 23:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just how Julián is spelled in Spanish. check Google Books In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, seems reasonable. Thanks for the response. Canadian Paul 00:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, possibly we had a misunderstanding at this RM. I differentiated between a web search, which favoured rap album related results, and the book search, which returned several unrelated books until you added additional specific terms. Hopefully it's now clearer what I was trying to say. I support the move regardless, cheers. benmoore 21:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially of low or single-user words.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I did some changes to Latin American music last month to include the definition provided by sources. What do you think? Erick (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blank those pages, I redirected both to their parent album article, Playing the Angel. WP:NSONGS states, "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." SnapSnap 19:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Neal (songwriter), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Shapes and Turtle Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your message. It was in response to this thread on the Fringe theories noticeboard. The article may have been cleaned up a bit since the post, but the Islam section still only has primary sources. I know that there is a long tradition of belief in jinns and maybe we could bring some material in. If you could just cast an eye over the article, that would be very useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Michitaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Orquesta La Solución (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Salsa and Puerto Rican

Frank Weldon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phil Moore

Los Invasores de Nuevo León (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Norteno

Mantra (Italian band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Italian

Trần Quang Vinh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Japanese

Vox Populi, Vox Dei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Whig

Óscar Serrano (athlete) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to T12

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Wieno's talk page.
Message added 20:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wieno (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your logic here: "created out of a redirect, but 5 other albums in articles on dab". I only one notable album at Sovereign (disambiguation) and that's the one that has an article. I see one EP. It was correctly moved this past July from Sovereign (album) to Sovereign (EP). The only think that I think is needed is a hatnote on the new album that either points back to the dab or to the EP. If a move is to happen again, I would also suggest a discussion on the album's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not talk before you damage Wikipedia? Move it back and talk now please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:46 - 02:47 is less than 1 minute. It generally isn't a good idea to insert/create a new article out of a redirect to existing content, particularly when there's a WP:CRYSTALBALL element. But no problem, I happily moved it back, despite the other 5 Sovereign albums in articles, and Google Books. You may wish to be more sparing with personal attack and insult language like "damage". In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On my Talk page you'll find a draft of a request for formal mediation on Gospel of Matthew and its sister, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. The idea is that Ret.Prof will file the request for mediation, and it will take as its cause or whatever the phrase is a reversion I did of one of his edits regarding authentic Matthew. RetProf, Ignocrates and I have worked at this (an Davidbena has seen it because he thinks like RetProf), and we'd now like you to see and comment before RetProf drops it in the mailbox.

The idea is that we're doing this nice - everyone agrees, and the aim is to test, through mediation, whether authentic Matthew needs to be more fully explored in the GoM article. The draft will explain. PiCo (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2014.

What I meant in my last message ([2]) was "You had to reply". I wish you hadn't. Sorry about that mistake.

No reply necessary (nor desired). Remove this message if you want. Goodbye. SamEV (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I believe it would be in everybody's best interests if someone were to review the guidelines for formal and informal mediation, particularly regarding what content in mediation can and cannot be considered at proposals for topic bans or arbitration. I believe that there is rather obvious, in fact almost overwhelming, evidence that Ret. Prof. is more or less a devoted SPA POV pusher regarding the "Jewishness" of early Christianity, and I very much believe that would likely be taken into account at such proceedings. I also believe that it would be in everybody's best interests if any clear misconduct which might take place in mediation should be available for consideration in arbitration or noticeboard discussion, should, as I think likely, problematic conduct continue. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Carter, thank you for having momentarily put a head up from retirement. From the little I understood of the Ebionites issue (which I again apologize for not watching, a lapse of responsibility) I don't have confidence that the process is going to result in articles having more of a scholarly/SBL/JPS WP:RS approach. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary. I also believe that the mediation may well be ultimately fruitless, and on that basis suggest that if some variety of official mediation were to take place, it wouldbe in everybody's best interests that any questionable conduct during mediation be available for review by administrators orarbitrators. John Carter (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, friend. I've nominated WP:NICKNAME for retargeting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 10#Wikipedia:NICKNAME. I'm letting you know since its only incoming link is from one of your arguments at Talk:Virginia Tech; you may well have no opinion on the question. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:BDD, that's okay, I have no opinion, do as you think best. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

So, are you participating in mediation or what? We have been waiting for you to join. Ignocrates (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what the mediation process is or how it works or what it can expect to achieve. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the Mediation Policy which explains the mediation process. Let me know if you have any other questions. Sunray (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make any unwarranted assumptions, but you have to "Agree" to mediation on the mediation page if you intend to participate. Ignocrates (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In ictu oculi, would you be able to signify your agreement (or not) to this mediation, by signing here? Sunray (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Los Invasores de Nuevo León (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mexican

Mick Greenwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dave Peacock

Wilfred Josephs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Max Rudolf

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that much of your own time~ its not my thing at all, but ive taken it upon myself to send a message that these articles need attention & editors here've been abusing the lack of critical review & language barrier! i'm embroiled with a related subject at dyk if you already didnt noticed~ kampai Japanglish (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article on Ryukyu minyo? I see that there is an article on Minyo. My source says that Misako Oshiro owns the top Okinawan minyo joint Shimaumui, a basement bar. Taiko drums and sanshin are used. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Candleabracadabra only Ryukyuan music. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but I prefer to use a different approach. Now semi-protected. Deb (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I often wish I wasn't! See Talk:BeerXML. Deb (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the info. Looking back at the edit history, there appears to have been a copy-and-paste move (with no source on the acent). I'll request a speedy delete of the redirect and move to the correct title. Thanks for spotting it and sourcing the article too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you request a technical move recently involving this name? For the corresponding Russian name there is a page called Yevgeni listing people who have that as a given name. Jenő just redirects to Jenő (village). Is that the best use of this article name? Should there be something like a DAB page? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. I did indeed, somehow the original name stub I made got erased. Never mind I have remade a better one, thanks for the notification, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could be the deleter of the previous DAB. Oops! Thanks for your work. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Since you commented earlier in the discussion at Talk:Manchester capitalism#Requested move, please weigh on the proposed alternative, Manchester Liberalism (or Manchester liberalism). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this investigation is meaningless as this sockpuppet returns again and again. :( His favourite topics, among others, John Hunyadi, Magyarization, 1848-1849 massacres in Transylvania, Romania in the Middle Ages and he usually checks Hungarian editors' activity. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

With All My Heart (Frankie Laine album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ain't Misbehavin', Get Happy and Ben Ryan

Fred Burch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Don Hill

Jakob Meiland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Johann Walther

Johann Ulich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kantor

Roger Webb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Danny Williams

Samuel Besler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Johann Walther

Sin City (The Flying Burrito Brothers album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sin City (song)

Víctor Pablo Pérez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to El Dia

Élise Pellegrin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to La Nouvelle République

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently user DIREKTOR does not like we list the secondary sources, we should rather operated by Google research. Fine, but why removing our edits from the Talk page? --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a provisional agreement with the proposal to rename the article. I'm curious about why you proposed it. Tapered (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed it. It seems no one besides the main disputants cares. They're both ideologues. I have no ready access to good histories of the area. I believe that House of Gundulic will remain for the foreseeable future. Tapered (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For many of those groups, I think it worth noting that even Bart Ehrman in his Lost Christianities said with only a very few exceptions, and I think the only one he names is 1 Clement (no idea why the Shepherd of Hermas wasn't also included), they were all forgeries written well after their purported time. The better recent sources for material on this topic would be the Schneemelcher/Henneke New Testament Apocrypha, which is kind of exhaustive on matters like this, and Ehrman's Lost Christianities, when supplying overview material. There is a comparatively recent book, Bad Religion by Ross Douthat, which provides some reasonable criticism, at least coming close to saying that some of the work of Ehrman, Pagels, and a few others, may be at least as motivated by their own changed views as those of, say, Jesuit scholars is. And, FWIW, having known a few Jesuit scholars, I wonder exactly how it is that they hadn't been excommunicated for their beliefs which radically divert from Catholic doctrine, so I guess I could say, in some instances, at least some of them might be more "independent" than Ehrman, Pagels, and the like.

One of the big areas of difficulty I see about the topic of Christianity as I see it is that it is so freaking huge, covered to such an incredible degree in staggering numbers of reliable sources, that it is hard, if not impossible, to really make many of the articles about major Christian topics of decent quality. The best way I can think of to address that is, basically, what I am kind of getting ready to do now, find as many good, reputable PD sources as I can for inclusion in commons or wikisource, as many well-regarded recent reference books as I can in various libraries, and list their content. Maybe, once all that is done, if it ever is, we might be able to get more of our content up to a reasonable level. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered that a significant number of Vietnamese names have been entered using Ð (Unicode letter eth) instead of the identical-looking Đ (Unicode D with stroke). Examples in article titles are Ðỗ Mậu, Ngô Ðình Nhu, Hà Ðông, Ðông Pháp Thời Báo, Ðoàn Thị Ðiểm; there are many other uses within other articles. I'll put in move requests for the main ones. Just something to be aware of. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That's a good catch. These moves look like a good idea. Has this happened in the bodies of articles too? bobrayner (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are cases within articles too. I'm in the process of searching for them now. Searching for any of the names listed above will show some results. (I've just renamed two of them - for the others I've requested admin assistance.) Colonies Chris (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Colonies Chris, good catch, good work. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Iio, Ajax replied to you a little while ago. MOS-JA supports the move. 182.249.240.3 (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Necrothesp's nose

"Nose" was the most polite orifice I could think of. I could have said "mouth", but his opposition coming out of his mouth is literally the case and so the metaphor would have lost all meaning. His reasons last time were just as much pulled out of nowhere, in my opinion. He just said "this subject has long been known" without citing any evidence. Another user independently gave NGrams that showed reprints of old books from the early 20th century favour the "mm" spelling, but as I have clearly demonstrated on the current RM modern reliable sources both from the relevant governmental bodies and from universities prefer the "nm" spelling. Necrothesp also insulted me on the last RM, insinuating that I actually don't know what I'm talking about, and he clearly remembers it because he referred directly to said previous RM. How about you ask him to apologize for the arrogance of the self-proclaimed "expert"[3] and once he does that I'll apologize for my nose comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Iio, I apologized to Necrothesp for the nose comment, despite him doubling down on his earlier comment. Anyway, I noticed you stated you would support the move if both spellings were demonstrated that both were established. At the time you posted that, maybe we hadn't done so, but certainly have now. The Japanese government and universities' English publications favour the "Jinmu" spelling 3:1. Recent books written by specialists in the area also favour "Jinmu". Books using the "Jimmu" spelling, on the other hand, seem to be primarily getting their information (or at least spelling style) from Wikipedia. 182.249.54.65 (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. But I think it can stay at the old spelling with no great damage - or tighten JPMOS, which is another discussion, for all WPJapan editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on doing just that once the RM closes (it would obviously be totally inappropriate right now). WPJAPAN editors would almost universally interpret the current wording to say "use Jinmu", but MOS guidelines probably shouldn't need to be "interpreted". I assume you agree with me that we also shouldn't be saying "use Google"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.249.240.8 (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I generally think benchmark to modern academic sources (eg use Google Books) and build into MOS guidelines with broad input for any MOS issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your message on Pablo Casals. I thought I would let you know in case you have not seen it. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bridges (Milton Nascimento song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to As Time Goes By

Franklin Underwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Teahouse of the August Moon

I'm on My Way (The Proclaimers song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to I'm on My Way

Karel Švenk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Martin

Louis and the Good Book (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to I'm On My Way

Maurice Casey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sunderland

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I am writing to you to inform you that I have submitted a note to WP:ANI concerning the edit you made to Talk:Pablo Casals#Survey. The reason for this is that I am concerned that a non-neutral point of view is causing disruption on the page through selectively ignoring important and clearly identified evidence and asserting a political view. In particular, the ostensibly WP:POV remark it seems strange for en.wikipedia to be introducing a Franco-era type ban on the name of one of the most famous Catalans appears problematic. I hope you might be able to consider the matter from a neutral viewpoint. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just writing again to thank you for your more helpful comment on Talk:Pablo Casals. I hate heated debates and I am glad we might be able to discuss it in a calmer and more neutral way. I am not going to withdraw my post on WP:ANI, because I still think it would be useful for administrators to watch over what is a potentially controversial issue. On a note related to your comment, I just want to repeat to you that I am more than happy for Pau to be used primarily in these articles, as I have mentioned before. My whole reasoning is based around mentioning Pablo so that there is absolutely no confusion for readers (which is essentially option two). I opened the request for comments simply because it appeared as if you did not want Pablo mentioned at all. Now that it has been opened, I assume the decision comes down to the consensus of the community rather than my individual attempts at coming to a solution. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ANI Advice is only an essay but you might want to check item 4, which is the reason I'm not responding to argue content issues there. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me of that page: I had not seen it before. I think it is important that my comment was not one concerning content but the general course of the discussion. Whatever happens, it might still be useful to have a note there for administrators in case something flares up in the future. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I do not mean by that anything that flares up with you in the future: I mean any kind of problems with any users whatsoever. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did what you said in "Cyprus" to "Republic of Cyprus" issue. However, the page RM is updated every 30-minutes. I can't see the effect now. I'll observe, and then correct if any further need is necesary. Thanks for your suggestion.Alexyflemming (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be okay, it does take time for the formatting to update. Good luck! In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mateo Flecha el Joven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Solsona and Prades

Arigon Starr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kickapoo

Come Closer (Dee Clark song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Four Seasons

Liechtenstein Palace (Kampa Island, Prague) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palais Liechtenstein

Musica Ficta (Italian ensemble) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Francesco Mancini

Vladimír Roy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kochanovce

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please close the requested proposal on Talk:House of Gundulić#Requested move. Over two weeks passed and there is no consensus, it's time for the request to be closed. Shokatz (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to where you got this information from. If the group comprised John, Alan, two Joes and Marion, wouldn't that make Five, not Four? Could the two Joes be the same person? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, simply because I wasn't confident to edit what you added "with his brothers Norman and Joe, and sister Marion" I couldn't find any evidence of a 3rd brother Joe, I believe it was Joe Melia, nor any evidence of Marion having sung with the group instead of Al Harvey. I've added sources from London Calling and Roy Hudd. If there is evidence of a 3rd brother please add. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I think I misread this source as suggesting that Marion was one of the four. My mistake - thanks for correcting me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew definition of Satan has been edited from the definitive article to the generic term i.e., "satan" rather than "The Satan". I didn't notice any consensus built prior to the edit and not much afterwards. I do notice the editor stating "it is more fitting to describe the Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew word as meaning Adversary instead of Accuser it is more definitively an contextually accurate". Seems as though such a statement shows POV because the context of the edit surrounds the difference between the generic term for satan (devil) which in truth is adversary and the definitive article or apellative Ha Satan (accuser).

The generic term in Hebrew is not capitalized and I would suggest the editor provide instances in biblical canon where שטן is capitalized. The source for the current revision being The Jewish Encyclopedia does not capitalize this Hebrew term in general connotation. The current revision of the article also shows cantillation marks for שטן, yet the reference is not Masoretic text so I don't see the purpose of using cantillation. I suggest a stronger consensus in the matter and taking cue from an earlier discussion regarding these definitions within the Satan talk page, that a more robust listing of definition in multiple languages be added to the page e.g., Hebrew for satan in its generic form and proper definitive Ha Satan meaning "accuser" as well as Latin and Greek definitions. Research into Latin and Greek's separation of the generic and definitive article should also be shown by an editor qualifying such edits. The context of the article embraces Hebrew primacy of the being and latter christian archetype, but only providing one Hebrew definition regardless of POV context paints the article in an adversarial light which is not the context of The Satan within Judaism thus the article portrays bias. This isn't the article known as "devil" there has been a separate wiki for the generic term related to satan. Blackson (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Haircuts. Since you had some involvement with the The Haircuts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for initiating the RM for So long (AKB48 song). We need another one for Bingo, or go ahead and just do it as it's the same situation. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bill Pertwee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Norman Macleod

Dick Williams (singer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Decca

Eddie Lang (singer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Crescent City

Jam Factory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Music publisher

Mr.Mr. (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Underdogs

Turning the beat around (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Downbeat

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "A player playing for his national team is at least as relevant as any league team."

Please point me to the guideline/policy which states this, and which states that mention of this is relevant for the lead section, which is the pertinent issue. Otherwise it's nothing more than your personal opinion. Per guidelines, the lead section is strictly intended to a summarize an article's most important aspects. Playing briefly or periodically for a national team is typically not going to fall into this category. In the case of Ales Hemsky the relevance of this information in the article's lead section should be discussed if it's to be included, because it is very clearly not one of the article's most important aspects. 173.212.80.159 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I suppose I can safely assume that in not answering my questions or engaging in anything resembling a discussion, you have no argument. Actual common sense should tell you to read the guidelines before engaging in an edit war. 173.212.80.159 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "edit warring" - you removed it, for the moment your removal stands. You may find it helpful to register for an account. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no obligation or requirement to register for any type of account here. How do you suppose that would be helpful to me? 173.212.80.159 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would enable due credit to be given to your contributions prior to 22:49, 9 February 2014 In ictu oculi (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in "due credit". But it's nice to know someone has taken such a keen (though somewhat gratuitous) interest in my past contributions. 173.212.80.159 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article is in poor shape does not reflect on the fact that a player's national team representation is a key aspect of an athlete's notability. You are completely wrong in this instance, 173. Resolute 22:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, but in this instance it is clearly not. My argument is based upon guidelines and it is sound. 173.212.80.159 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think a world championship and an Olympic medal are key facts about a player, then I would question your understanding of both the sport and Wikipedia's guidelines. Resolute 23:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you created the Goleta serial killings article. You are hereby invited to come back and take a look at what has happened to it since then. (That particularly includes studying its relationship to the Original Night Stalker article.) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notification. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello In ictu oculi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Honest (Dave Stewart and the Spiritual Cowboys album) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Katrinamoris2014 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That new user who is trying to delete valid articles needs to be reported and blocked. She is a troublemaker, which is what blocking is supposed to remedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, do you want me to sandbox the text for you? Although it relies heavily on their website, it's not actually a copyright violation as far as I can see. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jimfbleak, yes please, though actually a sandbox may not be needed, I've already found enough independent sources in Ukranian and English to pass WP:GNG, so for the sake of keeping history intact and for the new user who created it, would it be possible to recreate directly into article space? Though I don't mind a sandbox if it is easier. Either way. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You moved Honest (album) to Honest (Future album) saying "other albums". Which ones are you referring to? Cause i can't find any. Koala15 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Honest (disambiguation). Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following your remark at the talk:1834 Safed pogrom#page title, you are welcome to participate in merger procedure of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles into Jewish communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk war. Discuss it at talk:1517 Safed pogrom#Rename.GreyShark (dibra) 21:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Songs (2012 Plácido Domingo album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Time After Time and Come What May

Happiness Is (Ray Conniff album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Miss You

I Want You to Know (Fats Domino song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Big Beat

Jackie Walker (singer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Peggy Sue

La Galerie du Palais (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Corneille

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<snip> I have opened discussion here this is the appropriate place. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move this page? Nothing else on Wikipedia has the name "Brothers Osborne", so a qualifier is redundant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also has an article Osborne Brothers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a similar, but not identical name. Each is hatnoted to the other, so that should be sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay we'll see. They're still very WP:RECENT so let's watch what happens in the way of mislinks and page views over the next couple of months. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there's no cite on it yet, but it's right on Tsuu T'ina Nation, see here.Skookum1 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are false statements since they are in the plural; I won't comment on his talkpage for obvious reasons; I went there to see if anyone had scolded him for his regular putdowns and insults:

• The concensus is in the guidelines.
  • HIS guideline, as CambridgeBayWeather has pointed out in numerous responses at the RMs, don't even back up his position, and his position is in direct conflict with various others which he and his friends continue to ignore.
  • there was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't."
• There was a discussion on NCL involving a handful of editors and nowhere else. He means HE decided it wasn't; I've looked through discussions at NCP and NCET and Talk:Ethnic groups and of course IPNA, there were many people dissenting from this in those places....
• What's in Wikipedia:RJDLI strongly applies, as do these three points from WP:Wikilawyering:
  • Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
  • Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
  • Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
• Might as well see about adding another standard lawyer's tactic to that: attacking a witness/defendant on character, not on facts or actual logic, with any exaggeration and half-truth par for the course.Skookum1 (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jack Spratt (fictional police detectives). Since you had some involvement with the Jack Spratt (fictional police detectives) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

• Note: I reversed your move, as it was given without reason, and you have an incorrect plural anyway. Choor monster (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

José Luis Paris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ferrol and Don José

Angel Faith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Burbank

Carlos Ramírez (singer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cundinamarca

Christian conditionalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Unitarians

Ivan Nazhivin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tikhomirov

Johann Baal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Karlstadt

José Miguel Miyar Barruecos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Siboney

Problem of Hell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Destruction

Something Better (Marianne Faithfull song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Keith Jones

Songs (2012 Plácido Domingo album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alberto Testa

The Hunting Party (2007 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Black Hawk Down

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry not to get back to you... life has been busy, between work and family! I see that you have moved it back to Noraega neureosseo - I agree that this is the correct title to have, thanks for moving it! Having looked at it more (perhaps I should have done that originally lol) then the English title should be a redirect to the original-language title, sorry about that! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodo, thanks very much for the message. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in the move request for Comox. I wanted to let you know I've put forward a more comprehensive move request. Whether you're supportive or not, your input would be appreciated given your past participation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not comprehensive unless Comox, British Columbia is back on the table, either added to that RM or via Move Review because of the just-closed one there. Towns as primarytopic in such cases are clearly covered by WP:CSG#Places and a host of similar cases currently on the table have been decided in the town's favour.Skookum1 (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re sections on dab pages and thresholds for separation, I'm not sure about guideline specs offhand, but I appreciate their value. I've seen so many dab pages over the years that I'm substantially working off broad memory, but I realize that doesn't help inform community standards. Certainly, the primary goal with a dab page is to expedite finding a desired page. Part of that, in my mind, includes a layout that balances compactness with structure, and I do think a dab page that can be seen in its entirety without scrolling has value, acknowledging that that threshold varies by browser. I'll try to resolve my understanding a bit better and get back to you. Cheers. ENeville (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to address some of the differences in formatting on Footprints in the Sand (disambiguation), since I presume that's our case example, first off, there is always variation in discretion, of course. As far as MOS:DAB guidance, the sections section (if you'll pardon me) does advise against "very small sections", and for similar sized sections (though I don't exactly get that part, even if I do it that way unconsciously). So, I would definitely avoid sections with only one entry, and probably also two, maybe three. Also, note that one only needs just enough description to distinguish entries, which contributes to short lines, which contributes to compactness, which limits required eye travel, expediting locating. Perhaps I'm on a tangent in specifics, but it speaks to the fundamental purpose, which is good to bear in mind. Rereading your question, and trying to track your intent, I'd say sections of more than around ten entries become harder to parse visually, and those can separated first with simple bold headings. If scrolling is required, then a table of contents becomes useful, requiring section headings. Again, scrolling varies by viewer, but that is a distinct performance threshold, and it's not addressed in MOS:DAB. Maybe it's worth putting wording to that effect into the guidelines? ENeville (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, music dabs sometimes seem to have esoteric issues, because readers may have only auditory knowledge with which to identify a desired article. Footprints in the Sand (disambiguation) isn't yet ideally formatted in that regard, in my mind, lacking genre info to distinguish. But, work in progress... ENeville (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case we are using it as an example, I tried to tighten it up a bit. ENeville (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Agree with the esoteric issues comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Marek Jastrzębiec-Mosakowski has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This mostly unreferenced stub-biography feels WP:GNG, WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability (writers).

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I'm not too fussed, but I do wish you hadn't used a template to tell me. Will see what pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2014:04:01:Marek_Jastrzębiec-Mosakowski brings. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about leaving you a personal note, but the template does convey all the related info. I am fine waiting to see what pl wiki discussion will decide, but please note pl wiki has next to no criteria for notability; for example they have nothing equivalent to our Notability (writers), and the AfD discussions there are often closed after two or three people invent a new temporary consensus, different from what it could've been if the discussion attracted another group of editors :< So unless the pl wiki editors turn out some sources I missed (possible but rather unlikely) I don't see how this bio passes our current criteria. For the record, I would support changing N to say that authoring a single non-self published book makes one notable, but in the past consensus has been against this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was kept, but I don't think pl wiki discussions are of high quality, as seen here. The argument for keeping it was due to a suggestion (but not a hard rule) that all Polish scholars with habilitation are notable. This is not a criteria valid on en wiki per WP:PROF. I really wish we could just get a consensus at WP:AUTHOR that publication of any non-self published book is enough to warrant an article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm concerned that both habilitation, and being a published author, could be setting the bar too low; and they are both tangential to what the general notability guideline says. The GNG gives us a sound basis for writing good content - substantial discussion of the subject by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. Can you please transfer this photo for local use and availablilty in Viet Wiki, for use in the Tran Le Xuan article ? Thank you! Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it isn't copyright free, it has to be done by the original uploader. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Liao Yibai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Leica and Jiangan

Anton Gág (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New Ulm

José Antonio Ramírez Lozano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nogales

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find out the provenance of that table; when I saw it on WikiProject Ethnic groups it didn't have the "preferred" and "unambiguous" claims on it, because of all the 5h1t flying I haven't had time to look into NCP to see who added those words there; I asked on the NCET talkpage, very politely too, and get a resounding silence as an answer; so given the way the indigenous names RMs have been closing - stripped of "people" for 95% of cases or more - it seems high time that that came out of there, and the related passage on NCL about people=language such that people must be disambiguated also should come out; "try and change the guideline" I was smugly told by one of my usual opponents; but we already have consensus across RM after RM after RM...... including many support votes pointing to TITLE and MOSDAB and elsewhere, including NCET even before you added that table....... so I'm in mood to launch a discussion in an arena where I'm snubbed when not directly insulted, but re this...what "no consensus" is she talking about?

How many RMs closed and votes cast explicitly laying out the ways that NCL is in "error", for one thing, and also endorsing NCET as a valid guideline, despite some in "that faction" wanting to pretend it's not valid because only two editors worked on it even though it was a direct lift from NCP. At this point, it's not a matter of figuring out who added those two terms, but of simply removing them per all the discussions that have taken place that conclusively prove that those two terms shouldn't be in that guideline; consensus has already spoken loud and clear. There's no point in me trying to work on NCET or take part in NCL discussions; I'm the unwelcome guest at the party and currently an attempt is to get me booted out the door.....trying to achieve consensus with people who ignore not just other guidelines but also people pointing out that their claims are wrong even with respect to NCL is rather pointless.

From my experience with the Green Party and other groups long ago, I learned that "consensus" is really code for "a veto of one", or in this case or one, or two, of five, of people who won't listen to reason in the course of resisting change to their ideology or agenda. I'll be starting a list at IPNA, something like WP:CANLIST's listing of standalone town names with no dabs per WP:CSG#Places, listing all the standalone titles....old and the many "new" ones (most were originally standalone until NCP rewrote itself and went on a tear...). I think if it was you who reverted that back there'd be a lot less fuss than if I tried to revert it myself; I've already been through one edit war with Uysvdi, and it got ugly fast.Skookum1 (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for note, don't have time to work on it at the moment. Best discuss on Talk page and see what others say. Good luck In ictu oculi (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talkpage is being stonewalled by Kwami and Usyvdi, who targeted me in an ANI currently unfolding, very hypocritically concerning her own treatment of me and Kwami's endless direct insults and putdowns, along with a general pattern of obstructionism that Floydian and CambridgeBayWeather and others have called them on, not just on indigenous titles but also at town-RMs. Have a look when you get a chance, especially at my final section there, which is a manifesto on how far off the rails Wikipedia has gone re indigenous titles since the days of the "old consensus", which I've also been meaning to try and write up and codify; which had more than only a handful of linguists-only working on it as is the case with NCL...there this line:

Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles, as with Chinese people and Chinese language.

is original research and POV, and view stats on various "language-people pairs" as they call them, conclusively show that the languages are not an equally PRIMARYTOPIC as that guideline and its proponents and endlessly repetitive incantations in oppose votes on the RMs constantly maintain without ever acknowledging the many posts about why the PRIMARYTOPIC should not have disambiguation at all; I tried to raise this with Uysvdi about that guideline's inconsistency, she evaded my point by pretending I was talking about TWODABS which she at least does say is not called for in that guideline.....well, given that above sentence it is..... but as always instead of answering to questions asked, they either repeat themselves again or as on the NCET talkpage respond with silence; which to me is not just AGF but the voice of ignorance on the one hand, and refusal to discuss anything I raise, even though in countless copy-pasted oppose votes by Kwami on the RMs, calling for general discussion and a closure of the RMs and calling me "disruptive" (he's been ignored, and his insults and derisions along with those of others are also ignored while I'm the one facing an ANI as a form of BAITing to draw out my usual lengthy responses so others can tell me to shut up etc....or else....). The one-sided nature of this victimization I'm bored with and don't mean to bother you with it, but you carry more weight and respect than I am ever granted and I know you know I'm an intelligent person with cogent arguments, not "ridiculous" and "idiotic" ones and that I'm "not capable of proper discussion" etc.....where else could this be taken? Hauling these issues to RfC or something like that?

Damn, more procedure to attain the obvious, or as with the St'at'imc etc RMs last year and the "FOO people"-"FOO" RMs underway and also like the hyphen/endash business re BC regional districts a while back........I see a lot of these people doing very little substantial work and spending most of their wiki-energy on procedure and guideline-mongering....and something very much like hatred when not explicitly hatred. I came back with the intention of creating and expanding various articles only to be confronted by obstinacy and derision. And threats of official sanction if I don't learn to write in short, single sentences; complex matters cannot be detailed out via a Coles Notes mentality or style.....TLDR is an insult to me, but I'll leave that aside except to say that it's used as an excuse by people, including closers, to not listen to the relevant points presented......

The Squamish clusterfuck will have to be revisited, and it seems Haida people too, which alone of many BDD did not move, declaring no consensus even though the oppose votes were of the same pattern as debunked and outvoted elsewhere, but with town articles being undabbed and the notion that indigenous peoples' archaic/obsolete names are competition for PRIMARYTOPIC now being disproven re Shishalh/Sechelt and others....ultimately the town article will be Squamish and the category will be Category:Squamish, which was very wrongly made the indigenous category title to replace the long-standing diacriticalized Skwxwu7mesh titles; in the meantime I have articles to write, Cassiar Gold Rush, Chief Whattlekainum, Tsetsaut (currently that's only about the language, which should be at Tsetsaut language and more - getting back to various history articles in desperate need of expansion and correction and citation, and starting stubs to enable importation of IPNA content from other-language wikipedias.....and more; but am finding my time and energy spent defending myself against ongoing attack and derision and now faced with yet more procedure from minds that are anything but encyclopedic and more concerned with so-called wikiquette and protocol and procedure than content or validity. And who are doing their utmost to see me thrown out of wikipedia because I'm in their way.....

You're a busy man I know, thanks for reading this; many would not and critiques of others' agenda and editing behaviour are called NPA, while open and vicious NPAs are made regularly as part of the game.....There's another thing like what I wrote on the NCET guideline somewhere, also in a collapse box, but re this endless TLDR harrassment see here and my comments on the ANI.....I'd rather build wikipedia with good content and correct titles than have to answer to such repetitive and pompous things such as "the community tires".....so who's that "community"? Many editors know I'm good source of information and in fact a rather good writer on-point with issues, guidelines and research, they'e part of "the community too"...elsewhere and repeated in copy-paste opposed votes from JorisV there's "we have policy", using the royal "we" for the small group that wrote NCL as if they were all of Wikipedia, citing a guideline, which as explained above and elsewhere, is at extreme variance with what other guidelines say...and which is not "policy" as Floydian and others have observed in response.

About this "the community is tired" from-on-high pronouncement, I'm part of Wikipedia too, and me I'm tired of the bullshit and repetitive opposition and instruction thrown up against me, but it's clear to me that people who are challenged by big words and complex points won't and can't read what I say, and make me the issue of RM and CfD discussions rather than even attempting to try to understand what I am spending so much time (even with speed typing it's time-consuming) on the matters I raise.....instead of closing RMs and CfDs against me simply because it's me, making an editor the issue instead of the topic/content.....that's against the rules, too isn't it?

Thanks for listening, if you did.Skookum1 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Amsterdam. I wrote an article about a composition (A floresta) by Villa-Lobos and encountered Dora. There was nearly no information, but I found a page on the internet probably by the Brazilian government or something like that. You can find the page linking on the link in the Dutch Article. The second link shows a photo of the happy couple. Bye, Ceescamel (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceescamel thank you, I have added the link to the en.wp article. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you please link the Central Intelligence Office article with the corresponding Viet lang article here: http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%E1%BB%A7_%C4%90%E1%BA%B7c_%E1%BB%A7y_Trung_%C6%B0%C6%A1ng_T%C3%ACnh_b%C3%A1o. Thanks again!

Hello, there. What about Belzec Trial?Hoops gza (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead, it is fully spelled in English sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This song. The song is deplorable, but it may be of use in such articles like the North Vietnam section of "Sino-Vietnamese relations", or an article on propaganda. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deplorable musically I guess, as a bit of Socialist pastiche, but not so bad. Does it pass WP:RS as a standalone article? I don't see why it cannot be placed in Sino-Vietnamese relations however I have added it to composer Đỗ Nhuận's works. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, In ictu oculi. You previously helped by adding some sources to Tom Braunlich so that it could be moved back into article space. Do you have anything more to add to any of the pages at User:BOZ/Draft pages? BOZ (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments (and other contributions!) to this RM discussion. I had been following the pattern set by our Inspector Montalbano articles, and maybe it was a mistake to do the TV series page before a character/book series page, but I'm really not familiar with them, having only seen the BBC broadcasts. Anyway, thanks! Swanny18 (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm having XP issues at the moment, so I may not be able to contribute too much at present; my apologies! Swanny18 (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've thrown this page together, but I thought it might interest you and benefit from your expertise. In particular I thought the painting of Mary Magdalene holding an egg was interesting. Perhaps you can add some links and context? It's not a subject that is in my wheelhouse. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry have seen them often enough but no particular knowledge, would be a relevant fork I think. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mark Pauly. Since you had some involvement with the Mark Pauly redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made this following statement which I don't understand.

• Those who disagree with the current status of WP:DISAMBIGUATION should ideally launch a RFC to change what the guideline says so that it says that we disambiguate against titles rather than what it now says, which is topics. However those who do not disagree with the guideline and are simply saying that Inspector De Luca (novels) are not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in English should note that judged by Google book sources the novels are given more English-language print source attention than the Italian TV adaptation. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that the WP:D guideline currently says we disambiguate against topics. I don't see the word "against" anywhere at all at WP:D. What do "disambiguate against titles" and "disambiguate against topics" mean? What I see WP:D saying is that we disambiguate ambiguous terms - terms which refer to more than one topic on Wikipedia, and which don't have a primary use per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --B2C 23:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is a normal preposition to use with this verb In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sleepless Night (Shinee song).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello in ictu oculi! Something's been bothering me for a long time and it's the definition of "Latin music". Right now, "Latin music" redirects to "Latin American music", yet Billboard, RIAA, and even the Latin Grammys have a very different definition of "Latin music". The former two's definition of a Latin album, for example, is any recording that has 50% of its content in Spanish regardless of where the music originates from, which is why artists from Spain and even Italy got awards just for having Spanish records. The Latin Grammys expands on this definition by including Portuguese-language recordings as well, though they mainly focus on Brazilian music and rarely artists from Portugal are nominated. Heck, they even have a category for Best Flamenco Album even though that music is from Spain. Last night, I was watching the Latin Billboard Music Awards and I noticed the number of Italians that were there. Il Volo and Andrea Bocelli got an award just for recording their records in Spanish. So I'm conflicted. On the article for "Latin American music", I have written "As a genre in the music industry, "Latin music" is used to describe any Spanish or Portuguese-language genre including those from Spain and occasionally Portugal, yet I do not know if that justifies its inclusion there if a separate article is needed. What do you think? Erick (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erick, umm. I actually thought en.wp was following something along the Latin Grammys line, so am a bit surprised to see that redirect. Portugal/Brazil, Spain/LatAm have considerable muscial overlap so if we are following a division by continent that does seem problematic. However Spain and Portugal still require their own articles and treatment, imho. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was thinking along the lines of making an article called "Latin music (genre)" which deals more about how it is described as a popular genre rather than just focusing on Latin America and elaborates on why artists like Julio Iglesias are considered to be Latin singers. I'm a little confused what you meant by the last part though. Erick (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erick, sorry, missed replying. I mean that Latin music (genre) probably is a needed article. Stating that Music of Spain Music of Portugal require their own (sections) of popular music was stating the too obvious to be stated, and I can't see now why I did state the obvious... Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I can start with a draft when I have time. Erick (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, I've created the article for Latin music (genre). Feel free to add or change anything you see necessary. Cheers! Erick (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rose Batiste has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability far from clear

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your tireless work at organising articles containing Vietnamese names. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, I am sure you have seen the recent discussions at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. Due to the actions taken by certain users there, I have lost faith in those that maintain Wikipedia and I am therefore deciding, once the matter has improved, to withdraw from editing.

Before I go, though, I wanted to send you a final message. I recognise that we had huge differences in opinion on the talk page of an article and I do not believe that we will ever agree on the matter. I want you to know, however, that I have seen your editing elsewhere and I am both grateful and admiring of your work. I would hate for you to think that I have a low opinion of you solely because of our problems at one previous article.

In recognition of your work, I am presenting you with a barnstar. This relates to the extensive time you have spent improving the names of Vietnamese articles.

I wish you all the very best in your future as a Wikipedia editor. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Good luck with your studies. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link doesn't appear to work - in any case I'm not too bothered about the title, I object more to the two editors using personal attacks on editors simply stating WP:TITLE policy, it'll fix itself eventually. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, In ictu oculi. I had to post it temporarily on the talk page because the main page is protected. It should hopefully be copied over very soon. The request for arbitration concerns the conduct of editors (including what you mentioned), not the article name itself. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Handley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Rowland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, long time no see. I just accidentally hit enter without typing a message. Anyway, is there a deletion guideline for community centers? I'm looking at Muslim Unity Center which is a community center in Michigan. The article was created by a representative for the center itself so it includes the obligatory Youtube videos and mailing list postings being passed off as reliable sources. Beyond that, there are also listings on commercial websites which the center or someone affiliated with it surely created on their own, like the profile at pluralism.org. I was wary of nominating it, though, as there might be some sort of guideline that community centers are automatically notable like embassies. Do you know how to approach this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) is only a failed guideline proposal, so I don't know. WP Religion might have someone who knows? I'd look there. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

It would already be covered by WP:GNG anyway, which requires substantial coverage by independent sources. If a source was mostly written by somebody affiliated with the Center, then it's unlikely to be a good foundation for a neutral article. Assumptions that everything in some class has "automatic notability" lead to mass creation of very bad articles from lists & gazetteers. bobrayner (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Bobrayner, do you think that in this case the article would be AfD material? I had a feeling but I wasn't totally sure. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the selfpublished stuff, there are a couple of seemingly independent sources such as this page, although each has its flaws, so I think it's borderline. It could be argued either way at AfD, although personally I'd veer towards "delete". bobrayner (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can listen to it on iTunes radio if that is you cup-of-tea.HotHat (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi iio - a recent discussion here ended with the decision to lower-case 'dynasty' in article titles for Chinese dynasties. I think it would be good to bring consistency to Category:Vietnamese dynasties in the same way - what's your opinion? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colonies Chris. Hi, I don't feel strongly, but following the China decision I would now be inclined to think the same. I saw the original discussion but stood back as wanted to see which way it would go. If you propose this at WP Vietnam I would support. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, proposal made. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dania Ramirez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dominican

Your Show of Shows (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Going Crazy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting it. You are a gentleman (or gentlewoman). [et in arcadia ego] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). Si Trew (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding reason for discussion. The thread is Personal attack removed with RPA template reverted by Omnedon.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia talk:AT. Thank you. —В²C ☎ 18:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request per WP:NPA

For future reference, and without any implying anything about the past, I hereby request that, per WP:NPA, you not comment about contributors (including me) in a manner that may be construed as an attack (not complementary), on article and policy talk pages. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to point out this clarification at WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?:

• Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Please note that there is no distinction made for criticisms which are accurate. That is, a criticism about personal behavior made in the context of a policy or article talk page is a personal attack, even if it's totally accurate. There are good reasons for discouraging even accurate criticisms of personal behavior on policy and article talk pages, and I hope you understand and appreciate them. In any case, thank you for taking this into account in your own behavior in the future. --В²C ☎ 23:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the unanimous message you had from 8 editors above. Secondly, re the section you have pasted above "inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page" from NPA, when your behavior (e.g. the "fucking", "bullshit", and other behavior) is already on that Talk page then repeating the reminders that others have given is not an inappropriate context, it is the appropriate context because that is where your behavior is taking place. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:NPA says. If you have an issue with someone's behavior, take it to an appropriate context, like their talk page, WP:ANI, etc. The policy or article talk page is never an appropriate place to criticize others, even if the criticism is about behavior on that page. Just because we often let each other slide on that doesn't mean it's okay, or good for the project.

In that particular case, my inappropriate use of language had occurred days before your critical comment, and I had not repeated it, nor engaged in any other problematic behavior since. Dredging that up anywhere, especially there, served no purpose other than to disparage me. If that's your aim, just admit it. At least to yourself. --В²C ☎ 00:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As above - Please read the unanimous comments of the other editors above - there was no NPA. And if you misbehave on a Talk page comment will be made on the Talk page. If you want to query this query this with any of the editors who already commented - which didn't include me. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have now politely and respectfully requested that you not criticize anyone or their behavior, including me or my behavior, on any article or policy talk page, and I have explained why. I had not made such a request prior to your most recent criticism of me at WT:AT, and that may have been a contributing factor in the related ANI discussion. I also did not cite that bullet above from WP:NPA in the ANI discussion because I had not noticed it before the ANI closed.

If this pattern of WP:UNCIVIL behavior continues, despite this request, I will pursue actions per WP:DR as appropriate. However, I will not criticize you or your behavior on an article or policy talk page - you can be sure of that. --В²C ☎ 00:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dispute with you, and am not interested in having one. I see you have taken this interpretation of NPA to 3 other user's talk pages, so it seems wise to centralize at WP:NPA's Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. If you have no dispute with me, then please do not criticize me or my behavior. But if you must, please do so first on my user talk page. If we can't resolve it there, then we can seek outside help. But please let's not display any dirty laundry on Wikipedia's article/talk pages, okay? Thank you! --В²C ☎ 01:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle, as above the 4 User Talk page discussions you initiated have already been collected Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Clarification sought. Please continue there, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sphilbrick, fully agree - although not fully familiar with all the details of that article/incident, looks clear that Arbcom's decline was correct. Thank you for notification. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. Omnedon (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article a bad translation? Not sure what to make of it. I thought you might be interested in it or the related deletion discussion. Thanks for any insights you can offer. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads-up, notable topic but covered by Operation Babylift better. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't move articles that don't need to be moved, like Swansong. There is nothing wrong with it being where it is, as there is no other article about "swansong" (see WP:DAB). There is also no other album named "Swansong" on Wikipedia, so disambiguating it with both the artist name and "album" is completely unnecessary. I have undone your move. In the future, if you think an article should be moved, bring it up on the article's talk page first. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. But in the case of obvious WP:MOVEs, they can be moved and if any one objects, as you did, can be reverted. But in this case I see it has been put back to dab by another user - seriously please look at the phrase "his swansong" in Google Books. The fact that the main article is at the alternative Swan song does not mean that Swansong (Carcass album) should be put over the base space. The criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are that a subject should be not just the most common use but more common than all the other uses. The Carcass album is barely mentioned in Google Books, around 20 results, but "swansong" with the original meaning gets 1000s. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In ictu - sorry for the multiple move reverts. I don't typically troll your contribs, but I saw the reversion someone made of the Swansong page, and so I had a look to see the history, and came across several other pagemoves that I felt went against policy. No hard feelings, I hope - I'm sure it seemed like piling on, but that wasn't the intent. Dohn joe (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in RMs at Talk:The Calm Before the Storm, Talk:Desideratum, Talk:Strategem to add (album) in each case and redirect to dab list - in each of these case Google Books and usage related to other topics in en.wp articles indicates that there is no primary topic, and if there was it wouldn't be (album). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record.... I don't find your actions WP:DISRUPTIVE in general. I do think that sometimes you can be a tad...enthusiastic about what you see as clear shifts in policy, or particular policy interpretations. I think you do a decent job of bringing things to WP:RM rather than make unilateral moves, especially when a policy is first questioned (e.g., the many FRMOS RMs you ran over the past couple years.)

So, along those lines, I would request that you please bring to RM any title changes that are either 1) dictdef-type titles (e.g., Desideratum), or titles that differ from others because of added punctuation (e.g. Love?). As we've seen, these are not uncontroversial moves, and support has gone both ways in RMs. Maybe we can determine what current WP consensus is on these issues. Last request - please keep them as separate requests, so that each one can be evaluated on its own merits. Hope you take this in the spirit it was intended - I do appreciate much of the work you do on WP - especially in content creation. Dohn joe (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I know my editing is not remotely disruptive, but I am glad to see yourself disassociate from talk page activity such as this. I take the temperature of what is an isn't covered by WP:MOVE from the barometer of previous moves. In the case of a !, or a few similar ?, what's clear is that there isn't a clear consensus, yet. On dictdef, I don't see Desideratum as a dictdef, but we'll see where that heads with current RMs. More generally you may or not agree we do have a problem with song/albums in (a) the accumulation of completely non-notable and non-encyclopedic and (b) not even released material - a problem films and books for example don't have. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Huelgas Ensemble (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Manuel Machado and Mateo Romero

Antônio Lino da Silva Dinis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brazilian

Ericka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Erika

Giulio Prandi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to DHM

José de Vaquedano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Santiago Cathedral

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hung Up (Paul Weller song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NSONGS as there is not enough third-party information available to expand beyond a stub.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notification, with the attached sources should be okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at JMHamo's talk page.
Message added 20:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

JMHamo (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lucky Street, Beijing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chaoyang District

Strategem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stratagem

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Mijotoba's talk page.
Message added 03:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Can you fix your move proposal at Talk:BAP (German band)? Anthony and I had an edit conflict so now the move is going in the opposite direction. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved with the closer effectively having a casting vote and no explanation of why. Is this worth a move review? --Richhoncho (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second thoughts, let it go. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Page move request for Sirach. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leaving of Liverpool, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pat Lynch and Billy Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Next time don't hesitate to provide edit summaries. I don't mind the common fixes or spelling mistakes, but whenever the content has been changed I expect from others that they should provide edit summary. Sometimes a user makes 5 or more edits to the article that affect the content. In that case I would like them to provide summary of their edits even in 1/5 edits. Just a friendly advise so that no one else will revert you like this. OccultZone (Talk) 02:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't bother with a summary on a simple date change, but then I didn't notice it was a DYK article. Thanks for putting the new correct date back. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add a section to WP:PLURAL at the end to put in writing what we've been discussing. Give it a look and edit it to make it better, please. Red Slash 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mantra (Material song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zakir Hussain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. Thanks for your hard work and efforts on disambiguation field! Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second (disambiguation) that. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on Sheamus? My personal gut instinct would be to think that it should redirect to Séamus. I also notice that the article doesn't have a hatnote. Someone made an undiscussed disambiguating move of the article today, but it was reverted. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that the full title of that EP is "Unnamed EP", not "Unnamed", so I have moved its article back to the correct location. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you meant here? What is the 'lesser half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC'? The closer of the first move discussion must have been reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC very literally with the assumption that his hands were tied. What's hard to figure out is what sense he was reading into it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done that, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still puzzled. 65% is an absolute majority of all the page views. Surely that satisfies the numerical definition of primary topic, unless there is some other consideration. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it, just (at least leaving out past), satisfies the first/lesser of the 2 PT requirements. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IIO, what's the situation with moving biographical articles to titles with diacritics nowadays? An editor just asked me to move a couple of articles on my talk page and I'm not sure whether it'd be more appropriate to direct him to RM. Thanks. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unless there's a special issue such as a change of nationality, stagename or a very unusual letter the RMs basically ended with Talk:Dominik Halmoši. I'd need to look at the specific bios. The wording of one of the guidelines remains ambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look, both clearly covered by WP:HOCKEY guideline, just got missed by accident I expect. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was delicious. Hope all is well with you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In ictu - your favorite follower here. :) With a request - please do not move a title just to add disambiguation, while leaving the previous base name to redirect. This is against WP guidance, and doesn't make sense. If the problem is the article at the base name, then it does no good to leave the base name pointing to the "wrong" article. If on the other hand the base name is the "right" article, then it goes against WP policy and practice to disambiguate just because. An example of the one is Alise, which could plausibly redirect elsewhere than the album. But you had left Alise redirecting to the album, as I recall, which leaves titles in a state of flux for someone else to notice and fix. You are inconsistent in this practice. (For example, Lo Mejor is now a dab page, but Shinwa still points to the EP.) Let me know if I'm not making sense. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I went going through, I noticed a bunch of moves to add artist/band names to article titles when the artist/band name is not actually part of the title, so I reverted. Just because it appears on a CD cover does not make it part of the title. I would wager that the vast majority of album cover feature the artist's name somewhere... Dohn joe (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're just adding to the number of pointless RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serafín Marsal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardona (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to weigh in on this WP:Sockpuppet investigation investigation? I'd hate to see the case closed with no action. People need to start taking the WP:Clean start policy, which is very clear about what Pass a Method should not be doing, more seriously. Flyer22 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The song has an apostrophe at the front of the title ('39, not 39). Could you correct your move please? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mattbuck, sure, no problem In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making up album titles, as at Billy "Crash" Craddock Sings His Greatest Hits. I have notified you on multiple occasions that this is improper. It goes against WP:OR and WP:DISAMBIGUATION, for a start. If you feel disambiguation is needed, use parentheses. As the guideline says, it is not natural disambiguation to manufacture a name. Dohn joe (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't use language like "making up", when we have Neil Sedaka Sings His Greatest Hits to claim that Billy "Crash" Craddock Sings His Greatest Hits is "making up" a title is unhelpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Sedaka's album is a different album, with a different, but similar, title. I don't see the relevance of the comparison. Dohn joe (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw - I'll retract the "making up" statement in this case, as it does appear that the title you moved to does appear in a minority of sources. It was my error in not confirming. I hope you can understand my reaction, however, given the other album titles that you did make up by synthesizing the artist/band name and the true title just because they appear together on the album cover. I'll try to be more careful in the future - hope you will as well! Dohn joe (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be using "making up" in any case. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but when you moved the article "The Secret (EP)", you moved it to "The Secret (Austine Mahone EP)", which you added an e to Austin's first name, when it is supposed to be spelt as "The Secret (Austin Mahone EP)". I corrected it now, but please remember to spell the artist's name correctly when moving articles related to music. IPadPerson (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. User talk:IPadPerson Thanks for fixing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, let me know what you want from JSTOR, and your e-mail address, and I'll send what I can find to you. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Graduation Day (The Four Freshmen song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tommy Sands

Los Donneños (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Norteño

Onnik Dinkjian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tigranakert

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:If You Say So.jpeg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Trigga tha Gambler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. STATic message me! 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rote Lippen Soll Man Küssen? Soll man? German singers would record "Rote Lippen soll man küssen". I don't know how closely we have to follow a source that doesn't know it. - The German article is no help, because this title is not mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without doing some reading, I can't judge whether the latest edit to Unitarianism is correct or not. I'm sure you'll see the edit and make a determination, but I don't understand the edit summary ("regarded by..."). What did he/she mean by that? CorinneSD (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw that you moved V.O.S to V.O.S. (Korean band), but I'm not really sure why. It seems unnecessary to use parenthetical disambiguation, since I don't think there is any other article with the exact title "V.O.S". Also, you changed the name from being spelled without a third period to being spelled with a third period. While I personally don't know what the correct spelling is, since the Korean Wikipedia article uses "V.O.S" without a third period, I'm guessing that is the right spelling. Unless you are sure the band is spelled with a third period, I think it should be at "V.O.S". Was it perhaps instead your intent to change the redirect page V.O.S. to redirect to the disambiguation page Vos? If you intended to do that, I would agree with doing that, but I don't agree with the change you actually made. I think V.O.S. (Korean band) should be moved back to V.O.S. Calathan (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would take the view that the absence or presence of the third . is not enough to distinguish the Korean boy band from anything else on VOS. Maybe it would it we were speaking about very well known topic in English sources, but this is a name that occurs in Korean text. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following you at all. The changes you have made don't help anyone find other pages, and just put the Korean band at an incorrect title. Currently, anyone searching for V.O.S. or V.O.S still ends up at the band's page. Anyway, I think people are unlikely to type V.O.S without a third period unless they want the Korean band, and anyone who does leave off the third period by mistake can just be referred to the disambiguation page with a hatnote. Right now, there aren't any other articles titled V.O.S, so the band should be at that page. Again, I think a hatnote is the right way to let people who leave off the third period by mistake find the page they were actually looking for. As I said above, I also think that V.O.S. with a third period should redirect to Vos, since that name isn't specific to the band. I'm going to go ahead and make that change. I'm also going to move V.O.S. (Korean band) back to V.O.S and add a hatnote to it, since I think that is a better solution to this situation than the change you made. Also, while I was typing this, I noticed you suggested an AFD on my talk page. I would be entirely fine with that . . . I previously removed a BLPPROD from the article, but I didn't do that because I thought it met the notability guidelines. So please feel free to start an AFD if you want to. Calathan (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your comment on my talk page, I don't think your claim that "we don't disambiguation by missing dots" has any basis in the disambiguation guidelines. It is common on Wikipedia to have different pages with very similar spelling (for example Age, Agé, Åge, and Âge). WP:DISAMBIGUATION says to use natural disambiguation when possible, rather than using parentheses. Also, having the hatnote makes it easy for anyone to find the page they want if they end up at the wrong page. I think the changes you are suggesting neither conform to the guidelines not help anyone find the page they want. However, if you want to start a move discussion, then feel free to do so (though if you are going to start an AFD, then the title will be moot if the article is deleted). Calathan (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Age, Agé, Åge, and Âge are in the Latin alphabet, 브이오에스 aren't. Anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've undid your blanking for Live (1982) and Live (1994 album). Please nominate it for RfD if you think the redirects should be deleted. Thanks. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 05:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Beautiful Brown Eyes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Arthur Smith and Ethel Smith

All the Best (EMI compilation album series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jethro Tull

Vos (Danish band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Als

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

If you really want me to, I'll close it; however, I would advise against it. The issue deserved to be heard, and the question at the heart of the RM was entirely legitimate. Withdrawl might be seen as an indication to opposers that you accept their strongest criticisms. Even though the RM might fail, it is (almost) always helpful to encourage discussion. The case of Hillary Rodham Clinton is the exception that proves the rule, and this issue has not reached the limit of absurdity to which her article was taken.

Take heart -- I know it must be difficult to follow the path that you do at RM, raising sound proposals that are so often and so loudly subjected to ridicule by a forceful opposition. In some cases, your RMs will succeed; in some, they will fail. Whatever the outcome, you are doing a service to the community in striving for reader recognizability. I often agree with you, and occasionally don't... but, in every instance, the questions you raise are important and interesting to consider in relation to policy and guidelines. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

By the way, if you respond to my email via email, please place the {{You've got mail}} template on my page; I use an email address for Wikipedia that I seldom check. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding PBS's recent edits on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. The thread is User:PBS reformatting Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Thank you. —Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Live 2012 / Volume II#Merge to The Rasmus (album). Andrewa (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you complete the citation in footnote 2 in the article Elijah Montalto? --bender235 (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When moving pages and creating dab-pages, could you check if that creates links to disambiguation pages at templates? I see your work strikingly often when cleaning up the templates. The Banner talk 13:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I do, but it takes time for template changes to catch up on what links here. But noted. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a case of "Wikipedia has to catch up". It is a case of "acting upon something and not caring what are the consequences because others will clean that up". This evening there were nine templates with links to disambiguation pages. Six of them because of page moves by you. This is quite disruptive. The Banner talk 22:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection is a perfectly legitimate alternative to deletion for a subject that has zero independent sources provided and yet may be a legitimate search term. It is the WP:BURDEN of anyone who wishes to claim she is notable in her own right to provide the independent sources that cover the subject in significant manner that is not tied to the event-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with the articles you are blanking and redirecting which do have independent sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 16:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi- could you please clarify for me why you're making moves like the ones I have listed below? It seems completely pointless to disambiguate a title when you're just going to redirect the primary title to the disambiguated title. Do you have any policy-based reason to support your actions? J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A.D.I.D.A.S. > A.D.I.D.A.S. (Korn song)
• No Place to Hide (film) > No Place to Hide (1970 film)
• S.S.T. > S.S.T. (song)
• The First 10 Years > The First Ten Years (Joan Baez album)
• Self Made Man > Self Made Man (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) (this one messed up the italics, as well, as the programme's name should be italicised)

I leave the redirect untouched for a couple of days so anyone watching the article can revert by WP:BRD. Please look at the edit summaries. Talk:A.D.I.D.A.S. mentions the A.D.I.D.A.S. (Killer Mike song) "Given the other song, not to mention the Adi Dassler company, this can't really claim absolute primary topic". If the redirects are immediately altered that prevents those watching the page from having a say.

Likewise Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) requires dab from No Place to Hide (1956 film) No Place to Hide (1970 film) No Place to Hide (1981 film) and No Place to Hide (1993 film).

Likewise " S.S.T. to S.S.T. (song): extensive dab at SST) " that isn't "weird", how is it weird?

Likewise The First 10 Years to The First Ten Years (Joan Baez album): "nothing on cover, listed books as "Ten") isn't weird, not in my view anyway.

The TV episode is not the primary topic over Self-Made Man (book), etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this seems reasonable, but surely you're only doing half a job if you leave the redirect in place? The redirect should instead be going to a dab page (or be turned into a dab page). What's "weird" is the fact that the natural title in each of these cases is just housing a redirect to an unnatural title- that seems pointless. Or will you be going back to sort out the redirects after you've left some time for BRD? As long as you'll definitely be going back to sort them out, I have no objection to what you're doing.

As for the italic title thing, the easiest way is probably to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}- for instance, you'd use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Self Made Man (''Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles'')}}. J Milburn (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, in most cases the redirect should go to a dab. Unless if it's a WP:PUNCT issue when maybe there's a case. I may have missed going back on a few recently, but at least 48 hours is needed to not circumvent WP:BRD ..and then someone tries to do a restore with a RM from the wrong end, which is ugly. Thanks for the explanation on italics, that is completely new to me. I will try it and see results. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff- I'll leave it to you to head through and make the DAB/italics changes as appropriate. I now see that what you're doing is valuable- it may be worth being very explicit in your move summaries in the future to prevent others like me getting confused. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Leo García

added a link pointing to Moreno

Ron Eschete

added a link pointing to Houma

Self-Made Man (book)

added a link pointing to Talking book

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you be interested in reviewing my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'm not versed in the FA process, but I do think the album is a notable subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you point out the coverage that demonstrates José Luis Gómez Pérez passes WP:GNG? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just the number of trashy newspaper refs in the Spanish article. It's not unheard of for a second division player to garner general notability. Sorry but it needs to go to AFD rather than speedy prod because of that. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I just closed Talk:Pa'u riders#Request move, an RM that arguably involves diacritics, because it had been languishing in the backlog for quite a while. But I know I promised to avoid closing diacritics-related RMs, so if you think this was inappropriate let me know and I'll undo my close. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an RM entirely about diacritics by the look of it. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you want me to reverse my close? Jenks24 (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's an RM entirely about diacritics by the look of it.. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this of any interest (up to you, no need to reply)? 86.153.57.241 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that gabby merger had accused you of following him/her around. Well she/he just accused me of that too. (^-^) Editor2020 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Keeps triggering my watchlist too. Hey ho. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Carlos Veerhoff

added a link pointing to Murnau

Never Say Never (Romeo Void song)

added a link pointing to Rated R (album)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your Barnstar!! It's greatly appreciated!

Since I live in Santa Fe and see all the operas presented here, I shall be seeing it next week on Opening Night, 26 July!! I try to get all the articles relating to productions of new, unknown, or rarely-produced operas up to a reasonable state, so it was natural that I worked on this one. I'll post links to reviews as they appear. All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you, well it is already a superbly written article. Let's hope for a DVD. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Userspace drafts. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Thanks John. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "To be consistent with your past opposes and reliance of minor differences for disambiguation you should oppose these moves at length and repeatedly." and "Other users may support this, but on the basis of your past views on titling you should oppose all possible alternatives here." - I didn't want to clutter the talk page responding to a personal attack, so I'll ask you here to please keep things civil. I asked a simple question about reliable sources, which is where all our titling discussions should start. No need to foist your mischaracterizations of my "views on titling" on an RM when you don't understand them. Consider striking those sentences. Dohn joe (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have expended so many bytes on the subject it's possible to understand your views. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet I afraid you don't. I'd actually love it if you could summarize your perception of what my views are. That way, I can see if I can state them more clearly. If you can't see them, it's likely others can't either. And it's hard to have a productive discussion when people don't have a good grasp of where the others are coming from. Dohn joe (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear In ictu oculi, I'm perfectly fine if you disagree on some occasional recategorization from my side based on content arguments and if you revert them accordingly. Generally speaking though, the point is to categorize articles as low in the tree as possible. If everyone would classify articles both in categories and in parent categories and in grandparent categories etc., the parent categories would become overwhelmingly big, the grandparent categories even more so, and so the parent and grandparent categories would no longer serve any purpose (while the purpose is to show articles that don't fit in any child category). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The categories you removed from Gehenna weren't parent categories. Really you've only been editing since April 2014, it would be better to discuss these on talk pages, or even explain what you want to do at WP Christianity before making so many category deletions. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, that one was an argument-based disagreement. As said, I won't make a big problem of it when you are eager to revert it. Generally my category edits are meant to get the article as low in the tree as possible, after I noticed accidentally (as a reader, not as an editor) that many categories which are quite high in the tree still contain so many single articles, including articles that could have been classified lower in the tree - hence closer to the subject I was actually interested in. Or alternatively, they contained articles that had been put in category and parent category together. If all of that could be corrected, it would make life quite a bit easier for me as a reader to search for the right content, and also for fellow-readers for that matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not watch-listing all the pages you've removed cats from, but I request you note on Talk pages why you're removing categories. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Is it necessary to discuss every edit upfront, instead of giving an explanation in the edit summary? This is the first time I hear this so I'm a bit surprised. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing category removals on this scale from a new editor and the ones on articles I watch weren't, sorry, that helpful, yes, I think it would be advisable to seek discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I wouldn't know what you would want to know from me on top of the explanation in the edit summary. I mean, either you agree or you disagree with the explanation, I'll leave that up to you, but the explanation in itself is clear, isn't it? Especially after I've given you a bit more of background info just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I've added the explanation on talk pages of three articles for which you reverted my edits yesterday. I've done so primarily for you to know that I'm acting in good faith. I don't have the intention to do this for every next edit though. In the end it's just a trade-off between editor's interests (who want to have the biggest possible exposure and be enlisted in as many categories as possible) and readers' interests (who want to have the most targeted list of related articles). Wikipedia rules do protect readers' interests to a fair amount but the interpretation of the rules can always be disputed in every single case and that's exactly the type of disputes I don't need to get involved in. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for thanking myself, keep up the good work and if you need any help with anything feel free to contact me on my talk page, It would be a great pleasure to work with another great editor! (excluding myself). Best wishes and kind regards. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IIO, I know you've got more experience dealing with these sockpuppets than I, so would mind looking at Special:Contributions/The Satanic Sheik? The account appeared suddenly to reignite a recently-resolved content dispute that saw me, User:Nishidani and User:Sturmgewehr88 on one side, and User:CurtisNaito on the other. He also canvassed CurtisNaito, but no one who had ever actually edited the article before or after said dispute. The username(s) and the most recent comment on Talk:Emperor Jimmu (re: the bizarre moon logic that we should be weighing our classical literature/mythology articles based on coverage in an English-language Japanese newspaper) seem vaguely Kauffner-esque as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's someone's sock. Quite possible, yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volume Seven, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Volume Seven and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Volume Seven during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Launchballer 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like moves without a redirect, sigh. I would not have noticed it without your mentioning in the GA1. Two options: you clean up after the move, or you move Cantiones sacrae to Cantiones sacrae (disambiguation) and the other back, as the primary topic, comparable to Christmas Oratorio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the template, didn't it take? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You created a disambiguation page instead, that leaves no redirect, hiw could it? Thanks for fixing some of the links. I did the others now, couldn't watch DYK and GA archives, talk pages archives, all making no sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally think those archive page links aren't a priority, but thanks for fixing them also. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say thanks for all your work earlier this month helping with the Ross Parker disambiguation page. FYI I've now submitted the murder of Ross Parker article as a featured article candidate, so if you're interested in the topic perhaps you'd like to help with the review? Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Eyes for the Needy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Kean. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sólo lo Mejor 20 Éxitos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sólo lo Mejor 20 Éxitos until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cavarrone 12:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kudpung. In ictu oculi, thanks for creating The Beatstalkers!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article has been tagged as having no sources. I notice that you ha an 'autopatrolled' flag.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why you tagged this. This was evidently a highly notable band that much was obvious from the release of the David Bowie song. And I jumped to it and loaded on extra sources. But don't expect me to do that every time. This is a collegiate project and if a stub meets WP:IDEALSTUB then a start is made. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see clearly why I tagged it. At the time of its creation it was totally unsourced and as a holder of the Autopatrolled flag you are expected to create articles that do not produce red alerts at NPP. Do not presume too much from WP:IDEALSTUB - you are well aware of the extremely strong recommndations for users to create articles in user space or draft space when they are not ready for mainspace. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Nazar (band), In ictu oculi.

Unfortunately Kudpung has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Unreferenced. 2 points and fdinishing 18 of 20 in a contest is not a claim of notability. Article possible candidate for WP:A7 (BAND)

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

Thanks for reviewing Poacher (band), In ictu oculi.

Unfortunately Kudpung has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Needs more substantial references to assert notability. Appears to fail WP:BAND

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

Thanks for reviewing The Vel-Tones, In ictu oculi.

Unfortunately Kudpung has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Fleetinmg mentions in sources and reseqar4ch does not provide other multiple, in-depth coverage that would assert notability per WP:BAND. Possible candidate for WP:PROD or WP:AfD.

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

Hi, I'm Kudpung. In ictu oculi, thanks for creating The Lust-O-Rama!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Needs more, in-depth sources to assert notability per WP:BAND. Possible candidate for WP:PROD.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kudpung. In ictu oculi, thanks for creating Lianne Hall!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Notability probably not asserted per WP:BLP and WP:BAND

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kudpung. In ictu oculi, thanks for creating Los Chicos (Spanish band)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Unsourced and fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The Spanish Wikipedia has no WP:RS (reliable sources). Possible candidate for deletion.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kudpung. In ictu oculi, thanks for creating Gianluigi Di Franco!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The Italian Wikipedia article is unsourced (dead links). Apart from collaboration on music projects the subject makes no claims to notability. Fails WP:BAND. Possible cadidate for deletion.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have expanded a stub you created by translating part of the original 'other Wiki' article. In my experience, such stubs are not likely to attract the attention of local en.Wiki users who will spend time on such translations, and will risk remaining as perma-stubs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well wouldn't it be better to just not have a stub at all then? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be my opinion. It would also help reduce the load on the NPP process - especially where the creations by autopatrolled users still have to be checked. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally if there's a well-developed article in a non-English wiki the subject is notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as popular / unpopular articles in an encyclopedia. There are however popular and unpopular ways in which encyclopedias are produced. Just making work for other editors and patrollers is unproductive, especially when stubs are created from foreign language Wiki articles that aren't sourced either. The number of editors here who are prepared to sit down and simply do translations for lazy editors is practically non existant. I do a lot of translation because, a) I'm multilingual, and b) I may have some subject knowledge, and c) I'm sometimes asked - that's how the huge Brontë family article came into existence from a 4-line stub; quite discgraceful to think that another languiage Wiki had a huge article about something so crucial to English literary history. That was worth translating and reediting - 60 hours well spent rather than 60 hours patrolling patrollers and autopatrolled stub creators. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Melos (Cervello album).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Melos (Cervello album).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 08:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t know if it interests you, but guess who´s back: Suzanne Marie Olsson. Perhaps in more ways than one: [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Since you're involved in article's titling, I wanted an opinion whether it is possible to move Get Rich or Die Tryin' (album) to Get Rich or Die Tryin'? The album is clearly the primary topic here, so I don't think there is a possibility of confusing them.--Retrohead (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, interesting question since these are all the same project. A look in Google Books suggests the film is also notable - in film books. You could try a multimove template, and see what consensus is. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for barnstar. My name is Marko (Марко) and i editing serbian Wikipedia. I am administrator on serbian wiki.--Марко Станојевић (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to racehorse articles. Changing "x" to "x (horse)" makes sense. When creating articles I don't usually include (horse) unless there is an existing article of the same name, but I haven't really thought about whether there might be a future dab issue. There are probably quite a few similar articles (I've created 900+). Nice to hear from someone right next to me on WP:EDITS. Tigerboy1966  20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Obsesión (Pedro Flores song)

added links pointing to Pedro Flores and Alberto Isaac

Charles Bartlett (film director)

added a link pointing to William Bertram

Dangerous Love (1920 film)

added a link pointing to Jack Richardson

Hot Damn! (Billy Lee Riley album)

added a link pointing to Rock Me Baby

Nick Richards

added a link pointing to Ember Records

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Benny Quick, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.secondhandlps.de/interpreten/index/0/showip/3392/Benny-Quick.html. (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot, You're right - but it was in fact brought over from de.wp I'll remove it In ictu oculi (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. If you create new disambiguation pages, such as 11 A.M. or 11 P.M., please do not add them to disambiguation categories manually. Instead, please use an appropriate disambiguation template. This will make many maintenance tasks much easier for your fellow users. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

will have a look, thanks for tip. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]

Hi, you changed the name of Epic to be Epic_(Kostik_novel) but the author's name is spelled incorrectly in the new title (it is Kostick). Please can you fix? Thanks. Bartash (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well caught, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Carnival of Venice (song)

added a link pointing to Keith Newton

No Love (Joan Armatrading song)

added a link pointing to UK Chart

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, why did you move Agape College and Church and Singles Only? Do you actively seek to preempt disambiguous situations? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's not preempting en.wp already has other content: Singles Only because of WP:NCM, Agape Church because of List of churches in Pakistan, Puthuppally, Kottayam (section Churches in Puthuppally) and Five Points, Denver. Plus I'm about to put a prod notice on it. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read on their website that vocal is most important, so changed orchestra to ensemble. Do you happen to know when they changed their name? I started one of their singers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Talk:Starz (TV network).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Wikipedical (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your questions to TSS there. I think the place for discussions of how to deal with obvious socks who were technically unable to be identified by CU is pretty obvious. In fact, I already opened a thread there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw both. I already left a note with Favonian, when he gets back. The fact is the sock can't actually do much without being confirmed. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Stardust (David Essex song)

added links pointing to UK Charts and CBS Records

SPG Records

added a link pointing to Pal Joey

Tommy (London Symphony Orchestra album)

added a link pointing to Graham Bell

What a Night (Tom Jones album)

added a link pointing to Tom Jones

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The submitter has withdrawn their technical request. The proposed move is now being formally discussed at Talk:The Goldfinch (novel). You may comment there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a main editor of Legend (disambiguation), I am calling your attention to Talk:Legend_(disambiguation)#Merger_proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bible paraphrases, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JFH (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the post above yours from Dunn, the author of the recent article about Yahweh as a volcano god? Your input would be useful there also. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks, I added Dunn (as editor, I don't think he is author of the article/section on Psalm 18). But will let article settle now the Volcano editor has gone. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Maureen Peters (novelist)

added a link pointing to Joanna of Navarre

The Millionaires (Dutch band)

added a link pointing to 1980 Olympic Games

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IIO - I've just noticed that back in May you moved Le Quang Tung to Lê Quang Tùng. However, in the article, and on Vietnamese WP, his name is given as Lê Quang Tung. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, well spotted, put in a tech move to correct. Thanks for recent edits BTW. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Aside (Shinee song).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan, It's been removed by another user, correctly I think, as it turns out to be a duplicate of the album cover, in which case let it be deleted. Thanks for notification. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of whether I get blocked, I wanted to tell you that I'm not operating in bad faith. Here's what happened on the Jesus page:

• I added "and Jesus of Galilee" about 4 days ago, including a single citation.
• Hazhk reverted this morning, saying "A passing reference is one book which, predominately refers to him as "Jesus of Nazarethe", is not evidence of widespread usage."
• I added a talk page section, and listed several sources there.
• I re-added the material with an additional schlolarly source (which made more than a passing reference)
• FutureTrillionaire reverted, saying "(BOLD, revert, discuss. Also, I don't think "Jesus of Galilee" is used often enough to justify its inclusion.)"
• I re-added the material with a biblical citation, figuring that would be authoritative.
• Tom harrison reverted, saying "not common enough."

• I replaced the material one last time. I thought about adding yet another citation, but that would be inappropriate in the Lead. This was my third and last revert.
• Calidum reverted, saying "rmv per previous rationales; get consensus first."
• I opened a AN3 discussion.

Now, here's what I did wrong:

• I was snippy in my talk page notes to FutureTrillionaire, Tom harrison, and Calidum. Not ad hominem, but I was curt, as they'd not bothered to discuss.
• I should have skipped the third revert (But I was curious if one of the same people would revert.)
• I should have used DRN, not AN3.

As a matter of background: I use the name "Fearofreprisal" to edit articles where making changes that upset powerful people can lead to reprisals. I've tackled Joe Arpaio, who used to have meatpuppets sanitizing the article, and who has paid out tens of millions of dollars in legal damages for reprisals against his critics. I've taken on a band of Chinese cyber-bullies trying to take over a BLP page - and was outed and targeted by them as a result (I was interviewed by both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times because of my efforts.)

Recently, I've been trying to help fix the perennially broken Historicity of Jesus article, and have met with a lot of animosity -- especially from John Carter (a recidivist known for trying to drive away editors he doesn't like.)

On the Jesus page, I was just adding a small thing that seemed like it ought to be there. It seemed non-controversial. When I found the edit being reverted, I wanted to try and figure out what was going on.

So, though I certainly made some mistakes, I wasn't operating in bad faith. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the admin who refused your WP:AN3 on those editors who said you were trying to get other editors blocked, I didn't say that, that's his/her comment. I'm not really interested in the other pages, your activity on the Jesus article is being spectacularly disruptive. Please also no further comment here, if it relates to article on article Talk, if it relates to ANI on ANI, my Talk page isn't a forum. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect You're Dead!. Since you had some involvement with the You're Dead! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Los Ángeles (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gbawden (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent move of I Am King --> I Am King (Code Orange album), and changing of I Am King to a disambiguation page. I suppose this was an okay move in general, however, are you planning on creating an article for I Am King (Trae tha Truth album) any time soon? If not, then someone should move I Am King (Code Orange album) --> I Am King (album) as this specific disambiguation is only required if there are two existing articles with the same name about the same subject, which there is currently not. Cheers, —Fezmar9 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not what WP:Naming conventions (music) says an that album is sown all over half a dozen articles. But sure, I'll remove the name of the artist. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's exactly what WP:Naming conventions (music) says: "Use further disambiguation only when needed [...] unless multiple albums (or songs) of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further." Fezmar9 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous album clearly does "exist". But having said that, it doesn't seem to justify the 7 or 8 mentions it has in our articles. If you believe it is helpful to readers to remove the name of the artist of the 2014 album then by all means move to remove Code Orange. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Exist" in that context means whether or not a Wikipedia article exists, not whether or not something literally exists in the real world. Perhaps the way it's worded at WP:DAB will clear up any confusion: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead" (my emphasis, not theirs). As I said above, if you're planning on creating an actual article sometime soon at I Am King (Trae tha Truth album), then it's fine to keep it the way it is. But if not, it should be moved. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ra-Ta-Ta (Chris Juwens song)

added a link pointing to CBS Records

The Stingrays (1980s band)

added a link pointing to Garage music

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Incompetent editor who pushes Fringe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ret.Prof (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! When you move pages such as Kyōiku (album), could you look through the what links here section and fix the links so that all pages refer to the new title? Usually it's only four (main page, discography, template, singles template). Thanks! --Prosperosity (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your blanket removals of the "stylized as" entries on articles on Japanese language albums that have English language titles. There is no reason to remove these, as these are the means by which these album's titles are written in nation of origin. They are simply not allowed for use on the English Wikipedia as article titles, and are included as "stylizations" because of the MOS sticklery that abounds on this project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:RS sources on Talk page of article. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources are the album cover itself and official print material for the album in Japanese. There's no reason for you to blanket remove these because you claim there's no English language sources that print it this way. It's a Japanese stylization. These articles should clarify that for things like Misia's New Morning or what have you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide independent WP:RS sources on Talk page of article and discuss on Talk page of article so that other users understand the reason for you inserting this in the lede. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I'm telling you this here. You are the only person to object to this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As above, please discuss on Talk page of article so that other users understand the reason for you inserting this in the lede. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person who feels that this is an issue so I am addressing your concerns here. Stop disrupting these pages and going WP:POINT over how these albums' names are written in Japan. Just append "in Japan" to all these.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Talk page content made by other editors related to article improvement is not appropriate behavior. Please see WP Talk Page Guidelines. If you insist on adding content to the lede of articles claiming a "stylization" then you need to provide book sources, such as Mark Schilling The Encyclopedia of Japanese pop culture 1997 0834803801 to support such edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does a 7 year old book have to say about albums that came out this year?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User was asked not to delete other editors comments from article Talk pages here. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deflecting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Dalia (Egyptian singer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.mediander.com/connects/40054161/dalia-(egyptian-singer)/#!/video. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Apparently, Mr. Guye later concluded that the copying had occurred in the other direction, and thus removed the speedy deletion request, so this notice is obsolete. (However, please see the other notice below.) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dalia (Egyptian singer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalia (Egyptian singer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an hoax or something? I think the author refer to the Tang dynasty. Cheer. ༆ (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Misconduct in the Christianity topic case request has been declined as withdrawn. You can review the original case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I came across Landsale while stub-sorting and find various problems:

• You moved the album to Landsale (P-Model album), but:

• It doesn't need the detailed disambiguation, as Landsale (album) seems unambiguous
• You did nothing to clean up the incoming links, which now lead to the wrong article

• You created the current Landsale but:

• It doesn't say what "landsale" actually means, just that it's "a system": like a botanical article saying it's "a plant". There's no content to the article, just a series of instances of the term being used.
• It's completely unsourced
• It looks, from OED, to be not so much a "system" as an adjective: OED has "land sale n. (a) a sale of land; (b) applied attrib. to collieries which are worked on a small scale and from which coal is supplied only to the country round; pl. the coal so disposed of." with a couple of examples using "landsale" rather than "land sale". So it might be more appropriate as an entry in Glossary of coal mining terminology, linked either by a hatnote from the album article replaced at its original title, or from a 2-entry dab page.

Please could you tidy it up? Thanks.

PS I note also that Land sale and Land sales redirect to different articles which don't link to each other, let along linking to either sense of "landsale"! PamD 07:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, no problem, thanks for reminder, I'm no great expert on mining, but I remember from schooldays that (as Google Books) land-sale is a small rented colliery, not a non-notable Japanese album. That album article requires AFD not disambiguating. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doung Dynasty ref book is formal and the web is also formal, the zhizhi tongjian also have some fragments. I Added new references to from formal goverments site.

The Later Sui Dynasty which has been decline, but I Added some new references. So I Resubmited.

Thanks for look around. ADHZ07111989 (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If got some fresh book please inform me, but its will around the same. Thanks. ADHZ07111989 (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Fevrret. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Song Jia (actress born 1962), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Fevrret (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering the same thing myself-I don't know why this guy is unreviewing and reviewing every page....Wgolf (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also got one yesterday from him that I deleted saying something like "Please expand next time" where I was going "What the heck? I didn't even make that page, someone else did and I curated it as it was good enough for that". Yeah it is confusing. Wgolf (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Johnny Greenwood (singer)

added a link pointing to Tony Mundine

When in Spain

added a link pointing to Carnival (song)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I has been answer your oblige at your talk page from me "From ADHZ07111989". I am native Indonesian. I studied Mandarin, English and some foreign language too. Wo she Yin Tu Ne Xi Ya Guo de ren, Wo xie ren pien de hua yu, ing wen, re ben hua, he se hen pien de hua. Xie Xie peng you. Ren shi ni wo hen gao hao xin jie. ADHZ07111989 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources from Google. Also, use template:cite book/doc for instructions. --George Ho (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Because you have participated in the move discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you are being notified of the RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 7#Islamic State. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I'm restoring a ref to cite the article as it is titled. I fail to see how this makes any point at all. I'm not using that edit to disrupt wikipedia or make any kind of point. That much should be obvious. It is important that refs be accurate and no interest is being served by spelling the title wrong. Please clarify why you think that fixing this is "pointy". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how asking me if "vowel" means vowel and "tone mark" means tone mark could have any other purpose than to insult my intelligence, or asking me if I know the difference between a vowel and a tone when I have stated several times that I do and never give any reason to believe that I do not. Please stop this kind of disruptive editing immediately. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just said [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28Chinese%29&diff=624760951&oldid=624756587] You are currently arguing against WP:NC-CHINA and WP:PINYIN (or at least the common understanding of those guidelines shown in the status quo in the article corpus) on 4 article Talk pages and 2 guideline Talk pages. In those Talk pages the guidelines should be clearly stated. The nub of the misunderstanding appears to be the difference in the guidelines between a "vowel" and "tone mark" - it is incumbent upon yourself as someone proposing the longstanding status quo of the guidelines not be applied to respond to the difference between a vowel and a tone mark. Please restrict further communication to relevant article Talk pages where all can see. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those discussions have long since diverged and turned into little more than you hounding me, even pasting the same thing over and over. I'm discussing this here, because it concerns you and me, and has nothing to do with the intended topics of those discussions. I'm not arguing against those guidelines, you have repeated that at least half a dozen times, I've lost track. You know what those guidelines you keep quoting say? One is just a brief description of what order tone marks are applied in and doesn't say anything about whether Lu Lin should use an "umlaut" on WP. I have responded to those quotes directly several times. You refuse to even read my answers and keep repeating yourself, meanwhile accusing me of some kind of sneaky scheme to secretly overturn some unwritten rule by making changes about totally unrelated articles, and directly insulting my intelligence. I'm coming here, asking you to be civil. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "sneaky" - please address the questions related to WP:NC-CHINA and WP:PINYIN in the Talk page articles where you are discussing WP:NC-CHINA and WP:PINYIN. And if you initiate requested moves other users are allowed to respond to you on the Talk pages where you have initiated the moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you took the time to consider the issues at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal, I am hoping you might help us consider a related issue at Talk:Legends (TV series)#Call for a vote on hatnote for this page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, about half of the people who took part in the recent merger discussion have considered this related matter and half haven't. This leaves us on the border between consensus and no consensus. It would be great if could take a moment to consider the simple matter at Talk:Legends (TV series)#Call for a vote on hatnote for this page. A few more voices should make it clear if there is a consensus opinion or not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change wikilinks to suit your preferred title, especially in the middle of an RM. It is premature, and unhelpful. I've requested this from you before. Thanks. (And thanks for fixing the one mistaken link to the plural of bookend.) Dohn joe (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating templates with a redirect has nothing but benefit, deliberately going through and ambiguating achieves nothing. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are trying to do with this move and other similar moves. Pointing to another redirect just doesn't work because a bot will come along and redirect Discoverer (song) to the album, rather than via another redirect, to the album, so all you are doing is creating 2 redirects for the same redirect! If the original redirect was to be deleted then there would be a benefit, or if it was to point to a disambig page. Then it would work. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the categories would at least hold in place, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In ictu - I'm trying to understand your reasoning behind the recent spate of plural term moves and RMs. Can you explain to me why you believe our readers benefit when Bookends redirects to Bookend? The former gets far more pageviews, and is a lengthy, well-written, well-referenced article. The latter is barely more than a dictdef - two short paragraphs that get far fewer pageviews. As you saw, very few editors link to Bookends when they mean bookends. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for Parachutes, which itself has been rated a good article. If you could explain your rationale, I'd appreciate it! Dohn joe (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see BD2412's comments in Parachutes RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I still don't see how his comments affect the Bookends debate. If anything, it's a stronger argument for leaving it as is, given the lack of mislinks. Would you explain your thinking in that case in particular? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see all BD2412's comments in Parachutes RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Parachute/Parachutes is different from Bookend/Bookends in many respects, including the relative quality of the singular vs. plural articles and the pageviews. Leave Parachutes to the side for now. Would you please explain to me how directing Bookends to Bookend is a good thing for our readers? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to have conversations affecting articles behind other editors' backs, nor do I wish to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion at the page. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with other editors. I'm interested in knowing your own thoughts on this particular page move. And I likewise do not wish to burden that talkpage, which is why I came here. I just don't understand why you think this move makes things better for the readers, and I was hoping you could help me understand, is all. Dohn joe (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]