User talk:Tavix/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Closing rationale on Democrat Party (United States)

You closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Democrat Party (United States) as "no consensus". I wonder whether a rationale is needed. --George Ho (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think so. It wasn't clear from reading the discussion that there's consensus to do anything with the redirect. I'm not sure what more I would be able to add with a closing statement apart from the obvious. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right. No need. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to the Special namespace

Please throw an {{rfd}} notice on Wikipedia:Special:UncategorizedPages if you don't mind [I think you're right that it holds the talk page for Special:UncategorizedPages, I went ahead and withdrew the nomination]. I don't see anything in the protection log, which is odd, maybe its something to do with having "Special:" in the title. I'm curious if it gives you the option to lower the protection as well. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's been protected since before the protection log was created, which would explain why nothing was showing up in the log. I've removed protection altogether as I'm not seeing a good reason for the protection to begin with. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant to link Wikipedia:Special:UncategorizedPages earlier instead of Wikipedia:Special:LonelyPages (I fixed it above). The protection on Wikipedia:Special:UncategorizedPages is probably unnecessary as well. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I never did add {{rfd}} to that redirect because I noticed it wasn't nominated. I just figured you were wanting to bundle it and would add it yourself. I rremoved protection from the other redirect so at least we got some ancient protections off the books. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've compiled a list of all pages in any namespace that hard or soft redirect to the special namespace as of March 2, 2017 (due to this discussion) at User:Godsy/R to special; there are currently 166 hard redirects and 123 soft redirects. There are 77 "Wikipedia:Special:" redirects (of which only 4 are hard redirects). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

re:List of foreign exchange companies

Hi Tavix,

I notice that you deleted List of foreign exchange companies. Thanks. It was at best a list of articles that needed clean-up. The only problem is that I was using that page as a guide to articles that needed cleaning up. Is there any chance that you could undelete the list long enough (say until tomorrow) so that I could copy it to my user pages so that I can continue the cleanup. I won't even keep it in its present form, but eliminate the ones that don't need cleanup, and the ones that I've cleaned up as I go along. Thanks for any help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones: It was a redirect to Foreign exchange company, so no content was deleted. That article has a list, is that what you're thinking of? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones: It's also redundant to Category:Foreign exchange companies, so you can check everything in that category. Of course this is right up your alley. What foreign exchange company wouldn't want to have an article on Wikipedia as a means of enhancing their business? Some of them are undoubtedly orphans, and of course making a list of all of them is a convenient way to find homes for all the orphans. There were a lot of red links to this list in "see also" sections, and I just removed them all. 15:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Instructor's Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors. Getting consensus to simplify the BLPPROD instructions is a real victory! Thanks so much and well done wrangling that. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Innisfree987! -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Padua College (Brisbane)

In Australian articles, we generally follow the guidelines at WP:NCDAB which says to use a comma for a disambiguation by place rather than by type. So, I think the article should be titled as Padua College, Brisbane as it was. Kerry (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: Schools aren't geographic places, they're institutions. (for example: "school" is nowhere to be found at WP:NCGEO.) Since it's not a place, WP:NCDAB recommends parenthetical disambiguation. Unless, of course, a geographic location is a part of the school's name (eg: University of California, Berkeley) but I see no evidence that "Padua College, Brisbane" is the school's official name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This may be so in your part of the world, but the Australian naming conventions say that we disambiguate "places including train stations, parks, etc" with comma. We use parentheses for natural geographic features like mountains, rivers, etc, but we appear to use commas for man-made things which includes schools. I had a look around the school articles in Australia and it seems the majority that required disambiguation did so with commas, although there are certainly some with parentheses. If you want to thrash out the issue how best to disambiguate Australian schools, please go to the Australian Wikipedian's notice board. I don't really care what is the outcome of the discussion, but at the moment the our Australian naming conventions and what appears to be the common practice in Australian school articles seem to be to use the comma and, if that is so, then Padua College should follow that practice until there is some Australian consensus to do it differently. Kerry (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB applies to all articles just the same. It uses "comma-separated disambiguation" to refer to WP:NCGEO, where local customs prevail. However I still don't see schools mentioned at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia, and I maintain that schools are institutions, not geographic places. I don't like the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I could use it all the same and point out several Australian schools that use parenthetical disambiguation (eg: Chanel College (Gladstone), Emmanuel College (Queensland), John Paul College (Brisbane), Kingston College (Queensland), Lakes College (Queensland), etc.) If there are other schools that don't abide by WP:NCDAB, then they should be moved as well (however, I'm not interested in systematically moving everything though). -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

G6 wording regarding disambiguation pages

Following up from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3-Pentene-1-yne: Twinkle's description seems to be even clearer, "G6: Unnecessary disambiguation page - This only applies for orphaned disambiguation pages which either: (1) disambiguate two or fewer existing Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in '(disambiguation)' (i.e. there is a primary topic); or (2) disambiguates no (zero) existing Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title." Template:Db-disambig-notice contains similar language. What do you think, would a change of that nature improve the wording even more? Secondly, does twinkle's description state exactly the same thing? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting to point out. It seems like the "two or fewer" language would include WP:TWODABS, whereas the current language of G6 would not include them. I'd love to be able to speedy delete WP:TWODABS, but I don't think there's consensus to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

back

When you start editing from a tablet with an IP address and no copy-paste, it is probably time to get back.... but I do have a full time job now and stuff, so I won!t be around too much. (Have to get used to the English keyboard I have at home too instead of the Hungarian one at work, sorrz.) Si Trew (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I do a bit of editing from my smart phone. It has a copy-paste, but I find it to be a bit bulky. It's good to see you're back. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Si Trew: I thought of you while editing something a few days ago, I can't quite recall why or what. Glad to see that you're back! Redirects for discussion sorely lacks poetry when you're not around. Warmest Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Congrats on the job and welcome back! ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep

That was my next step, but you beat me to it (diff). Thanks for the quick maintenance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I didn't even notice the time stamp. I was curious about the history of April Fools' Day, and I was greeted by an AfD tag on the page. Personally, I don't care either way but I do remember a consensus somewhere to keep the jokes out of mainspace. All in good fun, -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You must have opened the article literally seconds after my joke AfD. We thought about the same article at the same time; maybe we were using ESP? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

unfair competitive advantage (Business)

hi, you just changed this DAB into a redirect, Can you comment - the target page refers to a marketing term (which really means 'big' advantage, not 'unfair') ; yet there is also a contrasting concept of advantages that really are considered 'unfair' to the point of being legislated against (e.g. insider trading). I found a citation for the use as a legal term, not marketing. I tried to rectify this situation with additions to 'cheating' to handle it, and created the DAB. Are you really 100% sure this shouldn't be a redirect ? I think the term is ambiguous -

• unfair/exclusive competitive advantage
• unfair/illegal competitive advantage. citations: (law) [1]

can you clarify the decision ?

Whatever one person might think the term means, the range of meanings a user may have may be broad. I would prefer to have gone the other way, and made unfair competitive advantage the DAB page, whilst the marketing term should be called unfair competitive advantage (marketing) or something

MfortyoneA (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a few points: Unfair competitive advantage (business) is an inappropriate title to hold a disambiguation page per WP:INCOMPDAB. If you insist one needs to be in place, consider making it at the undisambiguated title, or at Unfair competitive advantage (disambiguation). However, if there's other usage of the phrase, the phrase needs to at the very least be mentioned in the other article per WP:DABMENTION. Also, if there's just one other usage, consider adding a WP:HATNOTE instead. Finally, article titles are in WP:SENTENCECASE, not title case (unless it's a title), so not every word needs to be capitalized in the title of your article. Let me know if any of this is confusing! Best, -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

All Saints Church, Maidstone, KwaZulu-Natal

Would please revert the move of All Saints Church, Maidstone, KwaZulu-Natal, you renamed that page to All Saints Church (South Africa). There are a number of churches called All Saints in South Africa, admittedly without wikipedia articles. But it still makes the new name ambiguous This article is about the church called All Saints in Maidstone, KZN, also the renameing of the article disconnects it from it's origins which is the church in Maidstone, Kent. If there was only one church called All Saints in South Africa I would be happy with your move but as mentioned above there are many, There is another All Saints church in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, so it is not helpful to rename it All Saints Church, KwaZulu-Natal.

All Saints Church, Maidstone, KwaZulu-Natal is the best and least ambiguous name for this article. I would be grateful if you would revert your change. Many thanks Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

-I thought I'd save you the bother and I just did the move myself. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered either way, but the other title is unambiguous for Wikipedia as it's the only article on an All Saints Church in South Africa and it's much simpler. Oh well. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well not really because All Saints Church, Uniondale is also in south africa. Thanks for your comments all the same Wayne Jayes (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Edm Festivals (deleted article)

Hello. Im wondering about the article you deleted for "List of EDM Festivals" created by a banned user.. I am working on an article that pertains to this, and was wondering if it can be brought back? Im unfamiliar with the process. Thanks! CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kittycolada911. The deleted page you referenced was a redirect to List of electronic music festivals. You're welcome to recreate that redirect, work on the electronic music list, and/or create a separate EDM list if you think there's enough material for a list. Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy editing, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Example

Will you use your administrator glasses for me on Wikipedia:WikiProject Example? I'd like to know when it was created, what it contained, and if it had been recently changed (i.e. if there was a substantially different version in the page history). Sorry for the bother and thanks in advance, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Godsy, here's the history:

(diff) 17:28, 13 April 2017 . . TenPoundHammer (talk | contribs | block) (88 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G2). using TW)
(diff) 14:21, 13 April 2017 . . Marvellous Spider-Man (talk | contribs | block) (67 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Example. (Twinkle))
(diff) 12:40, 20 March 2017 . . Fulup56 (talk | contribs | block) (59 bytes) (←Created page with 'https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals')

No problem, I'm happy to help out. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

mts and Mobile Telephony of Serbia

Hi Tavix I have a question concerning my request for move of the page Mobile Telephony of Serbia to MTS (Telekom Srbija) - you state: "It has been determined that the natural, undisambiguated name is preferable." But, how can that be when Mobile Telephony of Serbia" no longer exists, and it's not a natural name, only a historical refference with no meaning in 2017? Mobile Telephony of Serbia literally no longer exists, so the name of "Mobile Telephony of Serbia" is factually wrong and this is no longer a correct enclypedia entry.

mts is the correct name and it's not an abbreviation, it a name of the brand. mts, nothing more, nothing less. It is clearly stated on their corporate brand information page - https://www.mts.rs/eng/about-us/cbrand

Sorry if I am boring, but I have stated this numerous times and yet the wrong entry remains. Hope you can help me correct this and keep Wikipedia up to date with factual informaion.

Since I don't request page moves very often, what should be my further steps in rectifying this information? Should I request a move once more, or should I go about it differently?

Thank you for your support. Serceg (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Serceg: Other editors opposed a move to that title, and I closed the discussion to reflect that. There is an appeal process if you disagree with my closure, you may find that at Wikipedia:Move review. Regards, -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Moscow Institute of Electronic Engineering (disambiguation)

There are no other meanings, only mentioned two ones. What are you suggesting to do? I agree, that dis.page can be deleted, but I think, it makes sense to save explanation for this non-rare error ([2],[3]). Alex Spade (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If the error needs to be explained, a good place to do it would be the article itself. As long as "Moscow Institute of Electronic Engineering" primarily refers to National Research University of Electronic Technology, all that's needed is a hatnote to Moscow Institute of Electronics and Mathematics. See WP:TWODABS for more information. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

i dunno, just whatever

There was an ANI discussion so I stayed away. I have no idea of the result of it, I was busy working. It seems I haven't a ban and so forth by sending this message, this is facile princeps, first steps. We have to work out somehow what to do with the Champion redirects, because I don't want to flood RfD with them but sorting them and saying keep discard not sure, that is my job. I can't be expected to check RS and so on when it has to go towards the delete pile (RfD) necessarily everything I bring there will be a delete or not sure. The keepers, I keep without bringing them there. You are the first person I have said, I have not even seen the ANI result. It got a bit heated, as it does when one argues one's case. I made mine then left it for others to argue. That is just the clean hands doctrine.

Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: I think it's time WP:PROD should be extended to redirects. It would've been a perfect solution for the Neelix redirects and it seems to be the best way to solve the Eubot problem without flooding RfD. WP:PROD was recently extended to files so WP:FFD wouldn't be bogged down so much, and I think it was executed well. When I get a bit of time on my hands, I'm planning on proposing just that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"Failed Crystal ball film" redirects...

I've run across a lot of those myself. And I don't know if you've noticed, but most of them are/were created by the same editor... Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I find them by trudging though Captain Assassin!'s contributions. 99% of the film-related redirects I've nominated were created by him. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm seriously wondering if a a topic ban is needed, specifically for creating redirects in the article namespace with years in their disambiguators. I know this editor has created several, and in fact, the editor recently created another such redirect that has the potential to fail: Skyscraper (2018 film). Steel1943 (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been following his recent contributions recently. I just figured a barage of RfD notifications would send a strong enough message. Perhaps a strongly worded talk page message would do the trick. If he keeps it up after that, I'd support a Neelix-style redirect creation ban and force him to use WP:AFC/R. I think he's just trying to title squat to get credit for "creating" all these films. There's definitely enough evidence for a ban, and I've only gone through a little over a week of his contributions (May 20-31 2013). -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Paella

My changes are well cited. I see no reason to keep them out. Also user:Jotamar made no effort to discuss his revert with me beforehand. If you like, then freeze the article as it is now to prevent an edit war and to encourage us to work it out. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's for you two to discuss on the talk page. Hopefully you can come to an amicable agreement. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think freezing the article with my changes will encourage discussion. Nothing encourages discussion like a frozen article. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Moby-Dick4000: You can take that to WP:RPP if you feel it necessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to do that but you've reverted the article twice without much reason so I'm going to restore my edits and THEN ask for page protection. Please leave it alone while I do this. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works, but I'll let another admin at RPP explain that to you. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine but please explain to me why you felt the need to revert my changes twice in one day even though my changes were well cited and made in good faith. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD. You made some bold changes to the article and another editor reverted you. Now it's time for the two of you to discuss the differences and hopefully work out a solution that works for the both of you. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

RfD NACs

Hey, what's the consensus on NACs at RfD? I'm not too active there, but I've seen some pretty clear-cut keeps/dabifys that don't need any administrative action, for example, one and two (I've voted on the second, so obviously I wouldn't close that one). Are non-admins allowed to close discussions in those circumstances? Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Yeah, those are fine, just be sure to follow WP:BADNAC. Alternatively, go get the tools real quick, and you can close anything in which you're not involved. It's always good to see fresh faces willing to help out at RfD! Best, -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. As for RfA, I want to put it off for a bit because SoWhy told me about some issues at AfD that could be a problem at RfA. I wanna put those behind me and show that they were just outliers before running. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, Anarchyte. I appreciate your introspection. I think you'll make a fine admin someday. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bunch of noincludes

This edit [4] actually broke the closure template syntax (because it de-paired a noinclude tag). This edit [5] was the fix. I'm sorry for the contrived RfD top syntax - that's the best I can make it, given the need to subst things as much as possible for software performance reasons. Deryck C. 13:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Lemenemene

Hi Tavix,

We are brand new to using Wikipedia for posting articles. For a first experience, we are extremely disappointed and frustrated at the the way you guys handle things and for the wasted time this has cost. Nobody has time to waste like this.

Please will you kindly explain why you deleted the Lemenemene article, this is extremely frustrating.

Thanks so much Lemenemene (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted because it met one of Wikipedia's criterion for speedy deletion, A7, for not presenting a credible claim of significance. If you can prove that your band has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then I advise that you use articles for creation, a process where your article can get feedback from a reviewer before it is published. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Request undeletion of "List of music festivals in Canada"

Hi, G5 was used to delete List_of_music_festivals_in_Canada but the speedy deletion criteria for G5 says it "should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging." I don't know why the account that created the page was banned, but the content in that page was the result of splitting out a subsection of List_of_festivals_in_Canada, with a redirect from the #Music_Festivals subheading to the new page, and it appears that significant effort had been made to provide better organization for the content within. The category page "Music_festivals_in_Canada" states that the main article for the category is the deleted page, and per Category_talk:Music_festivals_in_Canada it is part of both the Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada and Wikipedia:WikiProject Festivals projects. In addition, Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_music_festivals_in_Canada shows *many* pages link to this now-deleted page. Canada has lost a great deal of visibility of its music identity in Wikipedia as a result. Please consider undeleting the page. Dan Scott (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dan scott: It has been restored. I hadn't realized that list was created as the result of a split, thank you for looking into that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Dan Scott (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD Banco de Ponce (disambiguation)

Hello Tavix - I don't think my ping worked (because I put "|" instead of ":") so I'm notifying you here of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) . Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have WP:DSDAB on my watchlist so I check on dabs that have been AfD'd fairly regularly, so I would've seen it either way. Best, -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A BLPPROD I let slip by

Hi, can you please restored the BLPPRODded Carlos Quintanilla Schmidt? I feel bad that I got caught up in translating it and overlooked the looming BLPPROD tag. There are certainly sources that can be added: [6], [7], etc. I can add them right off. Largoplazo (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: It has been restored. I trust that you'll add something, no worries. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Doing it now. Largoplazo (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleting of the page Antonio Marchesano (Swiss footballer)

Hi Tavix You've deleted the page Antonio Marchesano (footballer) on May 4th. https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Antonio_Marchesano_(footballer)&action=edit&redlink=1 Swiss footballer Antonio Marchesano (born 1991) has played several seasons and over 170 games with various clubs in the Swiss Challenge League which is the second highest tier in Swiss professional football and a fully professional league. He also played in the Europa League with FC Zurich. He is now promoted with FC Zurich (where he is under contract until 2020) to the highest tier Swiss Super League for the upcoming season. Thus, there is no reason to delete the page under the assumption that "he has not played in a fully pro league". For his stats see http://int.soccerway.com/players/antonio-marchesano/137988/ or his club-profile http://www.fcz.ch/en/first-team/squad/antonio-marchesano/ Could you therefore please reinstall the original page – otherwise I would have to rebuild a new one from scratch. Thanks & regards User:Fischbach

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Fischbach

Talk page removal

Hi, I'm not sure about this rationale. The India Project deals with India in all contexts, not just the post-partition era. Until 1947, Pakistan was a part of India and, tbh, I think it fairly likely that there are sources for Tarar in that wider context. - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've re-added it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Happy editng, -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Math in Swedish lake AfD

Your math in the AfD for the Swedish lake is wrong. 0.0321 km^2 is 32,100 m^2, not 32.1 m^2. I suggest you alter the nomination statement accordingly. Smartyllama (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Smartyllama: I'm watching the AfD, so I saw your comment. I think your comment clarifies the situation enough, so I'll leave it alone. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Merged as suggested the content of the Youde, Yould, Eaude articles into the Youd article.

I am the original author of the above surname articles. I noticed the comments made by editors and have now merged content into the Youd page, therefore Youde, Yould and Eaude pages could now be deleted. Not sure if I can or are supposed to delete these pages. I will also try to address the sourcing, referencing issues mentioned, but I have no previous experience of this and need to first familiarize myself, hopefully there is assistance available if I get stuck. Sindolf (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Sindolf

Deletion of redirect Nerve (upcoming film) -> Nerve (2016 film)

Hi, I'm not sure that this deletion is uncontroversial and therefore meets the criteria for speedy deletion, as redirects from old titles are normally kept. Or am I missing something? I would rather have this listed on Articles for deletion --Distelfinck (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Distelfinck: It was a redirect, so it would be listed at redirects for discussion. I've listed a bunch of these in the past, (see a previous discussion here) and it was determined to be housekeeping, which is the route I took this time. If you object to the deletion, I would restore it and subsequently list it at RfD. Is that the route you want to go or are you okay with the deletion? -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure yet. Various people mentioned that the redirects were misleading, but didn't specify who could be mislead --Distelfinck (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Anybody searching "Nerve (upcoming film)" would be looking for a film that is upcoming, not one that's already been released. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Could happen. I hope as soon as people doing a search for a movie click on the result and see in the article that the movie has already been released a couple of years ago, they will notice that they got the wrong article. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Jax0677 still moving to create pages

• Jax 0677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Tavix. Saw earlier that Jax has still apparently not learnt his lesson, and is still moving pages around to create new ones. He created Axis Mundi (album) by moving a page there, as well as Hey DJ (song), still getting bots to fix the created double redirects. Ss112 02:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: I've reupped his block to two weeks, and left a more lengthy explanation. Fingers crossed that the message will actually be received this time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tavix. I don't object to your unblock of User:Jax 0677, but I am unsure how optimistic we should be about the future. It looks to me that the bottom line is moving redirects. Any admin who notices Jax0677 moving a redirect in the future would be justified in taking action for violation of his unblock condition. I wonder if this is also your reading of the situation. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Oh yes, definitely. I've got a feeling that he's aware of that from the statement I quoted when unblocking him. I'm cautiously optimistic that he's finally starting to "get it" but I do still have my reservations. If he continues his disruption, it'll be easy for any admin to reblock. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If you think it would be useful, there is also the option of logging the unblock condition at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Final warnings / Unblock conditions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Your recent move of one of the Regents articles.

Hello Tavix Where was the discussion that preceded this move? Not sure why one of the several Regents bands was assumed to have primacy over the others. Can you explain please? Peteinterpol (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Simply because The Regents already redirected there, making disambiguation unnecessary. Feel free to start a discussion if you feel one necessary. Alternatively, just move it back, but be sure retarget The Regents to Regents (disambiguation). -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tavix. I am a bit surprised you made this move without the need to start a discussion. You will see I already did start a discussion on the previous occasion prior to the arrangements that you have moved away from, please see: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:The_Regents as well as the Talk pages of the other relevant articles.

The point I made on that occasion I think still stands; that with several bands with this name, I have not seen the case being made for the one you have given primacy to. The anomalous redirect that you mention probably just needed addressing on its own. Can you please revert the undiscussed series of changes you made rather than leaving it to others to restore the status quo that you disrupted without any discussion? Thanks, Peteinterpol (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but it wasn't a "series" of changes, just one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2

I’m sorry, I just started editing again after a number of years off, and wondering if I missed something over the last few years with regards to SUPPORT and OPPOSE sections of an Rfd. Are you saying a editor states OPPOSE, really means SUPPORT? Damn, I’m going to run again and win by a landslide :-).ShoesssS ^Talk 21:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the joke went over your head... -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I’m a short guy….so that is possible :). If you are here stateside, have a great Holiday weekend. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! Cheers, -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Friends (newspaper column)

Yes, get rid. Not sure if you're from UK but God, what a mess this pair made of everything!Bashereyre (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm an American so I'll just have to take your word for it! -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting restoration for AxisB page

Hi Tavix,

Greetings! I have noticed that the Wikipedia page on AxisB has recently been deleted. Might we be able to request the restoration of this page?

Just to let you know, I am currently the Overseas Content Manager for AXB Entertainment and am in charge of the English translation of official content on the group's official social media accounts. The lack of English-based resources regarding the group, which is under our independent agency, is precisely the reason why we decided to create a Wiki page -- so that we can give fans access to some background information about the group.

Our company website http://axb.company/xe/ is still in progress, so we have no other way to comprehensively collate the information we have to date on the group in English. We would very much appreciate it if the restoration of AxisB on Wikipedia would be approved.

Should you need to review our social media pages, we are active on Facebook at http://facebook.com/AxisB.official and on Twitter at http://twitter.com/AxisB_official.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration.

Sincerely, Joanna

Fkdaxb928 (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

New move request for New York

In case you are still unaware of this discussion, there is a new discussion for renaming New York to New York (state). As you participated in the previous discussion on this topic, you may want to express your opinion in the new disussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirects from lyrics

Unlike My Anaconda Don't, do any of the following redirect pages fail WP:NOTLYRICS: Teenage Wasteland, I Really Really Really Really Really Really Like You, Time of My Life (Pitbull and Ne-Yo song), All I Know Are Sad Songs, Say You Never Let Me Go, Every day I'm shuffling, But if you close your eyes, You Are (Coldplay song), Give Me One Good Reason, I don't need no money, I’m feeling drunk and high, You're my sweetheart, The map that leads to you, This girl is on fire, and Say Geronimo. 73.204.241.132 (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFD is that way if you have problems with any redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

Why did you revert me adding {{Rcat shell}} to 4 redirects? Your edit summary says "rv empty rcat shell", but the reason I put them there is so that this message would be displayed:

• Manifold sort: If help is needed to determine appropriate categories, then this redirect populates Category:Miscellaneous redirects. Monitors of that category will check this redirect and add or remove rcats as needed.

which explains why I put the shells there. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 09:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in rcatting. I don't think it's helpful to have an empty shell, so I removed them in accordance with "add or remove rcats as needed". I will note that I did add an rcat a couple times (for example, there was an obvious {{R from plural}}). -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Article of Kiran Kaverappa

The article Kiran Kaverappa now has proper citation in The Hindu newspaper. (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/standing-apart-with-his-poetic-lyrics/article19182902.ece) Hopes that which is enough for an article. Kindly retrieve the article. Thank you.

Wikieditorksd (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thomas McNutt

How is WP:G6 inapplicable? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:G6: "Deleting a disambiguation page which either: disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"; or disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title". -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and read the note at the end "If it links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), simply change it to a redirect.". There's only one article being disambiguated. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

There's two: Thomas MacNutt and Collin Street Bakery. Even if there is only one, then do what that quote is recommending for you to do and change it to a redirect. There's no deletion action required or even recommended with one article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but if I get reverted I'm taking this to a second deletion discussion and we're going to have ask why you restored it in the first place. I think this is a lot of silliness on the part of editors trying to advertise a political candidate. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with a redirect with a hatnote to the other use. If it comes up again, simply link to this discussion as I'm not sure what more I'd have to explain without repeating myself. The disambiguation isn't "advertising" a political candidate—it links to encyclopedic content we have on someone named "Thomas McNutt", in accordance with WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"I'm not sure what more I'd have to explain" You seem to have a history involving redirects. A disinterested party would question your actions and I don't think it wise to provoke criticism by restoring the redirect in the first place. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

My only action was to restore a disambiguation page that didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I have no interest in any redirects involving the title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment revert

Hello. How come you reverted my comment here? Yeryry (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yeryry: I'm sorry about that! I had no idea that had happened until you left this message. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, at least I hadn't done anything wrong :) I'll just restore it. Thanks. Yeryry (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

TfD

This is a novel argument. There has never been an "orphan" close at TfD, nor will there ever be, since orphaning is never an end unto itself. The standard practice of many years now has been for non-admins to handle deletion outcomes because the next step in the typical next step in the process – orphaning – can be carried out by a non-admin (or listed at WP:TFD/H, more likely). As the policy currently stands, it doesn't make sense. It isn't even an exception to allow a theoretical "orphan" close, since orphaning can be carried out by a non-admin. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-admins should never close anything as delete since they do not have the authority to carry it out. But that's another discussion for another day. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That hasn't been the practice at either TfD or CfD for years, but I guess I'll get an RfC going to confirm that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was short with you earlier, I didn't have a lot of time and it's an issue I feel quite strongly about. I've since sat down and listed my reasons at User:Tavix/non-admin closes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Kosovo and Metohija (disambiguation)

Hi, would you, please, reconsider the deletion of the page Kosovo and Metohija (disambiguation), since there are several other articles that could be additionally put on the list in that page, like: Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija and Office for Kosovo and Metohija, an also Serbian National Council of Kosovo and Metohija. Those articles are not listed in any disambiguation page, and all of them contain specific term "Kosovo and Metohija" in their primary titles. Also, as we are speaking about deletions regarding Kosovo and Metohija, could you please comment on this proposed deletions of some redirects that are containing inaccurate time spans: Proposed deletion of incorrect redirects on Kosovo and Metohija. Sorabino (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The disambiguation page I deleted had none of those articles in it, so I'll stand by my deletion. Can those articles be known simply as "Kosovo and Metohija"? I'm wary that those entries wouldn't be valid per WP:PTM. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that too, but it seems to me that it would be OK, since the term "Kosovo and Metohija" in the titles of those articles is not arbitrary or descriptive, because all three titles are actually the official names of the institutions, containing the term. We have a redirect Kosovo and Metohija, pointing to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and that redirect is used in that sense in many articles, so if we would turn that redirect into a disambiguation page we would also have to make quite a number of necessary corrections in many articles. Sorabino (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Simply containing the term wouldn't be enough to overcome WP:PTM, it would have to be used as a common name. People refer to the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija simply as "Kosovo and Metohija", but I can't imagine someone referring to the office or the ministry in that manner. If you insist, I won't stop you from creating a disambiguation with those terms, but someone else might not think those terms would be valid entries and challenge it at WP:AFD. Best wishes, -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point. When the deletion proposal was made I started discussion on the talk page, because I was expecting some conversation on the subject. I am also not sure that those additions would make the recreated disambiguation page last long, and I will follow your advice here. Thanks. Sorabino (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Tamust

I created a redirect instead of deleting it, since this may be a relevant search term. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And I reverted since it's not helpful to redirect something somewhere that doesn't mention the term. I'm not sure if that means you don't want the content deleted, so feel free to remove the prod if you think the article shouldn't be deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Tavix/name

Did you use a tool to generate this list? I have a list of some ~160,000 names that I want to convert into wikilinks but I can't think of an efficient way to do it. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: I used Excel formulas to create columns for the full name, given name, and surname, and then used a concatenate formula to combine them all together with Wikilinks. I can go into details if you're interested. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I should be able to work with that. I've never really had to use Excel so was unaware of that function. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do let me know if you'd like me to explain any of the steps, I'd be happy to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

XFDcloser?

Hey Tavix, I'm not sure how XFDcloser works since I do not use it. But ... just FYI, I had to add these anchors since the tool added an edit summary to the deletion that redirect to nonexistent sections. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

XFDcloser is a wonderful tool. I highly recommend it, even if it's just for relisting. Evad37 is usually really good about fixing bugs, so I'll ping them and see if they can work out a solution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Starnes

Could you take a look at the page history and possibly semi-protect it? I'd do it myself but I've reverted several times so I consider myself involved, even if I'd be fully justified in doing so. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That was an easy call, but I respect wanting a second opinion. I've protected for 6 months, as it seems like this has been going on for several months now. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia/Dubai

I was clicking around a bit; the articles I looked at were all created by a sock of Tobias Conradi. Odd that this didn't come up at the AfD, or that they weren't deleted when the sock was blocked--way back in 2011... Drmies (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just going to query whether that AfD was closed too rapidly - not that I disagree with the outcome (see my comment there), but shouldn't we wait for some more input? Or do you reckon that the above sock connection prejudices the lot for easy deletion? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I did notice that they were created by a sockpuppet. I could have easily deleted the lot per WP:G5, but I did not want to spend the time verifying that none of them had any significant contributions by others (I doubt it, but I can't be sure). For the other query that I might have closed it too soon, it's common to delete AfDs that had little participation so long as there is no opposition to delete. Per WP:NOQUORUM, perhaps it would have been better practice to call it "soft delete", but I decided not to when I saw who created it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I have no problem with it either way, but again, I was surprised to find no mention of it at all in that AfD; it would have forestalled my doubts. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Tavix, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! No promises that I'll end up helping out at RfD though ;) Cheers, ansh666 19:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Congrats and thank you for taking the time to leave a note. I wanted to after my RfA, but I got too overwhelmed with the number of people to thank and it just never happened (outside of my nominators). I certainly wasn't expecting you to jump right in and become the most active admin at RfD right away, so no worries there! That being said, if you ever get bored there's been a consistent backlog there for about a year now. Please let me know if I could be of any assistance and best of luck getting used to the new tools! -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Heh, don't tell anyone, but it's mostly copy-pasted :) Though I guess I'd be truly crazy (or bored) if it weren't! And besides, people complained about my edit count so this is a good way to get it up a bit higher! ansh666 21:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've certainly seen people do worse things out of boredom. The edit count complaints seem to have backfired nicely though, so you might want to thank them too! Best, -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Folk

Nick Folk could use protection at this point. It'll only get worse over the next few hours. Lizard (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

30/500 protection perhaps? Lizard (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

All of the vandalism after my protection has been by accounts more than 30 days old, so it wouldn't make a difference at this point. I'm doubtful it would be useful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

30/500 prevents editors with less than 30 days tenure or less than 500 edits from editing a page. Lizard (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A billion bucks

Just out of curiosity, why did you speedy this as A9? While it may have had A9 content in its history, it was a redirect that hadn't been touched in like 8 years. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I came across it and it became apparent that should have been speedied instead of redirected then. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Stavros

Hello Tavix - can I have some advice please? Stavros is a dab page tagged for cleanup. Like a few others pages with human names, it contains a lengthy preamble which is not "legal" for a dab page but would be helpful on an anthroponymy article. Is it sensible (here, and in cases like this) to move the preamble and many given name and surname entries to a new article Stavros (name) and format the (now shorter) dab page properly? Although Stavros (name) would still be a dab page, wouldn't it? Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: Yes, there would need to be a split of name contents. There's two ways to do the split depending on what may be more primary: either splitting the name to Stavros (name), or keeping the name as-is, and moving the rest to Stavros (disambiguation). No, the anthroponymy page would not be a disambiguation, although it would still have some functionality of one. The guideline for those name pages may be found WP:MOSAPO. It's easier for me to just show you how I would handle the situation instead of explaining it, so I went ahead and made the split. There's still several people that can be added to the list, as evidenced by the prefix index. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a superb answer - thank you. And I've also learned that template:Given name can have a qualifier "both". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

X1 Refund

Hi, would you be able to restore Оборонительная операция в Литве и Латвии and Śrimati? They were on my watchlist so I'd assume I've probably rcatted them, which means that I've likely seeen them as legitimate. I don't know about the first redirect, but the second one is useful (assuming it redirects to Shrimati): it's from the IAST/ISO tranlisteration to a common English romanisation. – Uanfala 06:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding Твёрдый знак, which is mentioned at what I presume must have been its target: Ъ. – Uanfala 08:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, thank you for following-up. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Good, thanks! I've had a look to double-check and these are definitely keepworthy, with the possible exception of Оборонительная операция в Литве и Латвии, which looks like one of several ways to refer in Russian to the topic, it's still legitimate though. – Uanfala 14:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about deletion discussions

I'd like to thank you for informing me about WP:BADNAC on my Talk page, but I also have another question: recently I relisted four of my own RFDs mainly to clear out an old page, but also because they were getting little to no discussion. Is this usually allowed, even though I started these discussions? The relisted discussions start here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, jd22292! It's always encouraging to see editors tying to get more involved. Ironically enough, by relisting your own RfDs, you've simply prolonged them from being closed. Per WP:RGUIDE, "If a good-faith RfD nomination has no discussion, the default result is delete." I haven't seen any guidelines against relisting one's own nominations. I usually don't unless I have to, and I've seen others quote WP:INVOLVED when relisting their own nominations. It really depends what your motive is. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

While I happen to be on your talk page, a quick reaction here as well. I remember having seen an admin strongly discouraging relisting one's own nomination (or relisting by anyone participating in the discussion) because it may always lead to question marks about the motive. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page that has been deleted

Hi! I hope I've come to the right place for this, I am trying to re-create a page I made a few months ago that was deleted due to lack of references/sources. The page I want to re-create is D,Kr - and it says to contact the users who performed the actions listed below, which led me to you.

I was wondering if it would be okay now to try again? I have more sources and information to add. I am not the best at Wikipedia, so sorry if I'm making my first mistakes on here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shokrijan (talk • contribs) 08:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Declined PROD on Isabelle Goldenson

FYI that I deprodded Isabelle Goldenson, though I also found and added a few sources so it no longer fails WP:V. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw that you found a couple sources, that's good enough for me! Thanks, TheCatalyst31. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please restore Chishmy (disambiguation)

Can you please restore Chishmy (disambiguation) to my userspace or to List of places named Chishmy? Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  02:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: Sure, I have moved it to User:AjaxSmack/Chishmy (disambiguation). -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  13:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A redirect you deleted

Back in March you deleted List of festivals in Prince Edward Island, a redirect created by a sockpuppet. I found it redlinked from another article I came across, and I'd like to restore it as-is notwithstanding G5 because I think it's useful the way that it was categorized. What do you think? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I don't have any objection. However, consider recreating it yourself so it would no longer be eligible for G5 moving forward. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's a good point. I'll see what I can do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 24#Annie clark

I appreciate your intent, but I really don't think you should be the one to close this discussion. It is clear that we disagree in this RfD discussion, and it's best to let an uninvolved user close this. Would you kindly revert your close, please? feminist 11:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Feminist: I'm not sure what you're talking about, I don't see any disagreement in that discussion. I was simply trying to figure out what your motives were. When you gave your options, literally only one of them was valid the way it was nominated. When you wanted to "move on", I gave you the opportunity to "move on" by carrying out that only valid option. So what are you doing coming back here? Did you not actually want to "move on"? You should know better than to pull stunts like this, you’re not a newbie. Look, I do not care where Annie clark targets so I am not involved, but I'm not going to reopen a flawed nomination. If you think both Annie clark and Annie Clark require an RfD, you have been around long enough to know that your nomination should include both redirects, not just one of them. Also, if you’re going to nominate anything, please explain your reasons for nominating. It’s not helpful to simply state a cryptic factoid that does not give any clue to your goals. For example, I'm assuming this is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question (although you haven't bothered to mention that). If you think there is or is not a primary topic, you should explain your reason(s) why you feel that way. If you are unsure, you should explain why you are unsure. If you can do all that, simply open a fresh RfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously?

You restored the redirects after another admin had already deleted them? Whatever. Wikipedia has become a bit of a snoozefest lately anyways. Guess the place needed drama somewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't restore them, the deleting admin did after a chat on their talk page. I then went through and declined your G7 requests because the author did not request deletion. That's pretty standard procedure, I'm not sure where the drama is. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• So... I just acknowledged how unfair it was that I did not follow up on any of your direct responses to me. So, here goes...

As you probably figured, I assumed that you restored the redirects and then denied the CSDs. But, after realizing what actually happened (you requesting their restoration at User talk:Athaenara), my level of frustration did not change in the least. What usually happens in such a case on RfD is when a redirect is nominated for deletion and then the creator of the redirect casts a "delete" vote without any votes to retarget or keep, the redirect is good to delete per WP:CSD#G7. Worse case scenario, the redirect gets recreated by someone else targeting a different, more appropriate target. On a related note, the creator of the redirects has seemingly moved on to editing unrelated articles.

I have other thoughts in general about some other things related to this whole scenario, but I'll keep them to myself. I guess the only thing I feel okay sharing on here is related to me: I'm not having a 2nd RfA. I've decided that I actually enjoy having the freedom to basically get pissed off and leave whenever I want to and not have to give a second thought. If I were an admin, I would not have that privilege since my attitude would be under a microscope; in fact, as my RfA proved, "retiring" multiple times looks bad for adminship chances, according to the community. Well, if me doing what I have to do to keep myself sane while dealing with things on here means I can never be an administrator, so be it. Anyways, I just took a figurative dose of "Effitol", and I'm not sure when the dose is going to wear off enough to have me edit again. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Could you please take another look at the redirects you tagged for G7? You seem to have mixed up Annki777 and Ajf773. Ajf773 was the one who commented on the RfDs, but it was Annki777 who created (most of) those redirects. I've looked through Anki777's recent contributions a few times now, and I haven't found any indication that they want those redirects deleted (in fact, this diff makes me assume the opposite.) I understand how G7 typically works at RfD, in fact I've normally been the one to carry them out lately. I also want to add that I'd usually be okay with deleting such redirects as G6, but as I mentioned on Athaenara's talk page, I want those discussions to go at least the full week. Annki777 mentioned they are improving List of tourist attractions in Surat and I think it's fair to give them an opportunity to do so before they are deleted. As I will probably be the one to delete them in a few days (unless one of the other admins decide to become active again), really the only editor's time being "wasted" would be my own. I do see that list as a good target for the correctly-formatted redirects, given that content is written. I'm tempted to expand the tourist attraction list myself as my optimism that Anki777 will do so has waned since Friday. I'll have some free time tomorrow, but it depends on my motivation. I really hope you don't see those actions as "pedantic" or a "power trip" as I really do think this is a silly misunderstanding. As for a 2nd RfA, I assumed as much when you left in April. I hope you don't feel any pressure to run again in the future because I appreciate how stressful of a situation that was for you. I wish you well, -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure enough, Annki777 versus Ajf773. Arg, I feel like a character in a sitcom who assumed what was going on (though the audience knew the truth) and made a complete fool of themselves. Yep, my G7s were invalid. 🤦‍♂️ Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries Steel, I'm just glad we were able to get it figured out. I wish I would have mentioned that in my original response, but I didn't have the time I wanted to give it over the weekend. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Eastern League teams

Template:Eastern League teams has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

🙃 listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🙃. Since you had some involvement with the 🙃 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion. Gorobay (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Dye

Why was "Elizabeth Dye" deleted, if there was one vote for keep and one for delete? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a gross mischaracterization of the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)