User talk:Tassedethe/Archive 3

HotCat & red categories

When using HotCat, please click on the ± next to a red category before removing it from a page. Had you done this at Microsoft Innovation Center you would have seen that the correct name for Category:Innovation Organizations is Category:Innovation organizations. To see how this works, you can goto the old version of this page before you removed the category here and click on the ± next to the red category. Thank you. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 02:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to revert your edit at that page due to intervening edits, but I was able to revert your change at Paras TV so you can see how this looks here. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 02:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I re-removed the category on Paras TV. It is already categorized as Category:Television stations in India which is a subcategory of Category:Indian media. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Simon & Garfunkel

Thanks for picking up those dab errors - I had intended to go back and check all of them but forgot to do it! Cheers Tvoz/talk 18:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Prescott

Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Louis Dumont Article

Hello,

Ever since you redirected the Louis Dumont Article, I can't seem to remove it from my Watch List. Any thoughts on why? Thanks. -- Michael David (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems odd. I've not heard of that before. Perhaps you can try clicking 'watch' and then 'unwatch' and see if that clears it? Tassedethe (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally found & solved the mystery. It appears that when the Dumont article was moved, my "Watch" was on one of the Talk Pages. It took looking at both of the articles and their Talk Pages and finding the one with the "Watch" notice. If that makes sense to you, you're a smarter person than I am :-). Be healthy. -- Michael David (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tuskegee Airmen

I am leaving the page to avoid edit warfare. Will finish up later.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Red Link Recovery Live

Per your request of (mumble) months ago, the RLRL tool now offers the 'create redirect' AUTOFIX option for all suggestions. Apologies for the delay. Due diligence on sem-automated wikiediting's a bit of a pain. New set of suggestions up there also. Have fun. - TB (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot. Tassedethe (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Josué Méndez

Thanks for help fixing the redirects and disambiguation page. PicodeGato (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Stewart & Daniel Stewart (disambiguation)

Hi. Can you fill me in on why my move was not correct. Thanks. Dawnseeker2000 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh never mind. I shoulda used the move function. I see now. Dawnseeker2000 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Johnson

Please restore the page to its original name as per consensus. Thanks. Ryan Johnson (soccer player). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To spare the back and forth, the page was moved to "footballer" without consensus. Check the history. I was unable to move it back because the editor started a move war. I then started a discussion where the outcome was "no consensus". Therefore, the page was moved back to its original name as there was no consensus for one name over the other. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Tassedethe (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's confusing for someone who wasn't involved. I'm not sure what I should do on the talk to make it more obvious. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well with all the edits to the pages noone can move it to (footballer) or (soccer player) without an administrator. I had a quick look at WikiProject Football but I couldn't find a statement about US players being dabbed with (soccer) (vs footballer for other countries). It must be around somewhere. Tassedethe (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to a WP Football member on a talk page discussion, the article should use the convention of the national team the person plays for regardless of WP:TIES, something I disagree with, as a WikiProject cannot override a Wikipedia guideline. My concern is another administrator coming by and moving it like you did. I don't want to keep having to explain every time it happens. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if it happens again I will certainly support retention at (soccer). When a move is disputed it should always default to the stable name, not where it happened to end up when the discussion started. I'd never heard that argument (about international team) before and can't say I agree with it. It might be useful to decide unclear cases but not here. Tassedethe (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Rayado Tribe

What rationale did you have for removing the "Rayado Tribe" from the category "Plains Indians?"

• There is no category Category:Plains Indians, as you can see it's a red link. It is therefore not a part of the Category structure and is useless for navigation. Tassedethe (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, that would make sense. "Plains tribes" is the category I'm thinking of. :)Smallchief 23:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Glad there was a replacement. HotCat can find differences in punctuation but not major changes like that. Tassedethe (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Move of Hold Your Horses (album)

Hi, Tasse; I see that you have moved Hold Your Horses (album) to Hold Your Horses. When I created that page I deliberately used the disambiguator because of the existence of Hold your horses, which is an entirely different topic. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I added a hatnote from the album to the idiom. Tassedethe (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Recursion

Don't be such a wet blanket. :-D Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I did smile :-) Tassedethe (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to leave it self-categorized. Even Google does that kind of thing — search "recursion" and it'll ask "did you mean recursion?" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Google can no longer be regarded as an arbiter of what is 'good'. I won't revert but it will be flagged in the Database reports and so it may repeatedly be 'fixed'. Tassedethe (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Open letter (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Move and disambiguate "Irresistible (song)"

Hello. Can you move, Jessica Simpson's "Irresistible (song)" to "Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)". There are already two songs by the same name. Novice7 | Talk 10:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. Tassedethe (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

One less edit

It is now possible to use dabfix on redirects. Enjoy. — Dispenser 06:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff. Tassedethe (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Italics

Hello Tassedethe. I noticed the move and disambig page creation that you just performed for Life Story. I also noticed that the title for the TV film did not get put into italics when that massive task was performed a couple of months ago. Do you have any idea how to make that change or what talk page I would leave a message on to get that task performed. If not don't worry about it. Thanks for your good work on the page move and the followup to fix redirects. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the {{italicstitle}} template which does the job. I completely missed the change, although I did notice it eventually I have no idea how it came about. On the template talk page it says that it is transcluded into the film infobox. I assume if an infobox is added to Life Story italicstitle can be removed. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your efforts. Your info will also help me should I come upon any other articles with this problem. Continued happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ramones (album)

Err, you moved Ramones (Ramones album) to Ramones (album) but there are 2 albums of that name, there's also Ramones (Screeching Weasel album). That's against the standard naming guidelines for albums, WP:ALBUM#Naming. Will you restore it? Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation guides otherwise. We tend to disambiguate as little as needed - preferring if possible not to disambiguate at all. And we go for what a reader might expect to find. The Ramones album is the primary topic here, and the other album is a cover album of the primary topic, as such it is not an equal disambiguation. If it is felt that a reader may be looking for the tribute album and land on the Ramones album by mistake, then we can put a hatnote on the top of the article. I'll do that now, just to be sure - though we do have a disamb page already. The advantage of using Ramones (album), is that will reduce the chances of people ending up on the wrong page (as I did) because another editor has written Ramones (album) rather than Ramones (Ramones album) - and if somebody does write Ramones (Ramones album), they will still end up on the right page. I hope that explains my edit, though if not, please come back to me. SilkTork *^YES! 23:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It explains it but I don't agree. I'll prob make a move request at a later point. Although strictly as you have moved a stable article it should be reverted and your arguments should be put forward at WP:RM. I do like your offer of a nice cup of tea. I thought you'd personalised it just for me! Any biscuits? :) Tassedethe (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Chocolate digestive or HobNob? The notion of a primary topic is not mine, it's the consensus view, and it makes sense. See Thriller (album) and Thriller (Lambchop album), Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album). SilkTork *^YES! 00:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage notice

I have put in an example notice for you at User talk:Tassedethe/Editnotice. You can play around with it and personalise it. have fun! SilkTork *^YES! 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll take a Hobnob but I'll be offering rich tea only. Tassedethe (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

Can you stop trying to dab him please? Firstly, I already did, and secondly, you are actually undoing other dabs I did at the same time, thus re-introducing dablinks. Take a look at some of your diffs, e.g this one. DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had an old session open and didn't refresh it. Tassedethe (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Some Days Are Diamonds

A tag has been placed on Some Days Are Diamonds, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Aaaabbbbccccddddeeeeffff (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy added while in midst of creating dab page. Tassedethe (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ramsar sites

Re this; I realise you are just conforming these to the standard, which is good and I agree with you that it should be done. But it got me thinking—should all of these Ramsar sites categories really be "Ramsar sites of FOO"? Most environment-related categories use "of". Or does it become "in" because becoming a Ramsar site is a human invention, whereas being a mountain is not? The subcategories of Category:Biosphere reserves, Category:National parks, Category:Marine parks, and others use "of", whereas some of the other ones use "in". What do you think? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My head hurts just thinking about it. I think perhaps World Heritage Sites cats like Category:World Heritage Sites in Europe are the closest. If Ramsar is an outside agent then they become in the country not of it. Category:National parks and the like are defined by the country, so can be regarded as of it. But I could argue myself 180 degrees. Tassedethe (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain R. T. Claridge

Thanks for noticing and correcting the Dr James Currie link in the Captain R. T. Claridge article. The article is essentially in maintenance phase now, and your effort in that regard is appreciated. Regards Wotnow (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. Happy New Year. Tassedethe (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Tassedethe/dabs/89

Just out of curiosity, what is that? I used Special:Whatlinkshere to find out if anyone has ever used my name and its used there (Alex Roggio). Feedback ^☎ 10:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's my (very poor) attempt to discover whether there are redlinks to similar names e.g. if Alexander Lastname is an article but Alex Lastname is a redlink. I did this a while ago, perhaps there was a redlink (in the dump) to Alex Roggio at that point in time. I'll have a quick purge of the page. Tassedethe (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig

i copied the design from someone else. I'll have to ask. Not familiar with the coding yet to know how to put it in myself. Bulldog123 13:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Tassedethe (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixes

Thank you for checking and fixing the roster templates. I have been trying to get them created and putting the best information in that I can. Again, thank you a lot. Weatherman05071 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sam Ellis (UK Youth Parliament)

Just a heads up that I undeleted this article per a request at WP:REFUND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Afd here I come. Tassedethe (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Berit Mørdre-Lammedal

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Berit Mørdre-Lammedal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to add the redirect. Tassedethe (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Roth (musician)

The article John Roth (musician) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mhiji 03:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

revert predictable

could you roughly indicate why you think predictable is less strongly linked to predictability than to a bunch of ephemeral pop songs? -- Kku 14:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It was more the fact that you cut/paste the contents to a different page in violation of WP:CUTPASTE. If you want to argue that predictable should redirect you should open a requested move to have the article moved. I'd say that predictability is not much more than a wiktionary entry, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tassedethe (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for the help with Zakouski and New York City Ballet! — Robert Greer (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tassedethe (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

CfD

Since you commented on 'Modern American Weapons' at CfD, the proposal has been modified somewhat. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to take another look at the modified proposal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll add a short comment. Tassedethe (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ivan Hippolyte

This message is regarding Ivan Hippolyte being placed as a K-1 World Max Champion and should be reeditied as a K-3 Grand Prix Champion.

It is to my understanding that the K-3 and K-1 World Max Championships were of seperate catagories and as such should be seperated. Within the K-1 official website they state their K-1 World Max Champions in order of induction. In no official way do they include or recognize Ivan Hippolyte among that list indicating that Ivan should be placed within a separate category.199.126.41.223 (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"People from" categories

I have closed your first "People from" discussion; the others are still open. Please note that the closing admins won't necessarily check where disambiguation category pages are needed, or create them where you say they should be. However, you are free to creatwe any you feel are necessary, once the discussions are closed and the categories are renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I'll wait a few days and then see if I can create the ones left over. Tassedethe (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks

I got myself dizzy trying to fix the various Dave Wills redirects and disambiguation pages and thought they had spontaneously untangled themselves until I noticed your name in the edit histories. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Zeng8r (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, I've been there myself! Tassedethe (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Caterpillar Club

You are in Edit history as an editor on this article. It has been multiply tagged for improvement as an alternative to being recommended for deletion. This is a request for editorial intervention to improve this article. Please help if possible.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Portishead - thanks

Thanks for sorting out the mess for Portishead, Somerset. Things are now back as they should be. Could you also delete the one that I erroneously created while trying to fix things i.e. Portishead (Somerset)? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. What a mess. Tassedethe (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps as an admin you could have a gentle word with the user concerned and tell him to stop buggering about with things! In the nicest possible way of couse...--Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, let's see if that helps. Tassedethe (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

John McDougall

Hi, you have amended the page for John_MacDougall_(rugby_player) by changing Mc to Mac. Why? Dr McDougall spelt his name Mc not Mac. I have copies of correspondence from him with the correct spelling (the originals are in the National Archives) plus I have his autograph confirming Mc and not MaC as the correct spelling of his name despite what other sources (such as Scrum.com) may have. Please revert back. Thanks. RichardLowther (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• I will do because I have looked on Google book search and that does seem to confirm Mc is more popular. Tassedethe (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted category

I am wondering why you deleted the articles from "Category:Children orphaned by Nazism" and why the category was deleted without notifying me so that I could explain its merits? I will admit the wording could have been improved, but overall, I think the category is worthy. All four articles you edited to remove the category were about people who, while children (in one case, Hans Coppi, Jr., an infant) were made orphans by the Nazis. It was not their sole claim to fame, but it certainly had an impact on their lives, to put it mildly. I'd like to read the discussion on why this category was deleted, but cannot find it. Marrante (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Category:Children orphaned by Nazism was not deleted as it was never created. I removed the red linked categories from the articles as they were useless for navigation as they were not part of the category system. A similar category was deleted recently Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 11#Category:People whose family was killed in The Holocaust and I suspect your proposed category would be treated similarly. Tassedethe (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read the discussion and much of it centered on the vagueness and inclusiveness of the wording. In fact, it seems as though many of those who supported deletion would actually support the category I thought I had created. This is not a general category about people whose family (including extended family) was killed, but rather a more narrow one for children orphaned by Nazis. This excludes other family members killed and even those who "merely" lost one parent, or those who were older than children. As you saw, in my initial search, I only found four names to put in the category, though I would assume there are others. Marrante (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say your proposed category still suffers from vagueness and inclusiveness. This is a pertinent quote from that discussion "Narrower categories are possible, such as children of Holocaust victims, that would cure the vagueness problem though perhaps be subject to other deletion arguments." You are entitled to create and populate this category but as I said above it's not clear that it would survive a deletion discussion. Tassedethe (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

More problems with Ebony March

The account you blocked [1] for racist vandalism on the Ebony March article [2] is one of the many socks of Ebony March herself. I've opened an SPI [3] where you may wish to comment, as you are the AfD nominator as well as the admin who blocked one of the socks. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. Certainly looks like a train wreck. Tassedethe (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Featherstone RUFC

Hi, I notice that you have made contributions to the Featherstone article. The current rugby league club, Featherstone Rovers, wasn't founded until 1902, and appears to have no links to the earlier rugby union (RU) club. However, I have contributed to an article about James "Jimmy" Metcalfe, and I have found details of him playing for Yorkshire (RU) in 1896/7 while playing at Featherstone (RU), would you have any information about the RU club of the 1800s in Featherstone. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I wish I could help but I'm further from having any information to hand than ever before. I'll certainly keep a lookout though. Good luck with the article. Tassedethe (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A disambiguation page for the entry Polen is needed

Thanks for nice invitation. It seems to me that it is now needed a disambiguation page for the entry Polen. Link to Polen_(album) should be placed precisely on the site, rather than on the Poland page. I posted a sample solution in Polen, as a comment. Regards. --Robsuper (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I had to remove your comment as it broke the redirect. I don't think a dab page is necessary. There are only two items and I'd say Poland was a lot more likely destination than the album. Tassedethe (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your explanation. I started about it, because I try to correctly solve the problem of the disambiguation for the term Polska. More in a new thread. Regards. --Robsuper (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

/* Livid Records */

I was under the impression that although the page had been previously deleted that adding new information to back up the fact of notability was a just cause for further discussion when keeping a page around. Now you have scrapped all of my research and there is nothing to show for what I was doing. If you look at the discussion page for the Livid_records page, you will see that I backed up all notability. Also what is the time frame that an author has to work on a page before it is a candidate for "Speedy Deletion" seems like it makes no progress in this community to just simply delete things but would better the community to listen to EVERYONE's side of the story on a subject that the deleting party may not have any information on.Borgleteets (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• When a page has been deleted after a discussion any undiscussed recreation of that page is eligible for speedy deletion. When it is recreated at a slightly different name, as happened in this case, it appears to be an attempt to avoid discussion and get around the rules. If you have additional information that goes to notability the correct response is to build the page in your user area and then either contact the administrator who closed the discussion, or submit it through Wikipedia:AFC. I can restore the deleted article text to a page in your user area if you wish. Tassedethe (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A disambiguation page for the entry Polska

Everything is clear. Now I understand that I should use the template {{redirect|Polska}}. One have to put it on top of the page Poland, just like you did with {{redirect|Polen}}. Then at Polska_(disambiguation) need to place what is associated with the entry Polska. And after the trouble. Use of template {{redirect|location}} on the target page will make that there won't be the need to place any content at the entry Polska with the exception of the directive #REDIRECT [[Poland]], and therefore does not rise the next dab page. Many thanks. Sincerely. --Robsuper (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How Loathsome Category Deletions

What's up? Why? Thanks! Startswithj (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no such category as Category:Transgender Literature so I removed it. Nothing was deleted. The comic is correctly categorized as Category:LGBT-related comics. Tassedethe (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I originally categorized as Transgender Literature as it was more accurate, and with the intention to flesh out that category more. (Is that not the way to create new categories?) I've since added the article also to the pre-existing category of LGBT-related comics, though this might be arguably incorrect (comics≠graphic novels). But I'm new at this Wikipedying. Thx Startswithj (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to create a new category you need to add an existing category to the red-linked category so you would add, for instance, [[Category:Literature]] to Category:Transgender literature (note lower case). Of course you shouldn't create a new category unless you are sure that is not served by an existing category. There are some categories in the Category:Graphic novels tree. Perhaps a new category of LGBT-related graphic novels which you would create with [[Category:Graphic novels by genre]]. If you are going to create a new category it is also good if you can find multiple articles to which it could be added. Categories created to hold just a single article are generally frowned upon and such a category might end up being merged. There is more info at WP:Cat. Happy editing. Tassedethe (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

On the Floor

I realise my moving of the article was inappropriate, for that I apologise. The reason I moved the article was because this User:Cprice1000/On the Floor is in creation. It is a song called "On the Floor" by Jennifer Lopez and I assumed that the amount of coverage it has received, makes it more notable than the current article at On the Floor was in the process of moving it out of the userspace into the mainspace. What do you think? Or would it be better to move the JLo song to On the Floor (song) first then open a move request? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 05:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend moving the song to On the Floor (song) first, then move the album again and convert On the Floor to a disambiguation page. If the stats on page views are obviously in favour of the song ([4]) then you can start a WP:RM request or even ask me. If I agree I'll move the page straight away. I'm not keen on replacing the page immediately without at least some evidence. Tassedethe (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okies that sounds sensible. I'll move to On the Floor (song) first. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Love Again (John Denver album) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Love Again (John Denver album). Since you had some involvement with the Love Again (John Denver album) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

SNFU's Marc Belke

Seems to me that Marc Belke should be included in the WikiProject Punk music project since he was the primary musical contributor to the band SNFU, and played and helped write every single album that the band released. Ken Chinn is included and rightly so as the bands front man and lyricist, but no one contests that Belke wrote the majority of the music, and as such was an essential element of the bands released work to date. Just a thought. 206.248.134.144 (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

John Adams, Sr

Thank you for the tea and biscuits.... I removed your ProD, because parents of United States Presidents are usually, but not always, considered notable. This particular article has a history of edit-warring and vandalism. Past outcomes at WP:AfD have gone various ways, but most often a keep. Category:Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial deletions. This man in particular has had whole chapters of major treatises and award-winning popular biographies written about him. I will work on it ASAP. I protected it in the meanwhile from further damage. Thank you in adavnce for your patience. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You should consider having the article at John Adams, Sr., where currently it's a redirect. This is preferred style per WP:QUALIFIER. Protecting the article seems overkill, there is no current edit war or attacks from vandals. Tassedethe (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Steve Katz

I performed the cut & paste prior to becoming an autoconfirmed user. However Steve Katz the musician is a WP:VAN article that probably is not not even notable. Steve Katz (politician) is a primary topic. I can perform the move myself without having to go through the RM process because of the backlog, although admittedly I am returning to Wikipedia after a few year hiatus and the task would probably be better left to a user with more recent experience. Archivist1174 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The musician is easily notable as the member of several notable bands, and the producer of several notable albums. I would dispute that the politician is the primary topic so a proper move request with your evidence would the way to go. Tassedethe (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain that would reflect the view of a significant minority, but a minority none the less. It is a necessary assumption that most people who be coming to Wikipedia to reach the political biographies, thus making them the primary source. We would not give equal weight to Scott Brown the musician, or the 18th century politician John McCain. By your recent move of Thomas Roach, the living Mayor of a major American city who just took office after a recent public event - whereby you've moved it and given it equal weight to an 18th century legislator from a province with a smaller population than that city, I think you should consult WP:Undue. "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." While you can find literally hundreds of references to establish the notability for both Steve Katz, a member of the New York State Legislature representing hundreds of thousands of people, and Thomas Roach, the same cannot be said for the Steve Katz (musician) and Thomas Roach (Canadian politican) articles. Archivist1174 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If you feel you have evidence please open a move discussion and present it. Tassedethe (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edmond Hayes

Re Edmond Hayes, Solicitor General, should the sucession etc be the other way round?

Durrus (talk)

Yep, I think I got it completely wrong. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Deutsche Babcock Al Jaber

Hi Tasse de the. Nice your nickname, I like the and biscuits! We were editing the Deutsche Babcock Al Jaber wikivoice at the same time. I discovered there were two pages with the same name but I choosed the other one among the two, because the name over the infobox was all the words just in one line. Unfortunately you've been faster than me and merging them, you choosed the other one. I don't want to create any edit conflict; simply among the two pages could you please revert and choosing the other page? As graphic it would be better just one line over the infobox: moreover in the text I had also modified a couple of saxon genitive. Please, as you're much more expert than me, let me know if it is possible. Thanks. --Gabriele1972 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Gabriele1972. The name you had before Debaj - Deutsche Babcock Al Jaber was mix of two names, Debaj is the acronym for Deutsche Babcock Al Jaber. I moved it to the full name without the acronym. I edited the hyphen so the name lies in one line. Tassedethe (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tasse de the for the hypen edited: now the name is all on the same line and even easier to read.

Coordination and cooperation are very good, and you're really quite fast. I've just modified grammar errors (saxon genitive) and added the logo in the infobox. --Gabriele1972 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

John Adams, Sr

I've added information and citations, notably several books. His home is now a National Park. I think that makes him notable. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'd say his home was a national park because it was the birthplace of John Adams rather than due to his notability, but there seem to be other references. Tassedethe (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Paralympics Task Force Invitation!

	You are cordially invited to join the Paralympics Task Force!
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining the Paralympics Task Force. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project. We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like the Paralympic Games and facilitate team work in the development of Paralympic Games articles.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
	I hope you accept! - Bib (talk)

CSD notification

The page Geneapro.com looks like it may be a valid CSD, but I prefer not to delete a page unless the creator has been notified. I understand that sometimes automated tools fail to do the notification for some reason. Not sure if that was the case, but could you make the notification?SPhilbrickT

• I was relying on the bot but I'll happily do the notification myself. Thanks for the message. Tassedethe (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2011! Mifter (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2011!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to there talk page with a friendly message.

• Thanks :-) Tassedethe (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles Francis Adams

I am wondering why you reverted two of my edits. Charles Francis Adams (disambiguation) is a a redirect to Charles Francis Adams which is the actual disambiguation page. I was merely trying to avoid that redirect. Thanks. GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I was looking for it in WP:INTDABLINK and it was in WP:FURTHERDAB. GcSwRhIc (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I hadn't realised that I was sending people to the wrong guideline, thanks for letting me know. Tassedethe (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Willie Smith (pitcher)

You know, I was perplexed and knew it didn't make any sense that there wouldn't be a Category:Baseball players from Georgia on Willie Smith (pitcher), but I never went back and figured it out. I now feel quite stupid. Thank you for cleaning my mess up. Woodshed (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, there probably aren't many baseball players from Georgia (country), but the Georgia categories always get the qualifier to be consistent. Happy editing! Tassedethe (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful

Noticed this weird redirect Ng.j (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not particularly weird. Wired redirects to Wire (disambiguation). As there are 2 albums called wired then Wired (album) should redirect to Wire (disambiguation). Tassedethe (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, did not see the second album there, but Wired (album) should be a dab page in itself. Not need to have to go through wires and all the other pages listed. Ng.j (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wired (album) would then be an incomplete disambiguation page, and those are generally not wanted (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Incomplete disambiguations). You're right though, there seem to be enough pages called Wired to make Wired a disambiguation page not a redirect. I'll set about that. Tassedethe (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

David Barr (Canadian Forces)

After unification of the Canadian Forces in 1968, the term Canadian Army Officer was deprecated. Ng.j (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a WP:RM to bring it into line with [[WP:NCP]. Tassedethe (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No need, you are right. I should have moved it to David Barr (Canadian Forces officer) in the first place. Cheers. Ng.j (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for letting me know. Tassedethe (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Circular dab

Hi, with this edit you have pointed the section straight back at itself. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I'll unlink it. Thanks for letting me know. Tassedethe (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Murray MacLehose, Baron MacLehose of Beoch

Hi. I shall be glad if you can join the discussion of the requested move of the article title of Murray MacLehose, of which you may be interested. --Clithering (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A Night like This

Hi there! I noticed you moving a few pages, and this is something unfamiliar to many editors, but I wanted to remind you "like" in the phrase "a night like this" is being used as a preposition. And per WP:CAPS, they are not capitalized in article titles. There was a previous discussion at Talk:A Girl like Me (Rihanna album), which may be helpful. Cheers! Yves (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. Tassedethe (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Could you please downgrade the protection level of my signature page to edit=autoconfirmed. mauchoeagle _(c) 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Tassedethe (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant just edit autoconfirmed. I still wanted move=sysop. mauchoeagle _(c) 01:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Done. Tassedethe (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. mauchoeagle _(c) 01:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

John D McHugh

Hello,

I notice that you changed the name John D McHugh to John D. McHugh. I am John D McHugh, and I can assure you that there is no full stop, point or period after the capital letter D as it is not an initial, simply a single letter.

I know this is very unusual, and so understand the mistake, but I would appreciate it if you could change it back, as I don't seem to be able to.

Thanks, John D McHugh Seanachi (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

[5]

Any reason for removing one of more famous cracking groups ? Sir Lothar (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Disambiguation pages only link to Wikipedia articles on the subject, or to articles which contain information on the suject. There is no information about a cracking group at Password cracking. As such there is no reason for it to be on the page. Please see the WP:DISAMBIG and WP:MOSDAB guidelines, especially MOS:DABRL. Tassedethe (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• I've fixed your edit to include only a single blue link per the guidelines. It's a pity that you link to an unreferenced list entry, there is no proof that this is a notable group. Tassedethe (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "It's a pity that you link to an unreferenced list entry". OK, if in your opinion it breaks WP:VER rule, feel free to remove it. IMHO it's one of more notable cracking groups, but (considering it's a pirate, underground group) for obvious reasons it's hard to find reliable, external references. Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • They are, for example, known for cracking Ubisoft's DRM protection - [6]. Sir Lothar (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reference, I've taken the liberty of adding it to the List of warez groups page. I'm sorry if my removal of the DAB entry seemed unnecessary but the sheer amount of nonnotable entries added to dab pages (with no attempt to link to anything even vaguely mentioning the item) means that most entries are removed with almost no further checking. This does mean that some possibly valid entries are lost but WP:ONUS does put that responsibility on the original editor. Regards, Tassedethe (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
      • OK. Glad, we could sort out this thing :). Regards, Sir Lothar (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Jason T. Smith

I would have preferred to leave the (politician) designation on Jason T. Smith since both Smith and Jason are fairly common names. When I titled it that at the initial creation I was thinking ahead to the future of Wikipedia when we might have several Jason Smiths and conceivably multiple Jason T. Smiths. But whatev..... Sector001 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• In general we don't add the (disambiguator) until it is needed, if and when there is another Jason T. Smith then it can be moved back. Happy editing. Tassedethe (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Partial sub disambiguation

I notice that you moved Peter Bell (Australian footballer) to Peter Bell (Australian footballer born 1976) today. There are two Peter Bells who played Australian footballer, this one, who played almost 300 games over 14 years including captaining his club and playing in two premierships (championships) and is still involved in the media. The other one, Peter R. Bell, played 30 games over 4 years and basically disappeared after that. If they were the only two Peter Bells out there, there would be no doubt as to which one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So, back in November I moved the article from the Peter F. Bell page to Peter Bell (Australian footballer), as he's not known as Peter F, and a hatnote to Peter R. would be suitable. So, is there any precedent of applying the PRIMARYTOPIC concept to a disambiguated page title, or is it a case of once you start dabbing, you have to ensure that every dab name chosen is completely unambiguous? I would prefer to revert back to (Australian footballer) and R., but the better alternative than the current situation would be to have (Australian footballer born 1976) and (Australian footballer born 1954) as the dabs. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Some people do apply PRIMARYTOPIC but I don't (nor do I agree with people who do). I work on doing a lot of fixing of disambiguation links so having completely unambiguous disambiguators makes that process a lot easier. E.g. If faced with John Smith (politician), John Smith (US politician), John Smith (Virginia representative) only one of those is clear. I would be happy with moving Peter R. Bell to Peter Bell (Australian footballer born 1954). The use of middle initials should be avoided unless its absolutely clear that is how they were referred to. Happy editing. Tassedethe (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dating tags

I understand your point of view (although it took a while to find it, as you linked to the wrong section of your archive), but where WP:URBLPR has cleared a month or is in the process of clearing a month, changing the tag but not the date ruins that work. The main thing is that as long as it has the appropriate tag on it, it will be cleared eventually. "Backdating" it to an arbitrary previous month doesn't really help as it ruins our tracking. I track both increases - which should be current month only) and decreases to try to work out how to do this task quicker. So far the only effective clearance mechanisms have been from unfortunately only a few dedicated WikiProjects, the WP:URBLPR team and some dedicated individual editors who work on topics. If you are of the opinion that "oldest articles should be done first", then date of tagging is fairly irrelevant - this catscan output actually shows the articles by date of creation, and has been used in the past by some to clear out the actual oldest UBLPs. The-Pope (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the incorrect link, two closely named topics. I think going into this further I will just be repeating myself. Tassedethe (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. I just wanted to point out that there are multiple ways to do this task, but the most effective one at the moment (over 50% of total cleared) is the month by month one, and making us go backwards to previously cleared months is counter-productive. The-Pope (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Care must be taken not to put the convenience of Projects over the improvement of Wikipedia. Brushing away things that don't fit with 'how things are done around here' is the triumph of bureaucracy over reason. Tassedethe (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that dating of tags is also only concerned with bureaucracy and trying to improve how things are improved, not that things are improved - we both agree on the importance of getting this job done. The only current project that is active in this area gets hurt by your choice of interpretation of the rules. The importance of being able to "clear" months, rather than having a constantly moving target is critical to the morale and drive of the few people still actively involved in the task.The-Pope (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as we're still going how about a compromise. If a page is discovered that should (at least by my interpretation) go in a category that has now been deleted how about it be tagged so that it goes in the nearest category that is still being processed. That would mean the Michael D. Phelan would go in January 2010. That way it it doesn't go to the back of the queue (satisfying me) but doesn't cause a cleared category to suddenly reappear (hopefully satisfying you). Any good? Tassedethe (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's a one off article, then it doesn't really matter - it's a bigger issue is a bot runs through hundreds of articles at a time. If an article appears in the Australia, Cricket or Olympics lists I'll do them straight away, regardless of what month it's tagged, as I prefer to work by topic, not by month. I think it's similar for Ice hockey and Metal (music) - there are people would are watching those UBLP lists. For those who like to work by month, then having a stable list to work off is so much better than articles appearing at any time. As I've said before, whichever date you use, it will be done eventually - and unlike when the list was 50,000 long and eventually was some very unknown time, I can almost guarantee that all of 2010 will be completed by July and to June 2011 by September at the latest. Putting at an arbitrary past month might elevate it in some people's eyes (well most people - the urge to do a single article cleanup cat is overwhelming!), but it isn't the only way that things are cleared. (And as we type, someone else has changed a tag putting an article back into Oct 2009!) The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael W. Frerichs

You redirected this page to itself. I pointed it where I thought it should go. Thanks Gurch (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Tassedethe (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael Frost

You've messed this up. Disambiguation pages are not required when there are only two subjects. Please arrange to undo this and add a hatnote for the second article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dab pages are not required for 2 pages when one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I don't think either of these people is primary; see WP:TWODABS. Tassedethe (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Cure - Reflections

Hey buddy, I just wanted to thank you for your edits on the page! :) U21980 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

sortname & dab=

a) A warm welcome, a nice cup of tea, and some biscuits - i) Sorry, don't like tea - is coffee OK? ii) Mmmm. Biscuits! Tim Tams?

b) Context: your edit and {{sortname|James|O'Sullivan|dab=police officer}}

Howdy Tassedethe! I thought I was quite familiar with "sortname", but I've never seen "dab=", and I can't find anything relevant / enlightning in the sortname documentation. Can you point me at something that is relevant and/or enlightning? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could enlighten you but someone asked me about this before and I couldn't answer then. Obviously I must have copied it from someone as it seems that it must still be undocumented. Enjoy the coffee. I'm not familiar with Tim Tams but who couldn't like a chocolate biscuit covered in chocolate. No good for dunking I'd imagine. Tassedethe (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Tams

I'm not familiar with Tim Tams - How sad! I'm afraid I must point out that this means there is a gaping hole in your education.
No good for dunking I'd imagine. - Actually, although I've never been patient enough to try it myself, I'm reliably informed that if you are patient enough to wait for the "light chocolate cream filling" between the "two layers of chocolate malted biscuit" to melt, you can use the biscuit as a "straw" and thus drink "light chocolate cream"-charged coffee/tea. I'm reliably informed that this is one of life's sublime experiences.
The ultimate sadness is that Arnott's Biscuits Holdings is now a subsidiary of the Campbell Soup Company of the United States, and hence is no longer Australian owned. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force Rank abbreviations

You may (or may not) find Talk:List of Companions of the Order of Australia#Australian Defence Force Rank abbreviations of interest. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I don't think I could contribute more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT (caps for abbreviations). Tassedethe (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Affair with a Stranger poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Affair with a Stranger poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. Courcelles 03:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It was orphaned due to vandalism. I have restored its use. Tassedethe (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Grep tool

I figure I should mention the grep tool to you. More general pattern: [(_][[:upper:]][[:lower:]]+[)]$. Some day I'll have a proper Dabfix landing page to keep this stuff. — Dispenser 18:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That is great! No more searching through pages of results. Tassedethe (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Mark John Young

In September you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Straight to AfD for this one I think. Tassedethe (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Hi there. This is just a friendly reminder, that when you move a page, such as you did with All Right Now (Pepsi & Shirlie album), you remember to correct the Free-Usage rationale. The NFCC squad are now removing these images faster than you can say "Redirection" claiming they have "wrong rationales". Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I never realised that if the page is moved then that needs to be done. If I have redirected a page I always do the images but not for moves. There might be a lot I have broken. :(. Tassedethe (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Up to two weeks ago it would have meant nothing. But about that time they decided at NFCC to start removing all images with "wrong rationales". I've decided I can't fight this nonsense, so instead I try to save as many as I can and make sure no more are removed. I think correcting them shouldn't be that hard though, just go over all file moves you made and check the images.--Muhandes (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's lucky you messaged me because I intended to move a lot of album pages. Adding an extra step to fix the image isn't too bad at each move but trying to go back and fix prev moves is a pain. If there is any automated list of incorrect rationales please let me know. Tassedethe (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the list might not be very useful as it includes both wrong and completely missing rationales. On the other hand, maybe just searching for "album", "song" and "EP" will catch most of the moved albums.--Muhandes (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I think I fixed my recent moves, luckily I use consistent edit summaries. I'll have a grep though the list but without article names (obviously I suppose) it's a bit of a crapshoot Articles names there!. Tassedethe (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Grand Prix Tennis Championship Series 1970-1989

Hi the links you added with regard to the South African Open are re-directing from 1970-74 to the current articles from 2009 onwards are incorrect this main article South African Open (tennis) is for reader referencing for winners of Grand Prix Championship Series tournaments held in Africa is correct. Individual articles are yet to be created to link through on an individual basis (later). This work is being undertaken by wiki tennis project members. Can you please reverse your edits and put the correct links back as they were thankyou--Navops47 (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The links were not correct before. They pointed to a disambiguation page. They are now correct. Tassedethe (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested PROD

An article that you WP:PRODed, Carpe Diem (media agency) was restored in WP:REFUND. If you still believe the article warrants deletion, you may nominate it at WP:AFD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi Tassedethe, I notice you moved the bittersweet album page here [7]. When doing so please make sure to update the FUR on any media on the pages. Broken rationales like that will often end up in the image unnecessarily being removed from the article and deleted. I've already gone ahead and done it for you [8].--Crossmr (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Somehow I let that one slip by. Tassedethe (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Campbell (disambiguation)

Hi. User:Boleyn and you worked in tandem to fully erradicate an addition to 'Michael Campbell (disambiguation)'. Boleyn had put an inappropriate link in the edit comment. Your argument on the other hand, was accurate. I created a page for that missing Michael Campbell, so that the disambiguation page could get him back (and I reorganized the several musicians on that page in a reasonably orderly fashion).

But what if I would NOT have had the time to create a Michael Campbell (musician and actor) stub article, and to create or modify the relevant redirects? By your action, that particular Michael Campbell aka Mike Campbell aka Michael Champion was completely gone from WP. The external links that I provided (clearly proving the notability of the person), would also have gone, perhaps forever. That would have made WP a poorer encyclopedia.

This was a case where the WP policy 'ignore all rules' should have been given precedence instead of the guideline that forbids external links on a disambiguation page because such page is "basically" intended to disambiguate between articles that exist on WP (and not between names that occur somewhere on the entire web - often about hardly notable people). It would have instigated and facilitated other editors to do precisely what I have just been doing. Fat chance if after your action I would have given in...

Notice the box at top of the WP:MOSDAB guideline: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus."

Please, do not follow guidelines blindly or thoughtlessly. Use them while keeping their reasons but also their consequences in mind, and for each specific occasion check how these balance out. Furthermore, my having reverted Boleyn's revert, indicated a lack of consensus.

Kind regards,
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-02 04:27 (UTC)

Your initial edits added nothing to Wikipedia other than links to external websites. The reversal of your edit and the link provided by Boleyn was entirely correct; MOS:DABMENTION clearly states that dab pages entries must link to a Wikipedia article that mentions the subject. By applying the guidelines, guidelines that are the consensus of far more editors than those involved in this particular case, there perhaps has been a improvement in Wikipedia i.e. there is now a new article with some references. However, the article you have created seems to indicate a minor actor, also the member of a not particularly notable band. Disambiguation pages attract a glut of non-notable additions by editors not prepared to make the slightest effort to abide by the guidelines. At least in this case an editor has, if not exactly with the good grace that one might hope for. Tassedethe (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My initial edits added much more to Wikipedia other than links to external websites: it showed the existence of another notable person by that name; highly needed because he could all too easily be confounded with a mentioned Michael aka Mike Campbell "(musician)". Avoiding such confoundings is a primary purpose of any disambiguation page.

Member of a minor band that had more members who became quite notable, co-writer of several songs of a superstar's (to the general public little known) debut record - all unfortunatly from well before the Internet era... And roles he played in major films were rather substantial, not at all tucked deep down on their listings. We hardly need an encyclopedia about superstars only.

I'm afraid you may not be notable enough for me to owe all that good grace you hope for. I know what MOS:DABMENTION states clearly, including the quotation I presented in my above comment: It does not refer to how guidelines come to be, but to consensus being required when one intends to apply the guideline. Your attitude does not allow imperfect edits, but simply erradicates those. Instead of doing so, you might consider to improve these yourself, else at least allow so far uninvolved editors to do so, by leaving imperfect information available.

In fact, my insert on the disambiguation page might best have shown a red link: it would more readily have triggered action according to WP:MOSDABRL); but this would till then still have necessitated assistance by the external links. Notice in which case the guideline prefers an imperfect (red) link above not having the relevant entry on the disambiguation page; compare this with an imperfect external link...

Must I remind you that policies, including WP:IAR, supersede guidelines? Therefore the latter must never be applied just because they exist, without considering consequences. On a disambiguation page, the simple existence of external links that are for WP articles admissible as reference, for a person by those links proven to be WP:NOTABLE (which guideline presents entirely different standards than what your remark indicates), can not limit WP's usefulness. A disambiguation page that includes the phonebook entries for all Mike Campbells would.

​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-02 07:38 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Tassedethe's comments. I am glad that you have now created the article, SomeHuman, but disambiguation pages are essentially indexes of Wikipedia articles, and the guidelines have evolved over the years to this point. That two editors, plus the guidelines which have been developed by the input of dozens of experienced editors, disagreed with you, should have made you realise that this might not be the best course of action. What you did in the end was right - creating an article and then adding a link at the page to disambiguate Wikipedia articles. All turned out well. It's a shame you needed to be so combative about it though. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's shameful to apply guidelines as if these are absolute rules. That is a violation of a policy, which is as absolute a rule as WP recognizes. The elimination of correct and admissable information that truly belongs on WP, simply because it is not presented in the best possible way, deserves vigorous combatting. It should be left alone or presented more properly, never kicked out. Editors should not demand other editors to spend 4 hours of extra work before being willing to leave admissable information on WP.
Here, you put style (that's all the MOS guideline is about) above content (which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about).​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-02 08:42-08:47 (UTC)

Content is for articles, not disambiguation pages. I'm surprised it took you 4 hours to put together the new stub, perhaps if you had spent less time complaining here... Tassedethe (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's such a cinch for you to write an article that is properly sourced, with few good sources available on the internet in particular for the early career, and Mike Campbell being about as rare a name as John Smith, your behaviour was not only all too drastic, but extremely lazy as well. It is because of that to my opinion largely unneeded excessive time, that I complained.

Your remark about where content belongs, is in this case ridiculous demagogy: each line about some Mike Campbell on the disambiguation line shows about as much content as the line I had inserted; and this still shows that short explanation required to allow the reader to determine who is the 'right' Michael aka Mike Campbell; just the actual external links themselves could disappear, as these are now in the article.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-02 16:11 (UTC)

I am surprised you are still returning here. You already had the sources when you added them to the dab page. And these were the ones that you used to create the stub. To call me lazy when you admit to not wanting to put in the effort yourself is textbook irony. Tassedethe (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No: I knew what time needs to be spent. The 2 available sources sufficed for the very meagre essential information I had put on the disambiguation page. Even the stub article required more sources (and -not surprisingly- not the easiest to find as noteworthy info could be found on blogs but almost nowhere on a source site fit for referencing on WP); and with that stub created, a "little" more effort (about 2 more hours, hence six in total) allowed me to obtain a reasonable article for the topic at hand. In the future, do not pretend to be surprised that quick destruction takes far less effort than simple construction. The supplementary time for this discussion (about 1.5 hours) is thus only a fraction of the creative effort and should deter you from inadequately contemplating quick actions.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-02 16:57 (UTC)

No pretence on my part. Just sheer amazement at your gall. Tassedethe (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong suggestion: Before eliminating any admissible information from WP, contact the editor or, if unknown, start a discussion on the talk page. And allow up to a few months for a reaction, not all editors watch things eagerly; there should not be any hurry, anyway. You might become far less amazed by people.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-02 17:22 (UTC)

Nope, completely unreasonable. "A few months"! Ha. Tassedethe (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Does patience hurt? Admissible information in an article or disambiguation page must not be compared with what allows speedy deletion of articles.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-02 17:39 (UTC)

Does minimal effort hurt? Tassedethe (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently! Your minimal effort hurts other editors.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-02 17:43 (UTC)

Some editors need to develop a thicker skin. Tassedethe (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

...and thus allow imperfections to exist for a while.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-02 17:49 (UTC)

I will continue to apply the guidelines laid out in WP:MOSDAB. Anyone wishing to make dab page additions that conflict with guidelines should discuss those at the appropriate page. This discussion is now closed. Tassedethe (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Note

It doesn't matter how angry you are. It is inappropriate and never acceptable to use your sysop tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute. That said, I have unprotected your talk page. Please do not re-protect the page. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Breakthrough (album)

When you moved Breakthrough (Colbie Caillat album) from the above name, and made that into a redirect to the dab page, you don't seem to have fixed the incoming links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Breakthrough_%28album%29 which used to go to this album and now lead to the dab page. I hope you're planning to do so? Thanks. PamD (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Doing so as you write. Tassedethe (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great - sorry to nag unnecessarily! PamD (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, my computer decided to crash right at that point so I was a bit behind. Tassedethe (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Pulitzer Prize for History

Since you have edited this template in the past, I am requesting your feedback at Template talk:PulitzerPrize History.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback. I hope you have more thoughts on the issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a second issue in need of feedback at Template talk:PulitzerPrize History#Color.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Switch?

Since you made the disambiguation page Switch?, I thought I'd let you know I redirected it to the list of The Price Is right pricing games, since the entry for Switch (game show) was a blatant hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Tassedethe (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Query

Since you are the only one responding, I am going to ask if you have any information on the relative importance of the various Pulitzers. See here for the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any particular knowledge of Pulitzer Prize importance. I'd have thought the older awards would be more prestigious but that's not based on anything concrete! Tassedethe (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Horse names

Please check the registered names of horses before changing them. Fields Of Omagh was registered as such. See ASB. Cgoodwin (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think horses are exempt from Wikipedia's guidelines on capitalization, see WP:CAPS. Other sources in the article use standard capitalization e.g. [9], [10]. Tassedethe (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pedigree query is an unchecked, unsourced, unreliable source. It contains many, many errors (including horses foaled before their sires etc.) for which see their errors pages. Cgoodwin (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the relative quality of any of those sources. My point is that 2 use Fields of Omagh, 1 uses Fields Of Omagh, and the last uses FIELDS OF OMAGH. Couple that with standard English lower case spelling of of and I think moving it to Fields of Omagh was a reasonable move. Of course per WP:BRD you can move it back, I have no problem with that. Tassedethe (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thoroughbred horse names in Australia are not subject to Wikipedia guidelines, but are approved by the Registrar of Racehorses in accordance with Horse Naming Guidelines [11]. There will be many hundreds of Thoroughbred horse names which do not fit with Wiki guidelines. Please reverse your move of Fields Of Omagh.Thanks. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Thoroughbred horse names in Australia are not subject to Wikipedia guidelines..." Really? Can you point to the Wikipedia guidelines on this? I am happy to see that the Registrar of Racehorses encourages good use of English: "The Registrar encourages the correct use of grammar." (top of page 2) They don't however appear to have an opinion on capitalization, although I do note they spell all names with all caps, which would be in direct contravention of Wikipedia's naming conventions (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me. The second half of the sentence goes on to state "but are approved by the Registrar of Racehorses". I am pointing out that The Registrar of Racehorses decides on the name of the horse, and does not take into account the Wikipedia guidelines on capitalization. If the Registered name contains a lower case "of" or does not contain spaces as in Starspangledbanner then that is the name which Wikipedia must use to identify the correct horse. To do otherwise could link to the wrong animal. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not misquote you. I used a partial quote (indicated by ...) as that is the part I need clarification on. Please indicate where in the Wikipedia guidelines horse names are exempt from the capitalization guidelines. Wikipedia uses article names based on their use in reliable sources. "Official" names may or may not be used, it depends on the circumstances. See for instance MOS:TM for how we do not necessarily render all trademarks as their "official" spelling, capitalization, punctuation etc. Tassedethe (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheshire Cats (rugby)

I created this page. The side were started by a professional team to bring rugby league to a town that didn't play it. At which point the club were definitely notable. Since then they seem to have disappeared having played only season. I have no objections to this being deleted.GordyB (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. If they achieved some notability, even for just a season, then you have a good case for keeping the page. It would help if there were some 3rd party sources though. Tassedethe (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow

I hope your description of James Bonard Fowler here was a mistake. When I removed it, it appeared to be vandalism. He is quite the opposite of your description, a bad cop who killed at least one unarmed man in cold blood which led to one of the most famous civil rights events in american history. Toddst1 (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I honestly can't understand how I wrote that. Dabfix is a semiautomatic tool that pulls a description from the lede of the article. I can only assume it pulled a partial sentence (perhaps "became an icon in the conflict that led to the Selma to Montgomery marches in the American Civil Rights Movement") that I misconstrued. However that is a poor excuse and you are quite right to revert it as vandalism. Please accept my apologies. Tassedethe (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you  :-)

Thank you for your contribution to Planetary boundaries.  :-) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome; thanks for the thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you also (",) 99.112.213.29 (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Namassej(Namasudra) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Namassej(Namasudra). Since you had some involvement with the Namassej(Namasudra) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sitush (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to Dog (disambiguation)!

Thanks for the thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert of "Some Things" edit

Hi Tassedethe, I'm writing in regards to my edit of the "Unreferenced" tag on the "Some Things" page. In the interest of not starting some type of edit war I wanted to get ahead of the issue. I figured I would update the tag from December 2009 the current date of July 2011. As a relatively new editor, I understand the very real possibility that I'm in the wrong in regards to the editing decision. If you would prefer your most recent update to mine, I have no qualms about it. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. The dates of tags are generally not altered unless there a good reason (e.g. a malformed date). By ensuring tags are dated editors can see which articles have been identified as having problems for the longest time. By resetting the date to the current month this effectively makes the chance that this article is improved less likely. (Editors are encouraged to tackle the very oldest articles first). When I looked again at the article I realised that it had been automatically tagged as unreferenced in December 2009. (At that date a bot went round and tagged all articles that appeared not to have references). As it was a bot it couldn't be certain so the tag was hidden. The correct edit would have been for me to remove the "auto=yes" parameter i.e I had confirmed that this article didn't have references. I've done that now. So all in all not a big mistake. As an aside the main reason I checked your edit was that your user name shows up as a redlink. This is always a red flag to other editors as it suggests a new account. You can turn your name blue by adding something to your user page User:WikiTryHardDieHard. Most people add user boxes etc., but as you can from my page that's not necessary :). If you have other questions feel free to ask, otherwise happy editing! Tassedethe (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, thank you for the quick, well written, and informative reply. In my overzealousness to improve the article, I hadn't realized that I actually doing it a disservice. Ill be sure to revisit articles of my earlier edits and correct any similar mistakes I made. Thank you again for the advice. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

List of residences in Emmerdale

You are receiving this notice because you are a significant contributor (at least two edits) this year to this article. The article has been tagged for months now as suffering from a number of problems. Fixing these is crucial to the very existence of the article. Notice of this was placed on the article's talk page in March of this year without subsequent response. Notice of this was placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emmerdale at the same time, without subsequent response. This is a last ditch effort to get those people most interested in the existence of this article to fix the extant problems before it is placed for deletion. If you can, please address the article failings as highlighted in the warning boxes at the top of the article within the near future. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all the contributions you have made to many different Wikipedia pages. Housewatcher (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Thanks very much :) Tassedethe (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why additional levels of disambiguation?

Hi. :) I'm curious as to why you moved Groovin' High (album) to Groovin' High (Dizzy Gillespie album). Are you about to create another album article for that title? Ordinarily, I would assume so, but you seem to have moved on to something else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There was already an article about another album, Groovin' High (Booker Ervin album). The WP:ALBUM#Naming guidelines say that if there is more than one article then each should be (artist album). Normally I'd redirect Groovin' High (album) to Groovin' High (disambiguation) or Groovin' High as an incomplete dab but as there are only 3 articles total I settled for renaming and then adding a hatnote to Groovin' High. I hope that's clear. Tassedethe (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Since it's a Gillespie song, it's probably true that Ervin is not the primary for the title, but I can see that it might not be a good idea to put Ervin as primary, either. :) In that case, though, I think it would be a good idea to hat the Gillespie article, since I'm afraid that those looking for the Ervin album by the usual primary disambig will still wind up at Dizzy's. :) I'll do that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's seems a good idea, thanks. :) Tassedethe (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Chaplin (television writer)

Suggest article heading is changed to "Michael Chaplin (Writer)", as "television writer" is too narrow - subject also writes for theatre, radio and non-fiction literature. Haltwhistlehistory (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made that change. Tassedethe (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Desahogo

A tag has been placed on Desahogo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Valid page overwritten. Now reverted. Tassedethe (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation for band article merger

I have recommended a merge from Detente (band) to Fear of God (American band) because notability for the former article does not seem to be established (official website also conflates the two: http://www.fear-of-god.com/). Cheers!Jarhed (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, what information there is can expand the 2nd article. Tassedethe (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Quiet Nights

Hello. When you reverted the Quiet Nights and undid my edits, just because you didn't like the name change, did you notice that you cast adrift into cyberspace a much better article than the one you re-installed, with footnotes and neat info and well-organized song lists and nifty personnel rosters? See Seven Steps to Heaven and Someday My Prince Will Come for examples. I can't find the article I devised, and it was hours of work. If you could locate it for me, I would be very happy. PS The Davis/Evans Quiet Nights should not need the artists names at all, since the Davis/Evans LP is the template that led to the other two by Django Bates and Diana Krall in the first place. Its article should simply be entitled Quiet Nights (album), with the others needing the artists' names as addenda to differentiate them from their historical precedent. No need to type all those extra words in every time you want to create a link.PJtP (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I left a message for you on this subject. I didn't realise you made changes until after I had reverted you. The article as you had it is still in the history: [12] I could have added your changes to the Quiet Nights (Miles Davis and Gil Evans album) page but I feel it's better if you do it - they're your changes so the edit history should reflect that you made them not me. If you feel that the Davis/Evans album is the primary topic then you should posit the move to Quiet Nights. However last month more people visited the Diana Krall album[13] than the Miles Davis one[14]. There's more info at WP:RM and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Let's take a look at those regulations. On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums page, subsection on Style, Naming, there is this text:

For multiple albums with the same title, use the artist name to distinguish the different albums, e.g. Down to Earth (Rainbow album) and Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album); though if there is a primary album, such as Thriller (album), then that would get the primary (album) disambiguation, and only the secondary albums, Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album), Thriller (Lambchop album) need be disambiguated by band.

Of the three Quiet Nights album, which would be the primary? Obviously, not the one by Django Bates, who does not have the international stature of Miles Davis or Diana Krall. Bates' album then, is secondary. A case could be made, as you stated, that since more people are visiting the Diana Krall page, then hers should be the primary. However, that's now - it's a recent album, she's currently popular, and will remain so for a while. But not forever - Ruth Etting and Whitney Houston and countless others were staggeringly popular in their day, but no one bothers with them now. To be fair, Diana Krall is probably more talented. But Miles Davis is one of the most important figures in the history of jazz, and virtually anything he did, especially from the years 1949 to 1975, is "primary" - of primary importance both artistically and historically. Within a few years or so, those figures will reverse - more people will be looking to the Davis Quiet Nights page since his importance will remain constant, where Krall's will fade. Also, Ms. Krall wouldn't have conceived of an album called Quiet Nights in the first place if the Davis one hadn't existed. The Davis article, then, wins out for the primary designation.

As I said, if you feel that one of these albums is the primary topic you should open a WP:RM request and make your arguments there. There is a procedure for these types of disputes, WP:BRD. You have made a bold decision. I have disputed it and reverted it. I also opened a discussion. We don't agree so you should now open a proper discussion using WP:RM rather than continually undoing the status quo. Tassedethe (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you don't actually have any arguments beyond merely supporting the current status quo. You haven't disputed anything - all you've done is state that you don't agree, but offer no substantiation or reasons for disagreement.PJtP (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have expressed an argument, that the Krall album is more popular than the Davis album. If you can show that this is irrelevant then please make your case with a proper request. Tassedethe (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Explain yourself, please

I restored Tom Hatton per a request from a new account on my talk page. Within 6 minutes of that restoration (history) you had AfD'ed that article, without providing notification to either me or to the new account that you had done so. Please explain how you 1) noticed the article you'd PROD'ed was back so rapidly, 2) Why you decided to AfD it without waiting for the editor to make any improvements, and 3) why you did so without notifying either the restoring admin (me) or the clearly interested editor of your action. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I could ask why you didn't inform me that you had restored the article? I need not provide any explanation for my actions. Tassedethe (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting that there's something special about the article that would have made it appropriate for me to notify you? By all means, please DO explain your behavior, because I'm trying to AGF that it's actually a civil and appropriate way to do things, but I'm just not seeing it... Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way but I have nothing to explain. Tassedethe (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please advise regarding IMA

Hi Tassedethe

I noticed that you have removed my entry in IMA about Integrity Measurement Architecture, and I think that your removal is in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

I do not feel qualified to write an actual article on Integrity Measurement Architecture, and maybe it is even too obscure a subject to deserve an entire article. On the other hand, the fact that IMA is used as an abbreviation for that, is in my opinion worth keeping a record of somewhere, as it is a great help to anyone that may encounter that abbreviation, even if it only helps them distinguish it from all the other uses of IMA in Wikipedia, and to give them a starting point for googling the term.

Do you have any suggestions how to handle this? -- Rune Kock (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a more suitable page where you could some add basic details of Integrity Measurement Architecture. I had a quick google and I can't say I'm any the wiser as to what it is. Trusted Computing Group appears to be one choice. Or Trusted Network Connect? If you can add a line (preferably with a ref) then it's perfectly valid to readd the info to the dab page with a link to the page that now has the information. e.g.

*[[Integrity Measurement Architecture]] (IMA), blah blah blah, see [[pagename]]

I hope that is useful. Tassedethe (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Baby Love"

Hey T, apparently their's an adolescent who has moved this article to "Baby Love (The Supremes song)" without giving any reason of explanation. If this article should be located here, can you make the appropriate adjustents similar to what you already do, please? By the way, if this article should be back to where it was at, could you fix that, please. Sorry for bothering you. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Adolescent" Excuse me? What the hell does my age have to do with a damn thing? I moved the page because there's 10+ other pages with the name "Baby Love". status ϟ ^talk 02:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The original request was certainly not best phrased. But I did take it as a genuine objection to the move so in line with WP:BRD I restored the status quo. I note this page has been moved and reverted once before so it was clearly a move that needs discussing. Tassedethe (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello Tassedethe! I hope you enjoy this treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Publix? Always welcome, thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

stop editing the Highest grossing movie thread without a source or a link to a credible site like BOM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikazee99 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I merely corrected a link to a film. Please check your accusations. Tassedethe (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Will not happen again. We fixing stuff, I tend to act before thinking. I apologize and it will not happened again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Program Death (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No probs. You seem to be changing (novel) links to (Armstrong novel) links where there are no other articles on novels. This is not required. The disambiguator should be the simplest available. Tassedethe (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be correct to move Haunted (novel) to Haunted (Palahniuk novel). You should then redirect Haunted (novel) to Haunted and tag it with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. It's not appropriate to tag pages you have moved as speedy deletion candidates. Tassedethe (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I only do the speedy deletion when I remove all links to the page. but I agree about what you said it would make since changing haunted novel to Palahniuk but I did not mess with that page, I do not think.Program Death (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Into the Wild Tour

Hey just a question. I noticed that you had moved Talk:Into the Wild/Hurricane Tour to Talk:Into the Wild (book)/Hurricane Tour with the summary "prep for disambiguation". I was wondering if this is now where that page is going to be permanently or if it should be merged with Talk:Into the Wild? The current page there just has a redirect to the other plus a couple edit requests. I only ask because I have been going through Edit Requests and get kinda confused when I saw that. I would merge/move the pages myself except I don't know the best way to do so. Thanks --Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was puzzling about this. When you move a page you get the option to move sub talk pages as well. So when I moved Into the Wild to Into the Wild (book) I moved all the subpages (or so I thought). It seems as the title of this page had the slash in it then it got moved by mistake. It's taken couple of goes but I think I have restored Talk:Into the Wild (book)/Hurricane Tour correctly back to the article Talk:Into the Wild Tour. Tassedethe (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

About my moves

Certain books might not be out yet but they will be. A proactive stance should be made. Most of the other pages are in that form and it will be less confusing when trying to find the correct pages. I fixed all links except historic logs and now your pages (sorry about that again). I own the RL Stine bitten, if I have to right the page to satisfy you I will. Bitten is also going to be obvious choice for vampire or werewolf stories. Once again I chose the Armstrong novel format because most of the other pages are in that format. I feel it will be lease confusing to wiki surfers. All I was doing was prevent future confusion. I say Bitten should be a redirect to RL stine book at least that was the path I took. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Program Death (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to name articles in the hope or expectation that another article will be created in the future. If another article is created then the article names can be changed. Consistency is not required; one novel can have no disambiguator e.g. Darkest Powers, while one can have a full disambiguator e.g The Gathering (Armstrong novel), as there are many articles on novels called The Gathering. Tassedethe (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that. Maybe it just me. I settle just have redirect pages to the articles that are already there from pages with Armstrong novel. They are there is we need them and they also allow people to get the pages using the same format if they want. Win-Win, I think. by the way Darkest Powers is about the whole series so it is similar to a disambiguate type page. it not the same thing but similar. Either way I will not do unless it is truly needed. The rest are find the way they are for now.Program Death (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Creating redirects is a good idea, after all WP:Redirects are cheap. Happy editing. Tassedethe (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey I figure I will tell you what I did so we do not have argued. It turns out there are pages that make up the bitten novel by RL Stine. I almost duplicated the articles. Luckily I found them before I did. I added insert about them being part of RL Stine bitten novel. It said pages can be move in order to prevent duplications. So I change the Armstrong bitten to Bitten (Armstrong novel) then changed the resulting bitten (novel) to a redirect to RL Stine page that tells about the book and contains the links to over pages that cover each part of the book. Why redirect page do not take up much space, there is not point in adding more when there is a perfectly go page with the required name. Either way I was telling you so you did not think I was just do to spite you or anything. I saw a need arise and I fixed it.Program Death (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Tassedethe (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguated: Lake Alice → Lake Alice (Gainesville, Florida

Thanx !!! I realized my error after saving the changes and I figured that I'd wait until the next round of changes (expanding the next sub-section) to fix it.

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem! :) Tassedethe (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Evan Lewis (Los Angeles)

Hello. I am not sure why you changed the name of the above article. He was much more than a "politician." I believe it should be changed back. I did not name the article lightly. In puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems his notability is due to his membership of the Los Angeles council. It is standard practice to disambiguate people by the occupation they are notable for and he is notable for being a politician not for any of his other jobs. The original article was at Evan Lewis (politician) so I merely restored it to its correct location. The guidelines for the choice of disambiguation qualifier are at WP:QUALIFIER, and I quote: "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being. Some of these are standard, commonly used tags, such as "(musician)" and "(politician)"." I hope that explains my edit. Tassedethe (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Quite satisfactory, although I am not sure about a person who is noted for more than just one thing. Thanks for the link, too. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

People who are notable for more than one thing can cause problems, each case has to be assessed on its merits. Sometimes the solution is to pick one of the characteristics but create a redirect to the article using the other e.g you could have Joe Blow (politician) and a redirect from Joe Blow (actor). Sometimes the disambiguator puts in both e.g. George Rennie (sculptor and politician). That's a good example where the notable occupations are very different. Happy editing. Tassedethe (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Normally Ii have pretty happy editing, though I dislike the snarky comments that are sometimes made. I try to ward those off, however, by being nice to people. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Northern Soul Article - Bob Dee Timeline...

Hello there, I am writing to inform you that I have reversed the innaccuracies in changes you made in 'Northern Soul' with reference to Bob Dee's timeline at the Twisted Wheel.

I have interviewed Bob extensively at his home in Bolton, Lancs and it is beyond all doubt that he was indeed working the Saturday All Niters at the 'Wheel from 1968 to its eventual closure in 1971, in fact Ivor Abadi (who personally appointed him the role) also asked him to continue to work for him under the 'Wheel`s new guise as 'Placemate 7' but Bob refused as the pop music venue that Ivor proposed just wasnt his cup of tea. Ivor then asked Bob to 'train up' his nephew for the job - the nephew being Gary Davies who went on to Radio 1 fame. The inline citation written by the Lady from Manchester also confirms 'In the 70s'. Bob went on to work at the 'Room at the Top' in Wigan which you have also expressed interest in. It is a sad fact that there are many people and DJs claiming to have worked that famous shift which Bob made his own, and I believe you may have been mislead by some such propaganda. Bob Derbyshire is a quiet, self assured man with only a modest view of the massive significance of his role in this genre of music and his subsequent influence upon the millions of people who enjoy it. As Resident Saturday All-niter DJ at Manchesters Twisted Wheel between 1968 and the clubs eventual closure in 1971, Bob is quite simply the worlds most famous DJ that no-one has ever heard of.

If you would like to meet, discuss, interview or simply relive some memories of the wheel with Bob - either by telephone or in person - I can arrange it with no problem. Please contact me here in the first instance.

Many thanks and Best regards, Martin. Geddart (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with somebody else. I made a minor edit to the Northern soul article here which didn't add inaccuracies or concern Bob Dee. Tassedethe (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My most sincere apologies, Im obviously finding the negotiation of the edit history less obvious than I thought. If you could help me to find the editor in question that would be most helpful, the editor is not in full posession of the facts and may appreciate the offer of speaking to Bob personally. Once again my apologies and thank you for your patience. Martin Geddart (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Upon further investigation (and please feel free to verify this) the edit seems to have been made by an anonymous editor using ip address login. Best regards, Martin Geddart (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was the previous edit to mine. Happy editing! Tassedethe (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of "refer" template

Hi. Please consider using {{subst:refer}} instead of {{refer}} when cleaning up disambig pages and the like. I've nearly finished substituting thousands of uses of this template. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, can do. Tassedethe (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

If you're going to delete stuff because you think it fails a test e.g the two Catapilla albums you recently did, I think it would be more of a contribution to the site to combine them in an article, however light on content, about the band. Since you obviously saw the articles, you must have seen they were notable. If they are not notable enough as articles, so be it but simply deleting them is just vandalism.