Jump to content

User talk:Tavix/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Some categories I can't move

I (neither my bot) can't move the bellow, categories because the targets are on the title blacklist. Could you do these moves? (The pages are recategorised.) Armbrust The Homunculus 18:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I do have to add that is a strange pattern to have blacklisted. I think I'm going to investigate that further. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Create protection of IPhone 7

I put in a request for create protection at WP:RPP, and it was granted for 1 day (request). I was previously protected for 1 month (can be viewed at Special:Log), 2 days after which it was recreated. Usually the term of protection increases if a problem persists. What do you think, how about another month? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: Apple's announcement is tomorrow (I guess it would be today UTC), so we'll know then if the next iPhone is the 7 or not. In other words, the situation will be different then. -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, I was unaware. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What is your reasoning behind reverting my closure?

Further information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WackoWiki (2nd nomination)

I know that you cited WP:BADNAC (and yes, I read it), but this case was non-controvertial and there was no opposition to its deletion. So why exactly did you revert it? --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you read it, you should know the answer. You cannot close something that requires action from an administrator. That means you cannot close an AFD as "delete" because you do not have the delete button. -- Tavix (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @MorbidEntree:: To clarify, look at it like this- the only nac available is a 'keep' (and a clear-cut one at that!) because it involves no action from no-one. Or, to put it another way, only an editor able to perform the action consequent to a close is authorised to make the close itself. Cheers! Muffled Pocketed
(edit conflict) In my (short) experience in XfD, I generally saw that it was appropriate to perform a nac as long as you tag for speedy deletion using the appropriate criteria (G6 for the article and G8 for the article's talk page and any redirects pointing to it). You're the first administrator I've seen who has gone through the trouble of reverting all of the tagging and closures instead of just checking the XfD to make sure it closed correctly and then deleted the page in question (not saying that you don't have the right to do that, it just seems weird to me that you would). --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
NAC's that require admin attention bother me because it's (to put it bluntly) a massive waste of time for the non-admin closer. As an admin, for me to delete something, I still need to put in all of the time I would if I were the closer, because for all intents and purposes I would be the closer. So save yourself the time and work on things that aren't a massive waste of time for yourself and the admin that would have to come behind you. If you think something should be deleted, leave a !vote clearly explaining why, and you'll be an admin in no time. Cheers, -- Tavix (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, I didn't realise that it was a waste of time. Hell, I thought I was saving time for the admins! --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem, now you know! Best, -- Tavix (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is now checking both categories. Anomie⚔ 00:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anomie and Gestrid: I've finally tracked down every category in every sub-page, so the aformentioned category is now empty. Anomie, you may delete it if you no longer have a use for it, but it's up to you. -- Tavix (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

List of NFL players

Mind if I work on your User:Tavix/List of NFL players. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: Yeah, I'd love some help! They're all restored now. -- Tavix (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Where'd you find that excel file anyway. Pro football reference? (we talked earlier at User_talk:Tavix/Archive_5#Hi) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't remember where I got it now, it's been a while. I do remember our last conversation though. -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I was just wondering if there was some football site I didn't know about lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Are we only including those who have played in at least one regular or post-season game. Or are we gonna include those who haven't played in any games too. I was just wondering because I noticed McLeod Bethel-Thompson, but he hasn't appeared in any games. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I've come across a few of those. When disambiguating, I used Category:National Football League players so I could populate the list using Wikipedia's titles. The problem is that sometimes people are added to a TEAM category when they haven't actually played any games for that team. In McLeod's case, he's actually in several of these, including "Miami Dolphins players" "Minnesota Vikings players" "San Francisco 49ers players" "New England Patriots players" and "Philadelphia Eagles players" despite not actually playing for any of these teams in a regular or post season game. I think the solution, (and this might require a discussion at WT:NFL) is to split these categories so that those who have been on a team roster, but haven't actually played on that team, to a new category. I'm not sure what the name would be and if someone would be willing to take on that task, but it would solve that problem I've been having. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Should we include players like that in the list? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I really don't care. The lede would just need to be updated if we don't purge those players (I think I already did so on the D list). -- Tavix (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, let's just keep it to the one game criteria for now. If we did include players who didn't appear in any games, then we would have to leave a note or something along the lines of "Other players who have not appeared in any NFL games but have Wikipedia articles are included". Because if we just included everyone who ever signed with a team, there would be a lot of unnotable entries (meaning those not red-linked or blue-linked). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, I just put all of these pages on my watchlist and can I ask how you're disambiguating these so fast lol. Nice work. Would I just be wasting my time trying to disambiguate these. Looks like you got it handled. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I already have them (automatically) disambiguated in an excel file, so I'm copy and pasting them so you can work on them. Somewhat after F, and especially after K, there will be errors since I haven't manually checked them yet. However, the pages I just restored have no disambiguation yet which isn't helpful at all. -- Tavix (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
How did you automatically dab them. Also, I found two Bob Grim's. Is that an error. I can only find records of one. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm removing those who haven't played in any games. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Usually that's a mistake, but other times there really is multiple people with the same name. I combined two lists to disambiguate: Wikipedia's list and the list from the excel file. When those names are different (which happens every time there's disambiguation, also when someone uses different nicknames), there'll be two entries for the same person. That's the whole reason why it's taking me sooo long to finish this project, because I have to manually check every time there's disambiguation involved. -- Tavix (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm still wondering how players who haven't appeared in a game ended up on the Excel file. Is there a list someone on the internet of everyone who's ever signed an NFL contract. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Because they're categorized that way on Wikipedia. We went over this with the McLeod example. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Nice work on this. Also, once we're done, we should make an NFL navbox like Template:Lists of NHL players. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably the final step before we publish this. I've used the NHL player list as the basis for formatting this list. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
K, thanks. No more questions for now lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Leo Blair

Thanks for your recent move of Leo Blair (barrister) to Leo Blair. However, I noticed that Talk:Leo Blair (barrister) was left behind. Was that just an oversight or is there some reason to leave it where it is? No problem either way; I just don't want to request a speedy move without checking first. Station1 (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Station1: that was an oversight on my part. Since the talk page I was moving already existed, it forces me to move the talk page manually, and I missed seeing that message. I'll make the move now. Best, -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Tavix. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Lists of names in caste/tribe articles

When we do things like this, which seems to be increasingly common, we need to make it absolutely clear that the listed people may or may not be affiliated to the caste/tribe/clan etc because of WP:BLP. It is much easier to do if we have a separate name-only list article/dab, which is my preferred route. What do you think? This recent tendency to lump both in one article stems, I think, from a desire by some people to do an end-run round the issues noted at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. - Sitush (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: My preference would be to make these about the name in general, and then also note somewhere that it's used as a clan, tribe, and/or caste name. That way the article's "notability" will be derived from whether or not there's notable people with the name (MOS:APO). I haven't seen enough of those to have a strong opinion though, so if you have a better way of handling them, I'll follow along if I come across any more. -- Tavix (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's see what Uanfala thinks because I've seen them around this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff are also pretty au fait with the sort of thing that goes on. Pinging! - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't normally edit surname articles (but when I do, I always seem to run into Sitush), so I'm afraid I don't have much to say. I'm not feeling very easy about the general aboutness of many of these articles. Fair enough, if it's exclusively about one and not the other, things are simple: surname articles are about the surname and list all people who have that surname, caste/clan articles are about the community and list people who are members of the community regardless of their surname. But many articles seem to be about both, and then I think the ledes need to be very carefully worded to balance the two. If the lede only talks about the clan but then the list that follows it includes everyone with the surname, it's bad. Uanfala (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Which is why I favour separate articles. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

TWODAB question

Hi Tavix, wanted to follow-up after the chat at WT:DAB. There are occasions when I see RMTs for dab moves (many involving TWODAB) that I've simply answered along with reasonable post-move cleanup. Pending the RfC at WT:DAB, are we saying that TWODABs are to be avoided regardless of subject/domain? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, assuming there's a primary topic. It would be preferable to directly link to the other article via a hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your PROD on Noelle Giddings

How would you feel about redirecting the page to Milestone Media#Staff? It has almost the same information as the current article. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 8#Template:R to article without mention

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 8#Template:R to article without mention. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

RfA comment

As you are an admin, I'm sure you are aware of the guidelines, so I guess you simply did not notice I had already replied to your comment. Please could you therefore amend your copy edit to comply with the guideline? I realise it is only one word but a word, the placement of punctuation etc. can sometimes make a huge difference. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I'm not sure what being an admin has to do with it though... -- Tavix (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I alluded to your status as an admin because I would expect an admin to be aware of relevant guidelines. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
That's awfully irrelevant. My status as an admin doesn't directly correlate to knowledge of every guideline. Please don't reference people as an admin or not an admin unless it actually has to do with admin tools. -- Tavix (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

John (Apostle) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John (Apostle). Since you had some involvement with the John (Apostle) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The creator of the uneeded DAB of Nicholas Urusov

Looking over his history-he seemes to have a history of making uneeded DAB pages (which I have put up more prods for-including this one Vasily Saltykov). As well as ones with just one link like Lev Urusov. Wgolf (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks-might want to check his talk page and/or his other pages also! Wgolf (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Wgolf: thanks for letting me know. I've taken care of both of those pages and I'll look through their contributions when I have more time. Just for future reference, no link dabs can be tagged for WP:G6 as its uncontroversial maintenance, and one link dabs can typically be redirected to the only link (unless it ends in (disambiguation), then its G6 eligible.) Cheers, -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Spaces and parentheses

Wow, what a close! You are an absolute champion to volunteer to do all that work. I still disagree with the close - you shouldn't have to do this - but I admire what you're doing. Let me know when you've finished, and I'll give you a barnstar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm (talk • contribs) 02:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, StAnselm. I don't mind doing the work—at least with the links, they need be taken care of anyway. I actually thought about leaving a conditional "keep" !vote until usage could be checked, but with sooo many delete !votes that I'd be up against, I figured it be best to just close it and check myself. -- Tavix (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
At least all 46 redirects to those lists of gliders can be mass deleted without problems. Earlier this year I moved those pages under normal titles and now I'm figuring as their author, but I don't want this... You can install this nice script and make use of it. It helped me a lot recently to do clean-up on a non-WMF wiki. After installing go to "Special:MassDelete" to use it (it works with plain titles; they can be copied from such a list). --XXN, 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Twinkle has a batch deletion tool, and I just used that. Thanks though. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For checking and fixing all the incoming links after deleting a bunch of redirects. StAnselm (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

restoration of two redirects

HI Travix I see you deleted 2 redirects related to St John the Baptist Church (Toodyay ) the deletion of these redirects potentially breaks WikiTown links via QRpedia they will need someone to check the qrcodes on site before they are deleted, unfortunately that requires a 200km round trip to occur first. Gnangarra 07:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Johnadams

Hi Tavix. Do you think the hatnote should be updated at John Adams now Johnadams is a redirect to it? The same goes for updating the disambiguation page. I personally think the discussion should have been relisted, as there wasn't really that much discussion. Anyway, I think either pages should be updated.--Nevé–selbert 22:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: I think I'm going to reopen the discussion, relist it, and pose that question to see if we can get some commentary on it. Personally, I don't care, but someone might. -- Tavix (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on being Admin

I am sorry not to have congratulated you sooner, but I have had some rigamarole with my mum dying and sorting that out, and also have been doing a lot of interviews for new jobs, of which I have two offers, and have accepted one. So I have not been around too much.

You thoroughly deserve being an admin and IIRC I actually supported you in becoming one, one of many !votes. I think I said at the time that I would not have the patience to do it. But please don't start the personal attacks on me. I've been back one day, and you're attacking me. Not good form for an admin. I can look after myself, but I don't think it is really very good form. I do address the subject. If you wilfully take what is written in plain black and white to mean something other than what it means, then it is your fault, not mine. I don't know how else I can qualify but putting something as "I know this is sometimes taken as an insult", "I do this", "I do that". Cf. the conversation at WT:PNT where there are lots of different views about how several translators tackle articles that come up there. The articles shouldn't be personal, but they are by definition, by [[WP:CONSENSUS}] a result of people's opinions and compromises. I think RfD is robust enough to allow opinions without them having to be put into some legal fiction of the man on the Clapham Omnibus or whatever.

I do appreciate and value your contributions to WP and I see at a glance some of the work you do – you probably do a lot more that I don't see because it is not in my ambit. I notice when you close translations, you never give a whiff of thanks (User:BDD just generally says in passing, "Thanks to Si Trew for doing it" or somesuch). I know, translators are the lowest of the low and always have been, so I better get back in my place. I still don't understand why you want to collapse my procedural closes when I translate articles, as I did from a German to an English one last night. I am not after the limelight, but a sodding little thankyou goes a long way. I have been speaking four languages in the corner shop tonight, none of them well. Never mind. Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Tavix.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Tavix, thanks for linking to the previous discussion. I looked high and low for the template to do that and finally gave up and went to bed. Finding what one needs on Wikipedia is like trying to negotiate a maze blindfolded. Now I'll stash {{oldrfdlist}} somewhere on my user pages so I can find it again. — Gorthian (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: I completely agree! If you want to know where it was, it's the bottom bullet point of step II at WP:RFD#HOWTO. (I would know, I created it... :P). -- Tavix (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Good for you! And thank you. — Gorthian (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton 42

I think it was a bad idea to delete this without it ever having been tagged for deletion, and only because it was discussed (but never tagged) in a somewhat-related post. pbp 02:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:Process is important, right? I'll relist. -- Tavix (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for allowing the discussion to continue. pbp 03:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Cheers, -- Tavix (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tavix. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Muslimly

Hi! Just letting you know that I deleted "Muslimly", which you closed as deleted but apparently forgot to. No problem :-) Just in case there was some other reason. - Nabla (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Nabla! -- Tavix (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Two problematic DAB pages

Hello, Tavix.

a) There is only one tournament in India, which is known as India Open. That tournament is unnecessarily disambiguated as India Open (badminton). I suggest that India Open (badminton) should be moved to India Open. There are also three Indian Open tournaments, namely Indian Open, Indian Open (golf), and Indian Open (snooker). So, Indian Open (disambiguation) may be created, where the partial match − Royal Indian Open – might also find a place.

  • There's a tennis tournament called "India Open". It looks like we don't have an article for it yet, even though there is an article for the 1996 edition: 1996 India Open. I also don't think "India Open" and "Indian Open" are different enough where we would need two separate disambiguations. Instead, I'll just expand "India Open" to include both variants and redirect Indian Open (disambiguation) there. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: I didn't see a primary topic among the tournaments titled "Indian Open", so I just moved the disambiguation to that title. -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

b) Ramesh Kumar (disambiguation) should be moved to Ramesh Kumar, as there's no primary topic here. And Ramesh Kumar should be renamed as Ramesh Kumar (politician). Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting them out. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome. -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

d-batch

(Continuing from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 17#Discussion)

No, I don't have Twinkle. I use popups instead. I find Twinkle too much of a clutter for an editor who does not want to be on the front line of patrol. When I first edited Wikipedia, I was at almost exactly the opposite corner from where the servers were (Hong Kong vs. Florida) so I was precluded from doing quick-response work. That led me to run an RfA with an intention to specialise in deletion and protection, and to represent Hong Kong in Wikipedia policy decisions. Deryck C. 10:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

As someone who uses Twinkle on a daily basis, I just found it shocking to find an established user that doesn't use Twinkle. I've found Twinkle to be extremely helpful in deletion, but I can understand if you find it a bit cluttery. I appreciate your response! Best, -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

WP DAB banner

Hi, there's generally no need to create new talk pages containing only the {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} banner. There was a discussion about that a few months ago. Of course, you're welcome to put the banner on already existing talk pages (for example if they have other content – discussions, prod notices etc.) and to create talk pages if they contain something other than the WP DAB banner (like banners for other projects – but I think it's best to use these sparingly). – Uanfala (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-O

Hello. I noticed that the link to Hawaii Five-O on your userpage is a disambiguation, because you've used a zero instead of an O. I couldn't fix it for you because of the protection, so I'm letting you know in case you want to do it yourself. Rcsprinter123 (orate) 23:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! -- Tavix (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

About the request for closure

Tavix, thanks for explaining what you meant. I was going to reply there, but the discussion had just been been archived, and I got confused all over again. That place is not intuitive! Anyway, the RfC looked like no consensus to me, too. — Gorthian (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you completely, that place isn't the most intuitive. I'm glad we got it all figured out though. Best, -- Tavix (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Prime Minister (term) redirects

Hello again. You forgot to delete the following:

Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 01:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Tavix (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

umm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_8#Category:Locations_of_junction_railway_stations_in_Western_Australia

unless I am missing something - there is nothing about rail junctions in the CFD... no one in general usage in western australia ever called them that - railway junctions maybe, but I am not sure where the new title came from (unless I did and forgot that I did) JarrahTree 00:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Marcocapelle suggested it should be merged to "both parent categories" which you seemed to be fine with. I thought was strong enough consensus to make the merge, which is what I did. The four articles that were in that category were then merged with the two parents, one of which was Category:Rail junctions in Western Australia There wasn't any renaming that took place, so perhaps that category needs to be renamed if that's not in line with general usage? -- Tavix (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

nope its there in back and white that I created it in 2014. there is a fundamental problem with combining historical no longer existing with current, I will hopefully look into that in the new year. sorry to have bothered, my bad JarrahTree 01:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, good luck getting everything sorted out! -- Tavix (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, have a safe christmas and new year JarrahTree 01:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Common Good

Hey Tavix, how good is your memory. A page you moved 6 years ago is now up for PROD. I was wondering if you could shed some light on why this page might have been moved as a PRIMARY TOPIC? I understand it was thousands of edits ago, so you might not remember. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay: it was moved from Common Good to Common Good(organization) (note the lack of space) and I moved it back. That's probably the only reason, but I think there was a WP:DIFFCAPS claim as it's the only article titled "Common Good" with caps. No comment on notability as I haven't done the required research. -- Tavix (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Good memory and/or attention to detail. In general, sounds like not much to add to the conversation, and that might be a good example of WP:SMALLDETAILS as well. With it being such a minor organization with razor think notability, it seems like it might not be the right WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as opposed to a redirect to the uncased version. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Tavix: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Tavix, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017.
Happy editing,
CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you

Thank you for deleting my page with the bereaved notice. I miss my Mum, who wouldn't at Christmas, but I didn't ask for that to be put on there and thank you for taking it off. She died peacefully with her sons around her, she had a happy life and it was time for her to go. My dad wasn't there, the bastard, he'd taken the easy way out by dieing seven years before her. There was a lot of bblack humour on our side of the family, lots of laughing and joking, and not because people were nervous, it is what my family does: taking the piss out of someone is not an insult but a compliment, if I don't like you, I can't be bothered to take the piss out of you. But at least she attended his funeral, but he couldn't be bothered to come to hers. It's like the old joke, the boy who kills his parents then pleads mercy on the court because he has just been made an orphan. That one is a really hard one to track down, but I think it goes back to the greeks, though was most popular in Victorian times in England, I think. Best wishes to you and yours, this season and always. I will continue to disagree with you, but always in good faith. Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Hindoo for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pppery 23:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleting Evangelical Atheism per WP:NEO

I believe Evangelical atheism ought to be deleted. I noticed you reverted a prior deletion attempt asking for more discussion. Where does this need to happen, on the article's talk page? Is my post sufficient to begin a deletion request, or is more required?

Cheers, happy new year.

Ofus (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ofus:. The place to discuss whether articles should be deleted is WP:AFD. Let me know if you need assistance. Best, -- Tavix (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Tavix!

Happy New Year!

Tavix,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Tavix!

Happy New Year!
Tavix,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency.

Howdy, do you have any views on your 2 edits concerning linkage to Succession to the British throne article, at Monarchy of Canada & Monarchy of Australia? -- GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring me? GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked. I don't really want to get in the middle of a feud. If Miesianiacal feels it necessary to make it harder to find that article, there must be a good reason for it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to restore it & add the linkage to the other Commonwealth realms. As for Canada, perhaps he'll allow it to stay if we show it as Succession to the Canadian throne. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That should work. Failing that, it would seem wise to use the talk page as a method of dispute resolution to hopefully find common ground. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
For the moment I created 2 re-direct, Succession to the Canadian throne & Succession to the Australian throne, then added them to the Canadian & Australian monarchies as a test trial. See how Miesianical & StAnselm respond to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Miranda Esmonde-White

Why was Miranda Esmonde-White deleted - without any discussion? MaynardClark (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That article goes back to 31 March 2015‎ MaynardClark (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it goes back to 6 January 2015. -- Tavix (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the article I had created - 5 January 2015‎ MaynardClark (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of magnetic current

Good evening Tavix. You deleted Magnetic current. I didn't know it had been nominated for deletiona nd would like a chance to discuss that. Constant314 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No I didn't: Magnetic current. -- Tavix (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. I am completely confused. I see that Magnetic current is still there. I see the deletion log for Wikipedia:Magnetic current. I take it that those are not the same thing? Constant314 (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Correct, I've been doing some clean-up of the WP:Wikipedia namespace and I had deleted a WP:Cross namespace redirect that was left over from a move in the wrong namespace. -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes. I vaguely remember that I some sort of problem. I guess that was it. Thanks for the explanation. Constant314 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem! Happy editing, -- Tavix (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Cavers

You recently redirected 'Cavers' to 'Caving'. Can you please, for my peace of mind, confirm that this was not the page for Cavers, a parish in the Scottish Borders area of Scotland, or for the related family, Douglas of Cavers? Shipsview (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Cavers was a disambiguation, and I moved it to Caver (disambiguation) and retargeted cavers to caving (WP:PLURALPT). Cavers, Scottish Borders is still in tact, and I haven't found a page for the family, but several members are listed at the aforementioned disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC) -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion on the page Wikipedia:Maharana_Pratap_Khel_Gaon

Hello, I was just wondering about the deletion on the page Wikipedia:Maharana_Pratap_Khel_Gaon without any discussion. Was anything particular about such quick action? Vishal0soni (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Oopps.I think i know it now. The actual page Maharana_Pratap_Khel_Gaon is still there. Only some redirection is deleted. Actually we have been getting email about this deletion, which feels like you have deleted the actual page instead. Sorry about the confusion. Vishal0soni (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of territorial governors in the 21st century#Merge from

I see today you mad the same edit on six different pages of lists of governors.

Please comment at Talk:List of territorial governors in the 21st century#Merge from on a merge proposal for the many list of territorial governors in the 21st century.

The merge is to combine the first 5 (and a few others) into the 6th list. tahc chat 17:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Presidential and Vice Presidential March

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Presidential and Vice Presidential March. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

China (cultural region) soft redirect

A little response to your closing statement: I think the original reason it was converted to a soft redirect is that hard redirects may not be linked from Wikidata. So to preserve some link into the prevalent hierarchy of articles about "China" (whatever that means) around Wikimedia projects, which en.wp has detached itself from as a result of the 2011-12 page-move debates, some editors sought to circumvent the system by creating soft-redirects (which are treated like articles by the software and therefore linkable). Deryck C. 22:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: I presumed the reason was related to Wikidata from Dbachmann's comment, although I was still confused why it was a soft redirect instead of a hard redirect. The fact that soft redirects are treated as articles does clarify things a bit. I do agree with you that the China situation is messy, and I think the pre-2011 set-up is ideal. *shrug* -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd say the problem lies more with Wikidata's insistence of 1-to-1 correspondence of concepts, which was in turn inherited from Wikipedia. Anybody well versed with translation will know that concepts aren't 1-to-1 between languages. But then I also struggle to find a better solution for Wikipedia... Deryck C. 22:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. -- Tavix (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Dab pages into redirects

Hi, Tavix. When you make an edit like this, turning a dab into a redirect, it would help if you would also delete the redirect with "(disambiguation)" in the title. (In this case, IFTN (disambiguation).) It helps keep it off this error page. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done! Thanks for the reminder, it must've slipped my mind. -- Tavix (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Timeline of deportations of French Jews to death camps

Hi, I'm just querying your speedy deletion of Timeline of deportations of French Jews to death camps that was apparently created by a banned user. Regardless of who it was originally created by, it seems to have been [1] at the time of deletion a high quality article with good references. The suspected sock created many other articles [2] so I am curious why this one was singled out. I wonder whether it's possible some of these edits were made by a legitimate user before their account was hijacked by the sockpuppeteer, which would render G5 inappropriate. Some, including this one, don't exactly seem like the banned user's M.O. The account's username was changed [3] in 2014 and I wonder if some kind of mix-up could have taken place by which a legit user could have been merged with a sock. Maybe there's a much simpler explanation and I'm overthinking it. The article is linked to by several others and by multiple templates (although the links were mostly added by the same user) so it probably should exist, and the process of recreating it would probably resemble simply restoring the content from before the delete, so why not just do exactly that. I don't have access to the article's revision history, but I suspect it may have received substantial edits by other users, which would exclude it from G5. Thanks. Oktalist (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there's substantial edits by others, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I've restored the article. Happy editing! -- Tavix (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

hi

would you be prepared to hear me out on an issue ? JarrahTree 01:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC) I will lay out the diffs and all here, if you are interested or willing JarrahTree 01:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm willing to listen. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
sorry I am at utc zone 8+ and I figured that the issue I had was being dealt with from sleeping north americans, but for whatever my total misunderstanding of times zones I got it all wrong, at this point I think the problem is not worth exploring at this point, so thanks for your offer - cheers JarrahTree 02:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a little after 9pm where I live (UTC -6), so it's not quite bedtime yet. Do let me know if I could be of assistance in the future. Best, -- Tavix (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that - JarrahTree 03:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your hard work at RFD - Your help and contributions there (and everywhere) are much appreciated so thank you :),

Keep up the great work! :), –Davey2010Talk 17:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey2010! -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

KBB (band)

I haven't been able to find anything more on them either, and believe me I tried. Go ahead and delete it.

Roger -Dot- Lee, Aviation Geek, perpetual student, amature scientist 19:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger.lee (talk • contribs)

Author requested deletions are covered under WP:G7, but it's only actionable when there hasn't been substantial content added by others. There's been too much added from others for me to feel comfortable deleting it that way. I think it's best to wait for the WP:PROD to expire (after a week) and it'll be deleted then if there's no objections. There's one thing you can do, however: if you'd like to endorse the proposed deletion, add {{prod2}} to the article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Liberty Junior High School

I am curious as to dab policy. How is a listing of subjects that pretty much definitively will never be notable itself notable? Seems like a waste to me. John from Idegon (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: The relevant link would be WP:DABMENTION. As long as there's a mention of the school in a broader article, such as a School District, then there should be an entry. I wouldn't think of it as a waste. If someone searches "Liberty Junior High School", it'd be better for them to encounter a list of schools with that name over nothing. -- Tavix (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

RfD advice

Because of your extensive experience with RfDs, I'd like to ask for your advice. I'm preparing to nominate a list of redirects that are all characters from the video game BioShock. I think they can be nominated in one batch, because the same rationale can be applied to all of them. I intend to hide the list in a box—there are about 130 redirects. But I'm wary of creating a WP:TRAINWRECK. (Such a perfect term! And I learned it from you.) So I wonder if you would take a look at the list and my rationale and tell me if you think it'll be okay as a single nomination, or if I need to split it into several. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I always find it hard to gauge ahead of time how a mass nomination will transpire. I don't think there'd be any major problems with it that would result in a WP:TRAINWRECK (I wish I could take credit for the term!), but I've been wrong before. My recommendation would be to just go for it and see what happens. If you want to split it up, perhaps make two groups: characters that are mentioned in passing and characters that have no mention? That's really the only thing I can think of where editors might have differing opinions. -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
OMG! I thought I had a long list! 😳 Well, I didn't keep a record of those scattered few that had mentions, so I'm going to go ahead and keep it all in one list. Thank you for your thoughts! — Gorthian (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a bureaucracy

Not only is redirecting an unreliably sourced half-concept not "inappropriate WP:BLAR", but sending it to discussion for no affirmative reason (e.g., sources or rationale for keeping it standalone) is a waste of energy for all involved. And this AfD that you cited as precedent easily shows that consensus was more for redirection than keeping it in any form... so what's your logic here? You really want to see this go to AfD apropos of nothing? BRD is one thing, but when the article hasn't been touched in ages, what is your rationale for not redirecting it? czar 22:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if the article is kept or deleted, but redirecting it to a "parent" article that makes no mention of the talker isn't useful or helpful. Again, if you want to see the article deleted, the best place to hash that out is WP:AFD. -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
All of the other talkers were redirected there too. If I wanted the article deleted, I would have nominated it. This project runs on uncontroversial redirects. If you would have preferred the redirect be deleted, that's on you and RfD to discuss, but there certainly wasn't just cause to restore the article to its poorly sourced state. I am no longer watching this page--ping if you'd like a response czar 00:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the other redirects, I'm one step ahead of you. Surfers, however, is a different case since it was previously an article. Consensus at RfD has never been in favor of deleting former articles redirected without consensus. Usually the result is "revert and send to AfD". So, I saved some time and went straight to the "revert" step. Regarding, there certainly wasn't just cause to restore the article to its poorly sourced state, of course there is. -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent close!

I just read your closing statement about the Tylenol redirect discussion, and I want to thank you for making one of the most thoughtful and intelligent discussion closes that I have seen in a long time. That was a very impressive analysis indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish! That was easily the most difficult closure I've ever attempted. I think I need some Tylenol now... -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

I would also like to say that the close of "Tylenol" at RfD was very judicious and reflects well on you.

I only made a new section rather than piggyback above because I did have a small nit to pick: I wish your close hadn't given official sanction to the absurd "brand names promote spam" argument. The argument really only makes sense through the lens of a really radical anti-commercial viewpoint, i.e., that mentioning brand names at all promotes them. If I've misunderstood, and the argument is that this actually makes the project a target for spambots or something like that (and this is me just trying to grasp at something more logical, because no one alluded to such a threat), then I do apologize for the misunderstanding, though I don't see how this would be the case when Tylenol (brand) exists too.

I'll be interested to see what comes of the test redirects from the new dab. That was a good idea. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's definitely a fair point. I was simply stating that the argument was used as a reason to redirect brand names to generic drugs. I've clarifed that slightly by modifying "to prevent spam" to "to discourage non-notable brand articles from developing". It clarifies the meaning I was trying to get across while also appealing to WP:REDLINK. Since redlinks encourage articles, bluelinks should discourage articles we don't want—that is non-notable and/or promotional articles. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The experiment with the dab may or may not produce meaningful results. I had tried something similar at Hindko and the two entries on the temporary dab page ended up receiving roughly equal numbers of views, despite one of them being the unambiguous primary topic both in the real world and in terms of the traffic statistics for the articles proper. The most likely explanation is that most readers would arrive on the dab page expecting the primary topic, but then they would see that their search term could also refer to a different, but related topic (which they might not have known about) and they would then get curious about it and click on its link instead. That's just one possible explanation, the circumstances of my experiment could allow for alternative explanations which have no bearing on the Tylenol case, and as the trial ran for only a little over a week the result might not be representative. – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
There's been several thousand page views per day between both "Tylenol" topics, so I'd be much more optimistic about it due to scale alone. I do concede that someone who isn't familiar with one topic or the other might initially be confused by arriving at a disambiguation page and end up clicking on both to figure out what they are. Over the course of several thousand people and a longer period of time, my hypothesis is that effect would diminish considerably. Even if it didn't, I'd say there isn't a primary topic, as it would turn out that people are equally interested in both topics. I'm really interested to see the results. -- Tavix (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't considered the spam argument from that angle. Still not a good argument, IMO, but I want to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that there's some validity to it. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Concur with BDD's statement that your closure was "very judicious and reflects well on you". I too am "interested to see what comes of the test redirects from the new dab". It was a great idea. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

RfD

I nominated the Hungarian tennis tournaments on Wednesday, but after seeing the comments that people posted, I realize that the redirects should stay and I would like to withdraw my nominations. Would you mind closing it or should we wait for more discussion? Adamtt9 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Tavix (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you know listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Did you know. Since you had some involvement with the Did you know redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shizhao (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Table Hockey

Hello, Can I find data from these deleted pages somewhere? Thanks for your answer. Berlin Open (table hockey) (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Boston Challenge (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Canada Challenge (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Czech Open (table hockey) (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Helsinki Open (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Hungarian Open (table hockey) (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Oresund Cup (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Oslo Open (table hockey) (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Riga Open (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Saint-Petersburg Open (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Slovenia Open (table hockey) (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Stiga Las Vegas (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Table Hockey European Championships (talk) removedThanks for your answer. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.13.229 (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You can use a Wikipedia mirror to find the data. -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answer.
But I do not know how to use a Wikipedia mirror to find the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.13.229 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.13.209 (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)There are many sites which copy Wikipedia content that has been deleted. For instance if you Google "Berlin Open (table hockey) Wikipedia" (without the quote marks) the material is listed at Wikiwand, Wikipedia Republished, WOW.com and several others. Hope that helps.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Engaeus affinis etc. at RfD

I have followed through on the restoration and creation you proposed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 21#Engaeus affinis. That was a little out of my comfort zone, so I'm hoping you can spot check what I did to make sure everything looks right. Let me know if I did anything systematically wrong. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: That looks perfect. It's exactly what I had in mind when I made the close. Good work! -- Tavix (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Atorres50

See also: User talk:Atorres50

Thanks for the block.

I discovered he has forged talk page comments on at least two occasions - on Talk:NBC Sports here and in an RFD here. It was rather appalling to see a comment written by "me" when I had not been on Wikipedia in hours. It's really bad. Raymie (t • c) 22:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm wondering if it may be worth looking into a possible SPI to get a CU to look into this as well as this seems like it's probably not their first time...they knew an awful lot (or not, I suppose) about more advanced aspects of Wikipedia, particularly redirecting a ton of stuff. It seems likely to be related to this block too: 209.242.141.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Chrissymad: Yeah, it seems to be an obvious match to the IP. Go ahead and post an SPI, I'd like to get checkuser input. -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll work on an SPI in a bit. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just noting that CU can't publicly connect IPs to accounts. However, you can still open an SPI and have the IPs blocked on behavioural evidence. – Uanfala (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I know, that's why I didn't post it with the IPs - I think it may be related to a named account, just gotta do some digging. ;) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wondering if they are related to Felipe.ir.1999 even though the IPs are slightly off. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

He didn't give us any ten-letter Mexican callsigns, so I doubt that. I just had the last few pages deleted from that guy's userspace. BTW he had a sock with his full name: Ramón Felipe Iñiguez. Raymie (t • c) 23:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirect debate that should close

You weren't involved at this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_9#Template:Vg except for Relisting it. Anyway, I Retargeted this Redirect to a much more highly trafficked Template Page. If anyone wants to debate whether a "VG" Redirect to Template:Video games should exist, it should probably be a separate Discussion. So, do you think you could close this debate? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. -- Tavix (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord North (disambiguation)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord North (disambiguation). --Nevé–selbert 01:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

🔞 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🔞. Since you had some involvement with the 🔞 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Peafowl

Hey Tavix, could you add a closing summary to your close at Peafowl?--Cúchullain t/c 16:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't find it necessary, it seemed clear that there wasn't consensus to move. Do you disagree? -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
In any case, I've expanded upon my closure. You're more than welcome to open a move review if you wish. -- Tavix (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the closing note. There were certainly more people opposing than supporting, but the majority aren't based on any policy argument. I'd regard this as much closer to a "no consensus" than a "no move" (I don't plan on challenging it, as the result would be the same).--Cúchullain t/c 14:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I think that's fair to call it "no consensus to move". Best, -- Tavix (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tavix/Archive_6&oldid=1090607774"