Archives

Archive 1: Dec 2007 – Nov 2008 Archive 2: Dec 2008 – Mar 2009 Archive 3: Apr 2009 – Jun 2014 Archive 4: Jul 2014 – Nov 2015 Archive 5: Dec 2015 – Aug 2016 Archive 6: Sep 2016 – Feb 2017 Archive 7: Mar 2017 – Nov 2017 Archive 8: Dec 2017 – Apr 2018

Hi, I redirected article you proded to Amiga software article. There is one solid review of AMuse in the Amiga Future magazine, but not much more. Too few RS for an article, but enough for a mere redirect, I think. Pavlor (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There's not much of a mention there, but I won't object to it. Thanks for double checking my work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to close the Tooltip RfD, but before doing so, I wondered if you had a good idea about how/where to advertise this undertaking. WP:AWB/TA seems more focused on quick and simple tasks, not something drawn out and involved as this. Is there a better place you know of? It'd be nice for it not to wallow. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: I was under the impression that E to the Pi times i was going to take care of that part, but it seems they haven't been around in over a month now. WP:BOTREQ, perhaps? If there are no volunteers, I guess the result would be a default to keep until/unless someone cares enough to take care of it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think BOTREQ would work, since it will require a human to determine whether it's an abbreviation or not, and if not, whether to remove, replace with footnote, or something else. As for e^iπ, there were some other circumstances/behavior. I think I'll mull it over a bit; I suppose AWB/TA wouldn't be a bad place to solicit help regardless, maybe find an intrepid few folks? I suppose I could pick up AWB myself and triple my edit count... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something broader than WP:BOTREQ, maybe WP:VPT? That seems to be a catch-all place for Wikipedia's techincal issues. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts in fighting trolls and vandals! (Gosh, I'm never sure if I'm grammatically correct when I say that, but thank you. Really.)

— Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 03:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I’ve only been doing this for like a decade, so of course I have no idea how to name an article. Thanks for fixing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: It happens to the best of us! :) I'd be impressed if anyone has all the naming conventions memorized... Thanks for the barnstar. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understand that removing each redirect severs the connection between route articles and park/loop route lists, but it is not common practice to link directly to a list. Those minimal details of routes should at the very least be put into a listicle, something like the Farm to Market roads, if not their own separate articles. If you're not convinced, feel free to undo the rest of my edits and take a look at the List of state highway spurs in Texas article. For a sense of consistency, that article needs redirects too. Cards84664 (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I'd like to hear how we can blue link in one spot, and red link in another, what would the titles be? Cards84664 (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The proper way to fix a "looping redirect" is by removing the link from the article/list, not by deleting the redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to keep the red link on the list? Kinda like a template that would automatically overwrite the redirect if an article was created? I'm asking since the majority of the list links are still red.Cards84664 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My recommendation would be to remove all links except for those that are articles. As articles are created, links can then be readded (usually the author does this). I am not aware of a way to do this automatically though. Deletion to create a WP:REDLINK is a rationale used at WP:RFD, if you still want to pursue that route. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just requested a blocked editor to participate in an article talk page discussion. Thought you should know... - ^theWOLFchild 01:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just curious, but why do you keep asking a blocked editor to participate in article talk page discussions when they can't? - ^theWOLFchild 23:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:RFD#HOWTO step three. Both of your comments are the same diff. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, he deleted it and I thought it was second one for some reason. But just the same, my second post prompted a reply here. As pointed out below, it is self-requested block. I took that to mean that user wants to be left alone for awhile, until they decide to return. I could be wrong on that, but still didnt see tbe point on notifying blocked users about discussions that cant participate in. - ^theWOLFchild 04:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • (talk page stalker) I agree that the talk pages of indefinitely blocked or long retired editors shouldn't be spammed with notices, but here the situation is different: the user was blocked only a week ago (so it's still within a window of time in which it's not improbable that their block might get appealed, and maybe they're still around and interested in what happens to their creations); more importantly in this case, if you look at the block log you'll see that it's a self-requested block, so the user can at any time request an unblock. – Uanfala (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you need it, but for whatever it's worth I'm totally cool with your closure and appreciate you doing so. I'd also be fine if you wanted to make it cleaner and revert my relisting itself, but honestly that just feels like more work for little gain. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually started closing them both at the same time this morning (by wrapping one {{rfd top}} before the first discussion and an {{rfd bottom}} after the second discussion), but something came up and couldn't get back to it until when I did. I sat there for a minute, considered pinging everyone for clarity's sake, and then decided it wouldn't be worth it and just went right back to closing it. I'm glad you're cool with it because it did feel a bit like I was stepping on toes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that we're here, on a related note, you relisted SelectUSA a week ago. There's been no input since but the two participants are right, it's seeking an RM, not an RfD, so I'm leaning toward just opening the RM myself and closing it procedurally. What do you think about that? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like the best route to me, good idea. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of this is, imho, a very good invocation of WP:NOTBURO. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 July 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Table Rock Lake duck boat accident, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectacle Island, Warwick, Bermuda which you started, and which was closed delete though I am not sure that was proper. I came to agree that a number of one-sentence articles, probably all created at the same time, could at least be merged/redirected to List of islands of Bermuda. I don't know how you came across the one that you questioned, but if you want to find and address more of them that would be fine by me. If you do, I hope you'll move the coordinates and any other info to the list-article row for each one. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They would need to be verified first; Spectacle Island was not so it was rightfully deleted. The same goes for any other similar articles. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was my page and not sure what was happening with it but I couldn't seem to find it Wifey93 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a draft started at Draft:2030 Winter Olympics. It's not ready for publishing yet though. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you disagree that the Oklahoma City Barons were an expansion in 2010? They were not a relocation and they were not split from any other team as the franchise was dormant for five years with Oilers' prospects sent to various teams. So while they were not an expansion "franchise", they were an expansion team and the league did, in fact, expand. It seems important that it shows the league was matching the NHL, so maybe that should be clarified, but I am not going to get into an edit war over it as it is somewhat trivial in the grand scheme of all things. Yosemiter (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: OKC was a reactivation of a dormant franchise, which is a bit different from an expansion. I see your point, but I don't think it's worth having unless that is explained. Perhaps if there is a source that uses that language? -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm fine with it not being mentioned. The last pure expansion franchise was 2001 with the Monarchs and Sound Tigers, but the last time the league expanded in size is 2010 (there have been multiple "re-activated" franchises like OKC and the San Antonio Rampage in that decade and the Texas Stars were technically an expansion franchise in 2009 that purchased the dormant Iowa Chops in 2010). It is a bit convoluted, so probably best not to mention as it is a bit trivial. Yosemiter (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment. "summary does not match the discussion" sir actually I don't want to put it in the summary section. Actually it is the part of my main article but since I am new I have no idea how to shift that to main article. I have wrote this article in "article wizard" where format is predesigned I try it to shift I could not able to succeed. Please help me how I can able to move this present shown summary content(but actually it is my main article part) to main article.

2. Is it compulsory to write summary? Thanks PRABHAKAR.S (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what you are talking about. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do I have to wait for a redirect discussion to close before starting a new article draft for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.202.28 (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can write a draft at anytime! Most of the time, writing an article on the subject at hand resolves the issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to have Isaac (name), Issac and the Isaac (disambiguation). Disambiguation is much more useful than plain Issac. I tried to combine Issac and disambiguation which are both lists of uses for the word. I did NOT touch the Isaac (name) which is great as is. How is it useful to have three pages of which two are just lists ?

one could even make the argument to combine all three. Thehornet (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thehornet. Isaac and Issac are different names with different spellings, so they are treated with different pages. Also, when you leave a comment, be sure to sign your comment by leaving four tildes (~~~~). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

well, don't I feel like a bonehead. Good point Thehornet (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion to restore Mercer Street (Seattle) to its original page name, seeing as it's the primary topic. Please consider adding your input. SounderBruce 22:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I will participate in that discussion shortly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tavix. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

...Yep, rollback works. That annoyance of a link is back again. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tavix. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to tag these as attack pages? I'm struggling to see the issue. SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly. They disparage the subject and serve no other purpose. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging a lot for WP:G6 as obvious namespace errors at the moment... Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion if need be. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll look though that category when I have the time. I'm more interested in seeing how these will be merged first. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My plan is to merge the ones that get speedy deleted into a level-4 header category, and change all their headers into level-5s. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
	Hi Tavix! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The function of a page should not be interrupted by a discussion. I shudder at how many links we have to the redirect, and you want to break them all for that philosophical conversation. Utilise the talk page as required, but do not break functionality. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can still use the redirect, just click on the link. The tag is required per WP:RFD#HOWTO. Users of the redirect need to know there is a discussion that could effect the redirect moving forward, which is much more important than a minor inconvenience of having to click through. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey Tavix, I saw you deleted this. If the content is not itself in violation of WP policy, can you userfy it in my userspace so I can put it back into the Wiki? The article title is in some navboxes and I would prefer not to have to reinvent the wheel if the list is decent. Any help appreciated, and thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 19:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: It was simply a redirect to Pow wow#List of pow wows. Here is what the list looked like at the time of the redirect, which existed until you removed it in April 2017. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tavix, I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I'm planning on nominating Template:Tfd relisted and Template:Cfd relisted for deletion. My reasoning is because the two discussion forums WP:TFD and WP:CFD do not utilize that method to relist discussions to a point where using them could break edits made by bots to those forums. (I've had experience creating a "relist" template for WP:TFD once ... the same one you created ... but the idea was shot down in lieu of using the existing practice.)

So .... since I notice that you are the creator of both, I'm more or less letting you know before I nominate them in case you have any desire to either delete them per WP:G7 or find a way to make them able to be utilized with current relisting procedures at WP:CFD and WP:TFD. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer them to be kept. CfD does not relist often, but when I was active at CfD (as late as 2017), that is the template I used to relist. I'm not going to dig through the logs, but it looks like it was still used as recently as last year per User talk:Marcocapelle#CFD relist. For what it's worth, it's still mentioned at WP:CFDAI as the relist method. I have never been active at TfD, but I think I remember creating the TfD one to start a discussion so all the XfD boards with daily logs would relist the same way, but I don't think I ever got around to starting that discussion. I think that one should be kept too because I'd still like to have that discussion one day, and I firmly believe this relisting method to be the superior way to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I found a way to utilize {{Cfd relisted}} while following currently-established relisting procedures at WP:CFD: See here. And also FWIW, I agree that the method used at RfD is definitely the most efficient of all methods that exist for XfD discussion pages that do not utilize individual subpages for each nomination ... but yeah, trying to have the community to utilize such a template elsewhere seems to be an uphill battle, especially since the template would break the bots that manage the subpages and sometimes automatically close discussions for deleted pages. That, and RfD seems to be one of the only XfD forums where daily subpages' transclusions have to be manually removed when completed. I guess RfD is kind of like the indie company with a good idea trying to take on the big guys. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please return this to the original title with the date (1912). I'm trying to stay calm here, but I'm simply flabbergasted that any admin could think that Ma Jolie (1912) was an acceptable title under our policies. What does this convey to the reader???? WP:PRECISE, in whose name many crimes are committed, begins: "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". You titles completely failed to do this. In any case WP:VAMOS is clear that the first disam is normally to the artist (or sometimes to "painting"). Actually the best disam is to Ma Jolie (Picasso, New York), with the other going the same way. Who knows the dates?? I hope you don't do other edits like this. Please be much more careful. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done those moves. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: That looks fine to me. As a note, the fact that I am an admin is irrelevant to this situation because it was not an admin action. Please don't be bandying it around in unrelated contexts. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the discussion to delete that redirect isn't going to pass, and may even be closed early. But, as you know, since the redirect was added after the discussion stated, If the closer doesn't agree to closing the discussion in a different matter, it could potentially be a case of WP:DRV for the original discussion. (Anywho, that's my 2 cents on the whole matter, considering that I don't think Wikipedia:WikiProject Crapwatch had adequate discussion since it was created during the discussion and added after the discussion started, so I'd argue that the discussion was not properly closed, but I'm choosing not to be the one to start that dialogue.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see the discussion play out first, DRV seems more trouble than its worth IMO. I'm confused why you withdrew your delete !vote though, especially since it still seems like you believe the redirect should be deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I do, but I see the argument for "speedy keep" based on the way the discussion was closed, so I did what I felt I had to due to the way our guidelines are currently set. 😐 Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I'm not withdrawing, but I am fine with a concurrent or subsequent DRV discussion depending how it plays out. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) FWIW, I restored my "Delete" comment. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a quick favor and delete User:Steel1943/common.js? I'd just tag it and have another admin delete it, but I can't tag it since it's a ".js" page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: JS pages can be CSDed the normal way by putting the CSD tag in a JavaScript comment. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I can't recall tagging a .js page before, so you've piqued my interest. I just tagged my .js for G7 deletion using Twinkle. While the template didn't appear as usual, it still showed up in the correct categories so an admin would still be able to find it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have firsthand knowledge: I recently U1ed user:pppery/pingremind.js a userscript I created. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the RfDs French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports and Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities as 'Keep', despite there being only one objection raised after being relisted. I don't believe that is the correct decision and I'd like you to re-open the debates to allow a close which reflects the debate.

Rather than trouble you, I initially simply relisted the TfDs and addressed the point raised by the sole objector. However, you have now closed the RfDs as 'speedy keep'. I believe this is also mistaken, as the previous RfDs (despite being relisted) were closed with one objection to nomination for deletion. These redirects have no value whatsoever, and ought to be deleted, rather than remain as a constant temptation to move the articles to a non-existant English translation (which happens sometimes through a mistaken reading of WP:AT). It is not helpful to stifle debate by your rapid closures. I would be grateful if you would please revert at least one of your your closures and allow debate to take place. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might have closed them as "no consensus", but I felt that the one objection was a strong argument for keeping it so I closed it as such. Either way the result is the same, so I don't think it matters much. You had over a week after the objection was made to address the objection made but you neglected to do so. I am declining your request to relist because the discussion had been open for over two weeks and garnered little discussion and I do not think it being open longer will attract more attention. I am usually lenient on requests to relist, but subverting the usual process and unilaterally renominating the discussions did you no favor here. You may appeal my decision at WP:DRV if you wish. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are all volunteers here and have other things to do beside refute objections on TfDs. The objection was a weak argument as nobody would think to use a made-up translation to access either of those articles. They only exist in the literature as their names in French and Spanish or (more commonly) as their respective abbreviations. The result is not the same, and I do think it matters. Nobody would close a re-nomination as "Speedy Keep" if the earlier nomination had been "no consensus". It seems that you've used your mistaken first closure to justify your second one. I'm not interested in you doing any me favours: I expect you to use your admin tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia and I don't need nonsense like "subverting the usual process and unilaterally renominating the discussions did you no favor here". That's not why the community grated you those tools. I assumed that a simple renomination which addressed the objection would have been a less bureaucratic route than DRV, but it seems I was mistaken. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it matters to you, I have done you one favor: I have changed my closure to "no consensus to delete". Note that these are RfDs, not TfDs. It sounds like we disagree on what's best for the encyclopedia, so I'll leave it at that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]