Jump to content

User talk:Tavix/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5


Fingerboard AfD

Hi, this article has rewritten, please consider revisiting the AfD discussion to see if your comments have been addressed. Benjiboi 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

20th century (Mormonism)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 20th century (Mormonism), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: 1900s (LDS). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please use the "move" function rather than perform a cut-and-past move. See WP:MOVE Cool Hand Luke 06:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. All of the pages were merged. Nevermind. Cool Hand Luke 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robot (t.A.T.u. song)

LOL. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cedarview Middle School: article updated

Regarding the AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedarview Middle School: the article has been enhanced by one of the discussants and you may wish to revisit your input in light of the current state of the article. Regards User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluetooth advertising

I've rewritten the article. Please reconsider your stance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluetooth advertising -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jetman

I see you've taken down my deletion template.

I'd like a reason on why you think Jetman (video game) is noteworthy, that is, how it doesn't fail WP:WEB. --Jon Ace T C 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advise. Actually I usually tag articles asking for citation. But, most of the time, active authors working on those articles do not care much. Interestingly when I tagged them for AfD by twisting (but not breaking) the policy mentioning that those articles don't have enough (sometime not a single) citation, they took it really seriously. To be very honest, my intention was to improve quality of Wikipedia, not to attack some particular article or author. And, I do also agree that this is actually misuse of policy. So I decided not to do this in future. Cheers -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 18:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pigs over 1000 pounds

I've proposed a solution you might agree with. The Transhumanist (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of LGBT people

I'm curious why you merged List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Ra-Rn‎ into List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Ro-Rz? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I actually moved it so that everyone named R would be under one article, but I couldn't change the title so I sent for the people at Request for move to do it for me. Tavix (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeh. See, there's a reason that was in two pages - because of its' length. 111 people on the list is too many, it takes too long to load, and it comes close to over-working the citation templates. And usually people discuss major changes like that first. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Galactic conquest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Galactic conquest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Omitted Bible Verses

Dear Tavix,

I found your article List of Omitted Bible Verses extremely interesting. I could find no references to support it though. Have these been published in any academic journals? Any books that have analyzed these and listed them and given an explanation for their omission? There needs to be some sort of secondary citation like this in order to justify inclusion in Wiki, because otherwise it represents Original Research that you've done and posted.

I really hope there are some secondary sources out there! If not, I hope you publish this on a blog at least because I think many would find these interesting. Renee (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Zolos

Why does Zolos redirect to Philadelphia Major League Soccer team? What is the link between them? Please explain (on my talk page) or I'll CSD it. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if it's the team's nickname it's fine. I just like to check on these things. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on List of mayors of Margate. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This article is encyclopedic, just because it needs to be wikified it don't make it non-encyclopedic – i123Pie biocontribs 08:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Irish language. It is good practice (and courteous) to fill in the Edit Summary field - if for no other reason that it explains to others who come after you what you changed, and why. Please consider taking the extra few seconds to add one. Thanks a lot. Guliolopez (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List of omitted Bible verses‎

I don't know what you mean by what sort of consensus - have you looked at WP:PRACTICAL? The name was indeed suggested, and I argued against it. StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe Shmoe

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Joe Shmoe, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries and minor edits

I reverted your edits to Mackinac Island and Template:Protected Areas of Michigan. In the Mackinac Island edit, you said that you moved an image, which you did, but you also removed another completely and changed the formatting of the references section. On the template, you removed a bunch of redlinks with no edit summary and marked it as a minor edit. Links should not be removed simply because no article exists yet. Articles could feasibly exist at those titles and the red links are an invitation to create them, and removal of content should not be marked as a minor edit. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Edit summaries and minor edits

I reverted your edits to Mackinac Island and Template:Protected Areas of Michigan. In the Mackinac Island edit, you said that you moved an image, which you did, but you also removed another completely and changed the formatting of the references section. On the template, you removed a bunch of redlinks with no edit summary and marked it as a minor edit. Links should not be removed simply because no article exists yet. Articles could feasibly exist at those titles and the red links are an invitation to create them, and removal of content should not be marked as a minor edit. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

jamiecg74

As much as I appreciate any comments, saying "there are absolutely no references that would tell me if any of this crap is true" - to be honest, I find this a negative and poor comment. If you had been more objective to the article, as wikipedia is anyway then i would have glady accepted your comment. I could easily say that you are talking crap too, but that's not what I want to do as it just causes unnecessary friction between myself and you. --Jamiecg74 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Westminster Christian Academy (Missouri) Edits

I have a few questions about your recent edits to Westminster Christian Academy (Missouri).

1. Why did you remove the two alumni (Stephen Hauser & Mark Hearne)?

2. Why did you combine the alumni and staff? The separate list was per the suggested sections of WP:WPSCHOOLS.

3. Why did you remove the headmasters section? Again, it was added as a suggested section of WP:WPSCHOOLS with the intention of adding additional information about each.

4. I think that the school is accredited is a very important detail. Why did you remove that information?

I don't have any problem with your removal of the other lists. However, it was my intention to use much of that information in text sections and it was only in a list until I got it further along. Look forward to hearing from you on my questions and working on improving this acticle! Thanks. Hjg001 (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

13 May 2008 Jaipur bombings

Please discuss before making such edits. --AI009 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Date articles

Are you actually planning on copying the content of the daily information into the month article? What was wrong with the data being transcluded as it was before? Corvus cornixtalk 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, what I am planning on doing is to go though all of the individual date articles, and copy the content to the month article. There are two reasons why I am doing this: When the data was transcluded, it was in the month article but if you wanted to edit anything you would have to go over to the individual date article to edit it. From me merging the info, it makes it easier to edit by taking that extra step away. The other reason would be from a centralized discussion topic I found here. Most of the people on that discussion wanted to move/merge the date articles, so I am simply fulfilling that consensus. Tavix (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Understand. Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thankyou for notifying me about lyrics. Dude (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Indian removal

Hi there. To let you know, I've moved Native American removal back to Indian Removal. Please see the talk page for an explanation. Okiefromokla complaints 02:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

light travels both ways

if i leave earth at the speed of light and when i arrive at my destination i will see earth when i left, so when i return light will pass me at the speed off light, and i will be traveling into that at the speed of light, will time not be constant. andy kemp x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.233.58 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Final play of Super Bowl XXXIV

Please don't delete/merge articles without a discussion first. Thanks. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Please read WP:BOLD. It says that if you see something that can be improved, do not hesitate to do it yourself. I was assuming good faith and seeing that the article on "The Tackle" is essentially the same as the section in the Super Bowl. It is much easier to read the information there then to go searching for the same info on the same page. Tavix (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD revisit

Greetings, I see that you have provided input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThefucKINGFUCKS, which I nominated, in favor of deletion. Since you cast your vote, the article has been improved quite a bit and no longer seems to fail notability under WP:BAND or any other relevant guideline. I'd like to ask you to revisit the article and reassess your position, and as the orignal nominator, I have changed my own position regarding the article's deletion. If you do find that the article now establishes notability, please consider changing your position on the article's deletion discussion. Thanks.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD's

I have, as you've seen, encountered a couple of your AfD's, and I'd advise that you put more effort into checking the notability/verification before nominating the article, and also go over the notability guidelines again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God (Paul Weller song) is a valid deletion, but not being a single is not a reason to delete under WP:MUSIC, while the X & Hell article gave within the article a reason to be kept and a simple google search with the 11,000 clicks article would have linked to evidence showing notability. Ironholds 11:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Good Morning Revival. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~ Troy (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Collodion baby article

Could you enlighten me as to why this article needs deleting? This is a real condition and none of it has been made up. I don't understand what the problem is!!! Adam2307 (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

unusual prod

You seem to have an unsual view on "inactive sandbox".

  1. you placed a prod deletion tag on User:Geo Swan/Review/Ralph Kohlmann using the reason "inactive sandbox that hasn't been used in 3 years. not needed anymore" Considering that the article had been userified there by by my colleague, the very experienced administration User:Titoxd one day earlier, the reason seems totally inapplicable. I removed the prod as part of my routine checking of newly placed prods. You can of course take in to MfD, but considering that Geo Swan is a very active editor on the topic, that there is a total lack of correspondence between the reason and the article history, and our policy of permitting editors to work in good faith on AfDd articles, it would be most unlikely to be deleted there. Additionally, it is required that when you place prod of other deletion tag on an article that this be indicated in the edit summary, using an unambiguous wording, like :proposed deletion" I notice also you did not inform the editor involved--now, though this is not strictly required, but it is considered polite, and almost everyone does it.
  2. You seem to have treated similarly User:Mcchrisfan/Former Fat Boys, userified two days earlier by Fabrictramp in closing an AfD, again without a proper edit summary or a user notification. Some some carried the explanation "User pages are not used for advertising", which in all cases I have seen does not seem relevant, because when someone writes a page about himself and the person is not notable, it is normal practice for administrators to do just such a move. I have reverted them all, for the same reasons. More exactly, I have reverted all those that other people have not removed first, also judging them incorrect uses of prod.
  3. Please do not do this further without discussing it here or elsewhere, as i think trying to erase the userification associated with the administrative closure of an afd might well be considered disruptive.DGG (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Winter road redirect

You put in a redirect at Winter road claiming that the merge with Ice road was "in order". The former content at Winter Road seemed to have additional information that was not merged into Ice road, so perhaps the redirect change was premature?

Additionally, the merge infobox is still on the Ice Road article, as well as a couple wikilinks to the now-redirected Winter Road article. I think it might be better to roll back the redirect change and look at better defining the two terms' similarities and differences before the pages are considered fully merged. Todd Vierling (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elango

When you relisted this you forgot to subst: the template. I'd fix it myself, but that would put my sig on it instead of yours. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Mr. Tavix. I am wondering if you could add the coordinates for the Old Parish Church of Peebles? Bye. Tharnton345 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

La tennis Bensimon

Just a friendly note on La tennis Bensimon. I removed your prod and added several quality sources that I believe show notability. If that doesn't work for you, feel free to take it to AfD. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hello Tavix, I have never had the pleasure of interacting with you before, but since I have noted that you have experience with the deletion nomination process, I thought that I would do good in requesting that you help me in the deletion process of four "lists". You see, if I did it, I'm afraid that I would mess things up as I have done before.

Here is the situation. The following four "lists", List of Puerto Rican comedians, List of Puerto Rican artists, List of Puerto Rican architects and List of Puerto Rican writers are spin-offs from the List of Puerto Ricans.

The four "lists" are not necessary, not managed and occupy Wikipedia space. The "List of Puerto Ricans" has a management team that has set up a requirement criteria and that requires that all additions be cited with reliable verifiable sources as policy.

I would really arreciate it if you do this. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for posting the nomination. It failed, but that's life. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Late Bloomer

Using THIS search parameter, there are actually a great number of sources available: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. This film most definitely is notable. Schmidt,' MICHAEL Q. 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Churches in the City of London , of which only the tower remains

Regarding your speedy deletion nom for the above category: You can't manually empty the category and then immediately nominate it as empty. An empty category can only be nominated for speedy deletion once it's been empty for a minimum of four days. Really, you shouldn't even be emptying the category, but if it's somehow inappropriate it should be nominated at WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Lewis House and other disambig pages

Hi. I understand you edited Lewis House and other disambiguation pages that include numerous places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places to remove red-links. Please stop!

I would be happy to discuss whether the disambiguation pages should be revised in some other way. However, the U.S. NRHP sites are all wikipedia notable, and i and others are creating articles for all of them. It helps to put these onto disambiguation pages. It is undoing our work if you remove them.

Please discuss. I will watch this Talk page for your reply, per your evidence preference. doncram (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, also I see you moved Rokeby (Ferrisburg, Vermont) to Rokeby (Vermont), which has since been reversed by Clariosophic. Hey, please stop any such moves and discuss. The "Rokeby (Ferrisburg, Vermont)" name reflects a naming convention for NRHP sites. If you want to discuss policy for naming conventions, you may, but I suggest that should be at, or with notice to, the Talk page of the wp:NRHP wikiproject. doncram (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • All right, I won't do that again, but I just don't see any point in including the city when it is the only Rokeby in Vermont. Its just simpler and makes more sense to me. Tavix (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I also see you put a Speedy Deletion tag on another page, John Rogers House, disambiguating NRHP articles. It is indicated in the disambiguation page that these are NRHP sites, and therefore extensive documentation is available about each of them and each is individually notable. I removed the prod notice. What's going on, are you attacking NRHP pages? doncram (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it was a prod and not a speedy. Basically all it is is clean-up. You don't need a disambiguation if everything is redlinked. It can always be recreated later IF the articles are created so I don't see any harm. If you don't mind, I might AfD them because you removed my prod, you can discuss on the AfD any other concerns you may have.

PS: Please assume good faith as well. I am not trying to attack you or any other article, but being bold and cleaning up. Thanks for your understanding.Tavix (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to explain how having the disambiguation helps. You have to understand (and I believe you do) that there are multiple cases of many NRHPs having the same name, and that each individual NRHP is wikipedia notable (because there is plenty of documentation available about each one, from their nominations, and they wouldn't have been accepted if they weren't of some national importance). There are also many NRHP county lists which list pretty much all of them. Here's the problem: say there are 3 or 5 or 15 such lists pointing to, say "Lewis House", each in a different state and county, and say that Lewis House is a red-link on each list. Then, when a local editor chooses to create the first one, he/she has no way of knowing there are other Lewis Houses, so he/she expects it is a unique name and creates it in the name "Lewis House", rather than as "Lewis House (Smithville, Pennsylvania" or whatever. And the editor and others may add multiple links in county articles and elsewhere, meaning this particular Lewis House. Problem #1: This immediately creates erroneous blue-links to the Smithville one in the other 2 or 4 or 14 lists. Later, as editors in other localities check on the Lewis House on other lists, they have to evaluate the existing Lewis House article and consider whether it is the same place as theirs. Finding it not to be the same place, they have to evaluate whether to move the first-created one to a new name or not, and to set up a proper disambiguation page, or whether to set up "for" links at the tops of the two articles. Problem #2: the evaluation of what to do is not obvious and takes time and effort. Problem #3: Figuring out the proper name to use in renaming the first-created one is not obvious and takes unneccessary time. Problem #4: Moving the first-created one then causes all the related articles to be pointing to the new disambiguation page, rather than to the Smithville article, detracting from the readability of the related pages, and causing more work to clear up. All four of those problems, and perhaps more, would be avoided if wp:NRHP editors would create disambiguation pages up front including redlinks for all of them. That way, all 3 or 5 or 15 lists show blue-links, but those point to clear disambiguation pages.
I hope this somewhat lengthy explanation helps you see some ways that having disambiguation pages, often with many red-links does help avoid much future work. doncram (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Paulding County Courthouse and other edits on NRHP pages

Tavix -- Your actions to put up for deletion various disambiguation pages, now Paulding County Courthouse, do not improve the wikipedia, in my view. As you now understand from discussions in at least three AfDs, the red-links to various NRHP sites serve useful purposes. You make more work for wp:NRHP editors who are creating articles.

Would you like to, instead, begin to create some NRHP articles? There are resources for editors available at wp:NRHP, and I would be happy to help advise you if you would like to start on any one.

Either way, please stop deleting redlinks and putting up disambiguation pages for deletion by prod or otherwise. doncram (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In previous discussion above, i mentioned "Speedy" deletion when I gather that your prod deletion approach is something different. I was not aware of a distinction, i thot Speedy referred to prod.

In one or more of the AfD discussions, User:Alansohn wrote: "Keep WP:MOSDAB#Red links states that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link." All of these red-linked articles listed here appear to have inbound links from historic article lists by various geographic criteria. I see no reason, certainly on a policy basis, that would require deletion of this article." I agree with this statement and others made by Alansohn and User:Andrew Jameson, especially, and I think you should concede the point(s) and withdraw the AfD's. I believe that in AfD etiquette, it is helpful for the nominator to make the withdrawal.
Also, you wrote at wp:NRHP "No help needed, issue dealt with. I've spoken with Doncram and gotten things cleared up. I am just trying to help and I would like to help in anyway possible with this wikiproject. I am also working on creating a couple NRHP articles as I am interested in historic places.Tavix (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)". Notwithstanding that your next steps were to put up multiple disambiguation pages for AfD!, I repeat, I would like to help you create an NRHP article or two. Are you drafting one in a sandbox somewhere? Let me know. doncram (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

unlabelled edit removing POWdis

I am in the uncomfortable position of reviewing your contribution history, in order to protect NRHP-related pages. In the process, i notice your unlabelled edit removing "Places of worship disambiguation" template from Holy Ghost Catholic Church. I undid your removal, effectively restoring that template from that page. I am apprehensive that you might embark on a campaign to delete either template from articles, and want to ask that you do not embark on such a campaign, or at least that you open appropriate discussions in the right fora, rather than disrupting the wikipedia with unhelpful deletions.

I am not invested, myself, in defending the value of the POWdis template, or, for that matter the NRHPdis template. I do not add either template to disambiguation pages that I create. But, I don't see that they do any big harm either, and especially an unlabelled edit removing one seems to me to be, on the face of it, unhelpful. If you want to raise a policy issue for discussion, I would prefer to help you state a reasonable argument opposing that template's usage and find the appropriate venue to raise it and discuss it. Rather than your creating problems and potentially destroying value by unexplained edits removing content. In particular, if you wanted to discuss the removal of the NRHPdis template generally, the appropriate venue would be wt:NRHP, and i would provide at least some moderate support to you in such a discussion (because i, to some degree, do not see very much merit in that template and its usage). There is probably an appropriate venue to discuss the POWdis template too, and I would participate in a discussion on it too. However, overall, I do not think that campaigns to eradicate either template would be very helpful; it seems to me that creating new NRHP articles, for example, would be time better spent. doncram (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the appropriate places for discussion, if you wish to open it, might be the Talk pages of the templates themselves. For NRHPdis, notice should be given to either the template talk page or to wt:NRHP if a discussion is opened at the other location. I just added the two templates to my watch list and will chime in if you choose to open a discussion. doncram (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

Hi, where is the consensus for the change you made which I reverted. You then reverted my revert saying there was no consensus. It doesn't make sense. You can't just change a MOS page to what you think it should be. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Just a friendly note encouraging you to use edit summaries, especially when nominating articles for deletion. (Example of an article where this would help is here.) When I'm nominating an article for deletion, I scan the edit summaries to see if it's been speedied, prodded or AfD'd before. It's a huge waste of time to pick one route only to find that it's not appropriate and I didn't know it because a previous editor didn't use an edit summary. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Deceased Wikipedians

Just want to let you know that I deleted this category as a recreation of material deleted as a result of an XfD discussion. In this case, the discussion is at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition and all subcats. As the admin who closed the discussion, After Midnight, isn't active, you may want to list the category at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think he misinterpreted the consensus there. WODUP 07:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing name of wiki page

Hi there, I see you changed the name of the wiki page i created for ATHEANA from the full name to the abbreviated version- thanks for that as i was trying to do this. I need to also do this for another one of my pages- could you please tell me how.Ggd101 (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Faith (1966)

Hey there, just wanted to let you know that I undid your moving of Hurricane Faith (1966) → Hurricane Faith, because the year is to disambiguate from other storms of the same name. If a storm was retired, it doesn't require the year in the title, but per WPTC guidelines, as Faith wasn't retired, it needs the bit. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But there aren't any other Hurricane Faith's! Tavix (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic group articles

Hi. In light of the failure to reach consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British‎ I've suggested that there be a discussion of the various issues raised, here. Your input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Request another look

Could you have another look at Realization and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realization. Your red link problem was just a cute case of vandalism. -- saberwyn 00:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Football articles

Do you have a consensus to move football player articles to non-logical names? Corvus cornixtalk 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Explain to me why they are non-logical. I'm just making it so that all of the ambiguous American football players have the same notice in parentheses. Before there were "football", "football player" ect. Tavix (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Because you're moving them to "American foopball", which people who would be expected to look for the names for, would not expect. If somebody knows what an American football player is (vs. an "American football" player), then they would look for "football", not "American football". You're sending them to names that people would not look for. And you haven't answered my question as to whether you have consensus to make these moves. Corvus cornixtalk 01:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject American football. Corvus cornixtalk 01:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  • That makes no sense. The "American" part in the name is to distinguish it from Association football also known as Soccer, and you don't need the fact that they are a player in the title because it is obvious that they are a football player from the article. Also, it seems like someone needs to read WP:BEBOLD. You only need a consensus to do controversial changes, which this one obviously isn't. Tavix (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please get consensus. Corvus cornixtalk 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_American_football#Moving_football_player_articles. Corvus cornixtalk 02:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently nobody on the WikiProject cares, to then, so be it. Corvus cornixtalk 04:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the moves you are doing to football player dabs. What possible rationale do you have for moving Charles Roberts (American football player) to Charles Roberts (American football). As a person who has played his entire professional career playing Canadian football, it seems a poor choice. The logical place is Charles Roberts (football player), where it used to be. There is no need for further disambiguation of the dab. I also suggest the move from Tom Brown (defensive lineman) should have been to Tom Brown (football player) as he only played Canadian football professionally but is also noted as a college American football player. There is no need for further disambiguation since the soccer player is dabbed (footballer) as per the norm. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry)." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I request again that you stop these nonsense moves. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Its not nonsense and it makes a lot more sense as it disambiguates Association football (soccer), American football, Canadian football, and Australian football. I feel strongly on this issue and will not stop. Sorry (not really). Tavix (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I feel at least equally strongly against these moves. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses rightly points out that "It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry)" which makes (American football) and the like non-preferred. It is also preferred to use the most simple and general term not the most precise one so simply using (football player) is fine if there are no other football players with the same name regardless of which kind of football he plays. The dab is not intended to be a précis of the article, just a means of naming more than one article with the same title. The brief is in the lead of the article. Using overly precise dabs when they are unnecessary makes guessing or assigning a dab to use that much more difficult and risks all sorts of incorrect dabs when players change between forms of football. (football player) should be the standard and alternates used only when necessary because more than one player with same name is best known as a football player. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Date pages

Please do not redirect pages like 11 May 2003! Those are all transcluded to the relevant article on that month of the year. It' stated in the headers to those articles. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wait. When I hit save page, it will all be included. PAITENCE! Tavix (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a wise idea. Such changes to the system must be properly discussed beforehand. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if it was decided to redirect all those pages, then I won't say a thing. It just looked strangely like good faith edits because you didn't say a thing on the edit summary. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Burial of Jennifer Rosanne States

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Rosanne States, and review the references at Burial of Jennifer Rosanne States. --Eastmain (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral move

Please see note at Talk:Cork_(city)#Unilateral_move. In short: your move was problematic for two reasons:

  1. A long RM consensus discussion resulted in the current page name. You shouldn't override that consensus unilaterally - certainly without recourse to the talkpage or an RM procdure.
  2. "Cork, Munster" is not an appropriate name - it has DAB issues with the County, and presumes that the city has some legal status in relation to the province. Which it doesn't.

I've therefore reverted your move. If you have any issues, please raise them on the article talk page. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

John Carver (footballer)

Hi, I've reverted your move of John Carver (footballer) to John William Carver, because it ran counter to the naming conventions. WP:NCP#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses suggests using a bracketed "noun that describes the person", if such exists, and WP:NCP#Middle names and abbreviated names says specifically that "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person) is not advised." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

football player moves

Could you please refrain from moving perfectly good dabs like (football player) and (American football player) to dabs like (American football) and (Canadian football). Per WP:NCP dabs should be a descriptor for the person rather than the sport and it is unnecessary and undesirable to be overly precise about the code of football in the dab if no other article concerns a person who is best known as a football player. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • We've been over this and the answer is no. Take a look at the same page you site: "It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry). However, this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used (baseball, not baseball player and coach)." Sorry, but you are wrong. Tavix (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
How is (American football) better than (football player)? DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
But if there is no other football player by the same name, it is irrelevant. One only needs more precision if there is more than one article with the same name about a person who is best known as a football player. Eagle Day (football player) is quite sensible. No other Eagle Day is best known as a football player. Eagle Day (Canadian football) is quite wrong. He is American, he played American football in college and the NFL and played Canadian football in the CFL. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • And yet Eagle Day decided to be associated with Canadian football and played that sport. The name of the sport is officially "American football". In Canada, there are slightly different rules so it is officially "Canadian football". For simplicity, it is called football in US/Canada but everywhere else "football" refers to "Soccer". Since Wikipedia is universal, people from all over the globe need to understand that a person is playing "American football" rather than "Soccer/Association Football". Also, there needs to be a universal disambiguation for people who play American and/or Canadian football. When I first began to notice this, more than half of the disambiguations were (American football) so I went with that one instead of editing even more articles with (football player), which is more generic anyway. Tavix (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you are trying to say about Eagle Day but it is merely an example. More generic is the preferred dab. We are not writing a précis of the article in the dab; just permitting two or more articles to share the same name so it is unnecessary to disambiguate the disambiguator with the code of football. The point is that looking at the disambiguation page at the list of articles with the same name they can scroll down and choose the one they want. If the choices are a politician, golfer, football player, and an author, and they want the dude that used to play for the Miami Dolphins, they choose the football player. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I remind you that you have no rationale for moving (football player) dabs to (Canadian football) dabs. It completely fails the WP:NCP conventions. Dabs should describe the person not the sport. A common sense exception is made that in the case, for example, of a person who is best known both as a (baseball player and coach), that simply (baseball) is better. Placing an American who has played both American and Canadian football and currently plays in the CFL under a dab of (Canadian football) rather than (football player) when no other football player has the same name is the opposite of common sense and should follow the conventions and dab as (football player).

Regarding Robert Gordon. There is a soccer player named Robert Gordon so the dab is in question and I'd like to discuss it with you. I don't believe that (American football) is the best choice. First, there is the convention to describe the person rather than the sport. Second, I would argue that he is best known as a CFL player, though he did spend significant time with Arena football and played American football in college. I hesitate, then, to dab him as (CFL player), though it can be argued that is what he's best known for. I really think that (American football player) might be the best dab, actually. It identifies him as a football player and adds the descriptor "American" which, though it lacks any reference to his notable time in the CFL, could be interpreted to describing him, as an American and, at the same time, a code of football with which he has some connection. It's not perfect but, to go with the idea of common sense, I think the ambiguity of what American describes works here as an advantage. Another solution is to simply dab him as (football player) anyway since soccer players are always dabbed (footballer). I welcome your input on this. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re [9]: Yeah, right. If you don't care then why are being so disruptive in moving nearly 400 pages for which you know there are objections? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Anna (1961)

Just to let you know, I moved the article back to its original title, as it is one of three hurricanes named Anna, and several more tropical storms. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation and Name pages

Hi, I notice that a month ago you moved Katrina (given name) to Katrina (disambiguation). I have now separated these pages. Name pages are not the same as disambiguation pages -- please see MOS:DABNAME. There are matters on which we do not yet have consensus at WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy, but one thing that is agreed is that "Name (disambiguation)" is never a good title for a Name page. I hope this is helpful.

You would also be very welcome to join the above WikiProject! - Fayenatic (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Smith

Stop moving the articles, this is the only way that works for now. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the Panthers' Steve Smith's article cannot be located at "Stevonne Smith" because that is NOT his common name.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • NO! Lets say one of the Steve Smiths changed teams, or better yet so they are on the same team. What would become of that then? Also, look at WP:QUALIFER. It says that when possible, do not use proper nouns for parenthesis. Sometimes you have to make do when what's given to you. It's not my fault his real name is Stevonne.Tavix (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not how it is done. I am an administrator and I have plenty of experience with this. First of all, full names should never be used unless it is the person's common name. Nobody calls Steve Smith "Stevonne Smith." They probably don't even know that's his real name. If the Panthers' Smith was a superstar (which he isn't), then just Steve Smith (American football) or Steve Smith (wide receiver) would be sufficient. However, both Steve Smiths (the Giants' and Panthers') are fairly well-known, they cannot be separated by using Amfoot or WR disambigs. In this case, you can use something like (born 1978), but you can also use the team name, which is done here. If they change teams, then you change the title. Simple as that. Pats1 T/C 03:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a messy situation, no doubt. But we simply cannot have an article located at Stevonne Smith with 99.9% of football fans do not know that is his real name.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it's quite amazing how many problems you're causing with page moves.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Names of number articles

You moved 7744 (number) to 7744 and 9814072356 (number) to 9814072356. I have moved them back again. WP:NAME is very clear - "Articles about numbers and related meanings are at N (number) without commas, for example 1729 (number)". This convention is followed in the naming of all our number articles (see Category:Integers) and it would be a bad idea to start creating random exceptions. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop moving football player articles, please

Please do not use article names and disambiguation styles that violate naming conventions and disambiguation style guidelines, or are otherwise confusing, overspecific or unhelpful to the reader in any additional way. Thank you. (This notice constitutes a customized {{uw-mos2}} warning.)

You are a relatively new user here (about 13 months, from what I can tell), so it may be understandable that you have not fully absorbed every guideline, but you have been asked repeatedly by many parties to stop moving football player articles around to unhelpful names, and continuing to do so without resolving the dispute constitutes editwarring.

I'm sure you think these moves are helpful, but they are not. Take for example moving Eagle Day (football player) to Eagle Day (Canadian football); the result sounds like an article about a holiday relating to Canadian football, or perhaps a brand of football for use in playing Canadian football. Please read the guidelines on naming conventions for articles about people, disambiguation and disambiguation style.

The short version is that the shortest possible plain-English disambiguator should be used that identifies the person as a person, rather than labels them as relating to a field. E.g., "Jane Smith (chemist)", not "Jane Smith (chemistry)", and not "Jane Smith (organic chemist)" unless there are two Jane Smith chemists that must be disambiguated further, and certainly not "Jane Smith (organic chemistry)". There is some confusion in the sports article realm, with a few editors working on a few sports (only hockey, baseball and maybe another one, as far as I recall), who prefer things like "Bob Jones (baseball)", as if Bob Jones were a piece of sporting goods equipment, but they are in the minority, and certainly do not have consensus to push this truncated and confusing naming scheme on all sports articles.

At any rate, if you do not stop moving articles around against numerous voices of opposition, without gaining consensus for the changes you are pushing so hard, you are very likely to be reported to the Admin Noticeboard and blocked for disruptive editing.

PS: Herman "Eagle" Day also violates the general naming conventions, as 'Herman "Eagle" Day' is not a common, much less the most common, name for this article subject. No offense intended, but I would suggest familiarizing yourself more intimately with the naming conventions, and spending a considerable amount of time reading WP:RM and the debates it generates before moving any more pages at all, and otherwise focusing your time on editing instead of performing quasi-administrative tasks like article renames. It would also be helpful if you engaged in discussion at WT:SPORT, WT:NCP, and the more specific WikiProject(s) relating to any subject in which you wish to do large numbers of renames, or you are very likely to step on toes and generate further needless disputes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Please note that the vast majority of material on your talk page consists of outspoken opposition (from, according to my count, 12 different parties) to your incautious page-moves. This should be much more than enough to indicate to you that you need to stop moving pages around. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What does it take for you to understand that you do not have consensus or policy for these irrational moves? Stop. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style and naming conventions by disruptively moving articles to confusing or excessively specific disambiguations, as you did recently to several football player articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yes, there is such a consensus against what you are doing. They are called WP:DAB and WP:NCP, among other guidelines that you have been repeatedly directed toward. I've had it with your blatant and self-congratulatory disruptive and defiant recalcitrance on this matter, and am reporting you to WP:ANI for probable blocking. Wikipedia is not the place for you to pick fights, nor make some kind of point by acting up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Polarbröd

For most big companies such as Polarbröd, sources can generally be found. If you see an article on a big company which does not have references, it is generally best to search for the company's name at http://news.google.com/archivesearch and at any other databases of newspaper articles that you may have access to through your school or public library, rather than to nominate it for deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

POINT

If someone (as many do) who insists that WP:OSE is a valid argument in AFDs wants to indicate other similarly-structured articles with the same or worse problems, then I have no problem AFDing those, as well (provided there is a valid reason for deletion). I see it more as speeding up the process of AFDing problematic articles rather than engaging in POINT, although I admit that was a tad pointish, especially when I basically lost my temper after dealing with three similar problematic AFDs right before Scrababble (which I made my apology clear by striking said comment). Cheers, MuZemike (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I understand. I like being controversial myself and have a good time with it. I didn't mention it in the article, but another reason I decided to keep Matchboxes was because it was AfDed before and it was kept, and the fact that there were reliable source(s). So there you go. Tavix (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Regarding your comments on User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ShoesssS Talk 04:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Move

I'm about to move Konstantin Volkov (athlete) to Konstantin Volkov as you requested. Please help out and fix the links pointing to the old page when I'm done. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Greatest movie performances

Tav, you really need to stop being so defensive during these discussions. In this case, I actually agree with you, but that's irrelevant. You'll find that people respect your opinion, even if they don't agree with it. If I've ever made a comment that seemed like I was insulting you in front of others, then I apologize. I don't set out to step on people's toes, but it happens. As you've probably seen by now, we often encounter many of the same people again and again in the AfD forum. We don't have to walk on eggshells, but we have to get along. Obviously, I can't agree with both sides in a discussion, but I respect that someone is weighing in with their opinion; and that's true of most of us. Sometimes, we disagree with your statements, but nobody looks down on you. People respect someone who stands up for what he believes in. Anyway, Happy Thankgsiving, and I'm sure I'll be seeing you in other discussions. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

List of places in Ceredigion

Thanks for the help with List of places in Ceredigion - merging the lists. I am not a big fan of lists, preferring nav boxes instead. I started a few before I realized just how many lists there were in project Wales. Argh. More list merging awaits if you're game! BTW I appreciate your work in missing Bible verses. Great contribution. ~Geaugagrrl talk 07:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • About the list of places in Ceredigion, I just found that after hitting "random article" and it looked merge worthy. Took me literally 30 seconds. If there are any more that need to be merged, either give me a list or do it yourself. About the Bible verses, that was fun to do. I'm glad you like it. Tavix (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tavix/Archive_1&oldid=1146675017"