Jump to content

User talk:Tavix/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

CANUSA

OK, well, I'm at the bottom of your page, and sorry about not substituting the information into the template that I used; I'm sure you've seen that before? Anyways, I'm not sure how to make the canusa games "notable", although I disagree with you that it needs to be deleted. Don't you agree that the information that I provided is important enough to be included in a worldwide encyclopedia? After all, these games have been going on for over 50 years. Please contact me and give me idea in how to improve my article; I do not want it to be deleted....I see that another creator in 2006 was also unsuccessful in making this page. Jimwilcox79 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)jimwilcox79

This is difficult, is it not? I'm having trouble... Jimwilcox79 (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)jimwilcox79


How would I be able to find something FROM THAT POLICY that makes it notable, when there aren't even examples of what secondary sources are? please help....signed, frustrated. Jimwilcox79 (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)jimwilcox79

ANI

Hello, Tavix. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#User:Tavix. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The overarching guidelines represent consensus for the naming and dabbing of all articles on Wikipedia. If you want to make a case for an exemption for articles related to football player biographies, you would have to make one and get consensus from the Wikipedia community that such an exemption is needed. Of course, I believe the exact opposite is true; the guidelines work perfectly for these articles and I've explained why several times already so won't bore you by repeating them. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

Could you please explain why in the name of heck you redirected this deletion sorting project?

You realize that by doing so you make looking into prior deletion discussion much more difficult?

I went to list another article the other day -- and couldn't find the project.

Besides the redirection what other actions did you take to bury the record?

I urge you to exercise more caution in future.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Simple explanation: It's not used and its way too narrow of a subject. There aren't any other deletion sortings over one specific establishment. Also, there was a short discussion on the talk page, but no one objected so I figured that no one would mind. Tavix (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not used? Please check the history. I used it on November 11th for crying out loud -- just eight days before you redirected it. A robot closed that debate just four days before your unilateral rename.
You assert there was a short discussion on the talk page to back up the action you took? Oh, which talk page would that be?
You wrote that "...its way too narrow of a subject..." -- and on which policy document do you base this assertion? Let me suggest that the value of a deletion sorting project is not based on individual contributor's personal interpretation of the value, or lack thereof, of the project's topic. Let me suggest instead it should be based on whether contributors find it useful -- whether it is used. This project is used.
If you compare the amount of activity shown in the revision history of the Cuba project you will see that it has been used several times less than the Guantanamo project.
I am going to revert your unilateral renaming. Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ha, the subject that you used that for didn't even mention Guantanamo Bay in the article. Also, take a look at the other delsorts. Is there any other ones that is about one specific establishment? Try zero. There is no reason why this is anymore notable than any other establishments who have their own delsorts. The talk page is the main delsort page. Tavix (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Geo Swan; I have it but not delsort Cuba on my watchlist. Since the purpose of the delsort projects is to sort deletions as they actually occur, a priori ideas about notability can be unhelpful and are in this case. Perhaps, as suggested on the now difficult to reach talk page, incorporating it into a "War on Terror" sorting project would be preferable.John Z (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Does the article not state she was appointed to the Court of Military Commission Review? Is the Court of Military Commission Review not a Guantanamo court of appeal? I am doing my very best to take your concerns seriously. Listen, we all make mistakes sometimes. I make mistakes too. And I do my best to own up and acknowledge them when I realize I made them. The wikipedia would work a lot better if we all did that. Geo Swan (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet ANOTHER page move problem

I've reverted your move/redirect between Ted Turner (guitarist) and David "Ted" Turner. This does not comply with WP:NCP (specifically, Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens) due to:

  1. A satisfactory disambiguation was already in place (e.g. James Paul McCartney redirects to Paul McCartney, not vice-versa). The (guitarist) suffix disqualifies further ambiguity.
  2. WP:NPS states that stage names should not be used for page titles, unless it's the name by which this person is known best. This is clearly the case.

Ultimately, it is the most commonly-used name that should be used, followed by a disambiguation, and if needs be - the original name - but I don't see this ever being the case. I suggest you re-read all disambiguation-related guidelines, as your edits are clearly problematic. [ cycle~ ] (talk), 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Kelly

I don't entirely disagree with this move: [1] as per my previous arguments. I thought that I would enlighten you why I chose that dab. Mike Kelly disambiguation page shows a Mike Kelly (footballer) who is also notable as a football coach. Regards, DoubleBlue (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with (CFL coach)? That satisfies being a descriptor that describes the person rather than the sport and, though I don't think Canadian football coach is too long, is shorter. It also clarifies what he is best known for, CFL coach, rather than somewhat misleadingly saying Canadian football, when in fact he only played American football and will have coached both American and Canadian football. Obviously football coach would have been the best choice had not there been another person of the same name well-known as a football coach. For several reasons, then, (CFL coach) appears to be a better solution than (Canadian football). DoubleBlue (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to stalk you but I also noticed the following moves which could use more explanation:

  • Bill Stewart (football coach) to Bill Stewart (American football): stated reason was that he was equally notable as a player yet it is a single sentence in the 18 kbyte article and appears to have been two years in college. I also note that besides being head coach of Mountaineers, he was assistant coach for 11 other teams in a 30-year career including two years in Canadian football.
  • John Sanchez (football player) to John Sanchez (American football): stated reason was "Oops, made the hatnote redirect to the wrong article. Corrected." I don't understand this rationale whatsoever. If one makes a mistake typing a hatnote, one corrects the hatnote not move the article. As the other John Sanchez is not known for being a football player, it seems unnecessary to further disambiguate as American football and lose the descriptor describing the person.

DoubleBlue (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spurs-Suns rivalry

Please see the changes I made at Spurs-Suns rivalry and see if it now meets your approval. I added several sources about the rivalry, including a new section on how it spilled over into the coach's career as the Olympics coach. Sources include two by Associated Press writers and the San Diego Union-Tribune. I also added the latest chapter with sources from the past year's playoffs when the Spurs' use of the Hack-a-Shaq strategy reached a new level.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SC

Hi Tavix -"SC" stands for Stub Categories - an old name for the Stub types page, and the shortcut is still widely in use for that page. You may want to reconsider the change you made to that redirect - or failing that, change all the links on pages that link to WP:SC! Grutness...wha? 00:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Um...yes they are. A "stub type" is a combination of a stub category and a stub template, and both the categories and templates are listed on that page. And quite a large number of people are now going to get tired of WP:SC now redirecting them to a page that is different to the one they were used to it redirecting them to. I'm ambivalent about it either way myself - just warning you that it's likely to upset some people. Grutness...wha? 05:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob Smith baseball pages

When you do something of this nature, I would appreciate a heads-up rather than moving these pages inappropriately as you did. Now I will have to go through the work of moving them all again and fixing all the links to them again, which took me two days last time. The new names are not the appropriate "way around" the disambiguations. Abbreviating "right-handed pitcher" to "RHP" would have been sufficient (and "left-handed pitcher" to LHP), I should think. -Dewelar (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • No. What I did was correct, see WP:QUALIFER for more information. You see, using the name they were given is probably easier to use than an awfully long disambiguation with a birthdate. If you think about it, someone is going to the article to try to find information about the person. If they have to know (1) the year they were born, (2) if they were right or left handed, (3) their position they played, then it really isn't a good disambiguation to use. The way I did it, it makes more sense as I used the name they were given, and if they don't know their middle name, it says all that info in the disambiguation, including the years they played and the teams they played for. Besides that, it's just common sense. Tavix (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: You don't need to fix the links, a bot does that automatically every week. Tavix (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Your moves violate both WP:COMMONNAME and baseball naming conventions. I will be moving them again at some point soon. -Dewelar (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This is taken from the template at the top of both of those guidelines. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception" This is a pretty obvious example that the occasional exception needs to be followed. See above for my reasoning, and be sure to become familiar with WP:IAR as well. I'm not using this as a get out of the entire rule guideline, but when you need to know Bob Smith's birthdate, hand orintation, and position in order to find his article, it is pretty obvious you need to find a new naming choice. Tavix (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
First of all, my apologies for getting a bit huffy above. Keep in mind that I spent a good deal of time trying to pick my way to reasonable differentiators for these pages as it was, and then sifting through all the "Bob Smith" baseball links to make sure that all of them were pointing to the right Bob Smith.
The original moves were done to suit WP:NC-BASE, but I agree that the naming as it stood was clunky. I have moved the pages, as indicated, but left off the unnecessary handedness component to hopefully make them more manageable. Regardless, it is unlikely that anybody is going to be typing anything into the search box other than "Bob Smith" or perhaps "Bob Smith (baseball)", any of which plunks them onto the dab page anyway. Once there, searching for "pitcher" is going to be their likely next step -- certainly, I'd argue, more likely than searching for their full name, which they are unlikely to know. -Dewelar (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, that move seems a bit more fair for people. I understand you are trying to keep WP:COMMONNAME in mind, but I'll leave it alone even though it just seems a bit too lengthy for me. Sorry for wasting your time. 23:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that, and I do understand where you're coming from. I'm just thinking about how I would look for these players, and most assuredly I'd be looking on the dab page for "Bob Smith" (with or without a differentiator) as opposed to "Robert Walkup Smith". As you know, if we tried to put something on the dab page like [[Robert Walkup Smith|Bob Smith (pitcher born 1927)]] then the dab-nazis would be all over it because it was hidden. No perfect solution here. -Dewelar (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, The middle name seemed good at first though...

Your vote on the date format RfC

If you really prefer what you state in your !vote, then you should be opposing this proposal, as "Go[ing] with whatever the original author used, unless there is a strong reason against that" is what the current guideline states.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I trust that http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tom_Casey_(CFL_player)&diff=prev&oldid=259034607 was intended as a friendly greeting rather than a dig at anyone. I've reverted the move since he was an American who played both American and Canadian football and the WP:QUALIFIER ought to describe the person. Since there is another Tom Casey who played football and this one is best known for his play in the CFL, I've chosen the more clear and accurate (CFL player). Best wishes for a very merry Christmas and a successful new year, DoubleBlue (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and I'm glad you got the message. Have a nice day! Tavix (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Casey did play American football both in college and for the New York Yankees (AAFC) and he's American and, as you know, qualifiers generally describe the person. I agree that he is notable for his play in the CFL but that's why the dab CFL player seems best. Canadian football is inaccurate, misleading, and against the style guide for article naming. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I would argue just the opposite. He did not play "CFL" football, but "Canadian" football. The CFL was merely just one of the leagues he was in. I agree that he did play American football, but when you have a conflict, you have to look at which sport they were more notable in. In this case, I would have to say it is pretty obvious. He only played professionally for one year in American football, but played for 7 years in Canadian football, and even has a spot in the Canadian football hall of fame to show for it. So please, stop moving them to inaccurate disambiguations. "Canadian football" works fine and we also want some deal of consistancy in the articles. There wasn't anyone that said "CFL player" before you started moving things around. I would prefer to keep it that way to so stop moving them around. Tavix (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I would prefer that you stop moving articles from better to worse titles in the holy name of "consistency". Yes, consistency is good and preferable but, surely, you know by now that it is impossible to have them all at the preferred dab of (football player). Therefore we choose the best available. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Consistency is good. If you let me have it my way, you will see that it will all work out. I understand there are exceptions, and I think we have handled them pretty well. Thanks for your help in the process, things are going really smoothly now. Tavix (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
STOP IT NOW. The other Eric Carter is not known as a football player thus there is no need for further disambiguation from (football player). To dab to Canadian football gives more precision than is needed or desirable. He is an American who played American football in college. Using the dab "Canadian football" is misleading, imprecise, and contrary to WP:QUALIFIER to describe the person rather than the sport except for "awkward or overly-long disambiguations" when "in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used". The same goes for all your other "Canadian football" moves. It is never a good dab because it is unclear and misleading. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, why are perfectly well-named articles being moved? What are you going to do with "Doug Flutie" or "Jeff Garcia"?? You're creating mass confusion over whether these are "Canadians who play football" or "people who played according yo Canadian rules". ♪BMWΔ 18:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

  • It's the name of the sport. The reason "football player" isn't a good disambiguation because it could get confused with Association football, which is known as football in the majority of the countries. It is also for consistency with those people who play "American football" because the people who play American football use "American football" as their dabs and not "football player". Thank you for inquiring and have a Merry Christmas to you. Tavix (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As I've attempted to convey to you repeatedly. There is no need to to disambiguate football within the dab unless there is more than one football player with the same name. Some people are using American football as dabs but it is equally a poor choice to which you are attempting to expand. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think it is me that has been trying to convey you, don't make yourself out to be the victim. It's not just American football, it is ice hockey, baseball, water polo, ect. There are a lot of people in the world of sports who do other things than simply play the sport. They also become sportscasters, coaches, managers, etc. Using XXX player is generally a bad idea as you can tell. Tavix (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
If they become notable for something else, that can be dealt with then. Using XXXan football is generally a bad idea as you should be able to tell. Why would you specify one code of football when the person plays more than one and no other person of the same name plays football? The vast majority of dabs describe the person not the sport. Football, in particular, should follow that guideline. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's see, maybe it's the issue with Soccer, or maybe it's the fact I'm trying to be consistent with other sports, or maybe it's just to make you mad (not really, that one was a joke). I have my reasons. Tavix (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I cannot understand why you feel the need to disambiguate from soccer when there's no soccer player with the same name and you know that specifying the code of football is undesirable anyway since so many play different codes of football. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You are missing the point. It is not because there are people who play both soccer and American/Canadian football, its because in the majority of the English speaking world, "Football player" refers to a person who plays "soccer". This could be confusing for some people and so confusion avoided. =) Tavix (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The dab is not intended to tell people about the person, the article is for that. Where exactly would one come across the link to John Doe (football player) and be confused that it is a soccer player anyway? Your correction for this is to substitute a misleading and inaccurate dab instead! DoubleBlue (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm done arguing with you because you always seem to either miss my point or spin it around completely. I have explained my actions, take them or leave them. Tavix (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regina Folk Festival

Hi Tavix. Would you be willing to take another look at this? I've added a bunch of references, which might address your concerns. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

SKILLET AfD

G'day.

I've replied to your comment on the SKILLET AfD discussion.

Best, AGK 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI pt 2

Hello, Tavix. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

When every editor in ANI says "stop", you've found your consensus. ♪BMWΔ 00:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You are severely mistaken. 04:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
How so? Consensus can change, and if your consensus exists, it has most certainly changed by now, as reflected at AN/I. — neuro(talk) 17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I will continue your discussion here. It is always my attempt to ASSIST other editors with policy. For now, remain off of my userpage. I now have your talkpage on my watchlist, and will respond acordingly. ♪BMWΔ 20:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As an addendum, people who "want to talk to me" do not generally gratuitously remove Christmas greetings from my Talkpage ... that kind of vandalism I can do without. ♪BMWΔ 20:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the right to remove unwanted comments from my own talkpage. Restoring them is not permitted. This discussion is happening here, on YOUR talkpage. Nowhere else. ♪BMWΔ 20:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay look, I started the conversation on your talk page, and you don't even answer it, but instead defer it here without answering the question. I will continue to do so unless you are willing to cooperate. Tavix (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I responded to your question about a week ago. The ANI showed that you were WELL outside of consensus. You then failed to stop. Your edits are to be undone, as they were ALL against consensus. Don't ever accuse me of not cooperating, when I have pointed you policy left right and centre. ♪BMWΔ 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a different question. You would know that if wasn't so concentrated on removing my comments. The question refered to your comment on WT:NCSP regarding you and other people were reverting my actions. Tavix (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and at least 4 other editors in the ANI all volunteered to start undoing your mess, as noted a week ago. ♪BMWΔ 20:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Note, it's even more rude to re-add comments to someone else's talkpage that have already been removed more than once. The ANI was very very clear about the direction you took regarding your one-sided series of edits. The Admins who followed the thread were unanimous in their decision on how to proceed. Volunteers then began to move forward. Wikipedia is easy to work on when policies are followed, and your one-sided changes received consensus to undo. This is not my decision, it was the ANI decision. ♪BMWΔ 21:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It still doesn't mean it is bad faith edits though. One more thing: I'm not a vandal, I'm trying to contribute to Wikipedia, not destroy it. Have some civility in the matter. Tavix (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You keep calling me the uncivil one, which is pretty rich. You're the one who was asked to stay off my talkpage, yet continue to do so. You were the one who keeps re-adding the text back, even after being asked not to. Your FIRST page moves were good faith edits. After being told to stop by the consensus at ANI, you continued. THOSE edits were therefore not good faith, as they violated the decision of the community as a whole. You want to call me uncivil, please, I encourage you to file a Wikiquette complaint against me here. I'm getting a little tired of people who do not understand policy throwing unfounded complaints around, but then not having the nerve to follow it up with an actual complaint.
  • In the first ANI, there was no consensus as the two people who filed the ANI were the only one's who participated in it. The second one however, there was, and I stopped after that. You got it? Tavix (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. Consensus on the ANI was to undo all of what you did ♪BMWΔ 21:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Dont worry yourself Tavix, steer clear of it all now its done--CorrectlyContentious 10:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me finish, damn edit conflicts. Accidentally posted that then just removed it but nevermind you can have my silly comment as a bonus. Was going to say i seen your point and wouldnt want to see you blocked by the admins. Was being friendly is all. Apologies.--CorrectlyContentious 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!
Christmas medley
A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Tavix, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page.
Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :(
— neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

John Wright

Was he vknown for using a sword or because he was the one bin the gunpowder plot? Seems to be swordsman were quite common compared with plotters who achieved national fame. Could you explain your change ? Victuallers (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil

Your comment [[2]] is rude and provocative. Nothing productive will come from being nasty. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 02:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles
A cat to ease all of your troubles
 Happy New Year!
Hey there, Tavix! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro(talk) 01:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Eagle Day

Thanks for taking care of that matter re Eagle Day. Good talking to you! Unschool 02:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi,

I apologize for what happened at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. It was not vandalism, as it was not intentional. I have spent a lot of time contributing to that article, and I wouldn't ever try to do anything like that. Once again I apologize.VR talk 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • All is fine, it was reverted. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, it still had the effect of vandalism, so I reverted it as such. No need to apologize or anything, I assumed it was accidental anyway. Tavix (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadie

Stop the edit war - I moved the article to Sadie (dog) as the name's primary use is that of an English given name - and we have a disambiguation category with {{given name}}. I must revert your reversion so I can complete the dab page (I was fixing links at the time you moved it back - give it more than 30 seconds... maybe 30 minutes instead?... so it can be done properly). Thank you. B.Wind (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed PROD tags

Just a reminder (per WP:PROD), once a prod tag has been removed, it cannot be reinstated (nor is the article eligible to be re-prodded at any other future time). If it's been removed from an article that you wish deleted, it needs to go to WP:AfD, and if that prodded article has been turned into a redirect, it needs to go to WP:RfD. B.Wind (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Whitehouse

Please see note on Paul Whitehouse (disambiguation) talk page. Vernon White . . . Talk 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anyone You Can Do... I Can Do Better

Please expand on your reasoning in this AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Tavix (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Driscoll (disambiguation)

With regard to this AFD, you may wish to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10 Days 10 Lifes

You might be interested in my comment on this AFD. I know of at least one film not on IMDB which is clearly notable, so your reasoning doesn't really hit the mark completely. - Mgm|(talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done, although I don't really think it applies. Tavix (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Hardhats article

I did remove the tag yesterday and it showed up again today. Looks like someone's (or several someones) got it in for this piece of Pittsburgh sports history. Squamate (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tau Alpha Omega

Determining the Notability of the Fraternities and Sororities in the Philippines has been a frustrating part of what I have been working on in regards to List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines. From the research I have done, I have tried to use the rules which would govern whether a United States Social Fraternity with that number of chapters and that age of the chapters would be able to become part of the North-American Interfraternity Conference (at least 5 chapters, at least 3 of which are 10 years old). I believe that Tau Alpha Omega does meet this requirement, given that it was founded in 1970 (and goes back as an organization to the 1960s) and talks about chapters in Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao, but I can't find any referenced proof as to specifically what schools have chapters. Ideas?Naraht (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Londonistan

We cannot delete this article whilst simultaneously keeping Islamism in London. The GFDL does not permit it. Read the AFD discussion for the position that a bad decision in 2007 has put us in. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RFD Closures

I've fixed the placement and subst of your RFD closure[3]. You may want to take a look at WP:DELPRO#RFD.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I see what I did wrong. I was just being lazy as I just got back from a weeklong vacation from Wikipedia and need to refresh my mind on these things. Thanks for pointing it out. Tavix (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

About the deletion template you put on my talk page...

Can I remove it now? CrashGordon94 (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! ^_^ CrashGordon94 (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

wrong planet - I do not and never will spell favourite that way - usage is for a user to decide - I am australian - and we do not appropriate americanisms :) SatuSuro 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • heheheh - no big deal this is only wikipedia anyways :) - will be interesting to see which way the afd gets resolved - I havent sat down and read through the link i have added for a while - i suppose i should SatuSuro 04:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The AFD is going to come out delete for sure, as I haven't really seen any strong opposition for deletion.
PS: We're in the same planet, no matter what you think of us Americans. =P Tavix (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bezgovo cvrtje

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bezgovo cvrtje. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

 Done Tavix (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artist trading cards

Seeing as the article has changed substantially since you nominated it, and numerous reliable sources have been added, I thought I'd ask if you'd consider withdrawing the nomination as you are the only one advocating deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Swiss Migration To The United Kingdom Deletion Discussion

Just to clarify, I did judge the article on its own merits. Please see {{EuropeansinUK}} . All of those articles are part of each other in my opinion. Spinach Monster (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ode to a Superhero

Hello Tavix. I was about to post a response to your redirection of Ode to a Superhero, when I decided to check the guidelines for songs. So I went to Wikipedia:Songs, and I found out mostly what you said in your summary. There really was not much of a point of typing this, as I didn't come to criticize or argue, but I felt it right to do, though I don't know why. A fellow Wikipedian, WM2 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson Anderson

has been deleted G6 at your request. You may do your move. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Kenny Johnson

There is no need to specify the code of football as there is a built in disambiguator in that the DB went by the name Kenny Johnson and the QB went by Ken Johnson. As you know, the naming conventions are to describe the person not the sport so (football player) is preferred unless there are two with the exact same name. You are already aware of all this, though, I know because I recall you adding player's middle names and such to make up disambiguators (before you knew that it was contrary to naming conventions). DoubleBlue (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • We had a long conversation about this lasting several months, I don't want to have to repeat myself, but nowhere does the guidelines say that (football player) is the better dab. In fact, I would argue that according to the second paragraph of WP:QUALIFIER, it would say that (American football)/(Canadian football) would be best as it states that overly excessive disambigs are not required. Since I already made the argument that "football" is ambiguous to the subject, we must further disambiguate with (American football). Tavix (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • American football is ambiguous as well. That's not the point; we are not disambiguating or describing the dab, we are making a unique file name. We use the most general descriptive phrase that disambiguates the identically named articles. That is football player for football players. You have no case to argue that American football is overly long as compared to football player. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, the disambiguation is simply supposed to be used to disambiguate between people who have the same name. Not to get too complicated, but I'm not arguing that American football is overly long compared to football player, I am actually making the case that it is overly long compared to American football player. It is a multi-step problem involved on how I got to that step. I'm not going to go too much into detail at the moment, but you can read my whole case at WP:FBNC if you haven't already. Tavix (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course I have but there is no need to add the "American" qualifier to football when there are no other football players (of any code) with the same name.
What possible case have you for Bernard Williams to be at Canadian football? There is no other Bernard Williams (disambiguation) football player and he played both American and Canadian football professionally. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You need the American/Canadian because it is the name of the sport. Football is ambiguous, just like hockey. Notice that everyone who plays hockey has their dab at (ice hockey) and not (hockey player). It works the same way for every sport. People who play football are at whichever sport they are more notable in, which for Mr. Williams, would be Canadian football. Tavix (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong. The name of all the sports are football. Further description is added when it's needed. Since there is no other Bernard Williams football player, we need not make that kind of decision. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It is only simply refered to football within ones own country when it is obvious which type of football is being played. Since Wikipedia is a worldwide collaboration, we can't just assume everyone knows what type of football the person plays. For example, I am American and when someone asks me about anything related to "football", I automatically assume American football. For you, since your Canadian, I assume it would be Canadian football for you. Ask someone in Europe about football, and they'll assume your talking about "soccer". Now I understand you are bias about what "football" really is, as I am bias myself. But we must put these things aside and start looking at it from a worldwide view. Tavix (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive moves now. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Trying to turn the tables on me? I believe it is you that has to stop your disruptive moves. I stopped last December, but apparently you have to keep on making the moves. I have noticed that you have been "secretly" moving everything around again, and I am simply undoing your disruptive actions. Tavix (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The ANI decided convincingly against your mass moves and recommended reversing them but no one undertook the exercise. I do so when I come across them. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The ANI actually resulted in WP:NCSP, but that didn't end up anywhere, did it? I'll stop when that actually comes to a consensus, so if I were you, I would stop making those disruptive page moves, and try to get a consensus on WP:NCSP. Tavix (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502#User:Tavix. And the development of NCSP is separate from this. It is a more detailed explanation of WP:NCP as it pertains to sportspeople and I brought up the idea hours before your mass moves. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you do not stop, I will request the restrictions that were suggested at the last ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502#User:Tavix DoubleBlue (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are only two John Blains, a cricketer and a football player. What are your intentions? DoubleBlue (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You are completely out of process. The article was at (football player) you attempted to move it and were reverted. That is where you recognise that your idea does not have consensus and you try and convince others of your plan and achieve consensus. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle You do not keep trying to move it. Your actions are disruptive and against policy and you have been warned multiple times. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  • If you move an article that I disagree with, then I, or anyone, is entitled to revert to its old state and then you make your move proposal formally and try to get consensus for it. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Brady

Hi
I've deleted Patrick Brady, but I'm unsure which of the two pages you want to move there, so I'll let you do it.
Cheers, Amalthea 03:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Reply regarding AFD

Tavix, The policy I quoted (in brief) is WP:NOT#DIR, Entry #1. WP is not a list, and I agree with you, there are several lists on here that more or less meet that criteria for deletion. :) Thanks — Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 13:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Then you should have said that in your rationale. Please in the future, comment on the AfD, not my talk page. You can defend yourself easier there, and I have all AfDs that i have taken part in watchlisted. Tavix (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Polydactylic people

Category:Polydactylic people, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

Please refrain from these page moves in which you make an edit to the redirect to prevent it from being moved back. This behaviour could be seen as disruptive.

Please discuss proposed moves that are likely to be controversial on the talk page first, especially if the move has already been reverted by someone.

I must say that these titles do not seem to be supported by consensus. Ken Johnson (football player) is a more conventional and logical name (in my opinion) than Ken Johnson (Canadian football). If there was any confusion over the sport or country then Ken Johnson (Canadian football player) would be appropriate. Regards, Martinmsgj 07:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Will do, thanks. Neither one has a consensus, however I feel (Canadian football) is more backed policy wise. If you want to read about why (Canadian football) is the better option, take a look at WP:FBNC. Tavix (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you move a page and your move is reverted; you do not move keep moving it back. You open a discussion on the talk page and try to get consensus for the move. WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle If you continue to edit war over these titles, I will report it. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Wow, um you are doing the exact same thing. You're moving a page a page and it got reverted, so you need consensus. I already have my consensus as outlined in my essay, citing a couple guidelines. Yours: WP:NCSP has support from like three people. Please get consensus as if you do, my edits will stop. Tavix (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What you are doing is a form of edit-warring. Your essay User:Tavix/Football naming conventions has gained no support whatsoever and is in not in line with the accepted naming policy on Wikipedia. Please do not make any more of these moves without gaining consensus first. If you continue, steps will be taken to stop this disruption. I have noticed your many good contributions as well; do not let this foible of yours spoil your record. Best wishes, Martinmsgj 12:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I really hoped it wouldn't come to this but ...Please take this as a final warning for your edit warring and disruptive page moves. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martinmsgj 15:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tavix is dead on in how he is naming these articles. "American, Canadian, etc. football" distinguishes the articles from what "football" is known as in 90% of the world: soccer. This has been how the player articles have been named at WP:NFL for a long time.--2008Olympianchitchat 00:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:QUALIFIER states pretty clearly that

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).

  • I've responded on my talk page that you are dead wrong, of course. The disambiguation rule is to use the most general, descriptive dab. This is a wise guideline for many reasons, one of which is that for players of multiple codes of football, there is no reason to define the code of football until there is a clash of two people with the same name who both played a form of football. I repeat that there is no reason to define the code of football in the dab unless there are two people with the same name who both played a form of football. The dab does need dabbing. In fact, it is harmful and would lead to ridiculous lengths to do so. The rule is, rather, to use the most general, descriptive, dab that would not have another article of the same name. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I only reverted your page moves. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Contesting PROD

Just a courtesy note to let you know: I have removed the {{prod}} tag from List of Irish organisations with royal patronage, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Cameron* 15:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! I fail to understand why he wants to change what is a straightforward way of naming articles.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit of your text at WP:RfD

Apologies for editing your text; it seemed to me having looked at your article that while it was no doubt written in good faith, it could be interpreted as violating WP:BLP in a potentially libellous way, by stating that Jackson used words that the article only states that others alleged he used. I therefore edited it with the intention of removing such a possibility without altering your intent. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Igor Piskarev

You tagged Igor Piskarev with RFD, but you never completed the nomination by listing it on RFD. Can you please complete the second step? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Improper redirection of Royal Oak Middle School article

Hello. I saw you had redirected the article Royal Oak Middle School to Royal Oak Neighborhood Schools. I would like to inform that those articles are isolated and non-unified topics. It is important to note the arson and weaponary crime rate of the school in order to better educate about the school. If you would like to dispute my decision to revert it, please drop by my talkpage. OG Squeaks grafitti 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Don't put it up for deletion just yet, give me the documentation first. OG Squeaks grafitti 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Adams

I'm not sure that there is one dominant Jack Adams so have had your moves reverted so that we can reach consensus before any change is made. I've started a discussion at Talk:Jack Adams where I also give my reasons. Dpmuk (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tavix/Archive_2&oldid=1136135896"