Open main menu


Contents

RfDEdit

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

Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion if need be. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'll look though that category when I have the time. I'm more interested in seeing how these will be merged first. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
My plan is to merge the ones that get speedy deleted into a level-4 header category, and change all their headers into level-5s. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry ChristmasEdit

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

Functionality has to come firstEdit

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

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

Happy New Year, Tavix!Edit

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


Userfy?Edit

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

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

Notice regarding Template:Tfd relisted and Template:Cfd relistedEdit

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

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

I would prefer them to be kept. CfD does not relist often, but when I was active at CfD (as late as 2017), that is the template I used to relist. I'm not going to dig through the logs, but it looks like it was still used as recently as last year per User talk:Marcocapelle#CFD relist. For what it's worth, it's still mentioned at WP:CFDAI as the relist method. I have never been active at TfD, but I think I remember creating the TfD one to start a discussion so all the XfD boards with daily logs would relist the same way, but I don't think I ever got around to starting that discussion. I think that one should be kept too because I'd still like to have that discussion one day, and I firmly believe this relisting method to be the superior way to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I found a way to utilize {{Cfd relisted}} while following currently-established relisting procedures at WP:CFD: See here. And also FWIW, I agree that the method used at RfD is definitely the most efficient of all methods that exist for XfD discussion pages that do not utilize individual subpages for each nomination ... but yeah, trying to have the community to utilize such a template elsewhere seems to be an uphill battle, especially since the template would break the bots that manage the subpages and sometimes automatically close discussions for deleted pages. That, and RfD seems to be one of the only XfD forums where daily subpages' transclusions have to be manually removed when completed. I guess RfD is kind of like the indie company with a good idea trying to take on the big guys. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ma Jolie (Picasso)Edit

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

Ok, done those moves. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: That looks fine to me. As a note, the fact that I am an admin is irrelevant to this situation because it was not an admin action. Please don't be bandying it around in unrelated contexts. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject CrapwatchEdit

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

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

User:Steel1943/common.jsEdit

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

@Steel1943: JS pages can be CSDed the normal way by putting the CSD tag in a JavaScript comment. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done. I can't recall tagging a .js page before, so you've piqued my interest. I just tagged my .js for G7 deletion using Twinkle. While the template didn't appear as usual, it still showed up in the correct categories so an admin would still be able to find it. -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I have firsthand knowledge: I recently U1ed user:pppery/pingremind.js a userscript I created. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 13Edit

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

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

I might have closed them as "no consensus", but I felt that the one objection was a strong argument for keeping it so I closed it as such. Either way the result is the same, so I don't think it matters much. You had over a week after the objection was made to address the objection made but you neglected to do so. I am declining your request to relist because the discussion had been open for over two weeks and garnered little discussion and I do not think it being open longer will attract more attention. I am usually lenient on requests to relist, but subverting the usual process and unilaterally renominating the discussions did you no favor here. You may appeal my decision at WP:DRV if you wish. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
We are all volunteers here and have other things to do beside refute objections on TfDs. The objection was a weak argument as nobody would think to use a made-up translation to access either of those articles. They only exist in the literature as their names in French and Spanish or (more commonly) as their respective abbreviations. The result is not the same, and I do think it matters. Nobody would close a re-nomination as "Speedy Keep" if the earlier nomination had been "no consensus". It seems that you've used your mistaken first closure to justify your second one. I'm not interested in you doing any me favours: I expect you to use your admin tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia and I don't need nonsense like "subverting the usual process and unilaterally renominating the discussions did you no favor here". That's not why the community grated you those tools. I assumed that a simple renomination which addressed the objection would have been a less bureaucratic route than DRV, but it seems I was mistaken. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Since it matters to you, I have done you one favor: I have changed my closure to "no consensus to delete". Note that these are RfDs, not TfDs. It sounds like we disagree on what's best for the encyclopedia, so I'll leave it at that. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sorry I mistyped TfD for RfD. I assure you I understand the difference. It does matter to me because if somebody renames Fédération Française d'Études et de Sports Sous-Marins (the actual name of the organisation and correct title per COMMONNAME) to French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports (a made-up translation that is not found elsewhere) – as happened again recently – then I'm faced with cleaning it up, often unable to simply revert the move. If I can get consensus on deletion, I might eventually be able to get the titles salted and avoid the problems. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for French Federation of Undersea Studies and SportsEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RexxS (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Spanish Federation of Underwater ActivitiesEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RexxS (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Meng ZiyiEdit

You deleted Meng Ziyi because it was written by a blocked user. I'm wondering if Draft:Meng Ziyi is made by the same person who wrote it three months ago. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 17:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: What I had deleted was a redirect to Ever Night, so I don't have anything to compare this draft to. -- Tavix (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Festivals in the Northwest TerritoriesEdit

Hey Tavix!
You deleted the above-linked page a little more than two years ago due to its creation by LTA MusicLover650. I was wondering if there was any redeemable content in it (even if just a stub) because I'd prefer working off that than making the page from scratch (assuming there is no notability concerns).
Thank you for you consideration! –MJLTalk 17:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: No, it was just a redirect to Northwest Territories#Festivals. Sorry I can't be of any help! -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
[Thank you for the ping] Ah well, I appreciate the check on it anyways! :D –MJLTalk 19:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


MinnowEdit

 

Plip!

This guy is blocked and as such can't participate in the discussion. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: Indefinite ≠ infinite. If he's unblocked before the discussion is over, he is welcome to participate. Additionally, I am aware that he has talk page watchers who would be interested in the discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RHaworthEdit

I have been steering clear of RHaworth since the bust-up on ANI. We didn't speak to each other at the London meetup, although that wasn't a conscious choice; I was simply chatting to other people at the time. I got pinged into a related discussion about what qualifies as WP:R3, found the DRV, saw "complaint about CSD by RHaworth" and winced. There's a nice Malayam/Indian phrase "Istam illatha achi thottath ellam kuttam" which roughly translates into "you can find any fault with someone you don't like". Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I dislike RHaworth, that's just mean spirited. But having dragged him off to ANI twice and got admonishments out of it, I think any other time I see an admin action that isn't exactly in alignment with what I would do, I'm going to be biased towards calling it disruptive. Hence I don't think I should create any more ANI threads on this, or start any Arbcom case. If the issue is that problematic, other people will start these without my involvement. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, you've certainly done your fair share to try to resolve the issue, and I appreciate that. Today's frustration with RHaworth: He has deleted Dr. Udit Raj per WP:A10 despite it being a redirect and the A prefix does not apply to redirects. Then he salted the page as a "bad title", which per WP:SALT should only be done for articles that are "repeatedly recreated", which isn't the case here. I'm really itching to see an Arbcom case, but I'll be away on holiday for the next week starting tomorrow so I won't have time to take the baton myself. I'm really worried there will be even more damage by then, so I'd also like to bring in Thryduulf and get his thoughts on the matter because he's aware of the issue and has experience with Arbcom. -- Tavix (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I take the view that the bold, revert, discuss cycle is just as applicable to admin actions as to editorial ones. So to all admins I say: if you see some bold action that I have done and that you disagree with, simply revert it - don't tell me - just revert it leaving a few words of explanation in an edit/action summary. Chances are I will I never notice. If I do notice, chances are I will accept your reversion. If I do disagree, you may be sure I will discuss rather than simply re-doing the action. (And in this specific case don't forget Dr. Gauri Shankar Shejwar as well.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually looking at that redirect, it's not a great example. A redirect was created at that title to Urdit Raj. About a month later it was nominated at RfD by user:PamD (FWIW I would likely have recommended keeping it). A different editor then moved the page to Please delete it (leaving the redirect behind, obviously) and then blanked both the page and the redirect. The move and blanking should have been reverted, Please delete it speedily deleted as either G6 (mover was acting in good faith) or G3 (mover was acting in bad faith), and the RfD discussion allowed to continue. At some point the page mover got given a "your contributed article has been nominated for speedy deletion as a duplicate" message which was blatantly incorrect - they edited a redirect someone else created afaict. The redirects were blanked (by the page mover) before being nominated for speedy deletion so the A criteria were not technically applied to redirects, but it wasn't good. RHaworth just deleted as tagged (he should have spotted all was not right and either declined immediately and pointed out to the tagger that cleanup was needed, or ideally done the research I've just done and fixed it. This is not the straw that breaks the camels back, but it's one of the very last few before that happens (the complexity and confusion does not make it a great example). There was absolutely no justification for the salting though - the title has only been created once and it's not egregiously bad - PamD's "we generally don't do this and it would therefore be bad precedent" nomination at RfD was incorrect (see Category:Redirects from names with title). Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The fact that there are seven existing redirects starting "Dr. " does not demonstrate that my statement "we generally don't do this" is incorrect. PamD 07:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't seen Dr. Gauri Shankar Shejwar before. That was created by a good-faith move of Gauri Shankar Shejwar which RH reverted (correctly). The resulting redirect was then speedily deleted as "non-standard title" and then salted with the same justification, despite neither being close to within policy. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't spend time discussing! If you think my saltings were wrong, undo them! I don't mind. I have no strong feelings. I will not re-salt them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
RHaworth, the individual cases discussed here are unusual in that another editor has actually looked at them after the admin action was done. In the vast majority of cases, there isn't anyone there to review it. There's usually going to be a newbie editor concerned, but they're very unlikely to either know how the raise any issues or to know whether they should raise any issues. If it does get spotted by an experienced editor, chances are they're unlikely to have access to the tools needed to revert your action, and they're unlikely to be willing to expend the time and effort to ask somebody who does. BRD doesn't really work for admin actions. A deletion or a salting is effectively the last word on the matter, so most people in today's wikipedia community expect admins to treat that with greater care and if erring, to be doing so on the side of caution. – Uanfala (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
"Don't spend time discussing! If you think my saltings were wrong, undo them!" How does a non-admin do that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Run for admin and wait a week? On a related note, I would be happy to see this link turn blue. -- Tavix (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Turning this link blue will probably result in a lot of controversy, and there isn't much of the need for the tools to justify it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, they have to ask an admin. But the point I am making is that they can ask any admin and I hope that if that admin agrees with the request they should simply do the unsalting and not expend time and effort on following any other course of action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Undoing an administrative action without discussing with the admin who did it is generally discouraged, this is to avoid wheel warring. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) If this is the case then Tavix, could you be so kind as to unsalt Me gusta for me? I have no clue why this was moved without creating a redirect. –MJLTalk 01:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @MJL: I've unsalted that page and created a redirect to Me Gusta as that's very obviously an appropriate alternative capitalisation redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Glad He's GoneEdit

I understand that you want to follow procedure but the RfD makes 0 sense now. The song is confirmed and available for presave, all of the information can be found at Glad He's Gone (song). But... congrats I guess?—NØ 16:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: It looks like it has been correctly moved to draft. I still see no reliable sourcing for the song, so I will continue to stand by my "delete" !vote until then. -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Notability is more of a requirement for articles, not as much for redirects as long as context and confirmation exists. Also, this has happened so both rumors are now confirmed.--NØ 17:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: I never mentioned notability. Like I explained at the RfD, redirects are required to have reliable sourcing at the target to substantiate the redirect per WP:V. You cannot create redirects based off of rumors or Instagram posts. I recommend making sure other redirects you have created are reliably sourced and please tag any of your redirects with {{db-g7}} if they cannot. Redirects without mention can and will be nominated for deletion at RfD—this is your only warning. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Um, I was just having a discussion and didn't check your user page to know you were an admin. This "only warning" is unnecessary and uncalled for. I'm well aware about redirects needing a source at the target. Sunshine Kitty wasn't even created by me. Its currently mentioned at Tove Lo in the discography section. [1] can be used as a source to write a statement like "Tove Lo teased new music by uploading a video called Meet Sunshine Kitty". Do you think the redirect would be justified then?--NØ 18:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Creating redirects in violation of WP:V is unnecessary and uncalled for. I see that Glad He's Gone has been moved back to mainspace with an actual source, so I will take care of the loose ends there. -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
It had already been confirmed and the stub had also been created when I closed the discussion originally. I apologize for forgetting the rule about not closing discussions one is involved in. But I hope you assume good faith and understand my intention, as the reason you gave while closing this was the same reason I closed it as well. Have a great day.--NØ 18:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No, that's not the same thing. You had closed it as "keep" which means "keep Glad He's Gone as a redirect to Tove Lo discography". Now that Glad He's Gone is a sourced article at that title, the RfD can be procedurally closed because there is no longer a redirect to be discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I swear I usually do better than that. It's just that the whole RfD discussion revolved around the song not even being real, so when Tove finally confirmed it and me being a sleepy mess, I just made a technical error and rushed to close it as keep. I am glad you have stepped in and corrected my errors. Sorry for eating your head so much. I'll get my useless self out of your hair and let you get back to your important admin work. Hope we're on good terms.--NØ 18:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Tavix".