User talk:Tavix: Difference between revisions

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Archive 1: Dec 2007 – Nov 2008 Archive 2: Dec 2008 – Mar 2009 Archive 3: Apr 2009 – Jun 2014 Archive 4: Jul 2014 – Nov 2015 Archive 5: Dec 2015 – Aug 2016 Archive 6: Sep 2016 – Feb 2017 Archive 7: Mar 2017 – Nov 2017 Archive 8: Dec 2017 – Feb 2019 Archive 9: Mar 2019 – May 2021 Archive 10: Jun 2021 – Feb 2022

• I don't want to say it on RL88's page, lest I add insult to injury, but was wondering if you were aware of all these, which are from farther back than the Special:Nuke threshold. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't gotten that far yet. I guess I can put together a d-batch for the rest. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Tavix,

I'm just wondering why you did a mass delete when this editor is not blocked and has never been blocked before. What prompted this drastic action? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained at RomanceLove88's talk page. In short, RomanceLove88 was warned several times about their redirect creations, but they continued creating them anyway. I do not think a block would be necessary given a promise "to never doing that again". Furthermore, a mass delete may be the wake up call that everyone has been trying to convey so blocking them on top of that seems to be a bit too much. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not editing redirect to MCU and Mii. RomanceLove88 (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as well you deleted my correct redirect why did you do that? RomanceLove88 (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You see this edit summary when recreated right now, if the redirect pages are correct. RomanceLove88 (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But i was wrong doing redirect previously, just give me a chance. RomanceLove88 (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like this has been taken care of. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Priorxfd has been nominated for merging with Template:Old RfD list. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 2pou (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tavix. Seen you've been around lately so ... if you got a sec, think you could respond to the edit request on Talk:Wandlore (Harry Potter)? If not, that's cool ... one of those situations with a fully protected redirect has been tagged for RFD, so the challenge is getting the redirect itself tagged. 😅 Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome! I went ahead and removed the protection, whatever reason this needed protecting back in 2007 is no longer relevant. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you deleted CAT:WANIE etc but did not remove red links to the deleted redirects from the target page Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. If you normally check and follow up links but just overlooked it on this occasion, please forgive my interruption. Otherwise, I hope this is a helpful reminder. – Fayenatic London 10:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Hmm, I must have just missed it because I remember noticing User:Thryduulf/3 character prefixes as one of the links. I was curious about that list and clicked into it and I guess I got distracted and forgot to go back and finish the check. On a related note, I'm shocked those shortcuts were still being advertised so many years after the page was renamed! -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Dunes of the United Arab Emirates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This category is empty due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bani Fasan (2nd nomination). -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who read whose mind. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess RfD etiquette tingles both of our spidey senses the same way! -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Communist holocaust (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know. I went ahead and G7'd it, we decided to go a different route with that one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tavix,

Thank you for closing that deletion review case. It was a painful experience. Even though my deletion decision was overturned, I learned something from the review that will assist me with my admin tasks in the future. I don't think I have encountered any similar situations to those two, where an editor created a page through a page move and someone then turned the redirect into an article that the page mover later on, came back to and tagged for CSD G7 deletion. That's not a typical scenario one comes across when patrolling CSD categories. But should I encounter this situation again, I will act differently. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that you got more than your fair share of "talking to" about it. Perhaps a good way of looking at redirects like these: it's important to not consider the page mover as the "author" of the redirect. The author was whoever titled the article that way previously! It could be the same editor, but not usually. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You suggested in the talk that I had somehow conflicted with WP:DABMENTION. I haven't ever seen this article and my username doesn't appear in the page's edit history. May I ask how I had accidentally conflicted with DABMENTION? Sorry I was too late to the discussion to help. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 15:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I found it. Yikes, that was a long time ago!!! I had completely forgotten that I had changed that Wikipedia policy. I was much more active in Wikipedia at that time. I had removed a thousand disambiguation page redlinks such as this one, where every student who suddenly had Internet access in class and was going to grow up to change the world, preemptively added themselves to the disambiguation page while still in eighth grade. I added that to the policy manual so I had something to point to when people did that, and I believed it to be a relatively uncontroversial change. I don't believe it's a conflict with DABMENTION at all; if for example a competitor in the Olympics is mentioned in the article about the 2064 Summer Games but isn't notable enough to have their own article, I absolutely agree that they should be in the DAB page. But the DAB page still shouldn't attempt to mention every Thomas Jones in the world. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 15:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to myself again. I discovered that the language that I added to the page is still there.

My text:

Likewise, disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person in the world named John Smith — just the notable ones.

From the current page:

Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.

So the text that I added in 2014 is (mostly) still there and intact. Seems like that policy statement has survived quite a while, and I think it's for good reason.

Do you need any further clarification from me? Does this seem to be a conflict with WP:DABMENTION to you? Please let me know, I'm genuinely trying to assist here. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, I'm having a conversation all by myself here and I realize that's not good form. Apologies in advance, perhaps I should have researched better before saying anything.

For the record, I agree with User:BilledMammal where he says, "MOS:DABMENTION (a guideline) and NOTDIRECTORY (a policy) are not in conflict, When a topic doesn't warrant its own article but is notable, as not all notable topics warrant their own article. it can be mentioned in dab pages per DABMENTION, but when it is not notable it can not, per NOTDIRECTORY." I truly think that's the last word on the subject. You can be WP:N enough for mention in an article and inclusion in a DAB page, but not WP:N enough for your own article. Thanks for your time, let me know if there's anything else I can help clarify? J^♯m (talk | contribs) 01:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm terribly sorry that I don't have the time to give this a proper response, but the follow-up discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Recent correction to Simple Lists. You are more than welcome to contribute there. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tavix,

I'm not sure why you deleted this 19 year old article based on one edit of a sockpuppet to it. I only stumbled upon it because its deletion left a lot of broken redirects that I usually clean up after. Those mass deletion tools are powerful so it's best to be careful! Hope you are having a good weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like List of constitutions of Costa Rica was another casualty but I think I know what happened here. The sockpuppet moved these pages around and when they were returned to their original location, I think it appeared as though the redirects to those pages were created by the sockpuppet. Some of our powerful deletion tools, like Twinkle, delete redirects of deleted articles so if whatever tool you used might have seen the valid articles as redirects of the pages created by the sockpuppet, they might have been deleted as redirects to deleted redirects even though they were articles, not actually redirects. Seem like a plausible explanation? We might mention this glitch to whomever tends to the deletion tools. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is a really weird glitch. I saw there were some back and forth page moves so I wanted to make sure there weren't any page moves listed in the nuke, and the ones I checked weren't so I went ahead with it. I'm going to go through all the pages I deleted individually now! There shouldn't be anything page move-related in the nuke tool... -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Concerning the retargeting from the Succession to the British throne page. Why did you leave out 'two' (Australia & Solomon Islands thrones) of the 14? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those two were include with keep where no specific section exists. That language was due to Thryduulf's preference to keep unless there were "more detailed articles/sections". Otherwise I could have gone along with Patar knight's suggestion completely due to no opposition, with the one exception where Jay explicitly wanted Solomon Islands kept. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, it makes Australia & Solomon Islands look as though they don't have their own thrones, when 'now' compared to the other 12 non-UK realms. A redirect to the Monarchy of Australia & Monarchy of the Solomon Islands would help fix that misconception. Section in those pages can be created at a later date, to direct to. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]