User talk:Tavix/Archive 3

Re: admin
Tavix, I'm touched by your offer of support. I've gone twice already and while I would still like the position, I think I should wait a few months. But I'll surely let you know when the time comes. - Biruitorul Talk 02:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, we'll wait. I really think you'd make a good admin so let me know if the time is right. Tavix | Talk  00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again and yes, I'll certainly let you know. Incidentally, there's more. - Biruitorul Talk 02:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Plumoyr
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a Sockpuppet category template. I've added the template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Austro-German relations
Thanks for the clarification. Can you tell me where this ongoing project has been discussed? --Ryan Delaney talk 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it need to be discussed first? I was simply being bold and making the moves because I noticed the vast majority of the bilateral relations were (country name)-(country name) and not (nationality)-(nationality). Tavix | Talk  00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, but you indicated that there was discussion somewhere, so I wanted to take a look at it. If you're doing it on your own prerogative, that's fine. The point is that it would be helpful for me to know the reason I am speedying the redirect before I do so. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There may not be an official discussion, but I remember a comment somewhere in an AfD about it so that's what got me started with it. Tavix | Talk  15:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MLB All Star Game 2009 logo.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:MLB All Star Game 2009 logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
Since your comment on my RfA I've been meaning to ask you... do you have in mind any other solution in regards to vandalism? Should it just run its course perhaps and be reverted naturally whenever someone sees it? -- Menti  fisto  04:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A little bit of Huggle is fine, I have no problem with it. I just felt that if all someone did was Huggle, it would be hard for someone to explore the other parts of Wikipedia. Tavix | Talk  13:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD G6
A db-move request, such as you added to Jim Furlong (Canadian football), is incomplete if it does not specify the page to be moved; further, the talk page of the page to be moved ought to indicate that there was some discussion of and consensus in favor of the move, unless the old title is obviously wrong (such as a spelling error). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a redirect to Jim Furlong (football player) so I thought it was pretty obvious that would be the title that would be moved to that article. The reason for the tag is that it contradicts general consensus found at WP:NCSP (and talk). If there is anything else you are curious about let me know. Tavix | Talk  01:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Meaning
Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of categories
I can't help but think that edits such as this are a tad disruptive. Ambassadors are part of bilateral relations between countries, and hence Category:Ambassadors of Syria to Russia should be placed in Category:Russia–Syria relations. This goes for other countries also. Please do not remove categories such as this, as they are part of overall bilateral relationships and help in navigation of similar articles. --Russavia Dialogue 02:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because the ambassador categories are used in the "Foreign relations of XXX". By adding new categories solely for the addition of "Ambassadors of XXX", it further complicates things in a way I feel is not as effective. Here is why: (I'll use Russia as an example). Find Category:Foreign relations of Russia. In it, the first three categories you see are Category:Ambassadors of Russia, Category:Ambassadors to Russia, & Category:Bilateral relations of Russia. The first two categories are used for linking to the various ambassadors of Russia, while the third is used for various bilateral relation articles, such as Russia-Syria relations as well as various articles about the bilateral relations such as embassies, wars, etc. By removing the ambassadors from the bilateral articles, I am not removing them, but I am getting rid of the duplication within the foreign relation articles. Tavix | Talk  01:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been instrumental in developing category structures for the Russian articles, and have been doing this since dot (basically). I would simply ask that you don't remove categories from Russian categories as you did, as there is no basis of reality in the reasoning which you provided. The Ambassador of Russia to Syria (and vice versa) is an integral part of the relationship between those countries (as it is for the bilateral relations of other nations as well). Categorisation is there so that readers can find articles on related topics in the one place. They will find them in the Ambassadors category, and also in the bilateral relations category. That there is some "duplication" (as you put it) is quite irrelevant when one looks at what categorisation is meant to achieve. --Russavia Dialogue 07:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't care how instrumental you were, I am simply trying to cleanup the mess you (and others) left behind. When you create a whole bunch of categories with (country A)–(country B) relations, and the only thing in the category is an Ambassador sub-category that they can find by clicking two parent categories, that is what I call overcategorization. People need to find things in the easiest way possible, not have to go though a bunch of random bilateral country cats that don't have any meaningful information in it. Tavix | Talk  15:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, touch the categories again, and I will revert, and ask for them to be locked, because it is disruptive. End of story. --Russavia Dialogue 16:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, I'll just end up listing the categories at CfD anyway. Tavix | Talk  14:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Empty cats
Hi, have the empty cats you're proposing for deletion been empty for at least 4 days? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes.

Articles for deletion/Jonathan Miller (chairman)
FYI, since you were in the closed AfD two months ago. Ikip (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek-Icelandic relations
We always use the adjective, the user who moved it before has been warned several times about moving the pages to their noun forms. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please site a consensus for your rationale, the Greek bilateral articles are the only ones that have been moved to the current location. I don't see any reason why the Greek bilateral articles should have a special treatment. Tavix | Talk  23:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to see what consensus there is for your move. You seem to have decided that the guideline was established without consensus and removed it without a discussion and now decided to move articles to your own POV name which itself does not have consensus. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed a rough "guideline" someone put up without consensus. You (or someone else) can put it back when it has consensus. Before then, please don't tell me what to do. I am simply being WP:BOLD and making the changes that is deemed necessary. Tavix | Talk  23:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You should take a look at the guidelines. The guideline has been in effect for over a year now almost all articles have been named as such and they can only be changed after there is consensus to do so. I will be reverting your changes, a drawback of being bold. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * and per WP:BRD, I will be taking it to the talk page. See ya there. Tavix | Talk  23:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

invitation
I noticed your work on some of the x-y relation articles, you maybe interested in this new wikiproject.

You may also be interested in Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Greece-Latin America
OK, this is now just for Colombia-Greece; 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are now listed individually. - Biruitorul Talk 06:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...
I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll take a look at it when I get around to it. Tavix | Talk  00:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Adminship nomination
I have nominated you for adminship. Please see WP:Requests for adminship/Tavix. Do you accet it? Webster6 Yo, So 10:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nomination. I may accept it, but my internet is currently down and I don't know when I'll have time to work on it. Tavix |  Talk  00:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tavix, would this be enough for you to change your mind? --  Dylan 620  Efforts · Toolbox 21:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and decline it, I can wait until someone who actually cares about wikipedia nominates me. Tavix | Talk  22:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't make any promises about a nom, but would you like me to try and review you? --  Dylan 620  Efforts · Toolbox 23:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion
Just a friendly note on Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_6. When doing a group nom, it's a good idea to put the rfd template on each redirect in the group. I've added one to William Harris (baseball), and I'll try to get to the others today or tomorrow if you don't beat me to it.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cripes, fair crack of the whip
Rarely have I seen an afd proposer accept such an item with such easily accepting good faith - may it serve you well in whatever else you do in real life SatuSuro 03:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done these for about two years now, I'm at the point now where I realize that holding a grudge over people who disagree with you will not end up well. Thank you for taking the time and tell me that, it means a lot. Tavix | Talk  20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Drv for List of extraordinary diseases and conditions
An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here .Bali ultimate (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Monster Trucks
Rjd0060 suggested that I contact you as the original proposer of the deletion of List of monster trucks. I have no experience of deletions, but it seemed wrong to me that the article is back again as List of Monster Trucks, which seems to compound your original reason (WP:LISTCRUFT - A list that does better as a category and the majority of the trucks aren't even notable) with incorrect capitalisation to boot. I don't know whether I should be concerned or not, but you may know better and be more able to sort it out if it really is the problem that I think it is. Hope that was comprehensible, --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, this current list does not have as many trucks listed as the old one, but it does have the additional information with the driver of the trucks, so I don't think CSD G4 would apply (recreation of deleted material). If you think it should be deleted, nominated it for deletion at WP:AFD, otherwise just leave it alone or expand it if you think it should stay. Tavix | Talk  22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, from what you say I'm content to leave it alone. Although ... is the capitalisation acceptable in the title? --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Barack Obama administration controversies
If you are going to delete Barack Obama administration controversies then why is there a whole category for George W. Bush administration controversies? Danvers (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Danvers
 * If you think it shouldn't exist, then mark it for deletion. Tavix | Talk  17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Winchester bus routes
I understand that the Winchester bus route pages are non-notable but it is probobaly because: 1. Your and lots of other people are not intersted in the subject, which I understand, but there are people who are interested in the thing. 2. The page is new, so not many people had a chance to look at it, so its non-notable, because people didn't see it yet, as I understand it. I hope you now see the point of the pages. Adam mugliston (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Being new or interesting has nothing to do with notability. Please read WP:N for details. Tavix | Talk  17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So what do you mean by 'non-notable', cause as far as I see it it is not a reason to delete. Adam mugliston (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it doesn't sound like you read the notability policy, I'll give it to you in a nutshell: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Now, if you can find me some reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I'll change my vote. Tavix | Talk  17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gave reliable sources, which I used to create the pages on the pages, but I'll list them here.

Adam mugliston (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * www.stagecoachbus.co.uk/south (go to different timetables)
 * www.travelinesw.co.uk (go to different timetables)
 * www.quickmap.com/downloads/ptmapsidea.pdf
 * www.quickmap.com/downloads/ptmapsideb.pdf
 * The first two sources you provided, I couldn't even find anything about Winchester bus routes, you might have to give me a more specific link. The third and fourth links were just maps, they prove that it exists, but not that it is notable. Tavix | Talk  18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.stagecoachbus.com/timetables/WI1timetable310808.pdf (route 1)


 * http://www.stagecoachbus.com/timetables/4_timetable29082004.pdf (route 4)
 * http://www.stagecoachbus.com/timetables/WI5_Timetable310808.pdf (route 5)
 * http://www.stagecoachbus.com/timetables/WI7timetable310308.pdf (route 7)

The Traveline ones are pretty much the same, but you can have all stops. Adam mugliston (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DRV listing
Hello, just a heads up that I closed your listing at DRV regarding the Conan O'Brien episodes since there is already a discussion at DRV over that closing; you may want to visit that discussion and add your thoughts there. Shereth 15:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Derek Denny-Brown
You want requested moves, not articles for deletion, if you want the more notable person moved to that title. I'm speedy closing the afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Tavix | Talk  20:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance on Quincy Adams
I just wanted to thank you for taking care of the redirect issue. I was somewhat irritated by the undoing of what was a consensus move by another user, hopefully I kept my WP:COOL and this issue can finally be put to bed. Raj_Fra 10:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Tavix | Talk  15:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

KCTJ AFD
Why did you feel it was necessary to revert my close of the AfD which even you said was a Keep. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not supposed to close an AfD when you voted in it. Also you did it wrong... Tavix | Talk  18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * People have closed AfDs they have voted on before and how did I "do it wrong"? -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's reading time: Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. Tavix | Talk  19:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

g6 History of pomerania redirect
Regarding your comment on Talk:History of Pomerania (1933-present) (same for Talk:History of Pomerania (1933-1950))

My feelings exactly, but remember Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 19? If you want to give it a new try, I am with you. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't give it another try at RfD since it isn't a redirect. If it fails the G6, I'll probably take it to AfD. Tavix | Talk  16:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot someone made it a dab page after the RfD. Anyway, I have tagged the other one also, let's wait and see. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to tag the other one because it is a redirect to History of Pomerania (1933-present). If that page is deleted, the other one is automatically deleted through G8 (redirect to a deleted article). Tavix | Talk  16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Shame on me, I'll remove the tag. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Clara Harris (criminal)
Hi Tavix. I removed your prod on this article in the process of moving it to Murder of David Lynn Harris. This new article is now up for deletion, at Articles for deletion/Murder of David Lynn Harris. Your input would be welcome. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out. Tavix | Talk  15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Separation theorem (disambiguation)
Why did you tag this page for deletion? I can't see anything to indicate why this page needs to be deleted. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a disambiguation to two different separation theorems, one of which was the more popular. All I did was transferred it to be a hatnote of Fisher separation theorem linking to the other one. I did this because someone typing in "separation theorem" will go to more obvious choice, and if they want the other one, they have a one click access to it. No more having to use the disambiguation page, so I tagged it G6 (housekeeping) since it no longer is useful and has no incoming links. Tavix | Talk  15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Race (United States Census) redirect
Hi, on Jun 30, you edited the Race (United States Census) redirect, adding the rfd tag. But there is no section discussing it on the Redirects for discussion page. Not sure what's going on... can you clarify? Ehlkej (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has something to do with twinkle, I think it's acting a little buggy. Tavix | Talk  01:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the edit should be reverted? Ehlkej (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure... Tavix | Talk  02:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposing deletion of an Article
Hi Tavix. How are you doing? I think I need to ask you for your help, if you don't mind helping a newbie, since i can see that you've had experience in editing articles, and seem to be an authority on article qualification. Again, I'm new to wikipedia, and I have one purpose here, to have a page for the hockey league I belong to. I have read countless help articles, linking to other help articles, linking to more help articles. I've read 'notibility', 'articles for deletion', 'deletion policy guidlines', in my efforts to save my page from the few people who seem to want the page gone forever. These people have not giving any advice, just citing everything that's wrong with the page, and nothing that is right. Can I change your mind on windsor floor hockey league, and, your proposing on deleting it? I would do whatever possible to comply with the rules of wikipedia and have read quite alot in the guidelines about why the page SHOULD be included. (so many, i donno where to begin ---social & recreational clubs have a place on wiki --- ---Included in the article is a physical address of where the games take place, some article i read said that stands for something--- there's alot of reasons why it SHOULD exist on wikipedia and about two or three small debatable issues about lack of notibility). I included all the league's website and pages, and it's not like anyone is debating the truthfulness of the article, but they do insist on citing the page for 1. notability, 2. More independant sources. Where i have done the best i possibly can, I included all the links EVER available,  And having said that, ask any of the 80+ families that are effected by this league, in a town, during a time, where 10% of it's population has been laid off indefinitely. This league is notable to me, and to others, isn't that enough for you?

Can you answer me this: how is this league not notable to the people and families who CARE about it, notibility is in the eye of the beholder. Just because it's not being written about in the newspapers, YET!, doesn't make it any less notable to the people who would type WFHL into the 'search'.

I hope to work WITH you and not against you as i try to save my page, hopefully one man's reason as to why my article is not notable wont erase the many reasons why people like myself think it SHOULD be included in wikipedia. Thanks for reading, hopefully this will convince you to help the cause instead of adding to the fire that's trying to destroy it. Thewalrus69 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * well, I would like to have you take a look at WP:GNG, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Your league that you want on Wikipedia simply does not satisfy that statement and thus is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing you can do about it since there is no independent sources out there for the league. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise this, so therefore I believe it should be deleted. Tavix | Talk  22:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WHAT ADVERTISMENT DID I PUT? I can't believe what you say and do. You're just horrible! Your quote doesn't say that my article doesn't qualify either.... "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." that's just saying what IS allowed, not what IS NOT. Though, i'm done checking back here because you're obviously not playing with a full deck. Thewalrus69 (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are advertising your league. Please assume good faith. Tavix | Talk  23:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Percentages
Don't forget, when working out percentages such as this, that the calculation involves multiplying by 100. Of course this makes no difference to the notability of the Cape Verdean Timorese, but it could make a vital difference if an ethnic group making up, say, 3% of a country's population was reported as being only 0.03%. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I forgot that part. It's still a very small percentage though... Tavix | Talk  17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

List of products endorsed by Peyton Manning and List of products endorsed by Michael Jordan
Am I to understand you actually believe these to be reasonable redirects? It's not so much WP:POINT as positively no one who doesn't also see the Billy Mays AFD will see these redirects, it's just...kind of petty. I'm going to RFD them. Nosleep break my slumber 13:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A rather pointy nomination, eh? These are plausible redirects as is List of products endorsed by Tiger Woods. In case someone wants to look up what products any of these guys endorsed, they should be there as that is what Wikipedia is all about. Tavix | Talk  16:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tavix! I agree with your note that List of products endorsed by Tiger Woods should be considered at the same time as these two, so I have listed it for discussion as well. I am not aware of other "List of ..." articles created (and retained) as redirects. Such redirects are usually the artifacts of merges in order to retain history and discussion. These redirects do seem improbable search terms. -- Thinking of England (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up List of topics related to Black and African people
We're cleaning this up.

What else needs to be done to it?

Please answer at Talk:List of topics related to Black and African people.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 23:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from John Heyman
Hello Tavix, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to John Heyman has been removed. It was removed by 92.236.20.234 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 92.236.20.234 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

What do you think?
On 30 June 2009, you wrote this at the bottom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_David_Lynn_Harris Now, this article is being considered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Titus The difference is that this book or subject won a Pulitzer Prize making it even more notable. What is your opinion? Is this a weak keep or a keep or an emergency delete/drop a nuclear bomb on it/get rid of it now? Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Northport, New York
Your edit has been reverted. See the Northport's Talk Page to discuss. --Fife Club (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

surname redirects to articles on an individual
Hi Tavix! Prompted by your RfD nomination of, I ran a search and found these similar redirects: (The 1st two aren't even used as surnames in their target articles.) Your nomination is too old for appending these, isn't it? -- ToET 06:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Ashley (singer)
 * → Bernard Lee (poker player)
 * → Mathew Chuk
 * → Dirk Nowitzki
 * → Leon S. Talaska

Question
Could you look at User_talk:MBisanz? Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 05:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of T:N
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your RFD !vote
Could you please clarify if your !vote in WP:RFD? I think your rationale makes it sound like you're advocating deleting them, but you wrote keep. I was just a little confused. Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean this?
I am puzzled by this RfD comment. You say "keep", but the logic of your comment seems to say "delete". Have you made a mistake, or have I misunderstood? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that this had already been mentioned above. Oh, well, never mind. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion
It's up for AfD again Qworty (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) Merge Proposals
I've proposed editing and merging One Bid, Showcase Showdown and The Showcase into the respective sections of The Price Is Right (U.S. game show). Please feel free to comment here. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Similarly…
…someone might likewise nominate “List of U.S. towns with foreign country names”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. It's prolly too late to bunch it with the other one, but if you want to nominate it, be my guest. Tavix | Talk  03:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at this stage it needed a separate nomination, which I have made. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Paper and pulp industry in Dryden, Ontario
FYI, since your vote I've cleaned up the Paper and pulp industry in Dryden, Ontario article a bit. It may not change your mind, but I thought I would let you know.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Anthrax hoaxes
There are alternatives to deletion. Why didn't you improve the article instead of nominating it for deletion? The subject of anthrax hoaxes is hardly not notable. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lauren Bernat
I recently recreated the article as Wii Fit Girl and was quickly reverted due to the previous AfD. However, I feel that the version I wrote clearly addressed the complaints of the article being about someone who is famous for only the YouTube video, in spite of the fact that she has been sued for the video, the lawsuit being covered by several news media outlets such as Fox News, she has appeared as a spokesperson for Electronic Arts' EA Sports Active, and has spawned several homages and "copycats". Perhaps the original version that was deleted seemed to be covering a person who was only famous for one thing, but this one I think clearly shows that she has done more than just be the Wii Fit Girl. If you could give your opinion on the matter to me, that would be excellent. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Tavix! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Ted Turner (guitarist) -

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Tavix,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship    proposal was  started  on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the  existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working   compromise, so CDA is still largely being  floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the  RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and  Neutral, with Comments  underneath), this RfC is still essentially a  'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Excalibur
Hi, noticed that you had removed the reference to the INSAS Excalibur Mark-I in your recent clean-up of the Excalibur disambiguation page (or i think you did, still learning how to check history of pages .. please correct me if i'm wrong). I had made that insertion a while back and just wanted to know why it was removed. Thanks! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I ever remove references, it is because it is a non-existent web page. I don't really remember that page, but if I was in error or even removed it by mistake, feel free to add it back. Sorry for any inconvenience. Tavix | Talk  23:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Just wanted to know if my insertion was some policy violation. Have inserted it back. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Noticed you removed the Pop Culture references in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_(therapy_cat) I think having those references show how this "death cat" phenomenon is spreading and being embraced by the media. Would you consider reverting that change? Baileybrigade (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul (octopus)
"He more commonly goes by the name Paul." :D SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you get a consensus in talk please before making any other moves like this. Thanks. --John (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BEBOLD. Read it. If the move become controversial, then yes a consensus would be necessary. Tavix |  Talk  03:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Doyle.
Hi, just to let you know I reverted your change on Thomas Doyle: the suggestion of a restriction to the US and Canada is incorrect. See the relevant sections of Football (word) and Names for association football. Thanks! Tameamseo (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware of that. Tavix | Talk  17:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Joy FM
Nice job creating the article, then making the KLJY link for it. I've put as much as I can find about the new station on the page. However, I was wondering, since WIBI has their logo if it's at all possible to add Joy FM's new logo. Please check into this. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.121.133 (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC) WHY did you create a site for a station that is going to be hacked like everyday, because KFUO was beloved by MILLIONS!!!!!!

August 1 in rail transport listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect August 1 in rail transport. Since you had some involvement with the August 1 in rail transport redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

United States v. Kozminski
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United States v. Kozminski, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://openjurist.org/487/us/931/united-states-v-kozminski.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Baseball moves
Hi. Regarding your edits shown here and here, WP:NC-BASE does not state that nationality should be used as a disambiguator. I understand that you were trying to be bold, but there's a fine line between boldness and stepping over the line. Guidelines need to be discussed before changing. By making this change to the baseball project naming conventions without discussion, you circumvented several earlier discussions, during which consensus was achieved not to use nationality as a disambiguator. Your edit summary for that addition was also disingenuous, as you weren't "clearing something up"; you were adding to that guideline to justify your edits to the Rodriguez articles, as well as the articles on the Ramon Ramirezes. If the future, if you think that you have a suggestion for a better disambiguator, or if you want to see a change to a guideline, discuss first, so you don't end up crossing the "too bold" line again. For your reference, WP:BOLD also says "The admonition "but please be careful" is especially important in relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won, knife-edge consensus - which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background." Thanks. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Template educat
Hi Tavix. Regarding this edit to educat, your edit summary says that the line of code is superseded by a new scheme for these categories. Unfortunately, this is not the case or at least, this is not working properly because 100+ of these categories are now uncategorized as you can see from Database reports/Uncategorized categories. I will revert your edit for now until this problem can be fixed. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The category used to be for the entire United States, but I've broken it up by states as there were about 500 colleges and growing. I'm adding the categories semi-manually (using AWB) and it's taken a lot longer than I thought it would. If you notice, all the colleges on that list start with the latter letters of the alphabet so there is significant progress that has been made. So in that sense, it has been superseded by the state categories. My edit summary was correct. Tavix | Talk  23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. It's just that the template should be modified once the change is complete. Best, Pichpich (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that it would really matter. Sorry about that. Tavix | Talk  13:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at this AfD
Heya, Do have a look at this AfD please: Articles for deletion/London Buses route 153 (2nd nomination), Thank ye, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at this one too : Articles for deletion/London Buses route 394 (2nd nomination) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

hello, im having lots and lots of trouble with articles right at the momment

nobody likes them

thats my problem

can u tell me how to make a good article that everyone can like

and what the title and sources are gonna be (too) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.198.206 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent moves
You have recently moved a number of articles of type 'Firstname Secondname (XYZ advocate)' to 'Firstname Secondname (advocate)', giving WP:QUALIFIER as the rationale. The problem is that most of these people seem to be more prominent for the specific XYZ, than for generalised advocacy -- so the new titles aren't particularly helpful. Additionally, this seems at variance with an example given on WP:QUALIFIER: that of Eddy Merckx (billiards player) (rather than the less-helpful 'Eddy Merckx (player)'). I sought guidance on WT:Naming conventions (people), and on receiving a confirmatory opinion, have reversed these moves. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Sharon Davis (disambiguation)
Hello. I just thought I'd politely remind you that if you nominate an article for deletion, you should inform the creator. I have added my opinion to the AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles on the other Sharon Davises have been made now. You can withdraw this one if you want. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like that was done for me. It's all good, two new articles came out of it so it was definitely a net positive. Tavix | Talk  15:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I would have appreciated it if you had responded to my post. Editors understandably feel that they want to know if pages they've gone to the trouble to create are being nominated for deletion, as they have a right to comment. To nominate it, not inform me, and ignore my message is quite disrepectful of other editors and their contribuitions. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because I didn't respond doesn't mean I didn't read it. What'd you expect me to say? Tavix | Talk  19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

An acknowledgement. Preferably a 'sorry about that', because obviously people go to trouble to create pages, and those efforts are disrespected if you nominate for deletion without informing the creator. Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Chess 4.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Chess 4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Long Beach bicycle path for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Long Beach bicycle path is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Long Beach bicycle path (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rednikki (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I noticed you nominated it for deletion several years ago. I agree with your reasons and have added new ones. Rednikki (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of STLC disambig
I reverted your edit which changed STLC from a disambig page to a redirect to St. Louis Cardinals. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

T: template redirects
Hi, you participated in Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 20, some of which I have relisted at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November_18. Please come along and share your thoughts .. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 15:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

T:N listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:N. Since you had some involvement with the T:N redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD and Unofficial Football World Championships
In the spirit of this important guideline (technically essay, but we admin treat it like a guideline), you need to take the discussion to the article talk page and get consensus for the extra material. Don't keep reverting, as it is looking like an edit war is starting, and that is a whole new problem I don't want to have to deal with. We admin only have so many tools to do so with. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  09:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)