User talk:Tavix/Archive 8

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Joe Hernandez-Kolski page
I noticed that the Wikipedia page that I was creating was deleted. How do I get it back up? Do I need to recreate it? Thanks! TierneyIrishmutiny (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...
Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Texas League teams
Template:Texas League teams has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that confusion!
We both had the same idea of using a redirect, and since I was new and didn't notice the edit conflict (among other things, like that I wasn't copying my comment from my attempted edit), I screwed that up. I deleted it, but then the bot signed my comment for me which I was in the process of undoing (-_-) and couldn't fix the error. The comment I posted was the comment I started with, but I don't know Wikipedia can be hard to figure out at times. I apologize for the confusion.&#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  16:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the explanation! That clarifies things a bit. I was confused why you were copying my comment as your own, but now I know that was unintentional. I understand the pain, edit conflicts can be one of the most annoying things on Wikipedia to resolve... Happy editing, -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the understanding! Cheers, mate! &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  16:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

CFD
Old titles of categories are routinely deleted after a "merge" or "rename" CfD result. You may want to join in closing CfD discussions if you don't want Wikipedia to have to rely on non-admins to shorten the backlog. feminist (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Leave it for an admin to close if you want the category deleted. We don't need you spamming CSD. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try again: of course it would be ideal if admins would help shorten the CfD backlog, but that isn't happening. If admins get involved, I won't have to, but WP:IAR means I do what is best for Wikipedia. As for me "spamming" CSD, I'd note that, a non-admin, is essentially the editor who has made the most CfD closures recently, including "delete" CfD closures, complete with G6 requests, for a long time. Consider what would be best for this website as a whole. feminist (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you're so impatient. Why is the backlog being cleared so important to you that you're willing to spam CAT:CSD, an area that does require immediate attention on some issues? If you want to to help out, go to WP:RFA or leave the deletion for people who actually have the tools to carry out their closures. If you want my full opinion on the matter, check out User:Tavix/non-admin closes. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but when most other editors at CfD are OK with non-admin delete closes, maybe it would be better to avoid unilateral action. Based on your view, would you take action against Marcocapelle too? Also, WP:CATRED explains why category redirects should be treated differently from article redirects. feminist (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem with your argument is that it's not just my opinion. For example, see WP:NACDEL where a proposal to allow non-admins to close XfDs as "delete" was soundly rejected just a month ago. needs to go to WP:RFA. From browsing his talk page archives, there are plenty of editors who have prodded him to do so. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 17:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Plenty is a bit exaggerated, and I'm repeating here what I said before: for someone who is mainly active in categories it's highly unlikely to be elected as an admin and I don't have any aspirations either. I want to help closing discussions because I'm aware of the almost continuous large backlog and I will simply stop closing discussions if that is no longer appreciated. Pinging administrators who are closing CfD discussions:, pinging the administrator who usually deletes categories that I marked as G6: . Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that you're unlikely to be elected to be an admin. You have a clear use for the tools and plenty of experience to go along with it. When I stood for RFA, I did so primarily to close RfD discussions and sailed right through, and I feel you have a similar resume (except with categories instead of redirects, obviously). Would you be willing to at least give it a try? -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that all XFD/RFM/RFC discussions were closed by admins. But sadly that ship sailed a long time ago, as a result of the community's choice to promote v few new admins. The inevitable result is that most XfD/RFM/RC discussions are closed by non-admins.
 * Without their work, XFD/RFM/RFC would become pointless exercises, since most discussions would not be closed. NACs can be of variable quality, but @Marcocapelle's closures are high-quality with few complaints about the decisions.
 * @Tavix's objection seems to be not to the substance of Marcocapelle's closures, but about the fact that they trigger CSDs. The same thing would happen if any non-admin closed in Marcocapelle's place.
 * So, Tavix, there is an easy solution: get more admins to close CfDs, and make the non-admin closers redundant. You could start this yourself by clearing the backlog at WP:CFD.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on most points, except Without their work, XFD/RFM/RFC would become pointless exercises, since most discussions would not be closed. It would take longer in some cases for an admin to come around, but they would still get closed once the backlog is noticed by enough admins (and WP:ANRFC helps with that). I was active in CfD probably about a year ago, but stopped once the backlog was manageable (and I got a bit busier around the same time). It seems the backlog is back, and I've already began to look for CfD's to close. I appreciate the invite though. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let the backlog mount? Please God, no. Just no.
 * We already have that: the oldest open discussion at WP:CFD is over 2 months old.
 * It has been even worse, up to 6 months long at times. When that has happened, I have added pleas at WP:AN/RFC for months on end with no significant result.
 * And in the meantime, the editors whose work depends on the result of the CfD are left in limbo. Exacerbating that problem looks WP:POINTy.
 * Your approach might work if there were admins looking for something to do. But the long list at WP:AN/RFC shows that not to be the case. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want the backlog to mount, that's why we should be encouraging editors who know what they're doing to run for adminship. Other than that, it's just an exercise in patience. Sometimes the backlog grows, othertimes it shrinks depending on who is available and the amount of time they have. I have never once seen any indication of the backlog growing out of control to the point where discussions would never be closed. After all, Wikipedia is a backlog. At the very least, an administrative backlog in a certain area gives editors in that area a clear use for the tools should they run. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fortunately you have not yet seen an indication of the backlog growing entirely out of control, me neither, but that is a stage we should never run into to begin with. And BrownHairedGirl is definitely right regarding the usual lack of response on WP:AN/RFC. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tavix, an exercise in patience????
 * That stretches my patience, because you appear to be looking at this solely as an issue of admin convenience. My view is that admins are here to serve editors, and editors needs should be the priority.
 * If an editor plans a dose of work which depends on a CfD decision, they need a timely answer. If the answer takes months to arrive, they may have forgotten about the whole issue. Even if they are lucky enough to discover that a decision has been made, they will have to reacquaint themselves with the issues involved. That is at best an nuisance, and in many cases an editor will just shrug and move on. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So let's get recruiting! -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sure you know why recruiting new admins is not easy.
 * And you are evading my point. Unless and until there are more admins doing the work, please stop hassling the non-admin closers. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay and what is your plan here? Just starting a discussion on the admin noticeboard has been tried before, in vain, so it should probably be something more creative. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC) (This was added in the wrong section previously, it is a reaction to "So let's get recruiting")

Spamming CSD

 * Correct me if I'm wrong but presumably spamming CSD is just a minor aspect of the discussion and therefore let's have that in a separate section.
 * In practice categories in CSD are never in need of a speedy deletion. In that sense none of the listed categories is spamming CSD, because they are all alike. Categories are in CSD either after being tagged as empty at least a week ago, or after being tagged as G6 after a CfD discussion that lasted at least a week. So for categories CSD could better be renamed to CRD (Candidates Ready to be Deleted).
 * Of course in theory it is possible that a category ends up in CSD as a result of vandalism rather than by one of the two previous reasons. But imho categories are just not important enough for anyone to take the risk of getting caught as a vandal; and the risk of getting caught as a vandal is much higher with a category than with a single article, because first you have to remove the category from every article in the category, that will seldom go unnoticed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're going above and beyond what is being discussed here. Forget everything you just wrote except being tagged as G6 after a CfD discussion. To illustrate why I called that "spamming CSD", I'll use the example from earlier: Feminist closed several CFD's as "merge" and subsequently tagged them for G6. That creates several unnecessary items at CAT:CSD and effectively pushes the action of closing the discussion (ie: carrying out the deletion) onto the admin(s) patrolling CSD. So what does that solve? Nothing, it just pushes the problem to someone else. If the closures that require deletion are left to the admins to close, we don't have that overlap. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No I won't forget everything I wrote except.... The whole point of what I wrote was to emphasize that all categories listed here are alike in two ways, namely a lack of an extreme urgency to be deleted and virtually no risk of any harm being done. But this part of the discussion is indeed the reason why I would greatly appreciate RHaworth's view as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what's your point? -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My point: just don't worry about this practical aspect. I can fully understand that having non-admins closing discussions beyond certain boundaries is against your principles, but let's keep the discussion there instead of using CSD spam as a main argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a main argument at all, it's just the one I used to lead off with because of what was happening at that time. If you care about my arguments, they can be found here, backed by community consensus at WP:NACDEL. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I nominate you for adminship, you answer a few questions, and this time next week, you'll be an admin. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note, regardless whether I'm an admin or not, that I would encourage User:Feminist to keep closing CfD discussions including mergers and deletions. Also, I wouldn't scare off new non-admins from doing NACs at CFD, though I would keep a firm eye on them (that happened before, once). Finally, as an admin, hypothetically speaking of course, I would not close more discussions than I currently do because I feel I do my fair share anyway. So the practical impact of adminship would be 0. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's much easier for an admin closing CfD discussions than a non-admin for the simple reason that they have access to WP:CFD/W. The great majority of merge, rename, and delete closures are handled automatically. That's less work for you as the closer, and it's less work for whoever ends up deleting anything that needs to be deleted from your closures. Just something to keep in mind going forward. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for CfD closures
Good morning, I saw that you meanwhile closed a couple of CfD discussions, thanks for that. And obviously you're more than welcome to come back on a regular basis to close more of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Marco, it feels like I picked up right where I left off. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominating redirects for deletion
Hi! I wish to nominate several new redirects for deletion, but the procedure is far too confusing. You've nominated three recently, so I wonder if you could help me with Carlos I Roberto de Hungría, Matías Corvino, Luis II de Hungría, Alberto de Hungría, Ladislao III de Hungría, Bela III de Hungría, Inés de Châtillon, Esteban IV de Hungría, Coloman el Bibliófilo, Álmos el ciego, Geza II de Hungría, Bela II de Hungría, Colomán de Hungría, Emerico de Hungría (santo), and Basílica de Székesfehérvár. The rationale would be FORRED; absolutely no reason for Spanish language redirects. If it's too much of a hassle (there's a ton of them!), could you please direct me somewhere where I could seek assistance? Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The instructions can be found at WP:RFD if you haven't found them yet. That being said, I always nominate redirects automatically using Twinkle—I recommend activating it in your preferences if you haven't already. Once you have Twinkle activated, you can click on any redirect and there should be a tab on your screen called "xfd". Click it, and a box will appear to give your rationale. Hit submit, and then you can do the same with the rest of the redirects. Once all of the redirects are listed at RfD, they can then be "bundled" into one nomination (this is how I bundled one from a while ago). No worries if you're not able to figure it out, or if you're able to start on them and can't figure out how to finish or bundle them. I'd be more than happy to nominate them or finish for you. Just let me know. Cheers, -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been editing Wikipedia for almost a decade, and only now do I know what Twinkle is actually about! Your way of bundling nominations also seems very simple. Your answer is much more helpful than I expected. Thanks a lot! Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Natalya Anisimova
Hi,

I don't understand why you cancelled my edits about Natalya Anisimova. I have so far almost 20000 edits so I know that WP:CUTPASTE is not how a page should be moved. Nowadays, considering that: I think that two articles should exist: the disambiguation article and the one about the handballer.
 * two eligible people are named Natalya Anisimova :one handballer but also an athlete who won a silver medal in a top level international competition;
 * there's currently a problem with wikidata links: Natalya Anisimova is a disambiguation page with a link to in the disambiguation page wiki.de while Natalya Anisimova (handballer), which is just a redirection to Natalya Anisimova in wiki.en, is about the handball player with links to the same player in portuguese, russian and swedish. Consequently, when you're in the english article, you just can go to the german disambiguation article but not to the article about the player in other languages...;

And by the way, you also cancelled the improvement I made about the article: I updated the medal table (she's world champion in 82, don't you think it should be mentionned) and her maiden name.

So, ok, I admit that the way I did those edits isn't the best one, but IMHO it led to the right result! I hope you'll change you mind.

NB: sorry for the mistakes, english is not my mother tongue. --LeFnake (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently on the English Wikipedia, there is just one Natalya Anisimova, the handballer. If an article is written on the athlete, then disambiguation will be necessary. If you'd like to write the article on the athlete, I'd be more than willing to (re)create the disambiguation and make the necessary move for you. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, I wrote the article on the athlete :-) --LeFnake (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work! I went ahead and made the moves and re-created the disambiguation page. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Freundeskreis Reichführer SS
Hi, I just saw that you deleted a page Freundeskreis Reichführer SS because it was created by a blocked user. If there are no other reason than that, I'd like to create a redirect Freundeskreis Reichführer SS-->Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft (alternate name, cf. lead). Would that be ok? Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The same applies to Freundeskreis Himmler, another alternate name for Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft, and another page deleted due to blocking violation. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be okay. Any pages deleted via G5 may be recreated by anyone in good standing (ie: not a sockpuppet). So if you see any others, feel free to (re)create them. Happy editing, -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

✅ - Thanks for your rapid response. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Shithole
You fully protected this. I could see a dab/"see also" page at that location, pointing to "Shithole countries" (of Trump fame), together with "not to be confused" links to Shitole and Sithole. What do you think?  Sandstein  15:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten about that. I could get behind something of that nature. However, due to the sensitive nature of the topic, perhaps it would be best to get further opinions at WP:RFD and see if it would gain consensus. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why RFD? It's not a redirect. Could you just unprotect it and see what the editorial process makes of it?  Sandstein   16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a Redirect to Wiktionary, as evidenced by the category. See Wiktionary redirect. I proposed RfD because I don't feel comfortable unprotecting it. That would make the editorial process be a discussion on what to do with it at the proper venue, which would be RfD. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 22. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification on
Hi Tavix. Thanks for the close. Quick question: What was your finding as to the eight redirects that you did not delete (and that hadn't been struck)? "Keep" or "no consensus"? Thanks. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  11:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I've clarified that they are "no consensus" and they may be renominated at any time. The edit summary on those redirects said "no consensus", but that's a bit opaque... -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Second AMP Building, Townsville
I am not sure I understand your reasoning for renaming the Second AMP Building, Townsville as Australian Mutual Provident Society Building. Australia is awash with current and former AMP buildings, many of the older ones being heritage listed. As the disambiguation page AMP Building shows, we already have several articles about such buildings on Wikipedia (and there are doubtless other ones which might have articles at some other time as they would pass notability due to heritage listings). So calling this particular former AMP building in Townsville by a "primary" name is pretty dubious, as it was definitely a branch office rather than a headquarters. So, we have been disambiguating them by place name until now (apart from former buildings which have since acquired a different common name). Since there are two heritage-listed AMP buildings in Townsville, we need to distinguish them which we do with ordinals (as such buildings are usually in a temporal sequence). I see from the edit summary that you were influenced by the first name in the Queensland Heritage Register but are you aware that names in the Queensland Heritage Register are not unique? They use registration number to identify the entries, not the names. This is why we don't automatically use them for Wikipedia article names (which must be unique). And, as the name suggests, the Qld Heritage Register only covers Qld. It is very likely that one or more of the AMP buildings in another state is also listed on their heritage register as "Australian Mutual Provident Society Building". Also anything with the words "Australian Mutual Provident" fails WP:COMMON. Australians all say "AMP"; indeed, I suspect many of my fellow citizens would struggle to tell you what AMP is short for. Kerry (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AT: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. The main source uses "Australian Mutual Provident Society Building", so that is the name that should be used to title the building. If there is another commonly referred-to name for the building, then we can consider that one. What sources do not use, however, is "Second AMP Building, Townsville". If you can provide evidence that another building is commonly referred to as "Australian Mutual Provident Society Building", then we can talk disambiguation. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Live PD
Hey there. I know we had some quibbles in the past about this page, but I think I need your help with it now. There is a user, User:2601:84:1:116A:9939:356E:4700:ECE2 (their IP seems to vary slightly, however their behavior is constant, which leads me to beleive that it is all the same person), who is trying to better the page by making the list of departments and LEOs followed bigger. His intentions are good, but all he is really doing is messing up the list. I sent them a message on their talk page asking them to stop, for the reasons I stated above, however they did not reply, and continue to borderline vandalize the page.(I'll have to fix it again at some point). If you could help me deal with this, it'd be great, as we are two of the few who edit Live PD. I have reverted the edits and placed level 1 & 2 vandalism warnings on the user's talk page. Thanks, Fhsig13 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that and thanks for cleaning it up. I think that's all that needs to be done right now. If I catch them continuing in the future, I'll be sure to take care of it. Cheers, -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He did it a third time just now. I've reverted it, and given him the level 3 vandalism warning. I'd suggest that if he does more than twice more, (there are 5 levels of warnings we have to go through before we can Request WP:AIV), we should request WP:AIV. Thoughts? Fhsig13 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the edits you reverted today on Live PD were done by the same fellow as yesterday. I'm going to give him the level 4 warning if you haven't already. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He's at it again, under another different IP. I reverted it again, and gave him the 4im warning. I'll request WP:AIV if he does it again, regardless of IP. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Gaming the RFC by deleting options
Please restore W. Homer Axford, you deleted what was created as an option at an open RFC, we generally do not allow people to game the RFC by deleting options under active discussion there. It taints the discussion if people can not see what they are !voting on. --RAN (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there was consensus to delete it. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Offensive edit stands unnoticed
Hi, please take a look at this offensive edit, it was made few weeks ago and it seems that nobody noticed, but it should be removed at once. Sorabino (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So undo it. I've done just that. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and I've WP:REVDEL'd it. I had never done that before, so it took me a bit to figure it out. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, such incidents are always best dealt by administrators. Sorabino (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still better to undo it yourself, and then ask an administrator for the revdel. That would have been 15 minutes less that the offensive edit is in the article (and it could have been longer, I just happened to be logging in then). -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom sanctions
Do you have any idea of the policy re: arbcom sanctions? They have to be notified if not already done so in the last twelve months. Now please revert yourself at Uanfala's talk page. There is an ongoing problem, yes, but I think you may be surprised how many people are experiencing it. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If someone uninvolved feels they need to inform them, they may do so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that is a PA. You seem not to have a clue what ia going on here. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies if you took it the wrong way, I'll retract. If I don't have a clue what is going on, then I suggest you take the effort to explain yourself. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been explained to Uanfala, and was involved the discussion at Talk:Dras. And the point about the notifications has been explained to you: I didn't devise a system whereby someone has to be notified even if they're clearly experienced in the topic area etc and I actually think it is rather silly but there we go. Admins such as  push this need for notification point because it makes it easier for them to deal with things in the topic area, although I suspect this one would end up at ANI rather than some unilateral application of admin discretion. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to Chib, not Dras, which is what that section involved. You're letting your disagreements with Uanfala spill over into other things. I don't find Uanfala's deprodding problematic, which is what I wanted to say in the first place. I recommend you take Chib (clan) to AfD and get it fleshed out there. If the article can be well-sourced and it's kept, then great, Wikipedia is improved. If not, then it will be deleted with less effort than has already been expelled here. Does that make sense? -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no idea why you were referring to Chib because I wasn't and I made it clear that the Dras thing was an example of disruption coming on top of a de-PROD that at the time had no basis and as of now still doesn't. As you know from my reply to you on Uanfala's talk page, I've already explained why I am not taking it to AfD yet. I don't think you realise just how many instances there have been of that contributor bending the rules in a way that isn't collaborative. Sooner or later it is going to come to a head and I think you will find that there are several admins and experienced contributors in the topic area who agree with me. Thus, warning and documenting is a part of the process. As I also said on their talk page - and you should have seen - they are capable of doing good things. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The section on Uanfala's talk page we were discussing in is called "Chib". It was in that section where you dismissed a source as "speculative bollocks", assumed Uanfala removed the prod on the basis of "sod all", threatened ANI, and called Uanfala a "problematic editor". That's not appropriate for a valid de-prod, and I felt strongly enough about that to voice my opinion. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are entitled to your opinion but not to bandy around your admin status as you did. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weird, I don't recall doing that. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not having a good few hours, then. You've still not fixed the non sequitor above, you've created a very confusing situation in the sanctoins logs, you seem not to have done your research before intervening with comments about AfD'ing Chib (clan), and you said this, although you cannot recall it. - Sitush (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There aren't any admin actions there. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they were admin actions. Try reading what I did say, which was that you were bandying around your admin status. Doling out a "final warning" like you did is chilling, as similarly was removing the arbcom notices I am obliged to post. This is heading towards WP:AN, you know, because what started out as just possibly a misunderstanding is turning into a significant display of incompetence on your part. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My status is irrelevant. Nowhere did I make any mention of it, so saying that I'm "bandying" it is inaccurate. If you feel the need to post the template, go for it, just please explain how it's relevant when you do. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, I've just noticed that you retracted by removing rather than striking above, which makes a nonsense of my comment at 19:04. I appreciate the retraction but surely you know not to do that? - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: Hi, Tavix. I'm always having to explain to new users that they mustn't remove or change a post of their own if somebody has already replied to it, because that wrongfoots the other person. I'm a little shocked to see an admin doing it, but I assume it was in a fit of absent-mindedness. Please consider restoring your comment and instead using strikeout to retract your words.

Also, I must agree with Sitush that it was a bad idea of yours to remove the discretionary sanctions alerts from Uanfala's page. Admins aren't allowed to place discretionary sanctions unless the user has been alerted to them by one of these specific templates. Please see WP:AC/DS. It's a very bureaucratic system, unfortunately, but it's what arbcom has placed, and we have to work within it. As it is at this moment, Uanfala has been alerted, but hasn't had much of a chance to read the alert, since you removed it just one minute later. An unusual situation. Please don't remove discretionary sanctions alerts again. They're not "sticks", but an unfortunate bureaucratic necessity, instituted in this case by arbcom because of the difficulties of adminning Indian/Pakistani/Afghani articles. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Per WP:DTTR, it's a better idea to explain why an editor feels another editor is violating discretionary sanctions. The template can be added along with the reasoning if required. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be a little paradoxical, or even confusing for the addressee, since the template explicitly states "This message... does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date" (bolding in the original). The essay WP:DTTR doesn't really come into it. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Sure, the template does not in and of itself imply there is any misconduct, but someone wouldn't place the template for no reason. Explaining why they are placing the template is helpful, which is something that the template itself cannot do. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did explain why. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply stating they are "gaming the system" is not explaining why. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed this. You are either being obtuse or you haven't read the links that were provided. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

2030 Olympics
I believe I had tried to create a page for the 2030 Olympics so now there are other pages they want me to comment on? I just received this msg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion is at Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 24 if you wish to participate. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Beckham, David
Hi, Could I ask why "Beckham, David" was moved back to "Beckham David" .... the former are the common redirects here and the later makes it sound like there's someone called "Beckham David" and so the comma would (or should) clear up any confusion that may arise ?, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 22:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The redirect Beckham David was created with the edit summary Created as redirect; it's linked at WP:TOPRED. As that's associated with Beckham David (not Beckham, David), the edit summary needs to stay at that location. If you think Beckham, David needed to be a redirect, you should have simply created that redirect rather than move an existing redirect. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the latter part of your note, as Beckham David still existed after you made the move. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah right I hadn't checked the history .... I just assumed it was a typo, True I was actually gonna nominate it at some point, ah well thanks anyway. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Roster changes
Ok, that is fair. We were both premature in our roster changes. These changes will probably be done within 2 days, if not before. Oye289 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The last exhibition game is tonight, then the spring training roster can be switched to the regular season roster tomorrow. It'll make the most sense to make those changes then. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephan Clark
Good day Tavix, according to this article and this article, Stephon Alonzo Clark's legal name is "Stephan Clark". Is there a good reason why you deleted this redirect? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * restored. Please add that information to Shooting of Stephon Clark so it is actually clear why the redirect exists. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

AMuse (software)
Hi, I redirected article you proded to Amiga software article. There is one solid review of AMuse in the Amiga Future magazine, but not much more. Too few RS for an article, but enough for a mere redirect, I think. Pavlor (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's not much of a mention there, but I won't object to it. Thanks for double checking my work. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing tooltip RfD
I'm prepared to close the Tooltip RfD, but before doing so, I wondered if you had a good idea about how/where to advertise this undertaking. WP:AWB/TA seems more focused on quick and simple tasks, not something drawn out and involved as this. Is there a better place you know of? It'd be nice for it not to wallow. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 15:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that was going to take care of that part, but it seems they haven't been around in over a month now. WP:BOTREQ, perhaps? If there are no volunteers, I guess the result would be a default to keep until/unless someone cares enough to take care of it. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 15:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't think BOTREQ would work, since it will require a human to determine whether it's an abbreviation or not, and if not, whether to remove, replace with footnote, or something else. As for eiπ, there were some other circumstances/behavior.  I think I'll mull it over a bit; I suppose AWB/TA wouldn't be a bad place to solicit help regardless, maybe find an intrepid few folks?  I suppose I could pick up AWB myself and triple my edit count... ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 16:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want something broader than WP:BOTREQ, maybe WP:VPT? That seems to be a catch-all place for Wikipedia's techincal issues. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thank you for your efforts in fighting trolls and vandals! (Gosh, I'm never sure if I'm grammatically correct when I say that, but thank you. Really.)

&mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 03:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 

derp

 * It happens to the best of us! :) I'd be impressed if anyone has all the naming conventions memorized... Thanks for the barnstar. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Camden Highline
If you had looked at the edit history you would have seen that this was not eligable for speedy deletion as a U2 request has been explicitly declined previously and I also objected to speedy deletion. The criteria for speedy deletion make it clear that criteria only apply when there is no disagreement they do. Bad speedy deletions are one of the most harmful things any admin can do so please up your game. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 13:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 13:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User pages of users that do not exist (check Special:Listusers), except user pages for IP users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's user page, and the previous name of a renamed user.. That checks out to me. User:Camden Highline doesn't have any declines in its history either. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The decline is now at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Camden_Highline&action=history but it still stands, as does my objection in the RfD. As I seem to repeatedly have to tell you it is not just about following the absolute letter of the policy (even though you didn't here) but about the spirit of it as well. Speedy deletion criteria are only valid if the page matches the letter and spirit of the criterion, i.e. only where speedy deletion would be uncontested if brought to an XfD. If someone objects to speedy deletion in good faith then it cannot by definition meet the criterion. Pages that do not meet a speedy deletion criterion must not be speedy deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything's bigger in Texas
Hi. I understand that removing each redirect severs the connection between route articles and park/loop route lists, but it is not common practice to link directly to a list. Those minimal details of routes should at the very least be put into a listicle, something like the Farm to Market roads, if not their own separate articles. If you're not convinced, feel free to undo the rest of my edits and take a look at the List of state highway spurs in Texas article. For a sense of consistency, that article needs redirects too.  Cards84664  (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear how we can blue link in one spot, and red link in another, what would the titles be?  Cards84664  (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The proper way to fix a "looping redirect" is by removing the link from the article/list, not by deleting the redirect. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to keep the red link on the list? Kinda like a template that would automatically overwrite the redirect if an article was created? I'm asking since the majority of the list links are still red. Cards84664  (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My recommendation would be to remove all links except for those that are articles. As articles are created, links can then be readded (usually the author does this). I am not aware of a way to do this automatically though. Deletion to create a WP:REDLINK is a rationale used at WP:RFD, if you still want to pursue that route. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI
You just requested a blocked editor to participate in an article talk page discussion. Thought you should know... - the WOLF  child  01:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Just curious, but why do you keep asking a blocked editor to participate in article talk page discussions when they can't? - the WOLF  child  23:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFD step three. Both of your comments are the same diff. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, he deleted it and I thought it was second one for some reason. But just the same, my second post prompted a reply here. As pointed out below, it is self-requested block. I took that to mean that user wants to be left alone for awhile, until they decide to return. I could be wrong on that, but still didnt see tbe point on notifying blocked users about discussions that cant participate in. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the talk pages of indefinitely blocked or long retired editors shouldn't be spammed with notices, but here the situation is different: the user was blocked only a week ago (so it's still within a window of time in which it's not improbable that their block might get appealed, and maybe they're still around and interested in what happens to their creations); more importantly in this case, if you look at the block log you'll see that it's a self-requested block, so the user can at any time request an unblock. – Uanfala (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

BODYCOUNT relist
Not that you need it, but for whatever it's worth I'm totally cool with your closure and appreciate you doing so. I'd also be fine if you wanted to make it cleaner and revert my relisting itself, but honestly that just feels like more work for little gain. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 20:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I had actually started closing them both at the same time this morning (by wrapping one rfd top before the first discussion and an rfd bottom after the second discussion), but something came up and couldn't get back to it until when I did. I sat there for a minute, considered pinging everyone for clarity's sake, and then decided it wouldn't be worth it and just went right back to closing it. I'm glad you're cool with it because it did feel a bit like I was stepping on toes. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that we're here, on a related note, you relisted SelectUSA a week ago. There's been no input since but the two participants are right, it's seeking an RM, not an RfD, so I'm leaning toward just opening the RM myself and closing it procedurally.  What do you think about that? ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 20:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like the best route to me, good idea. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your closure of this is, imho, a very good invocation of WP:NOTBURO. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Bermuda islands
Hi, i participated at Articles for deletion/Spectacle Island, Warwick, Bermuda which you started, and which was closed delete though I am not sure that was proper. I came to agree that a number of one-sentence articles, probably all created at the same time, could at least be merged/redirected to List of islands of Bermuda. I don't know how you came across the one that you questioned, but if you want to find and address more of them that would be fine by me. If you do, I hope you'll move the coordinates and any other info to the list-article row for each one. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They would need to be verified first; Spectacle Island was not so it was rightfully deleted. The same goes for any other similar articles. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Winter Olympics 2030
This was my page and not sure what was happening with it but I couldn't seem to find it Wifey93 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a draft started at Draft:2030 Winter Olympics. It's not ready for publishing yet though. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

AHL expansion
Just to clarify, you disagree that the Oklahoma City Barons were an expansion in 2010? They were not a relocation and they were not split from any other team as the franchise was dormant for five years with Oilers' prospects sent to various teams. So while they were not an expansion "franchise", they were an expansion team and the league did, in fact, expand. It seems important that it shows the league was matching the NHL, so maybe that should be clarified, but I am not going to get into an edit war over it as it is somewhat trivial in the grand scheme of all things. Yosemiter (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OKC was a reactivation of a dormant franchise, which is a bit different from an expansion. I see your point, but I don't think it's worth having unless that is explained. Perhaps if there is a source that uses that language? -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm fine with it not being mentioned. The last pure expansion franchise was 2001 with the Monarchs and Sound Tigers, but the last time the league expanded in size is 2010 (there have been multiple "re-activated" franchises like OKC and the San Antonio Rampage in that decade and the Texas Stars were technically an expansion franchise in 2009 that purchased the dormant Iowa Chops in 2010). It is a bit convoluted, so probably best not to mention as it is a bit trivial. Yosemiter (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

My first Article
Thanks for comment. "summary does not match the discussion" sir actually I don't want to put it in the summary section. Actually it is the part of my main article but since I am new I have no idea how to shift that to main article. I have wrote this article in "article wizard" where format is predesigned I try it to shift I could not able to succeed. Please help me how I can able to move this present shown summary content(but actually it is my main article part) to main article.

2. Is it compulsory to write summary? Thanks PRABHAKAR.S (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hello, do I have to wait for a redirect discussion to close before starting a new article draft for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.202.28 (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you can write a draft at anytime! Most of the time, writing an article on the subject at hand resolves the issue. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Issac page vs Isaac (disambiguation) page
There is no reason to have Isaac (name), Issac and the Isaac (disambiguation). Disambiguation is much more useful than plain Issac. I tried to combine Issac and disambiguation which are both lists of uses for the word. I did NOT touch the Isaac (name) which is great as is. How is it useful to have three pages of which two are just lists ?

one could even make the argument to combine all three. Thehornet (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Thehornet. Isaac and Issac are different names with different spellings, so they are treated with different pages. Also, when you leave a comment, be sure to sign your comment by leaving four tildes (~). -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

well, don't I feel like a bonehead. Good point Thehornet (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Mercer Street
I've started a discussion to restore Mercer Street (Seattle) to its original page name, seeing as it's the primary topic. Please consider adding your input.  Sounder Bruce  22:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I will participate in that discussion shortly. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

 * ...Yep, rollback works. That annoyance of a link is back again. Thanks!  Steel1943  (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Panic At The Flop and The Mean Song
Did you mean to tag these as attack pages? I'm struggling to see the issue. SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly. They disparage the subject and serve no other purpose. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

RfD
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)

Functionality has to come first
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. 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!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Tavix, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 07:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Userfy?
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)
 * It was simply a redirect to Pow wow. 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 relisted
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. 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)
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)
 * 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 WikiProject Crapwatch
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 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)
 * FWIW, I restored my "Delete" comment. Steel1943  (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Steel1943/common.js
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)
 * JS pages can be CSDed the normal way by putting the CSD tag in a JavaScript comment. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. 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. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)