User talk:Tavix/Archive 9

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 13
You closed the RfDs French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports and Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities as 'Keep', despite there being only one objection raised after being relisted. I don't believe that is the correct decision and I'd like you to re-open the debates to allow a close which reflects the debate.

Rather than trouble you, I initially simply relisted the TfDs and addressed the point raised by the sole objector. However, you have now closed the RfDs as 'speedy keep'. I believe this is also mistaken, as the previous RfDs (despite being relisted) were closed with one objection to nomination for deletion. These redirects have no value whatsoever, and ought to be deleted, rather than remain as a constant temptation to move the articles to a non-existant English translation (which happens sometimes through a mistaken reading of WP:AT). It is not helpful to stifle debate by your rapid closures. I would be grateful if you would please revert at least one of your your closures and allow debate to take place. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I might have closed them as "no consensus", but I felt that the one objection was a strong argument for keeping it so I closed it as such. Either way the result is the same, so I don't think it matters much. You had over a week after the objection was made to address the objection made but you neglected to do so. I am declining your request to relist because the discussion had been open for over two weeks and garnered little discussion and I do not think it being open longer will attract more attention. I am usually lenient on requests to relist, but subverting the usual process and unilaterally renominating the discussions did you no favor here. You may appeal my decision at WP:DRV if you wish. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We are all volunteers here and have other things to do beside refute objections on TfDs. The objection was a weak argument as nobody would think to use a made-up translation to access either of those articles. They only exist in the literature as their names in French and Spanish or (more commonly) as their respective abbreviations. The result is not the same, and I do think it matters. Nobody would close a re-nomination as "Speedy Keep" if the earlier nomination had been "no consensus". It seems that you've used your mistaken first closure to justify your second one. I'm not interested in you doing any me favours: I expect you to use your admin tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia and I don't need nonsense like "subverting the usual process and unilaterally renominating the discussions did you no favor here". That's not why the community grated you those tools. I assumed that a simple renomination which addressed the objection would have been a less bureaucratic route than DRV, but it seems I was mistaken. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it matters to you, I have done you one favor: I have changed my closure to "no consensus to delete". Note that these are RfDs, not TfDs. It sounds like we disagree on what's best for the encyclopedia, so I'll leave it at that. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm sorry I mistyped TfD for RfD. I assure you I understand the difference. It does matter to me because if somebody renames Fédération Française d'Études et de Sports Sous-Marins (the actual name of the organisation and correct title per COMMONNAME) to French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports (a made-up translation that is not found elsewhere) – as happened again recently –  then I'm faced with cleaning it up, often unable to simply revert the move. If I can get consensus on deletion, I might eventually be able to get the titles salted and avoid the problems. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm sorry I mistyped TfD for RfD. I assure you I understand the difference. It does matter to me because if somebody renames Fédération Française d'Études et de Sports Sous-Marins (the actual name of the organisation and correct title per COMMONNAME) to French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports (a made-up translation that is not found elsewhere) – as happened again recently –  then I'm faced with cleaning it up, often unable to simply revert the move. If I can get consensus on deletion, I might eventually be able to get the titles salted and avoid the problems. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Draft:Meng Ziyi
You deleted Meng Ziyi because it was written by a blocked user. I'm wondering if Draft:Meng Ziyi is made by the same person who wrote it three months ago. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  17:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What I had deleted was a redirect to Ever Night, so I don't have anything to compare this draft to. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Festivals in the Northwest Territories


Hey Tavix! You deleted the above-linked page a little more than two years ago due to its creation by LTA. I was wondering if there was any redeemable content in it (even if just a stub) because I'd prefer working off that than making the page from scratch (assuming there is no notability concerns). Thank you for you consideration! – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it was just a redirect to Northwest Territories. Sorry I can't be of any help! -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] Ah well, I appreciate the check on it anyways! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

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

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

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

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

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

Minnow
This guy is blocked and as such can't participate in the discussion. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 21:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indefinite ≠ infinite. If he's unblocked before the discussion is over, he is welcome to participate. Additionally, I am aware that he has talk page watchers who would be interested in the discussion. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RHaworth
I have been steering clear of RHaworth since the bust-up on ANI. We didn't speak to each other at the London meetup, although that wasn't a conscious choice; I was simply chatting to other people at the time. I got pinged into a related discussion about what qualifies as WP:R3, found the DRV, saw "complaint about CSD by RHaworth" and winced. There's a nice Malayam/Indian phrase "Istam illatha achi thottath ellam kuttam" which roughly translates into "you can find any fault with someone you don't like". Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I dislike RHaworth, that's just mean spirited. But having dragged him off to ANI twice and got admonishments out of it, I think any other time I see an admin action that isn't exactly in alignment with what I would do, I'm going to be biased towards calling it disruptive. Hence I don't think I should create any more ANI threads on this, or start any Arbcom case. If the issue is that problematic, other people will start these without my involvement. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , you've certainly done your fair share to try to resolve the issue, and I appreciate that. Today's frustration with : He has deleted Dr. Udit Raj per WP:A10 despite it being a redirect and the A prefix does not apply to redirects. Then he salted the page as a "bad title", which per WP:SALT should only be done for articles that are "repeatedly recreated", which isn't the case here. I'm really itching to see an Arbcom case, but I'll be away on holiday for the next week starting tomorrow so I won't have time to take the baton myself. I'm really worried there will be even more damage by then, so I'd also like to bring in and get his thoughts on the matter because he's aware of the issue and has experience with Arbcom. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 18:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I take the view that the bold, revert, discuss cycle is just as applicable to admin actions as to editorial ones. So to all admins I say: if you see some bold action that I have done and that you disagree with, simply revert it - don't tell me - just revert it leaving a few words of explanation in an edit/action summary. Chances are I will I never notice. If I do notice, chances are I will accept your reversion. If I do disagree, you may be sure I will discuss rather than simply re-doing the action. (And in this specific case don't forget Dr. Gauri Shankar Shejwar as well.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually looking at that redirect, it's not a great example. A redirect was created at that title to Urdit Raj. About a month later it was nominated at RfD by user:PamD (FWIW I would likely have recommended keeping it). A different editor then moved the page to Please delete it (leaving the redirect behind, obviously) and then blanked both the page and the redirect. The move and blanking should have been reverted, Please delete it speedily deleted as either G6 (mover was acting in good faith) or G3 (mover was acting in bad faith), and the RfD discussion allowed to continue. At some point the page mover got given a "your contributed article has been nominated for speedy deletion as a duplicate" message which was blatantly incorrect - they edited a redirect someone else created afaict. The redirects were blanked (by the page mover) before being nominated for speedy deletion so the A criteria were not technically applied to redirects, but it wasn't good. RHaworth just deleted as tagged (he should have spotted all was not right and either declined immediately and pointed out to the tagger that cleanup was needed, or ideally done the research I've just done and fixed it. This is not the straw that breaks the camels back, but it's one of the very last few before that happens (the complexity and confusion does not make it a great example). There was absolutely no justification for the salting though - the title has only been created once and it's not egregiously bad - PamD's "we generally don't do this and it would therefore be bad precedent" nomination at RfD was incorrect (see Category:Redirects from names with title). Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are seven existing redirects starting "Dr. " does not demonstrate that my statement "we generally don't do this" is incorrect. Pam  D  07:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen Dr. Gauri Shankar Shejwar before. That was created by a good-faith move of Gauri Shankar Shejwar which RH reverted (correctly). The resulting redirect was then speedily deleted as "non-standard title" and then salted with the same justification, despite neither being close to within policy. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't spend time discussing! If you think my saltings were wrong, undo them! I don't mind. I have no strong feelings. I will not re-salt them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * RHaworth, the individual cases discussed here are unusual in that another editor has actually looked at them after the admin action was done. In the vast majority of cases, there isn't anyone there to review it. There's usually going to be a newbie editor concerned, but they're very unlikely to either know how the raise any issues or to know whether they should raise any issues. If it does get spotted by an experienced editor, chances are they're unlikely to have access to the tools needed to revert your action, and they're unlikely to be willing to expend the time and effort to ask somebody who does. BRD doesn't really work for admin actions. A deletion or a salting is effectively the last word on the matter, so most people in today's wikipedia community expect admins to treat that with greater care and if erring, to be doing so on the side of caution. – Uanfala (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Don't spend time discussing! If you think my saltings were wrong, undo them!" How does a non-admin do that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Run for admin and wait a week? On a related note, I would be happy to see this link turn blue. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Turning this link blue will probably result in a lot of controversy, and there isn't much of the need for the tools to justify it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have to ask an admin. But the point I am making is that they can ask any admin and I hope that if that admin agrees with the request they should simply do the unsalting and not expend time and effort on following any other course of action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Undoing an administrative action without discussing with the admin who did it is generally discouraged, this is to avoid wheel warring. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is the case then Tavix, could you be so kind as to unsalt Me gusta for me? I have no clue why this was moved without creating a redirect. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've unsalted that page and created a redirect to Me Gusta as that's very obviously an appropriate alternative capitalisation redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Glad He's Gone
I understand that you want to follow procedure but the RfD makes 0 sense now. The song is confirmed and available for presave, all of the information can be found at Glad He's Gone (song). But... congrats I guess?—NØ 16:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like it has been correctly moved to draft. I still see no reliable sourcing for the song, so I will continue to stand by my "delete" !vote until then. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is more of a requirement for articles, not as much for redirects as long as context and confirmation exists. Also, this has happened so both rumors are now confirmed.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 17:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned notability. Like I explained at the RfD, redirects are required to have reliable sourcing at the target to substantiate the redirect per WP:V. You cannot create redirects based off of rumors or Instagram posts. I recommend making sure other redirects you have created are reliably sourced and please tag any of your redirects with db-g7 if they cannot. Redirects without mention can and will be nominated for deletion at RfD—this is your only warning. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, I was just having a discussion and didn't check your user page to know you were an admin. This "only warning" is unnecessary and uncalled for. I'm well aware about redirects needing a source at the target. Sunshine Kitty wasn't even created by me. Its currently mentioned at Tove Lo in the discography section. can be used as a source to write a statement like "Tove Lo teased new music by uploading a video called Meet Sunshine Kitty". Do you think the redirect would be justified then?--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 18:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Creating redirects in violation of WP:V is unnecessary and uncalled for. I see that Glad He's Gone has been moved back to mainspace with an actual source, so I will take care of the loose ends there. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It had already been confirmed and the stub had also been created when I closed the discussion originally. I apologize for forgetting the rule about not closing discussions one is involved in. But I hope you assume good faith and understand my intention, as the reason you gave while closing this was the same reason I closed it as well. Have a great day.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 18:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the same thing. You had closed it as "keep" which means "keep Glad He's Gone as a redirect to Tove Lo discography". Now that Glad He's Gone is a sourced article at that title, the RfD can be procedurally closed because there is no longer a redirect to be discussed. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I swear I usually do better than that. It's just that the whole RfD discussion revolved around the song not even being real, so when Tove finally confirmed it and me being a sleepy mess, I just made a technical error and rushed to close it as keep. I am glad you have stepped in and corrected my errors. Sorry for eating your head so much. I'll get my useless self out of your hair and let you get back to your important admin work. Hope we're on good terms.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 18:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

RfD
Hello Tavix: as an RfD old hand, do you think the closure at Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 7 is OK? Seems a bit soon. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree—as Uanfala's comment shows, this was closed too soon. I'm fine with WP:SNOW closes, but we should ideally see some flurries first. That may well end up being the result, but I've reopened the discussion so it can get a proper discussion. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

New message from Sakura Cartelet
Sak ura Cart elet Talk 23:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Mail
Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't use email unless there's an obvious reason to keep something off-wiki. I read the email but I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. It does look like it has been resolved to me. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Vietnamese article headings
Your advice please: I raised this with you by e-mail, but you have said, perfectly reasonably, that you do not deal with on-wiki problems by e-mail. Ok, so the problem is that there are a significant, and slowly increasing, number of articles in WP:CSD where the heading has been redirected to a similar but marginally different heading. All are in Vietnamese, and I am seeking advice as to which, if either, should be deleted, or whether we should just delete the speedy tags. As these nominations have now been present for some five days this is clearly a question which no-one seems to wish to resolve. You are particularly involved in dealing with redirects. and the problem remains in spite of your incorrect assertion via e-mail that it was resolved. I would appreciate it if you would go to WP:CSD and assess the position. Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that's what you were referring to, but the ones I spot checked were already being handled via WP:RM, eg: Talk:Phú Mỹ Town. I figure to just let the RM process play itself out, and go with whatever consensus develops there. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Juli Briskman - Rising politician in Virginia, USA
Hi,

I created an article stub I wanted to fill out in more detail, but you reverted my changes. I wanted to create this article for the following reasons:


 * I was curious and had a hard time non-press information
 * The person in question recently won a local election in Virginia
 * Of note: Her name has more press hits than man other individuals on wikipedia.

Why are you against me creating this article?

Thanks for the context,

-Mario — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio517 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Mario, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Unfortunately you had misread the history of Juli Briskman's article. My only action was deciding in 2017 that there was not consensus at the time to delete a redirect from her name to NANA Development Corporation. was the one who had reverted your contribution. After that action, a longer article was started for her, and it is now being decided what to do next at Articles for deletion/Juli Briskman. You may participate in that discussion there, and if you can find and add significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, it can strengthen the argument that she is a notable political figure and help save her article from deletion. Happy editing! -- Tavix  ( talk ) 14:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for finding the old, deleted Writing lines page. I'm glad something positive could come from my RfD. Magic9mushroom (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I'm impressed with how the article turned out too. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Category talk:Transphobic Wikipedians
Greetings. How did G8 apply here? I don't necessarily disagree with the speedy deletion, but am a bit confused by it. Glades12 (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * G8 applies because Category:Transphobic Wikipedians doesn't exist. Per WP:G8: Examples include...talk pages with no corresponding subject page. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if that also applies to talk page redirects. Glades12 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your kind words and support at my RfA. I'm a bit amused that you thought to highlight that RfD discussion as an example of good behavior on my part––when I wrote that comment, I felt like I was at wit's end and thought that I was going a bit overboard with such a long response. signed,Rosguill talk 18:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I felt like I wasted such a fantastic response on your part by turning right around and blocking that user, so I had to make up for it somehow... It stuck in my head as an "admin-worthy" response and that's when I knew I wanted you to run for admin. I actually considered a few times to prod you to run and/or offer to nominate you, but I've been too busy IRL to get around to it. I was ecstatic to see your name pop up at RfA and even more so seeing how well you did. You know where to find me if you need any help finding that delete button. I'll (hopefully) have a bit more time in the new year to help tackle the RfD backlog, but I'm still lurking around in the meantime. Congrats and happy mopping, -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko  talk  03:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Tagging for RFD
Whatever you used to make these 11 RFD taggings omitted the timestamp, causing the redirects to be incorrectly categorized into Category:Redirects for discussion instead of Category:Redirects for discussion from January 2020. The best thing to do would be to just use {{subst:rfd}}, as instructed at Redirects for discussion, instead of trying to duplicate its logic. Anomie⚔ 00:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I did it manually by copying the RfD tag for the one redirect that was tagged properly, pasting it to the untagged redirects, and then postpending  after the redirect content. I don't recall for sure now, but I must not have grabbed enough. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 03:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BADNAC
I am sorry for the WP:BADNAC closures which you reverted here. I did it because I noticed another non-admin at Categories_for_discussion/Previous_8_to_21_days and at Categories_for_discussion/Previous_8_to_21_days close deletion discussions as "delete". I promise not to repeat this mistake again. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They are a bit more lax on that rule at CfD due to the backlog and the amount of post-close effort categories take. That problem doesn't exist with redirects at RfD. If you're interested in RfD, I'd encourage you to stick around and participate in some discussions, and you'll be well on your way to being an admin one day if these kind of closures interest you. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * RfD discussions do interest me. I did a big cleanup of implausible redirects back at the beginning of this year. Whilst I am a non-admin, I won't be closing RfD discussions as delete. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I closed this CfD discussion as delete. Is that okay or is it still violating WP:BADNAC? Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite in tune with the culture of CfD anymore because I have significantly scaled back my activity there as I have gotten busier in real life. I am aware some NAC deletions go on there, but it is usually by CfD regulars who have the category system down better than most admins. If you're asking for my opinion, I strongly feel that non-admins should not be closing anything as delete. I illustrate why I believe that is a bad idea at User:Tavix/non-admin closes if you'd like to check it out. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

== Further to a retracted edit and edit summary you made in the penis (game) RfD ==

First, I wanted to thank you for your engaging me in rationale arguments, constructed on the basis of both policy- and methodical-based reasons, in recent RfDs. I appreciate the time you take to both engage and challenge me in my arguments, as it does make for a more thorough discussion over said redirects. While we disagree sometimes, and other times, we're in complete agreement, please know that I respect and value your wisdom and guidance.

Anyway, as noted in the heading above and noting that retracted edit summary, I was wondering if you wanted to discuss–outside of the actual RfD–your thinking behind that, and if there's certain things I'm not getting due to certain policies or nuances I'm not understanding, I'd love to continue to learn from you, whenever you have time. No rush.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  03:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Simply put, I let my frustrations get the best of me, and for that I apologize. I never would have guessed I'd have to explain inclusion criteria at Wiktionary when making that nomination while fending off, with respect, the worst Wiktionary suggestion I've ever heard of (in my opinion). Someone searching this is probably going to be looking for the actual penis game, and it would be very confusing for them to end up at an unrelated Wiktionary entry simply because the entry maybe involves a "penis" and a "game" if you squint hard enough. -- Tavix ( talk ) 12:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I did withdraw the soft redirect portion of my argument. On a related note to Wiktionary soft redirects, JzG has nominated three soft redirects to Wiktionary I created (none in any way vulgar like "penis game") at MfD. I'm fine with having the discussion about them, but per WP:SOFTREDIRECT, I've noted the correct venue is RfD. Would you mind doing some clerking at MfD and either procedurally close, or procedurally move, them to RfD? Doug Mehus T · C  21:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide emissions in Australia
I don't understand why you deleted this redirect page. Shouldn't it be a redirect to greenhouse gas emissions by Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarble (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . When you post on a talk page, be sure to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: . If you read the deletion summary, it was deleted per WP:G5 as it was created by a sockpuppet evading a block or ban. If you're not a sockpuppet, then you would be free to create such a redirect if you feel it useful. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 02:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Commenting below closed RfD discussions
I noted you reverted my and 's comments that were outside the closed discussion for CornPop. I had originally put my comments inside the archive because of the last time when you reverted my comments outside of the archive. However, J947, in entirely good-faith, moved my comments outside the archive and added their own note. I would note, too, that the closer, ~ Amory, 'thanked' me for my comment inside the closed discussion, which, presumably, suggests they thought that it was fine to insert that comment after closing.

Some of the confusion stems from the fact that J947, Narky Blert (as in this case), and possibly others, have added comments in or outside the archive after closure.

So, I was just wondering, if we must feel the need to add commentary, should we invoke IAR and include the comments inside the archive, or should we consider including them on the companion talk page for the applicable log date?

Anyway, if you can just add some clarity to this, it would be most helpful.

Cheers,

Doug Mehus T · C  01:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I direct your attention to Template:RfD bottom: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. You should not feel the need to add commentary to a closed discussion. If you have a problem with a close, you should discuss it at the closer's talk page. IAR is for when something improves Wikipedia, so I don't see how it is relevant here—your comment certainly didn't improve anything since the discussion was already decided. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I realize that, but the fact that multiple editors add similar comments outside of the archive suggests, if not a local consensus, a prevailing attitude among the regular RfD participants. Going forward, I'll add my comments to the applicable talk page, but I just thought I should note that it is not just me who feels the need to add comments outside the archive. Additionally, such added comments, whether outside or inside of the archive, are helpful for illustrating and clarifying what may be implied but not expressly stated. Doug Mehus T · C  02:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If I see other unhelpful comments after a close, I will treat them the same as I have treated yours. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough, but how was my comment any different than the one I identified above at this case? Doug Mehus T · C  02:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter. It's time to move on and find something more useful to do—preferably not making any more involved relistings or trying to find a way to claim service awards that you have not earned or bolding several things in a single comment, inadvertently confusing the potential closer in the process. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, ! I have fixed the coding of the barnstar so it will actually appear. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

RfD closure edit conflict
Hey Tavix, since you're an administrator, feel free to override my relist of the dead letter office proposal redirect from the edit conflict. Hog Farm (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, I think your action is probably the better one. I am actually planning on commenting myself as there's a (relatively minor) point I think should be made after doing a bit of digging. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Next Irish general election
Hi - I have a "new" election article ready to go (currently at User:Bastun/sandbox/NIGE), that should slot into Next Irish general election (currently a redirect to Elections in Ireland.  Can I just copy/paste the new material over the redirect, or, preferably, can the redirect be deleted so I can create a new page? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have now deleted the redirect so you can move User:Bastun/sandbox/NIGE to Next Irish general election or you can create the page from scratch there. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Cheers, <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the closure
But since you saw the redirect nominated, can you share your opinion on the discussion? Thanks. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Council Oak
Hi-When I added the country to the Council Oak page, I kept the readers in mind. The readers may want to know what country the areas mentioned in the Council Oak page-Thank you-RFD (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for letting me know your reasoning. Per WP:MOS:DAB: Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. Since all trees listed are in the United States, that information is not useful for someone trying to figure out which tree they want. Providing any more information would be the duty of the article, not the disambiguation page. Additionally, that bit of information seemed forced for a couple of the entries: a tree that stood in Winameg, Ohio until 1992, United States is just awkward... -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI...
In case you were not aware, the ANI post was archived without any action taken. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've unarchived it and reposted with a fresh comment so the bot doesn't grab it again. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

RfD permission
Hey there Tavix! I was just wondering if we need any sort of permission to relist some of the discussions at RfD, since I've been tempted more than once in doing so. Thanks! <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 22:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, there is no permission necessary to relist. Thanks for expressing a desire to help out! -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

R2
Well that's my bad then. Please tell me it didn't always say that and I just missed it getting changed? I could swear any redirect from article to project space used to be subject to that criterion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries! I figured you had either forgotten or overlooked it. It's been there at least as long as I've been an admin. Out of curiosity, I checked the revision from 10 years ago and it was there then but I won't track down when it was added (too tedious). -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Deprodding of John Taylor (given name)
I have removed the tag from John Taylor (given name), which you proposed for deletion. It seems to be a valid WP:SIA of people with names beginning "John Taylor", regardless of whether it was a pen name or not a birth name; helps readers knowingly looking for a "John Taylor" instead of forcing them to a larger list of all John's. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of IPhone 12 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IPhone 12 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/IPhone 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  04:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4
When I was adding a load of similar redirects to this discussion, I apparently missed listing. I imagine that if I listed it on today's RfD list it'd just get snow retargetted to match e.g. and, but I thought I'd get a second opinion about whether listing or just boldly retargetting is preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would that redirect be any different than the others? Just do it. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Zeshan Mahmood
Thanks! Thank you so much for taking care of all the garbage redirects created by the sock. I appreciate that! --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I'm just happy for an opportunity to use the nuke tool, it's so much fun to use. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll bet! I've never used it myself. :) --Yamla (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlimited power! 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Cup Foods
To help advertise its existence, should the redirect to "Cup Foods" not be restored during a DRV? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of Deletion review? That's done for a history review, not for advertising purposes. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Dragon Challenge Page
I know you were trying to clean up some unfortunate page moves yesterday, but during all the moves and undoing moves we lost the article for Dragon Challenge / Dragon Challenge (roller coaster). All we have are circular redirects.— JlACEer ( talk ) 15:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! It should be fixed now. I recall seeing the page after making the move, so I was confused how that happened. It looks like when I hit the back arrow to go back to where I was, it resubmitted the move action so I accidentally moved the page again, moving the resulting redirect over the article content without knowing it. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary 5
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Apology
Sorry if I came across as aggressive just then. I got distracted and forgot I’d reverted once which gives me the inadvertent impression of being some mad edit warring jerk. I think the lesson from this is, don’t edit Wikipedia on your smartphone after you’ve just been come in soaking wet from the pouring rain. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your apology has been accepted, that explanation makes a lot more sense. I'm not going to lie, I did get the impression that you were trying to be some mad edit warring jerk, which seemed very out of character so I'm glad that wasn't the case. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, if Gerda says you are an awesome Wikipedian, who am I to argue? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

MagyarLinguist
Thinking about their contribution style at RfD and the type of messages they left on my talk page, I'm starting to get impressions of similarity between and SimonTrew (who was an English person living in Hungary who liked redirects, RfD, multiple languages and chatty discussions on tangents). I'm not confident in this, so I'm running it by you as someone who was familiar with Si Trew to get your thoughts before going any further in case I'm barking up the wrong tree. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I'm not the only one to think that Magyar is Si, but it's definitely a WP:DUCK to me. Given that the legal threat that got Si banned was against me, I'm too involved to take action myself, but you have my blessing. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account indef as a sock and opened an SPI to deal with IPs - Sockpuppet investigations/SimonTrew. I very rarely deal with SPIs so if you could take a look at it and fix or let me know if I've done anything wrong that would be great. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been away from Wikipedia this weekend, but it looks like the SPI has been taken care of. I went ahead and took care of as much clean-up as I could find; hopefully I got it all. Thanks for your help! -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Fjollträsk
Hello! The name redirected from does not appear in the article redirected to. Also, the redirect is not at this time up for deletion so that link is not currently valid. F Y I. Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 8. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On my screen that's a closed RfD. I am not en experienced deleter. Do we link to closed RfD's? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You must have been looking at an old revision. It's been reopened as part of the ban evasion clean-up. I'll go ahead and relist it so that's clearer. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Some article deletion issues
Hey,

I noticed that two of my articles got deleted because of my presumed relation to UltraUsurper. Luckily there were draft versions of these articles that I kept, so not much progress was lost. I would like it if some sort of effort was made to reach out to me before this happened, it was jarring to find that these plus one other article of mine was deleted because of drama I never knew about. SwirlySolid (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not delete any articles you created, the articles I deleted were created by . You are not presumed to be related to UltraUsurper. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Hover title
Template:Hover title has been nominated for merging with Template:Tooltip. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RFD
Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 6 You just relisted iTunes Chart but it looks like there was no header. I just listed a new one (Solfatata) and it is in the same section as the relist (both coincidentally started by me). Can you straighten this out. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 23:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for letting me know! I grabbed too much when bundling in the variant redirects. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

"Tylenol (brand redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tylenol (brand redirect). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

SARS-2
Hi there, you marked the RfD as "closed as keep", but the discussion doesn't look like it's closed (not that it shouldn't be).  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 00:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I closed it and then I realized it was too early. It should be fixed now! Thanks for letting me know. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , no worries... the redirect was on my watchlist, and I always like to go to the closed discussions just to see the reasoning... thanks for all your hard work.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 03:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure
Did you delete this article? If yes, do I need to know some important rules? Thanks! Aviation160 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was deleted per WP:G5 because it was created by a banned editor. As long as you aren't evading a block or ban, it is nothing for you to worry about. If you want to know about important rules that can lead to pages being deleted, a good place to start is WP:CSD. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about TFD for Template:Référence nécessaire
Thank you for taking the time to close the TFD for Template:Référence nécessaire, which currently has four transclusions that have turned red and will cause error reports to be populated. I wonder why you chose to delete the template entirely instead of placing it in the holding cell to be converted as you suggested in the close. Can you please let me know the policy- or guideline-based rationale behind your closing decision and subsequent deletion? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was an RfD, not a TfD. RfDs are not usually (never?) listed in the holding cell for TfDs. I noticed there are transclusions, but they are all for user pages so I didn't think it necessary to fix (although feel free to fix them if you think otherwise!). The rationale for deletion for foreign language redirects can be found at WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That supplement appears to apply only to article space. Redirects in template space render the same as the English-language template; there is no chance of confusion about topics or articles. We have many useful redirects in template space that assist editors with translation of articles from other languages into English. I cited an actual guideline. Please reconsider this deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I noted in my closing rationale that it is fine to repurpose it to use for translations. Per 86.23's reply at Template:要出典, it doesn't currently seem set up to work in that manner. However, I'll ping for that part since it sounds like they have offered to set that up. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 21:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If I knew how to repurpose it, whatever that means, I would happily do so. The redirect was working fine, and now it is broken, so I hope someone knows how to do this. Putting it in the holding cell would probably help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Jonesey95, I repurposed the French one, and my bot successfully used it to translate several pages. For the Chinese one, we need a date translator, or we just clobber the date and use the current date when substituting it. But, that one seems to be used less frequently (compared to the French one which is used all the time). Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

vacuum energy density
Why was "vacuum energy density" deleted? This should redirect to "vacuum energy." Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was nuked when cleaning up after a disruptive user. You're free to create it if you wish! -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Everything Conference
Tavix, it looks like you deleted Everything Conference after an RfD a couple of months ago. The redirect seems like it was created after a merge. Did you verify that none of its content was in Newfrontiers before doing so? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I verified Steel1943's claim that none of the material from the previous article was still intact. Are you wanting to incorporate something about the conference in the article? I'd be willing to restore it for you. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, I was just double-checking. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Non admin AfD closures
Hi. I just had a quick look at User:Tavix/non-admin closes. There's a related discussion here on my talk where I've wondered if non-admin AfD closures (barring obvious bad faith speedy keeps) should be restricted via an RfC. Would be interested to know your thoughts; I've never started a wide-reaching RfC before, and I'd want to make sure I have a good opening argument for the proposal with lots of unambiguous evidence first. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's nice that essay is seeing the light of day outside of a perennial proposal! WP:BADNAC already restricts non-admins from making "close calls". If that clause was better enforced, I would bet most of the problems would diminish. That being said, the language could be tightened up a bit so that non-admins would still be able to make "obvious" non-delete closes. An RfC to that effect would be one step in that direction and might actually have a chance to pass. I think your suggestion might be a step too far to gain consensus, because after all, there are a lot of helpful non-admin closures and they do help with the administrative workload. As for evidence, I'm not as active as I'd like to be at AfD, so I don't have any examples off the top of my head. Trawling the archives of WP:DRV might be a good place to start, complaints about non-admin closures pop up there often enough. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that
This edit made me laugh. :)  J947 's public account 00:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Even more frustrating for me was that I somehow right-clicked, and then clicked under the submit button twice before it processed. Knowing it was 23:59 when I went to nominate it probably hurt me more than helped... -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Heh, those things happen.  J947 's public account 00:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Enquiry about POCO (company) article deletion
Hi, why did you delete this article? Is there any issues with this article? Can I re-create this article? User:AthulKriZz (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was deleted per WP:G5 because it was created by someone who was banned from Wikipedia. It had nothing to do with the article itself, so if you'd like to create it, go right ahead! Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender symbols
At "redirects for discussion", 26 March, I thought that you concluded that ♂ and ♀ should be redirected to gender symbol and the other symbols kept as is.

So did you really intend to mark ♂ and ♀ "closed as keep" as you have actually done? (rather than redirect to gender symbol)? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I followed 053pvr's proposal, which you supported, in that ♂️ and ♀️ were retargeted to gender symbol and the other three (♂, ♀, and ☿) kept (to the respective sections of planet symbols). -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * (!) I thought it was just a browser dependent rendering difference! I didn't spot that there are actually two versions of each. Well, as it so marginal, I won't pursue it but may I suggest that if you encounter a similar case again that you require the proposal to detail the codepoints involved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair, they do render differently depending on your browser. One set is defined as planet symbols, so your OS might give them a bit of an astronomy flair, and the other set is defined for gender symbols, and might render them accordingly (perhaps as a bathroom sign?). Usually I link to Emojipedia for Emoji redirects (which gives the Unicode definition, popular usage, and renderings for all major OS's), but only one set of the two are Emojis, so I thought it might be unnecessarily confusing to do that here. -- Tavix ( talk ) 12:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again but I am really struggling with this. I think that there has been a good faith misunderstanding because of a URL artefact.
 * My reading was that ♂ and ♀ should redirect to gender symbol and ☿ should stay as a redirect to planetary symbol, per the Unicode specification
 * There is only one symbol each for Male/Mars and Female/Venus: and.
 * That it has been possible to have two redirect articles for each is due to a strange artefact: compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%99%82%EF%B8%8F with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%99%82 : both address %E2%99%82 (U+2642) but the first has an additional colour rendering that is only evident to sighted visitors. It is visible on my (Android) phone and on Firefox on Windows, but not on my Chromebook.
 * I really don't believe that really intended to 'pull a fast one' like this. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have backed out of my close and relisted at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 12. Let's continue the conversation there. I was unable to verify what the two non-emoji characters were, but took 053pvr at face value when I went to close. Of course, I should have read the section on the planet symbols, where it says at Planet symbols "Its Unicode codepoint is ." I'll leave a vote to that effect. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * When I made my comment at RFD, I was on a Mac. It displayed one set of symbols as astronomy symbols and the other set as gender symbols. Therefore, I made my retarget !vote. Now, I'm on a Windows device, which does not diffrentiate between the two sets of symbols. Because there is only one definition in Unicode for these. I have changed my !vote to retarget all. 053pvr (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Docker
Thankyou for moving Docker (disambiguation) to Docker which has been disputed for years. However the move deleted all the edit history of the article that was merged into Stevedore and as I recommended the edit history should probably be moved to Docker (occupation).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for following up, I had overlooked that earlier. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect
You recently reverted an edit here. I take no stance on the issue itself, but the text you removed from that page had also been added here at basically the same time. It seems to me that the note should probably be in both places, or neither. (I also apologize if I am using your talk page in an inappropriate manner or if this should have been posted somewhere else instead.) Jdaloner (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:TALKFORK that should be responded to at this discussion. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove the other addition if you want, but I was more okay with that one since it was specifically about misspellings. The one I reverted was too much of a shoehorn. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)