User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive14

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Archives	2005 First half, 2006 Second half, 2006 First half, 2007 July - Aug, 2007 Sep - Dec, 2007 Jan - May, 2008 May - Dec, 2008 Jan - May, 2009 June - Dec, 2009 Jan - June, 2010 July 2010 - Dec 2011 First half, 2012 Second half, 2012 2013 2014 Current

Deletion review for Aleksandrs Čekulajevs

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aleksandrs Čekulajevs. 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My only involvement was in handling a G7 CSD after the page was recreated. Looking at the history, that G7 looks valid. I have no particular opinion on the AFD close from a few days before, and see no point in my jumping into the current DRV. But thank you for the notice anyway. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks

Hi TexasAndroid, thanks for your help moving Jonuz! Azylber (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob De Luca

Thanks for the advice, but that's exactly what he did - just the new pic was deleted without discussion ( o.k. Wiki policies are Wiki policies, just would have been nice to have time to react) and that was when trouble started. More details on the Rob De Luca talk page.

Moonslide (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Professional Griefers

Thanks for message. Normally I respond positively to a reasonable request to recreate from an uninvolved editor, but it's not quite as straightforward here. The article was recreated and redeleted.

17:10, 10 July 2012 Favonian (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Professional Griefers (A1: Short article without enough context to identify the subject) (view/restore)

I'm reluctant to overturn another admin's decision, especially as his reason was the same as my second reason. The article had nothing about its subject other than it was by a notable group. Recreate as redirect to the group, perhaps? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

*I* would be OK with that, but I'm not sure that it would please the creator. The A1 deletion you mention came after yours, and was of a complaint page that the original creator added (at the article site) complaining loudly. I would say that this was a valid A1 of the complaint page, and really should have no bearing on the validity or non-validity of your original A7. I would also disagree that the original would be valid A1 deletion. While it was not much more than a stub, what was there was definitely enough to identify the subject, which is precisely enough to invalidate A1.

So I would say that redirect vs article is an editorial issue, not a deletion issue, and I still do not see a valid reason for the original deletion. Sorry, just calling it as I see it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The 12 cellists of the Berlin Philharmonic

Hi, I see you deleted this page under A7 back in December. I was wondering if you could provide a copy to me in my userspace. Since the group meets criterion 5 of WP:BAND (recording multiple albums for EMI) I would assume you'd let me reinstate a referenced page without going through DRV? ThemFromSpace 23:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it. Meeting a criteria of WP:BAND is definitely an assertion of possible notability, and that pretty much invalidates my A7 deletion. I would strongly suggest finding reliable sources, though, as I really doubt it would survive an AFD debate in its current form. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Micropharma

I am sorry not to have replied before. I had announced at the top of my user- and talk-pages that I was on wikibreak as from July 3rd; I am just back now. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Important Lineage

Hi, I must apologize ahead of time for not knowing my way around Wiki yet, but as a Martial Art enthusiast, I was interested in getting more information on Philippine Martial Arts, and Remy Presas, and noticed that an article was deleted from April of 2008 on an important figure named Angel Cabales (an A7 deletion?). I am working on our own martial art family tree and this type of information could be useful to me in my profession. There may be valuable information in this article that other martial artists can use for tracing their lineage as well. Again, I am new to this whole wiki thing, so I may be off base...please advise. Thank you for your consideration! (much respect and humble bow toward TexasAndroid-wiki-pro) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KodenKanMan (talk • contribs) 08:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The content can be viewed at [1] - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for moving the Ricki Lake article. -- James26 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

NP - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Veeam

You have deleted this page with (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (organization)). I am ready to update the subject's significance. Veeam provide FREE and very useful tool for virtualization community. As of today, the tool is used by over 200'000 virtualization professionals (first release was 5 years ago). This tool is usually mentioned as #1 free tool for virtualization and cloud in various free tool reviews. I believe, this is significant and of interest to lots of people. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.167.136.133 (talk • contribs)

You are going to need to be able to show that the item meets Wikipedia's definition of Notability, not yours, sorry. Please read WP:NOTE for general information. At it's simplest, if you can provide references that are Reliable, Independent, and Non-Trivial, then you are well on your way to showing notability. All three of those requirements are critical for whether a reference shows notability. Blogs are not Reliable. Press Releases and company web sites are not independent. And a list of top tools is a Trivial reference. One or two full articles on the tool from reliable publications would go a long way towards showing notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes - I fully understand that, and I am ready to provide references that would meet those requirements. How do I go about this? Who do I provide those references to? I am new to wikipedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.186.5 (talk • contribs)

First, create an account for yourself. You cannot create articles as an IP, and the following steps will need you to do that.

Then you can try using the Article Creation Wizard to help you create your new article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Does it make any difference if the article already existed, but is currently deleted? Is it possible to undelete it instead, and add the required references (instead of creating the article from scratch). Thanks for all your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.167.136.133 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering that there is an old deletion discussion that resulted in a Delete, it's likely best to create it out of user space and get it reviewed before it is moved to article-space. If you would like, I can userify it for you so that it can be worked on in user space before without threat of further deletions. It would really be best, if you want that, to get an account created before I userify. IP addresses are subject to change. You've commented from a couple of different ones in the course of this conversation (I'm assuming that all the above comments are from one person). If you create an account, all your work will be attributed correctly to you, and I can put the old article in one place where it will be availible to you no matter how often your IP changes. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes I have created the account a few days ago - hopefully this post gets tagged accordingly. Please userify the article, and I will see if it has anything worse keeping (I have not seen the deleted version before). Yes, all comments above were from me :) Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmexpert (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It's now available at User:Vmexpert/Veeam. I've also brought to the front the last version from when it was deleted by a full deletion discussion. This is likely the most robust version in the history. But the whole history is there if you want to sift through to see if there is something else of use there.

Please, please read WP:CORP and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veeam. If you want to make an article that will not just be deleted again, you are going to need to show that the company is notable. See my comment earlier in this discussion about what is needed for a notability reference. At it's simplest, one or better two full articles in reliable industry news sources about this company would help tremendously. And I mean independent articles, not ones based off of press releases. If you can find a few sources like this, you'll have gone a huge way towards getting past the reasons for the original deletion.

The old deletion debate is still in force, and unless you can show that the company has become notable in the time since, the article is quite likely to be deleted once again if you move it back to article space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to run the updated article by you if I may, before moving it to the article space. Could you please keep this discussion on your page until I am done, as it has all the links and suggestions I need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.186.5 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I generally only archive my talk one or twice a year. Since I already archived once at the end of June, I'll most likely not archive it again until around the end of 2012/start of 2013. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wesley West

You deleted Wesley West. I had started it, but got pulled away for a few days. I have the content and want to re-do it. You okay with that? Thanks, User:Cersevcu (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2012

Premature move of userfied deleted article

A new user The-anyel has moved the deleted article Dolchamar, which I had gotten userfied, back onto mainspace. I was supposed to run the article by you before moving it back to mainspace. I assume that The-anyel simply didn't understand what userspace articles were. (Their explanation of the move was "It is not a user, it's a band article".) I've explained what the situation is and asked if they want to collaborate on improving the article. My thought is to let the article sit where it is for a couple days and see if The-anyel replies. If they do want to collaborate on improving it, Article Incubator might be a better option. I also have no objection to moving it back to userspace ASAP. Naŋar (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been fixed already and moved back to userspace. Disregard the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naŋar (talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tuva people

Hi, Can you tell me why the Tuva people entry has been deleted? I am an inexperienced user so will understand best if you make it explicit and layperson's English. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oueeza (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

All that was there was a redirect, no actual content. It was deleted as it was created by a banned user. When a user is banned, they are not allowed to edit. Not anything. If they return and edit, when it is discovered that they are the banned user, all of their edits are subject to removal/deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my incorrect tagging

I need to remember to check page histories before I tag. Sorry for my carelessness. I'll do better next time. BusterD (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

NP. I actually deleted one myself, then caught on a later one that there was deleted history, and went back and double-checked the ones I had already deleted, finding that one needed to be restored then reverted to the valid redirect from the history. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

TDB Acronym

Referance original message: "Hello, I'm TexasAndroid. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page TDB, because to me it seemed If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks, TexasAndroid (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC}"

Tnspaceboy's reply: Yes, you did make a mistake. No, this is not inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is a legitimate reference for this acronym to also stand for to an online radio show. If people search for this acronym they should be able to learn that in popular circles it is commonly referring to this onine station in addition to the other info on that page. Such information is relevant for an encyclopedia. Thanks, Tnspaceboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnspaceboy (talk • contribs) 12:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. Disambiguation pages on Wikipedia exist for the purpose of helping direct to different pages on the project, not to the internet at large. If the topic has an article, then it belongs in the disambiguation. If it does not have an article, then it does not belong. Disambiguation pages are expressly not for external links, which is what your entry was. As long as it is just an entry for an external link, then it is spam, attempting to direct traffic outside of Wikipedia, which is not allowed.

So, if you want to have the topic listed there, your first step needs to be to have an article. And there you run into another barrier, notability. There is no indication in the slightest that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Please read WP:BIO for these requirements. Unless you can show that the topic meets these requirements, then any article on him is likely to be deleted, and you are right back to where you are now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_America/San_Antonio

I'd like to invite you to participate in this event.--v/r - TP 21:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Trichuris trichiura

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Trichuris trichiura requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. T. trichiura Infect me 21:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for expediting that. T. trichiura Infect me 14:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I only created it because there were multiple files in a red-linked category. After you filed it for speedy, I looked a little closer. I saw them all created by one editor, and you removing them. When I went to ask the tagger why he had tagged them like that, I discovered him retired after a block. So I could not get any explanation for the tagging, and thus was unable to make any better evaluation on whether or not the tagging was proper or your removal was proper. So I just went ahead and deleted the now empty category. <shrug> - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jessica Ghawi

A tag has been placed on Jessica Ghawi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DASHBot (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation

Regardless of its outcome, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to participate in the DRV on Margo Rey. I appreciate it. Best regards... Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 16:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Baker Art Gallery

I'm curious why you changed a category from Category:Columbus, Ohio to Category:Museums in Columbus, Ohio. Their is no museum, and the buildings were torn down.
Roseohioresident (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

XXX in YYY does not mean that XXX is *still* in YYY. Past XXX in YYY still can belong in the XXX in YYY category. Especially if there is no "Former XXX in YYY" category, and there are not a lot of those. It was a Gallery, and to me in the normal subcategorization of cities gallery implies museum. That said, I've adjusted the categories a bit. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

pot belge

Hi TexasAndroid. Way back in prehistoric times (2007) you salted pot belge. I would like to create this page as a useful redirect to Pot Belge. Can you undo the salting? Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article Age

What does it mean by it been promoted between 1 and 2 years ago? Does it mean that's how long ago it was made? Also, could I nominate, since I am a new user.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Featured Articles are way out of my area of expertise. I'm not going to be the one to be able to assist you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's Ok--Lucky102 (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Hi Texas, i entered an article a while ago for Kate Elsworth. I need to get this article deleted as soon as possible. Can you help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkanc (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs) did in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

One question is, Why? The audit trail shows it was not created by your account. But why do you "need to get it deleted"? If your need falls within the project's guidelines, you may have a possibility. If not, you may be out of luck. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Tattoo Artist Mukesh (Goa India)

Hi I want to know why you delete the wiki page tattoo artist mukesh? I am new to wiki and I put more content. But I dont understand why you delete. If you are famous and have changed an industry in a country or area it must be ok to have a wiki page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.161.222 (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Because no indication was given that he met the requirements listed at WP:BIO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Salafi Theology

I need to tag the page for deletion as the page is a duplicate of Athari hence why I blanked it, can you help me on this? Thanks. Sakimonk <sup>talk</sup> 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have done a cut&paste move. This is a bad thing around here, as it breaks the history trail, which is required for compliance with the GDFL licensing. I've fixed this, and put the resultant page, with all the history, at Athari. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, year I realise my error :) Sakimonk <sup>talk</sup> 18:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TexasAndroid. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Takes America/San Antonio.
Message added 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Drone doom albums

Category:Drone doom albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Special:ShortPages

I added a section at Wikipedia talk:Special:ShortPages, and I would appreciate your advice and comments. Thank you for your many technical efforts, laboring in relative obscurity to make Wikipedia function smoothly. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Espace Diamant listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Espace Diamant. Since you had some involvement with the Espace Diamant redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Tucoxn (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Cadie's Sandbox

Hi, I am doing a class project where we are creating a Wikipedia page, and you deleted my sandbox. I was wondering how I can get it back.

Thanks,

cmr2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmr2013 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't. At least not quite in that form. We do not allow sandboxes like that in the article namespace. Sandboxes are fine, however, in the User namespace. So, I have restored your sandbox, and moved it into User space, under your account name. You can find it at User:Cmr2013/Sandbox. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Query re: Bob Cowan

A minor question here: I recently created Bob Cowan (American football) in that namespace because Bob Cowan had been salted, I believe by you. The Bob Cowan that was repeatedly recreated and subsequently salted was a different one from the Bob Cowan (American football) that I created, which I believe does satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. I've never encountered this before, but is there any reason why Bob Cowan (American football) shouldn't occupy the Bob Cowan namespace that's been salted? How would one go about doing/requesting this (presuming you agree with the above)? Thanks in advance. --Batard0 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

And please reply at my talk page if it's not too much trouble. That way I'll get an alert. Cheers. --Batard0 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant and thanks for the swift response. --Batard0 (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:39th Brigade Combat Team

Category:39th Brigade Combat Team, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Old Colony Club

Hello. You reverted out, without discussion, my change to the previous redirect page Old Colony Club. I made it a disambiguation page. It should NOT just point to the Colony Club in New York City which was never known as the OLD Colony Club. One of its buildings was apparently colloquially known as "Old Colony Club". The only reasonable usage for "Old Colony Club" is for the Old Colony Club in Plymouth, Massachusetts, founded in the 1700s and one of the oldest and pre-eminent social clubs in the USA. And "Old Colony" is defined as Plymouth, Massachusetts in the USA. Even though there's no article yet for it, I feel a redirect of "Old Colony Club" to "Colony Club" is misguided and inaccurate. I'd like it to go back to a bifurcated disambig page: to Old Colony Club (Plymouth) and Colony Club (New York). Thoughts? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

When your desired target has an article, you'll have an argument. As it is, you are just disambiguating between one club and... a city. If the second club is not notable enough for an article, then it's not notable enough for the disambiguation. Disambiguation pages on the project are for sorting between different pages on the project, not between different concepts/entities in the wider world. So until there are actually two articles on the project to disambiguate between, there is really nothing to disambiguate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I knew all that. The Old Colony Club is very notable, and someone will write the article someday. The "Old Colony Club" redirection to Colony Club is a mistake as it stands. It should not redirect to it. Been editing WP since Jan 2005 ... ---- Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My point was that, until the second club has an article, there is nothing to disambiguate. We don't disambiguate because someday, someone *might* write an article on something, we disambiguation when we *do* have multiple articles.

If the current redirect is bad, and we don't have a second article, then it sounds like, for now, the redirect should be deleted. If you want to take it to WP:RFD, then go ahead. But until/unless we have something to actually disambiguate, IMHO it should not be a disambiguation page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks for your thoughts on that matter. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

One good turn deserves another

Hey, TexasAndroid, thanks for cleaning up the redirects. Could you also take care of the User:Somogyi26:Draft part1 to Szentagothai article‎ and User:Somogyi26:Draft part2 to Szentagothai article‎? I moved the misplaced drafts to those locations first (not noticing that there were colons where the slashes needed to be), then moved them again. Thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm Moving On (Yoko Ono song)

Hi TexasAndroid, I'm not exactly sure what happened, but when you moved I'm Moving On (Yoko Ono Song) to I'm Moving On (Yoko Ono song), the talk page wasn't moved. I don't know if this has anything to do with a user's reversion of my RM closure. Could you delete Talk:I'm Moving On (Yoko Ono Song) and move Talk:I'm Moving On (Yoko Ono song) there? Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --BDD (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

This move, or rather the second part of it which you conducted in good faith as a "uncontroversial move" goes against recent long painful and lengthy RfC on Vietnamese diacritics. could you please undo Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• (cur | prev) 14:00, 5 October 2012‎ TexasAndroid (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (23,953 bytes) (0)‎ . . (TexasAndroid moved page Thuy Nga Production to Thuy Nga Productions: Requested move) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 13:39, 5 October 2012‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (23,953 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Kauffner moved page Thúy Nga to Thuy Nga Production: Form given in secondary sources, see talk.) (undo)

...or rather the move before does. Can you please restore to name which is on logo in article. I cannot restore myself as this user who has been warned umpteen times about undiscussed moves, misuse of G6 templates "uncontroversial move" process has the habit of the locking undiscussed moves by redirect edits as as per here, associated with the rest of the behaviour at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive, etc etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved back. I was indeed responding to the G6 template, and would not have made the move if I knew it was at all controversial. - TexasAndroid (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, but please all the way back to Thúy Nga, the move and lock to Thuy Nga Production (sic) was just a preliminary to an "uncontroversial" G6. Thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• How about we go "all the way back" to Thuy Nga, where article was until July 22?[2] Or do we just leave the misspelling uncorrected? Kauffner (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, if you want to move it USE THE WP:RM PROCESS. You knowingly used an undiscussed move to a non-title to remove diacritics, and then misused a G6 to clean it up. You have been repeatedly warned that further undiscussed moves counter RfC consensus and further misuse of G6 will land you at ANI. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I responded to a G6 in good faith that the action was not controversial. Now that it appears controversial, I have undone the action that I took. So the status is back to before my action, and I intend to bow out of the whole thing. I have no opinion whatsoever on the original naming issue, and thus I am taking no side on it, just undoing my one action. Anything more would be endorsing one side or the other in this conflict, and I have no desire to do so, in good part because it's an issue that I really do not have any interest in. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, sure, Okay we'll leave it at the at "a misspelling" (the User's own words below) to which he moved it. The important thing is that this User knows (whether he agrees or not) that he can't use G6 as freely as he did with the previous 600 G6 moves. Many thanks again. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I moved the article to a misspelling by mistake, and I immediately took corrective action. This conspiracy theory makes no sense. Now the article has been taken hostage as part of IIO's spiteful little grudge against me. He did this before with bui doi.[3] That wasn't even my misspelling, but stopped me from correcting it just because he could. Kauffner (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• I had a post about this move on the article's talk page and no one responded. As for IIO, he has moved hundreds of pages without discussion. Now he is holding this page at a misspelling to make a WP:POINT. Go to ANI already. We've certainly done all that before. This is not about diacritics or even titles. What you need to understand is that IIO had been following me around for months where ever I edit in order to create as much trouble for me as he can. Kauffner (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Should I feel privileged to have an account where I am harassed by this thing every day? Now I can't even make a spelling correction without some jerk making a case out of it. It's not like I have anything to lose. So ANI, Arbcom, SPI, whatever -- it all sounds great to me. Kauffner (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rfd and/or Template:Rfd/core and article feedback blacklist

I posted a question at Template talk:Rfd/core regarding including redirects under discussion on the article feedback blacklist last month. Nobody appears to have spotted it, so as you did most of the work on the template I thought I'd point you to it. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone else got to it first, possibly someone else watching this talk page. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for having a well-watched talk page :D
While on the subject of RfD, when nominating a redirect targetted at another project you need to hardlink the target (e.g. : pt:Luiz Franco Thomaz) otherwise the software treats it as an interlanguage link. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Acequia Madre de Valero

Would you mind giving me your opinion about the NRHP infobox on Acequia Madre de Valero (San Antonio). This acequia was a determining factor in the Johann and Anna Heidgen house being placed on the NRHP. If it were a contributing property in an historical district, it would get the NRHP infobox. I'm not sure about this situation, but I put the infobox there. Do you have information that could help? — Maile (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. NRHP is pretty much out side my area of expertise. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks anyway. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tex

Thanks for repeatedly tagging the Bill Clevland page. I think I'll take a break till your offline.Leutha (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The tags are there to get issues fixed. Either by you or by someone else. When you remove tags without fixing the issues, as you have now done for a second time, it's not a good thing, and is not helpful to the project. The article shows no indication of why he might be notable. That makes it subject to speedy deletion. Tagging it for notability is a lesser step than tagging it for deletion or actually deleting it. So I was doing you a favor by choosing the lesser option. Instead of taking this as an indication that you might, actually, fix the issue, you again remove the tags with issues still outstanding and leave a snarky message here on this talk page. Not really a useful response.

I'll not edit war over the tags, but you really, really, need to say why he is notable (the fact that someone settled down somewhere is not an indication of notability, sorry), and you need to add one or more appropriate categories (the second tag that you removed without fixing). If the first is not done, then the page is almost certain to be deleted before too long. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lankan National Tree Planting Day

I have a feeling that it changes every year. Your news results for October 15 were all in 2010, then the November 15 results were for 2011. Now for 2012, the Sri Lankan Ministry of Environment says it's September 15. —howcheng {chat} 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If that's true, and it sounds plausible, then it still should not be on today's page. Thanks for giving a plausible explanation for the confusion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nature literature

Re deletion: I was trying to change the link that now connects the phrase Nature literature with the article Outdoor literature, as a more appropriate link would be to the article Nature writing. Unfortunately my editing skills are limited. Help would be appreciated. Rwood128 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

Change made. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dohuk/Duhok

Hi TexasAndroid, I didn't read carefully when I closed the RM at Talk:Dohuk Province. That article should have be moved to Dohuk Governorate, since we use the "Dohuk" spelling elsewhere, but I tagged Duhok Governorate for deletion with {{db-move}} instead. I successfully moved the page over a redirect, but perhaps the deleted page should be restored and redirected to Dohuk Governorate, especially if there was any relevant history or anything. Sorry for the mixup. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Restored. One of the bots should take care of the double redirect before too long. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --BDD (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And... it got deleted again because, even though I restored it, it still had the CSD template on it. Sigh. I've restored it a second time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Survivor India

How is that copyright? It only consists of summaries of 4 lines max, written by me. and mainly tables. ??-- I'm Titanium  <sup>chat</sup> 17:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The number of lines is irrelevant. One line of violation is enough to be a violation. Less than a line, even.

For the first episode summary, a google search of the first line returns over 100 hits. Many of them are WP mirrors, but 100 is a large number to be returned on a search like that. Interesting, but not proof of anything.

For the second episode summary, I searched on the second line, "Michael accuses his tribemates of stealing his footwear to sabotage him". I find [4], which matches the summary, and says that it was posted Jan 8, one day after the broadcast. Your post was the same day. But linked from that I find [5], the post for the first episode, with a post date of a day before your posting. And it has the text of the first episode summary.

So now I have a blog post from the day before your WP post. Not a WP mirror. So either you are the blogger, or you copied from the blog, or (most likely, IMHO) both copied from a third source. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It must have an incorrect date. It cannot be true. Not at Survivor India. NO -- I'm Titanium  <sup>chat</sup> 09:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've backed off on this one, as you can see in some discussion on the CCI page. Despite the ongoing CCI against you, there is no indication that you have lied during this whole ordeal, and thus there is no reason to not accept your word that, in this specific case at least, these are your own original words. Something is screwy about the dates involved, but that's a totally different issue. If you say that the text was written by you yourself, then I accept that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!! -- I'm Titanium  <sup>chat</sup> 16:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Apostles of Jesus Missionaries UK

Hi TexasAndroid.

Been new to creating Wiki Pages and creating this page so that our site can link to it I'm unsure how to create the page(s).

Can you please review the page deletion and give me some guidance on creating the page with correct content. www.apostlesofjesus.co.uk

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BooTiFel (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:ORG. Articles on Wikipedia need to meet requirements of notability. And you need to be able to show that your organization meets these requirements. If it does not meet them, then you are fighting a losing battle in your efforts here. At it's most basic, you need to show coverage of your organization that is Reliable, Independent, and non-trivial. All three of those are important, and all three need to be met to have a source be considered one that demonstrates notability. Independent coverage (not just a press release publishing) by a reliable news organization is the simplest type of such sourcing, but there are many other ways to meet the requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No trout for you

Re your ANI "fax paux" -- User:Scandal Bird is, in fact, a sock. So you're weren't wrong so much as early. Nobody Ent 02:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a long self-flagellating response, but I've deleted it unposted. For now, I'll just say thanks for the information, and otherwise stay out of the mess. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Grand Casemates

Hi there. Since this had become a dab page I moved it to Grand Casemates (disambiguation). I now want to move Grand Casemates barracks here ("barracks" doesn't form part of the name) but since the page exists (albeit blank) it won't let me do it. Could you help please? Many thanks, --Gibmetal 77<sup>talk 2 me</sup> 21:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The question that comes right to my mind is, which should be considered the "Primary Topic"? An edit comment from User:Aymatth2 seemed to imply that the square, not the barracks, is the primary. But in general, if there is doubt which is primary, then none is, and the disambiguation should be at the primary name spot, not any of the individual articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am moving a note I left on User:Gibmetal77's talk page hare, to put this discussion in one place... I agree that "Grand Casemates" is what the building is usually called, with no qualifier, although some of the Victorian-era sources call it "Grand Casemates Barrack" or just "Casemates Barrack". But my interpretation of the naming rules is that the goal is to choose names that minimize the number of interactions a reader has to make to find what they are looking for. My guess is that someone looking for the square, the building or the gates might key in the whole name but would usually just key in "Grand Casemates" and see what came up. My second guess is that they would probably be looking for the square, although quite often they would want the building or the gates. So...

1. If "Grand Casemates" is a disambiguation page, pointing to all three possibilities, after keying the search term, one extra click always takes them where they want to go
2. If "Grand Casemates" is the building, with a link to the disambiguation page, which links to the others, the reader gets the building with no extra clicks, but has to make two clicks to get to the others. Not good if we assume the square is most likely what they want
3. If "Grand Casemates" is the building, with two {{for}} links to the other two possibilities, there is just one extra click to get where they want to go, or none if they want the building, slightly better than case 1. But download takes longer, important on a mobile, and a {{for}} link is less obvious, less easy to navigate, than a disambiguation page.

So my feeling is that, assuming most people would be looking for the square, the first is best. I don't feel strongly and would have no problem with any of the alternatives - just thought I would share my thinking. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'll try to explain. I would say there is no "Primary Topic" as such or even that they're all primary. The square (Grand Casemates Square), the gates (Grand Casemates Gates) and the casemate barracks (Grand Casemates, where I'm having lunch right now) are all individual notable sites. The latter actually gives the other two their names. I doubt anyone would search for the square by typing "Grand Casemates" as it's actually more commonly referred to as "Casemates Square", hence the redirect there. There's also a massive sign painted on the façade of Grand Casemates which reads "GRAND CASEMATES 1817" - the word "barracks" may have formed part of the building's name at one point but it's certainly not the case now (will try get some pics of the sign if it stops raining). I therefore propose we have a dab page called Grand Casemates (disambiguation), listing Grand Casemates Square, Grand Casemates Gates and Grand Casemates and remove "barracks" from the articles name. I hope this helps, but please ask if anything I've said isn't clear. Thanks :) --Gibmetal 77<sup>talk 2 me</sup> 11:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You say that there is no primary, then spend the rest of your paragraph explaining why you think that the barracks are the primary. :) At this point we basically have you arguing strongly that the barracks are the PT for the base term, and Aymatth2 arguing weakly that it's the square, but that he's fine with it being one of the others. Given Aymatth2's willingness to accept the alternatives, and Gibmetal77's strong belief that the barracks should be the one at the base name, I'm inclined to go with the barracks being there. If that's acceptable to all, I'll do the page moves in a few hours to straighten that part out, as some of it may require the admin bit at this point, and then I'll let the two of you clean up any hat-notes that are needed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misunderstood the meaning of the term PT, but yes, that's what I meant. Many thanks, --Gibmetal 77<sup>talk 2 me</sup> 16:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Primary Topic" means that there is one use of a term/name that is primary, above the others. That, when that term is used, that one meaning is meant far and above any of the other meanings. The example I like to use if is Michael Jackson. See Michael Jackson (disambiguation). There are a couple dozen other notable Michael Jacksons on WP. But far and away, the singer is the PT. When that name is used, chances are they are looking for the Jackson 5 singer, not any of the others. He is the PT. He gets his article at the base name, and the others get different names and a listing in the disambiguation.

I've gone ahead and shuffled around the articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, a Google search on "Grand Casemates" shows mostly the square, often the gates, occasionally neither. But it really does not matter much. I have fixed the hatnote, and the opening para of Grand Casemates links to the other two, so navigation is easy enough. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Canadian election templates T3 deletion

Regarding these templates:

• Template:Canadian elections/Progressive Conservatives,
• Template:Canadian elections/CCF,
• Template:Canadian elections/NDP,
• Template:Canadian elections/Progressive,
• Template:Canadian elections/Social Credit,

you declined to delete them because they are being linked from Template:Canadian politics/party colours, but that page is nothing more than a list of these kinds of templates. Given that these templates are not being used on any pages other than tests and examples, there is no need for them to be on the list. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Suppress Banner

If you go to Preferences → Gadgets and uncheck "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" under browsing the banner will be gone. Ryan Vesey 21:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Did that. Didn't really want to do so, as I like to generally at least see what the banners say once, but that was ridiculous. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cardcaptor Sakura characters

Category:Cardcaptor Sakura characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 <sup>tccsdnew</sup> 01:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ranma ½ characters

Category:Ranma ½ characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 <sup>tccsdnew</sup> 01:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ranma ½ characters

Category:Ranma ½ characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 <sup>tccsdnew</sup> 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oasis Restaurant

The article Oasis Restaurant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable company. Tagged with {{notability}} since December 2007.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bjelleklang - talk 20:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Oasis Restaurant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oasis Restaurant 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oasis Restaurant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bjelleklang - talk 21:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies established in 1305

You're absolutely right - It was supposed to be a category. Please delete if you can. Plucas58 (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Gone. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Event Planet

Hey, could you just double check this for me? It looks like there's some close paraphrasing and it's certainly G11 but I'm not seeing an all-out copyright infringement. I ask only so I can figure out where I'm going wrong. Panyd<sup>The muffin is not subtle</sup> 14:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"awarded the prestigious and coveted title of Australian Event Manager of the Year at the independently judged 2012 Australian Event Awards". "has been managing the various corporate event needs of many of Australasia’s market-leading brands and companies as well as major government sector events for complex national initiatives and multi-stakeholder projects". That's just two phrases that are identical in both the article and the source. I could look for more, but that's enough. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Duplication Detector failure + lack of coffee = correction - thank you very much. Panyd<sup>The muffin is not subtle</sup> 14:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Procedural question from a New Guy

Thanks for your quick response to my requested move of Application architecture to Applications architecture. I'm new to editing and have one question for you. I noticed that the Talk page of Application architecture did not move with its subject page to Applications architecture. So the Talk page that is now attached to the "new" Applications architecture is from the "old" Applications architecture. Is that how this is supposed to work, or was not moving the Talk page with the Subject page just an oversight?

Thanks. Larry Statham (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Larry Statham (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nightmare (Nightmare album)

Hi - You deleted an article of this title last year. Can I ask why it was deleted and if there is any point in me recreating the article? Lithium (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Within a short period of time it was created, flagged for A7 speedy deletion (I'll come back to this), blanked by the creator, and then finally G7 speedy deleted by me because of the blanking. IMHO the A7 deletion was not valid, as A7 does not apply to albums. A9 does not apply either, as that is only for songs/albums where the performer has no page on-wiki. So basically is was deleted because the creator appears to have gotten frustrated at what was a speedy deletion tag that had a good chance of being declined anyway. So there is really nothing about the previous deletion that would/should prevent a creation of a new article. That brings up another issue. Would you like me to restore the previous version for you? It's rough, unsourced, and doesn't have a lot more than a track listing. Still, you might be able to find something of use there. Since it *is* so rough, it might be best if I userified it, if I do undelete it, so that you can clean it up before you move it back to article-space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be brilliant, thank you Lithium (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's now at User:PhoenixBlitzkrieg/Nightmare (Nightmare album). You'll need to dig through the history to get to what little there is that may be of use. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thank you so much Lithium (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Josh24B

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Josh24B, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. NE Ent 21:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

IsAnyBodyDown?

Err on the side of caution. Go ahead and revdelete any name that no one has given a good source for. Notify me and I'll double check you. Brittain has been named by NPR now and he consented to an interview, so there's no issue with him any more.—Kww(talk) 17:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Umm. No. I don't use my admin tools on an article that I've been editing. Especially not one that I have previously filed an AFD on. Of the choices for how to handle things, the one that IMHO violates WP rules, and violates the trust that was put in me as an admin, is not a viable option. I'm WP:INVOLVED. As far as I am concerned, my admin buttons do not exist for that page. I'll fall back to notifying you if there's a possibility of needing further revdel.

And I still have no idea what your "magic power" edit comment was supposed to mean. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant that it's not a BLP issue because I "declared" it a BLP issue, it's a BLP issue because it is a BLP issue. We can't state that someone is involved in something unsavory without an extremely good source to back it up. I respect your feelings about WP:INVOLVED, but I will remind you of an important part of the policy:the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Removing BLP violations in a case like this falls neatly under that exemption, especially if you rapidly notify someone else so that they can correct you if you misstepped. I'll keep an eye on the article, but if I'm slow to respond (I do sleep, eat, bathe, and work, for example), you shouldn't feel too hesitant.—Kww(talk) 18:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your recent clean up of beijing-related dab pages Azylber (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Arcturus albums

Category:Arcturus albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion log

Hi, sorry to mention this, it is simply a minor spur of the topic on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I know you, as all of us, are doing unpaid unthanked work, and I don't want it reverted, but a small note that you ignored a controversial cut and paste move and edit-war move history, plus a Talk page comment that a RM was needed rather than a "uncontroversial move", and also in actioning the db-G6 did not leave any trace of who enabled the move, I had to wade through Deletion log. I don't want to take it further, please, since this user is not, by any means, the only user making light with db-G6 in this way, and you're not the only admin being caught by it, but for the record, here it is:

There was a previous attempt to rename Kenichi Momoyama from Japanese name to Korean name Yi Geon by cut and paste:

05:43, 30 April 2011‎ Ttonyb1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30 bytes) (-4,218)‎ . . (Redirected to Kenichi Momoyama) (undo)

05:42, 30 April 2011‎ CorenSearchBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,248 bytes) (+37)‎ . . (Tagging possible copyvio of Kenichi Momoyama) (undo)

05:41, 30 April 2011‎ Nstott (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,211 bytes) (+4,211)‎ . . (←Created page with 'Infobox royalty | name = Yi Geon | native name = 이건 | date of birth = Birth date|1909|10|28|df=y | date of death = Death date and age|1990|12|21|1909|10...')

05:44, 30 April 2011‎ ScottSteiner (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,211 bytes) (+4,200)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Nstott (talk) to last revision by Kusunose (HG)) (undo)

05:44, 30 April 2011‎ Nstott (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11 bytes) (-4,200)‎ . . (←Replaced content with 'Yi Geon') (undo)

16:02, 8 November 2012 TexasAndroid (talk | contribs) deleted page Yi Geon (G6: Making way for a non-controversial move (TW))

16:02, 8 November 2012 TexasAndroid (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Yi Geon (G8: Talk page of deleted page "Yi Geon" (TW))

Comment in the spirit of let's all make things better, no other intent. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't ignore anything, just did not see it. I do try to look for signs that such move requests are not uncontroversial. Obviously, in this case, I missed it. These G6 move requests are always one of the types of CSDs that make me the most nervous. That I'm most hesitant to do, as it's so easy to miss something and get it wrong. Many I already skip past because they just make me nervous. After this, I suspect I'm going to just leave them for someone else. Mistakes in this one area of CSD are far too easy to make for my comfort levels. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I do understand. No worries, cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

For this. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I generally just revert blankings, but in this particular case your edit comment made it obvious that it was unintentional, and made it obvious what the real intended outcome was. Easy enough to just set it to the intended result. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Beatie

Hey there, I saw that you declined to delete the redirect for Thomas Beatie to make room for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thomas_Beatie, citing that the article creation request was denied. However, that was a month ago and since then, the problems have been fixed. Please take a better look at that page; it meets the standards for article creation. -- Irn (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If the problems have been fixed, then please submit it once again for review. I'm not an AFC reviewer, and I'm not familiar with all the things that they look for. So I'm not the right person to judge whether or not the problems have indeed all been fixed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you contradicting yourself.

In your own edit summary you wrote 'Please try WP:PROD or WP:CSD.' You said try CSD. This is just one more reason I don't think much of administrators here. You say one thing, then go back on it....William 22:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly which edit you are referring to, but I can almost guarantee I meant "PROD or AFD". Sometimes my typing gets ahead of my brain a bit, and I type the wrong thing. I am very sorry for any confusion caused by such a mistake. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Found it. Yeah, that was my screw up. So you resubmitted based on my messed up edit summary. I deeply apologize for typing the wrong thing, and for snippy edit summaries in my second declines, as you only resubmitted them because on my mistake in the edit summary of the first decline. I exacerbated it by cut&pasting the bad summary onto the other decline. Sigh. Once again, sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted but I think your removing the CSDs on Dewald were wrong. There's another issue with some of these articles- COI and possible attack page. The user who created these is named Moscow and this case[6] regards someone living in Moscow. The source, which isn't working, looks self published. Anyway, the article was written accusing someone of fraud on the court without any proof. Speedy delete under G10 could be more than warranted....William 23:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Which was why I reported them at {{WP:BLPN]], to get some extra opinions on the potential BLP issues involved. - TexasAndroid (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Pilania

Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as it was previously listed at articles for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard 19:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the comment on my talk page. --Meno25 (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Hi TexasAndroid, there is a redirect request at WP:AFC/R for Pule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which you salted (using protected titles) in September 2007. Would you mind unprotecting it so I can create the redirect? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Created. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Simpsons

Can you remove the redirects for the episodes that haven't aired as i dont know how to do that and i would be happy to add info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzaboy45 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To build on the old phrase "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life", I would like to try *not* doing it for you first, but instead telling you how to do it yourself. Let me stress that I have no problem doing it if this fails, nor do I have a problem with you building out useful articles at the locations if you have enough referenced information to do so. But I'm hoping to help you here learn how to do this yourself for next time down the road.

Let me also say that I have no idea which step below is your stumbling block, so please don't be annoyed if I tell you things here that you already know.

1. First, you need to get to the page that contains the redirect. I suspect that this may be your key problem. You are getting redirected automatically, and don't know how to get back to the redirect itself. In this case it's simple. When a redirect takes you to a page other than the redirect itself, it always leaves a link towards the top of the second page. The link and surrounding verbage tells you that you have been redirected. But more importantly, the link itself will take you back to the redirect and leave you there, without redirecting you a second time.
2. Once you have that you can either just edit it like normal, and replace the markup for the redirect with the page that you want to create, or you can go into the history and revert me before creating your page. I request that, if you are going to revert me, you do these one at a time. Revert on one, then make that one into a good article, or at least a viable stub. I found these because they all showed up at once on the Short Pages report. If you bulk revert me before you start working on them, then you'll just be putting them all back onto the Short Pages report. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian province moves

Hi. I noticed you quickly redirected a bunch of Brazilian province pages wholesale, on the say-so of a single editor. May I ask why this wasn't put up for discussion? Why, for instance, did you decide to direct Grão-Pará Province to Pará state, when one is geographically very different than the other? Walrasiad (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I did it as an alternative to letting them be deleted. All were up for PROD deletion as historical versions of the modern states. To me it seemed logical to, instead of deleting them, redirect them to the modern versions, as listed by the person who put them up for deletion. If the targets are not correct, feel free to redirect them to better targets. Or if there is actually enough material for good articles, feel free to write them. In no way is what I did the end-all result for these things. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hi curious as to why you deleted the page for NFL coach Dan Shamash? Does the page need editing to fit current content policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.191.251 (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a WP:PROD deletion. The reason given by the person who submitted it for deletion was "Fails WP:NGRIDIRON". And indeed the page does not have much evidence of notability. OTOH, PROD deletions can generally be stopped/reversed by even a single protest. So, if you would like to officially protest, I will gladly restore the page. Note that, to be fair, I will also notify the person who submitted it for PROD that it has been restored, in case they would like to then start a fuller WP:AFD deletion discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to officially protest. I was looking to update the page with current job status and it was removed. What do I need to do to make sure it remains restored if the person who submitted for PROD starts a fuller deletion discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.191.251 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the requirements at WP:NGRIDIRON. The core issue here is "Notability". Notability for Wikipedia has very specific definitions, and they are not what you are likely used to thinking for the wider world/web. It basically has to do with whether the world in general considers the person to be of note. But we have very specific criteria for what that means. WP:BIO has the more general criteria for biographies. At its simplest, the best way to show notability is with references that meet three key criteria. They should be Reliable, Independent, and Non-trivial. All three must be met. Blogs and other Wikis fail "Reliability". Press releases and personal web pages are not "Independent". A one sentence mention in an article on a different subject, or a ranking in a list, is a trivial reference.

At it's simplest then, providing a couple of links to articles directly about the subject, that are in reliable, independent publications, would go a long way to showing notability. If the original submitter chooses to start a deletion debate, it'll likely revolve around notability, or lack of it. Such debates generally last around a week.

Anyway, I'll get to restoring the page and notifying the person who submitted it for PROD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Explanation on recent reverting.

Hi TexasAndroid, i have recently placed a tag on Nuh as it is holding up a move. i just found that you have reverted it and made it a disambiguation page please kindly check as there is already a disambiguation page Nuh (disambiguation) and the redirect should be deleted to make the move possible. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And as far is primary topic is concerned see the incoming links they are occupied by "Nuh" for the beginning. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that your assessment of what is the primary topic is incorrect. If there *is* a primary, then it's likely IMHO Noah. But that's at it's more common name, and certainly is not likely to be moved to Nuh. Islamic view of Noah was at the page name a number of years ago, and was moved away for standardizing naming conventions. It's not even listed at the disambiguation you pointed to, which appears to show the city to be the primary topic. Islamic view of Noah appears to be more a sub-page of Noah, and not really the primary topic.

It's obvious that my simple attempt at a disambiguation was not appropriate, given that there is already a suitable disambiguation. The question then becomes, what *should* be at Nuh. And at this point, it appears to not be a question with a simple answer. For now, I think that I'll redirect to the existing disambiguation. The move is IMHO not a simple, uncontroversial one, and thus needs a debate over what should reside at the Nuh location. The city article? Islamic view of Noah? Nuh (disambiguation)? One way or another, I think this needs a wider discussion than just the two of us. Sorry. Please see WP:RM for how to get such a debate started. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It is in the Nuh (disambiguation) page but as you said it ok, i will make a move request to discuss this but mean while i would like you to make it a redirect to Nuh (disambiguation). Thanks --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I would have sworn that I already did that, as I was preparing my above response to you. I guess I never pressed save on it. I thought I had done so. Anyway, it's redirected now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Kanekapolei

Could you merge the histories of User:KAVEBEAR/Kānekapōlei and Kanekapolei and move the merged article to Kānekapōlei?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I *think* that Vegaswikian has already taken care of all that needs to happen here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas v R Mess

Page was just fine and dandy a couple days ago until someone decided to delete the info ther and replace it with a totall different Nicholas' information The following is convo:

Nicholas van Rensselaer

Bulk repost from another location...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for you addition, now if you were able to find info on a Philip P van Rensselaer I'd clean out your garage for free :P JGVR (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC) You're welcome. Philip doesn't seem to be in the Appletons' article, so I doubt I will run across him, and will have to leave the garage in its present miserable shape. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC) ooop I took a closer look, unfortunately this family had a bent for recycling names. as a result I started a rage and transferred what info you added -- to that page Nicholas van Rensselaer JGVR (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC) LOL there was no rage but a Page I did start :P JGVR (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC) A move would have been more appropriate. Wikipedia isn't a genealogy site. I would say the dreadfully obscure Van Rensselaers should just remain notes on their parents' pages. And I think the disambiguation more properly belongs on the obscure fellow. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC) So I added a disambiguation to the obscure fellow, and repaired the links and orphaned talk page that resulted from a copy being used instead of a move. There may be one or two links you have made to Nicholas Van Rensselaer that now need to be sent to Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier). Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Two days ago NEITHER Nicholas had a page, With me so far? I made one for a Revolutionary soldier. then YOU come along totally deface it with info on a reverend without even bothering to look at dates or anything. So I REPAIRED YOU MISTAKE! And you turn RIGHT back around and screw it all back up without ANY regard to My having links to it and all. I thought you liked trying to HELP people and you are hijacking articles. JGVR (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC) OK I actually made a REAL disambiguation page. Hopefully we can both be satisfied with the ORDINARY style, rather than trying to force me into changing links on other pages to fit in an out of the ordinary style.JGVR (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC) JGVR (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that a major mess has been left, and it's going to take admin powers to clean it up. I'm really not trying to be overly critical of either of you two. But the history for a page *really* should be with that page. As it is now, because of cut&paste moves, the history is spread across several pages. A mess. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand Nicholas van Rensselaer (Reverend) cap R in reverend should be deleted also Nicholas van Rensselaer (soldier) and Nicholas Van Rensselaer (cap V) then it should all be fine as frogs' hair

JGVR (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave this in general to the admin who responds to my AN/I post. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI archiving

Hey TexasAndroid, just letting you know that your reply at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DouglasTheMovieGuy was accidently removed because of an edit conflict I had while archiving the discussion. Sorry about that. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. As you said effectively the same thing in your archive note, I'll not bother re-adding my comment. The info is what's important, not which of us says it. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

On the matter of MP/E

Is there any reason that I shouldn't boldly update {{Noticeboard links}} to include MP/E? It's already got all sorts of obscure links on it - not even sure if it'd drive up visibility that much, but I figure it's worth a shot. — Francophonie&Androphilie<sup>(Je vous invite à me parler)</sup> 01:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how much it would help, but I can't think of any reason it would hurt anything. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Alkylbenzenes

Hello, could You please delete this redirect. I want to replace it by an article. All that different templates for deletition is for me too complex. In de:wp we have only one template [[:de:{{löschen}}]] / de:wp:SL --JWBE (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you wanting to write a new article in place, or move an existing article to that name? If the former, you do not need help from me. Just edit the redirect and start writing your new article in its place. If the latter, I can do the deletion easily enough. The proper speedy deletion code in that case is G6, housekeeping in preparation for a move. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Now thanks a lot --JWBE (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wey Valley Radio

Hi. You deleted this with the rationale of "insignificant web content". However, a radio station is not a web content, and also being affiliated with a school could qualify as an educational institution, which is explicitly excluded in the description WP:CSD#A7. Could you restore the article pending somebody improving it or putting a PROD / AfD on it. --Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 19:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I misread "internal" in the article as "internet". That's why I thought it was a web page, as I thought the article said "internet radio station". Bad read on my part. It might still qualify as A7-Organization. I do not buy in the slightest that it is an "educational institution". It's and organization/thing at a school, not a school itself. Fraternities, school bands, etc do not get the "educational institution" benefit, neither would this. That said, it's not 100% clear that it qualifies as an organization either. So I'll restore it, but I'm going to immediately file it for AFD, since whatever it is, it shows not the slightest indication of notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Restored and AFD filed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can probably infer from what I said above, in its current state I don't think it stands a chance at AfD. Only reason I asked is because the page creator seemed to be doing quite a few edits, and if they keep going they might have something that can pass muster. --Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 20:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

NP. And it was indeed a screw-up on my part processing the DB-WEB. Someone else did the same misread, marked it DB-WEB, with an edit comment that mentioned "internet". When I processed it, I saw that first, and then replicated the misreading when I glanced at the page. I already had "internet" in my brain, so that's what I saw on the page. But that's not what the page said. It's borderline DB-ORG, depending on whether or not one would qualify it as an organization. But on a borderline case it likely is better to take the slower route. So my CSD was invalid, and AFD is the more proper route. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)