User talk:Xezbeth

Hi User:Xezbeth. Can I add a link to the ambiguation page on my article for Giada (brand), and have it instead be on the base term like what Gucci has done before? Donspore (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Xezbeth, why is the page removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donspore (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Xezbeth, how come the "b." abbreviation in Taberner page needs to be changed to "born"? Why not change the "No. overall" on SpongeBob SquarePants (season 11) page to "Number overall"? If it's wrong to have the "b." there instead, then Maiorana page is only one I can think of that still uses the "b." abbreviation, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pointless template. "Born" is not a long word, shortening it has no benefit and a template with a tooltip is even less useful. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough User:Xezbeth, only pages that use that underlined "b." now, by the way, are Trump (surname) and Maiorana, but it won't let me edit Maiorana and Trump is a pretty big page, who knows who's watching is all I'm saying. And I do now know what you mean, because all the other surname pages just use born.--Theo Mandela (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xezbeth--Theo Mandela (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Xezbeth, just letting you know that Gee (surname) still uses b. and c. templates, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Xezbeth, could you make a contribution to Maiorana page please? That the name is Norman French in origin, this source Della Calabria illustrata says something like: the name changed from Marogana (or Marogano) to the more easily pronounceable Maiorana (or Maiorano), possibly influenced by folk etymology (page 326). On that page the book also states that the fleur-de-lis in the coat of arms of the family also indicates a Norman origin. I just don't do edits on that scale, because more than likely no one will edit the page for many months, leaving my mistakes (that become Wikipedia's mistakes) on show. Hope you can help, thanks. --Theo Mandela (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Italian. If your source contradicts what's in the article then I see no problem with rewriting it. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Xezbeth, I can't read Italian either, you could ask User:Lambiam, who gave me this reliable source because I was explaining to them that the coat of arms for the family (here [1]) is Norman, not Italian, and they confirmed it. I know you're experienced with writing surname articles, but here are some examples of Norman surname pages: Molyneux, Banister (surname). Thanks again.--Theo Mandela (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, User:Xezbeth you've got the go-a-head to make that edit to Maiorana, how is it going? Please let me know 👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I would do anything. I rarely add content to articles as it is, let alone when other people tell me to. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xezbeth, Not telling you, asking because I know you've done surname articles before and here I've gave you the info, just need it to be phrased right (I wouldn't be good at that). User:Lambiam's right with you doing it, Molyneux and Banister (surname) are good examples of Norman name article layouts.--Theo Mandela (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xezbeth, I made an edit to Maiorana page and hope you can have a look at it and make changes if needed, not sure if links are need in "surname" and "Norman French" for example, but if you can correct any mistake I made, follow example of good surname pages please like: Evans (surname) • Howard (surname) --Theo Mandela (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xezbeth, I'm done with Maiorana page, but have removed the references from your last version, is this ok? Thanks--Theo Mandela (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mifter (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Xezbeth, do you know what the rules are for links on surname articles? What should and what shouldn't be linked? Fisher (surname) has no links, but Maiorana has loads, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as any other article. If there's a relevant article on a given term and it isn't a common word per WP:OVERLINK, then it should probably be linked. There's nothing in the lead for Fisher (surname) that I would consider linking though. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xezbeth, does that mean that on Maiorana for example, the "Italian" and "surname" don't need links? I noticed some surname articles link "surname" itself and the national origin, and others don't?--Theo Mandela (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not link them personally, but others do. It's not something that I'm going to make an effort to unlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xezbeth, I think you did unlink "surname" on Taberner though, is it important or not I mean? Thanks--Theo Mandela (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I originally found the paleontological chimera article Chimera (disambiguation)--Mr Fink (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with Spindel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)! — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xezbeth, I'm a bit intrigued by your mass changing of class at various given name articles, for example [2] and [3]. Is this something that has been agreed anywhere, for example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy? If not, I think you should revert the changes and discuss it. Ordinarily an page on a human name is regarded as an article, because such names are usually encyclopedic in their own right, and there is some prose written about them. This applies even if quite a large chunk of the article is actually devoted to listing notable people with that name. However, if there has been an agreement somewhere to alter this convention, then please let me know. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall a formal discussion. There probably isn't one, since you're the only person in five years who's cared enough to ask me about anthroponymy project classes. Both of those articles look like lists to me. But if you disagree then feel free to revert on articles with lots of prose, I won't argue about it. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Hasselquist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have deprodded Abusaria because it has been to AFD in the past. I only did this for procedural reasons and have no prejudice against nominating this "article" at AFD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought someone would. That AfD is ridiculous though since it's 11 years old, has nonsensical keep reasoning and grouped dozens of articles together, many of which have since been deleted. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unshō. Since you had some involvement with the Unshō redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your objective assessments. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for tirelessly reviewing my category additions to surname SIAs diligently. This one's on me! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your persistent redirect from the Stones page to Rock (geology) is contrary to basic English. Perhaps you could explain why you think that the plural of "stone", a non-count noun, might ever be "stones" in a geological sense? Have nice day. John beta (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has existed in its current form for TWELVE years. Get consensus first, it's not a difficult concept. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Regarding surname SIAs, would it be considered overlinking to link to floruit where necessary? When AWB detects the fl. abbreviation, it wants to turn it into the link to the page I described above. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something that I link to manually but I wouldn't consider it overlinking. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rika Tachibana. 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. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify my interlink.Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is there such page in Japanese Wikipedia?Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did you get your username from? 92.17.88.180 (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember. Probably some random list since all my usual ones were already in use. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For all your excellent work with Japanese sporting biographies - thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at an article you have edited, to which you may wish to add your input: Talk:American Flagg!#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Xezbeth. Just noticed the inversion of the person's name in article Takanobu Takahashi. I'm kinda aware of the difference between the Eastern and Western practice of first name/surname usage, but don't have a working knowledge on it. Should Prof. Takahashi Takanobu's name be changed to his actual name as added by you? If so, should we rename the article? Same holds with article Shuzo Matsunaga. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:JTITLE, using the western name order is correct, unless there's reliable sources that show they prefer to use the reverse. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Xezbeth. Have a nice day. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, at least half of the undeletions I tried (with TWINKLE) failed because the server returned an error response. I just tried again and again until they all completed. Hut 8.5 20:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xezbeth, quick question, as I'm not familiar with how some things are done. I've seen that in articles about names you typically unlink countries and remove country categories. Is that a policy or a preference? I can see both sides of the argument. Is there anything along the lines of a rationale for doing it in this particular way? I don't mind, and I do appreciate consistency. Thanks! DrVogel (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't link to them per MOS:OVERLINK. I remove categories when they aren't supported by the article's prose. If I was being strict then I would remove any reference to language or origin that isn't referenced, but that isn't realistic since the vast majority of name articles ignore that. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about Category:Nigeria specifically, that was because it's far too broad. Category:Nigerian names exists if you want to put it there, but those categories are not something that I go out of my way to add. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you were trying to accomplish. Mind enlightening me? General Ization ^Talk 21:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're absolutely correct, I accidentally used the wrong tag! Anthroponymy instead of Biography. Also, you're so fast!! You fixed it yourself before I had the chance to rectify it! Thanks very much! Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xezbeth, I've lowered the protection level on this from TRPOT to SPROT - it only has 79 uses and while they are are pages with larger views it also has not had much vandalism. If I'm missing something and you think this still needs a higher level, please let me know. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could we please have your expert opinion here please: Talk:Grabois. Would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dr. Vogel (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xezbeth. I saw this edit and was wondering if a consensus was reached to move the article back to Dōjō. There doesn't appear to be any discussion on the article's talk page. Anyway, if there was, then it might be helpful in resolving other similar page moves made by the same editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the original move because the dab page was moved to "dojo" at the same time. The current move is undiscussed, but at least there aren't hundreds of broken links. It should probably be moved back, but if there's multiple controversial moves then a wider discussion would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I'll post something at WT:MARTIAL to see what they think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say, what you're doing with that article is very impressive. Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xezbeth, you're - like it or not - the "go-to person" for disambiguation pages. Was that one OK? Please let me know if it ain't, and tell me why. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the partial title matches to a see also section and updated the hatnote at Seagram. Everything else was fine. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work, Xezbeth. Thank you. I'll shortly be sending you - that ubiquitous item of tableware found in all good homes in Tasmania as far wide as Huonville to the Henty River - the Huon pine napkin ring barnstar of disambiguation excellence. Once I upload a picture of some of 'em. And after I've sent RFA thank-you spam to the editors that !voted in my RfA. Have I mentioned that Tasmania is not a fictional place? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Xezbeth a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've created a redrafted article for Nextdoor at User:BC1278/sandbox/Nextdoor. Although I have experience as a Wikipedia editor (though at a level laughable compared to you), I have a conflict of interest here as a paid consultant to Nextdoor, so the redraft requires a thorough independent review. COI disclosures have been made on the article Talk page.

The current article is very poor, in my opinion, and my goal is to get it up to a "B" grade on this version, then keep working to get it to GA. If you look at the citations in my new proposed draft, you'll see that over the course of the past 10 years, this company has had multiple in-depth features in high-quality reliable sources such as The New York Times, Wired, The Atlantic, BuzzFeed News, PBS News Hours, NPR and Newsweek. And it's been written or broadcast about in hundreds of local-media reliable sources, only a sample of which are cited in the 50-source draft article. It warrants a much more thorough better written, better structured article than it has now.

I've looked at the history for this article because I was very puzzled why an app/website with tens of millions of users was so poor. I discovered that at least one editor has been removing content backed by reliable sources for years. The editor resurfaced when I posted the discussion and explanation about my proposal to Talk:Nextdoor#Request_for_Review. The editor expressed the POV that articles about internet companies, in general, are too long, as well as various other dubious arguments. Given the potential for fireworks, which I hate, I thought I should seek an incredibly experienced editor, such as yourself, to do the independent review.

I also opened an RfC vote about one section of the article ("Founder'), since it received some support even though it's been removed before.

Thanks in advance for considering this request to collaborate on a review. I say collaborate because I am sure you will have many suggestions as to how I can improved the draft and I expect I can learn a great deal from you.

Ed BC1278 (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Hi, if I were looking for a Japanese politician named Akio Sato but didn't know his birth year, I'd find the hatnotes quite useful, as they make it easier navigating from one homonym to another. —capmo (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Akio Sato disambiguation page was missing descriptions, which I have now added. There should be no reason to use hatnotes since the correct Akio Sato should be linked to in any given article, and a search for Akio Sato will bring up the dab page. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for your edits on the Akira Kurosawa. Its become known to me recently that you have an interest in Japanese articles. Recently, I had some success to get the images in the Kurosawa article in good shape with the help of another editor with image experience here [4]. I was wondering if you, as an experienced editor, might be remotely interested in considering a co-nomination of the article with me at FAC for Kurosawa. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAs are not something that I have any experience or interest in. I've never edited Kurosawa's article as far as I can remember, I was just fixing the hatnote. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my mischaracterization of the "Verdy du (and Du) Vernois" redirs, which I can now see were improper however I cut it. Before I compound the error, can I pick on your expertise: is the proper surname von Verdy du Vernois, or just du Vernois? Also, I know that lowercase for the possessives are proper in running text, but in a Wikipedia redirect the first letter would be capitalized anyway (unless I jump through another hoop).

Related, I'm fussing about this because still unclear on the proper conventions for possessives at the start of a sentence, except the Dutch "van". I've see both lower and upper case "von" and "du" in authoritative sources at the start of sentences. I've seen Gaelic names start sentences with lowercase. And don't get me started on the De La (la?) Rive family... perhaps someone could issue a WP guideline for article text, if one doesn't exist? David Brooks (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the article properly, I think I might be wrong and you were right in the first place. Von doesn't appear to be considered part of the surname. I think I'll revert myself. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xezbeth, just asking if you can change the formats for the birth and death dates on the Maiorana article to the consistent standard please? As it looks messy and I'm unsure which of the four to use. Also, if it's not the standard, the last use of the second reference in the article is placed within brackets, Theo Mandela (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for asking if you're busy Xezbeth, but when you have a second could you improve the format of the Maiorana surname article please? Because it's a small article and these and the surname template style are the only issues I have with it. It'd be a much appreciated help. And if you don't think you'll get time, could you suggest a user like yourself who deals with fixing and formatting of dab and surname articles please? Thanks, Theo Mandela (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

for the volume of pings.Dumb script;∯WBG^converse 08:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you undid the original message because you noticed what I'd done with Kimia? That content is not my problem, I was just fixing the hijacking of another article. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the particular reason, I reverted my message (and then executed a comedy of errors).But the problem is that since you are a sysop (which comes with the autopatrolled bit), such creations are auto-marked as indexed stuff and not shown to a reviewer for tagging et al. ∯WBG^converse 09:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see you've not suggested any ideas to Versalex on how to proceed. Is it impossible to do what they want, which is to include uses of 'Adelson' as given names? Is there no precedent for this, but instead the requirement that each mention has to have an article? I see the layout of Edel has given names, but all mentions have articles.

It just seems weird to skirt 3RR without trying to say "the explanation is you must have articles for each name or no go". I'm assuming that's your objection. Shenme (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw their behaviour at Adel (name) and have no interest in engaging with them. They just need to stop adding non-notable people to name lists per WP:APOENTRIES. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shenme! Indeed; Xezbeth doesn't seem to be a part of the solution. Nil and nay all the way. In fact, it's not impossible to be open-minded and reasonable. It's actually recommended by Wikipedia, and the citation function is there for a reason. Links to other pages aren't requisite, as encyclopedias are ever-growing and, considering that Wikipedia launched in 2001, I don't see how it's even possible for all information from the beginning of time until now to be here after only 17 years. I'm sure that's why hundreds of new pages are created every day. Nil and nay? Not today.

By the way, my "behavior" was inadvertent. I was brand-new to Wikipedia and had no idea how to use it. It was all quite over-whelming. I genuinely thought an academic and/or manager of sorts would contact me to confirm my credentials and references. Ha! The red wine wouldn't have helped.

Kind regards

Charles

Versalex (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out my edits on Template:Lazard & Template:Investment banks. These show up on todays list of templates with DAB links. I don't know what change made them appear there but they were DAB links to Lazard (disambiguation).— Rod ^talk 10:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware, I just wanted to draw your attention to what I was doing. A lot of the dab pages that appear in that list on a daily basis are the result of bad page moves, and the better solution is to simply revert the move rather than fix hundreds of links that ultimately won't need fixing. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for sharing your thoughts on my Requested move. So this is kind of relatable: I’m wondering if someone would be willing to split the surname/people sections of two other pages into their own set indices, particularly the sections in Massone and Valentin (disambiguation)? Thanks in advance! 66.87.148.249 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Massone is borderline not worth doing but it does no harm. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Redaelli. Since you had some involvement with the Redaelli redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 10:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for creating so many articles about surnames!Zigzig20s (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Patrick (fictional character). Since you had some involvement with the Patrick (fictional character) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Fayenatic London 11:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Zeller (surname). Is there only one Zellers, Kurt Zellers? If so, what do you think we should do with it?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to just skip past them when there's a different primary topic, though there's nothing stopping you adding a hatnote to Zellers. I would also add Kurt Zellers to Zeller (surname) as a see also entry. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, can we find another notable Zellers, create their article, and then have a beautiful new list? But they would have to be notable!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it was Russian Tnglish plus copy paste. Thank you for your edit--1Goldberg2 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Ex-Arm, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So do you just press a button without putting any thought into it? Do not abuse the draft namespace in this way. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article you made is in state that fails WP:GNG. Let me go back at this way..do do you just create an article without putting any thought into it (one reference that it got an anime)? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every statement in that article is referenced. "Undersourced" is utter nonsense and tells me you're just using a script without even doing due diligence. I wonder how many new editors you've driven off by doing the same thing to them. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First thing, I did not come up with "Undersourced", the script does that. And it is true in this case, it does need multiple reliable secondary sources that covers it in detail per WP:GNG guideline. That is not the case here. Instead of trying to improve your own article, there is no need to be so agressive against me when all I did was in good faith (which always should be assumed first) to improve a stub article with a SINGLE reference which despite covering what you said is not enough per general notability guidelines you are ignoring. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop linking GNG at me as if I've never read it. Let me quote it back at you: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". The article is a stub, one is ample. I could add others but there is no need to at present as it would simply be doubling up the same information. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect All That (television series). Since you had some involvement with the All That (television series) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 12:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to understand your thinking on many of the reverts you made on the Kato dab page. As a first question, you put people with nicknames on the dab page. Specifically, I moved the following two entries to a name page (a name index article), and you moved them back to the disambiguation page.

• Benkato "Kato" Ottio, Papua New Guinean rugby league player
• Ketevan "Kato" Svanidze, wife of Joseph Stalin

You seem to think these entries belong on the disambiguation page, presumably because these people can be referred to by their nickname. I am applying the standards described at WP:NAMELIST. To avoid turning dab pages into search pages (or phone books), only people widely recognized by their name are included on dab pages. The example there is that

many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named "Herb", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed.  

I would argue that the nickname "Kato" is equivalent to the first name "Herb". Yes, you might refer to Ketevan Svanidze as "Kato", but that doesn't mean the dab page for Kato needs to include an entry for her.

Here's a very specific example: Herb Gray (Herbert Eser "Herb" Gray) is someone notable who is recognized by their nickname "Herb". The article title even uses the nickname "Herb" instead of his full first name "Herbert". And yet the Herb (disambiguation) page doesn't include him (exactly as described in WP:NAMELIST). Why do you want to treat Kato Ottio (Benkato "Kato" Ottio), which is logically EXACTLY the same case as Herb Gray (Herbert "Herb" Eser Gray) differently?

I get that these rules are not set in stone. What matters is consensus among editors. But it's probably best if we agree on how we will apply the policy about including people with nicknames on dab pages, so we don't keep stepping on one another's toes and so you don't feel a need to keep reverting my changes. Seems to me the accepted practice (as per the policy to which I referred) is to treat them as partial title matches and exclude them from dab pages. Coastside (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocorisms are not nicknames. Nicknames are not the same thing as given names. This is common sense. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, you have a point with Kato Ottio. That looks more like a hypocorism instead of a nickname. But that doesn't mean the others are misplaced. There is actually a Template:Nickname, so you could split them out into yet another set index, but I really don't think that's necessary here. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your thinking, which I interpret as: people with nicknames belong on a dab page for the nickname, but people who go by hypocorisms do not belong on a dab page for the hypocorism. However, people with hypocorisms could go on a dab page as it's not necessary to put them on a name page.

Personally I don't agree with this interpretation, but at least I understand it. The policy guideline under WP:NAMELIST follows the policy guideline under WP:PARTIAL for a reason. The idea is to avoid turning dab pages into search indexes. This is especially a problem for lists of people since people are very typically recognized by one of their names, i.e., given name, surname or nickname. The guidance under WP:NAMELIST is meant to steer editors toward selectively including people on dab pages only when they are "widely recognized" by the amiguous term. There is no guidance that all people with nicknames belong on dab pages for their nicknames. My point is that the policy is about keeping dab pages as navigational aids to help resolve ambiguous terms when looking for articles. They aren't indexes for finding people who share common names (except for human name disambiguation pages because full names are truly ambiguous).

It comes down to what it means to be "recognized" by a name vs. "widely recognized" by a name. Lincoln is "widely recognized" by his last name. However, "many highly notable people are called Herb", i.e., they are "recognized" by their name/hypocorism, but this doesn't merit inclusion in the dab page. I appreciate you recognizing my point about Kato Ottio, but my interpretation of the policy applies to Kato Svanidze as well. No one would reasonably expect to find the article about Svanidze by searching for "Kato". They would search for "Svanidze" or "Kato Svanidze". To include her in a dab page for "Kato" simply makes the dab page a search index. It's reasonable to include her in an article on "people nicknamed 'Kato'", but not on the dab page. If you don't think there is merit in including her in an article about people sharing a name, then it makes more sense to delete the entry from the dab altogether. Coastside (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You separated people with surname Kato, now on the Kato (name) page, from people with the surname Katō and people with surname Kato (no macron diacritic) who are listed on the Katō (surname) page. You are saying they are different because "there's no long vowel". I assume you mean as indicated by the macron mark (ō vs. o).

Where this doesn't make sense is that there are plenty of entries at Katō (surname) who have a surname spelled "Kato" without the macron. As per the article lead, the spellings include Katō, Kato, Katou or Katoh.

There is an entry for Tatsuhito Katoh. You're not excluding that name from the Kato (surname) page on the argument that it "has a letter 'h' on the end of the name". Why is having a short vowel any different? Why aren't you moving all the entries with any spelling other than "Katō" off that page?

• Chihiro Kato (加藤 千尋, born 1988), Japanese volleyball player <!-- This entry has a short 'o' -->

The only way I can rationalize what you are doing here is that you are separating people with the Japanese surname from people of other nationalities with the exact same surname. Even there you aren't being entirely consistent because you're including fictional characters such as Griffin Kato who is described in the article as "a strange small blue creature".

If you mean to separate people who are of Japanese nationality, then maybe you should be using a more specific qualifier, such as "Katō (Japanese surname)" or more precisely "List of Japanese people with the surname Katō or any of the spelling variants of that surname." And of course, you would need to then exclude the fictional characters from the page. Or maybe you could keep it the way it is and call it "List of Japanese people with the surname Katō or any of the spelling variants of that surname, including fictional characters of Japanese comics, games or other writings".

I figured it made more sense to put everyone with the same surname in the same name index article title and not focus on the nationality of the individuals. Coastside (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katō (surname) is strictly about the name 加藤, which is the 11th most common Japanese surname. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the surname page "is strictly about the name 加藤" explains your thinking. It seems similar to the logic for the category Category:Disambiguation_pages_with_Chinese_character_titles. I would argue if that's the case, then you should probably put (加藤) in the title or alternatively generalize the lead in the name page to cover uses of the surname that do not pertain to 加藤. But this is probably too uncommon and nuanced to debate.

While I'm at it, your edits at Caius are wrong too. Caius (bishop of Milan) and others do not belong on a separate given name page, they are referred to only as "Caius". —Xezbeth (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your argument for some of these, but I disagree on others. For example:

• Caius is the name that the Earl of Kent, a character in the play King Lear, takes when in disguise.

A "disguise" name is even more extreme than a nickname, and as I argued above, it makes no sense to include entries like these on a dab page unless you see dab pages as search indexes, which they aren't. Fictional characters are often recognized by a short name, especially minor characters, but this doesn't make them "widely recognized", as with Lincoln. It makes more sense to include these in a name index article for Caius, i.e., "Caius (name)" or "List of people named Caius" than to include them in the dab page, or if these entries don't merit inclusion in a name index article, then simply delete them from the dab page altogether. Coastside (talk)

Hi. I saw you mass deleted films out of the list of Japanese films of 2019 and then protected the page. I was wondering if you could leave a more detailed message on the talk page explaining the situation and what editors can do moving forward. Thanks XinJeisan (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dedicated hoaxer/troll who adds fake films and fake information to these articles. "Final Fantasy vs. Gunslinger Stratos: Hello World" for example. These additions were going back months so it would have taken far too long to assess each film on the list, since it was over 200k bytes before I removed anything. List of Japanese films of 2016, List of Japanese films of 2017 and List of Japanese films of 2018 have the same problem. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a perfect example of the problem: In this edit an IP adds what appears to be a real film, along with loads of hoax nonsense to several other film entries. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's so many Square Enix and Ubisoft franchises are the worst to best crossover films is a HOAX and VANDALISM? THAT'S WHY I CALLED A CONTROVERSY, Let's clean it up, after relocated to the sandbox! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.105.205 (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Netoge light novel volume 1 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: I work with character redirects a lot, and have looked at how {{R from fictional character}} renders a million times. I seem to have forgotten or not noticed that it only applies to redirects to lists or works, and not to every redirect from a fictional character name. Sorry for the confusion on my part.— TAnthony^Talk 16:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, sorry if I was being rude. Even if the list stuff wasn't there I don't think every iteration of a fictional character's name would require a separate category, when the character in question is an actual article. Especially not misspellings or misnomers which is what a lot of them are. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I tag an article for a redirect discussion? LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about Chimp, in which case a move request via Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move is what you want. If it's an actual redirect that you're talking about then just follow the steps at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#How to list a redirect for discussion. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if it's possible to search for pages with a concluding quotation mark and no quotation marks elsewhere, like walter brune"? Seems to me that these too would be good deletions, if we can find them. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's possible. I only found that one because it was right near the front of Special:Allpages. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you stop edit warring please? Your change was reverted, and you should not have reinstated it. Having a separate page for people with the surname McKinsey and the two other entries in the disambiguation page is not remotely useful for readers. Please revert yourself immediately and take issues to the talk page if you think there is something to be discussed, per WP:BRD. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why did you remove {{R from subpage}} from the "The Simpsons/[character]" redirects (like in this edit) after their RfD discussion was closed? I can understand why you removed {{R from fictional character}} (redundant), but this is puzzling. Geolodus (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They have no old history. Take Dr. Marvin Monroe as an example, the actual history from when it was a separate article is at Dr. Marvin Monroe (The Simpsons). The Simpsons/Dr. Marvin Monroe's history is a page move and a bunch of double redirect fixes. I would not expect to find it in Category:Redirects with old history. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some new work on Owsley and Owsley (surname), and had done some when they were combined in the first of the two. You divided out the surname into the new article. It's such a small, combined content; and family names have migrated from sur- to middle; and now there's a William whose stage name puts him in the first but an older William in surname -- I don't know if there's a relation: In short, they'd seem to work well all back together in one, with the sub-dividers I just started in the surname article as the mechanism for maybe better order than there was previously. I favor re-combining. Any thoughts? Swliv (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following the path from #McKinsey just above here to Talk:McKinsey_(disambiguation) and on to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_33#Question_regarding_Oppenheimer_page, I see I'm not the first by any means to have stumbled on a major initiative of yours that has often generated discussion. In the McKinsey talk page, you write "I have split thousands of these out from dab pages" but I haven't yet seen an explanation as to why. I still favor the single Owsley page but am hoping to find your reasoning for not wanting it. I'm also alerting Amakuru from #McKinsey given the similarity and recency of the issue -- I hope that's alright. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surname lists do not belong in dab pages. There is no ambiguity between people who share a surname. It is not my initiative, it is standard practice. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree with Swliv, the two pages should be merged into one. As I said further up this page, in regard to the McKinsey issue, the key question when making any decision on Wikipedia is not whether something fits an arbitrary "rule" that dab pages and hndis pages have to be split, but whether it is helpful for readers. Splitting out a list of one or two names into a separate surname article, which has no other content, is not remotely useful. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one or two names should not be split out. Luckily, Owsley (surname) has eight. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite anything to back your assertion that it's 'standard practice'? That's the same question I asked above about your 'split[ting] thousands', namely, why? Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists_of_names clearly refers to varying treatment and consensus among editors on the mix in this circumstance, nothing categorical that I see. On Owsley, eight does not make for an unwieldy page along with the few other entries on the dab page. The interconnections between the entries on the, now, two pages are an important reason to re-combine. Again, you didn't address this substantive argument but rest rather on a 'practice' without substantiation. With respect, Swliv (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no argument to be had. If you want to get consensus to change MOS:DABNAME then be my guest. If you want to fundamentally change the concept of a dab page then you'll need consensus for that too. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you indefinitely template-protected Template:AWB standard installation (protection log) This template is only used on 36 pages, so it seems you may have intended to protect another template when you protected this template. Could you remove the protection? Retro (talk | contribs) 17:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's transcluded by templates that cover millions of pages, so I'm inclined not to. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's trancluded by the docs of such templates, but not used by the templates themselves. Here's a more representative showing direct transclusions: search. Doc metatemplates are not usually protected unless they are highly used; they are not usually considered high-risk.

I will also note the docs themselves are not template-protected, so if your rationale is that the templates are highly visible by merit of being on the docs of highly visible templates, this seems contrary to the existing consensus about page protection. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC) (Revised multiple times)[reply]

Further to this, your above comment caused me some concern, so I reviewed other templates you have put under template-protection. In addition to Template:AWB standard installation, I also ask that you remove template-editor protection from the following templates:

Template	Protection log	Transclusion count
Template:BillboardID/J	no prior protection	76
Template:BillboardEncode/J	no prior protection	55
Template:APRU	no prior protection	60
Template:Association of Pacific Rim Universities	no prior protection	61
Template:Colleges and universities in Los Angeles County	no prior protection	83
Template:Citation Style 1	no prior protection	145

Template:Citation Style 1 could perhaps be argued to merit semi-protection (though I note the 2017 RfC concluded 200-250 uses as a general boundary). The rest should have protection removed entirely; they don't appear to have sufficient prior basis and thus protection becomes WP:PREEMPTIVE.

I have not been indiscriminate in this request; I do not think every page you have put under template-protection is unreasonable, and have intentionally excluded Template:All included, Template:Bigger, Template:Bracket, Template:Cs1, Template:Crossreference (and redirect Template:Crossref), and Template:Large category TOC because they are all widely used and Template:Broken ref/cat because it was eventually upgraded to full-protection. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected them, I can't be bothered arguing about any of them, —Xezbeth (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't intend to bother you with the requests, but Wikipedia:Requests for page protection requires one to ask the admin who applied the protection before forwarding it to that venue. I also apologize for the multiple consecutive talk page edits; I generally try to avoid doing that. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please create the new article of a manga with a new announced anime?: Interspecies Reviewers

Source for it: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2019-06-27/interspecies-reviewers-manga-gets-tv-anime-in-winter-2020/.148370

I can't create it because i'm on vacation.

27 Jun, 2019 -Tebus19

Hi Xezbeth, was wondering whether you could merge Majorana/Maiorana/Maiorano/Rigano etc. because they seem like trivial spelling variants with notable persons listed on the wrong ones, cited sources that could be used for the other ones, all linking or redirecting to each other, etc. It's very untidy and I really don't think they warrant their own articles, especially given the lack of notables for all them. Theo Mandela (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth: The reason I asked is because you're the most well-organized editor at handling mergers, dabs and redirects I know. If for some reason you don't want to handle it then where/who do you think I could ask that best could please?

I had a look at the revision histories and Majorana existed first, primarily as a dab page for articles relating to Ettore Majorana, do you think the pages should be merged (like on the Günzburg (surname) article for example)? Theo Mandela (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emperorofthedaleks was obsessed with that article as well. Stop asking me. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you because I think you're the most appropriate editor to fix them, but if you don't want to then can you please tell me who/where I can ask that will be as constructive as you are? Sorry if I've bothered you at all, regards, Theo Mandela (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest nominating it for deletion. I would support it; the sourcing is WP:TNT level. Death Star has its own article and Slave One can just redirect to Boba Fett._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind the article existing. My current focus is redirects which are often ignored when things are merged/redirected. Or in this case things are removed from the list but no thought goes to the redirects that are now useless. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I went ahead and nominated it because it seems to me like a picture perfect example of complete fancruft, although I predict it will be flooded by keep "because it's Star Wars" arguments._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page for the company Instantions and you reverted it to the disambiguation page. I have no relationship with Instantions, Inc. but wanted to update another page to correctly reference them, so I created a shell page and then I sent them an email suggesting they fill out the page. Perhaps what I should have done was create a Instantiations Inc page and added that to the disambiguation page?

I want to create a page for PharoJS which is an open-source project for which I am one of the principals, so it can be referenced from the Smalltalk page. I have put the COI box in my User:Dvmason page, but I don't want to do a bunch more work writing the page if it will be deleted. PharoJS has had several academic articles referencing it, and has been used to create at least one publicly accessible app. Dvmason (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Majo no Tabitabi light novel volume 1 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]