User talk:Tavantius/Archives/2024/October

Jishnu Raghavan

Hi. Im quite surprised by your comment on Draft:Jishnu Raghavan. Jishnu has acted in more than 20 films as supported by the reliable source from Indian express which states; His performance in the movie also earned him Kerala Film Critics Award for the Best Male Debut. In all, he acted in 21 films, including a Tamil and a Hindi film. He was next seen in films like Choonda, Freedom, Parayam and then later in a supporting role in Nerariyan CBI, Pauran and Chakkara Muthu. He also took a brief sabbatical from movies but made a comeback with super hit film ‘Ordinary’. Adding to this, as per WP:NACTOR, the person who has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions is notable. He is also the winner of the Kerala Film Critics Association Awards, one of the highest award given in Malayalam film industry. This makes him notable as per WP:ANYBIO. Most importantly, he has Wikipedia articles across 28 other languages. Most of those content was basically translated from English Wikipedia only. The article was unfortunately deleted due to persistent sockpuppetry. So could you please give me a further clarification on your rationale behind the declining. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please include those sources and info, as it isn't present anywhere in the article. Tavantius (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'm very disheartened by the behaviour of some veteran editors of this site and lacks motive now. I was happily coming back to my normal editing after a long gap at a slow pace . I just wanted to improve this site. But seeing arguments such as I'm doing favour for socks makes me disheartened. The article still has a big socking issue, but it doesn't make it non notable. Thanks and regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have improved the article with new sources. Could you please take a look, especially [1]. This implies that he had notable roles in multiple films. Thanks Thilsebatti (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Omega gang in Singapore

Hello Tavantius,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Omega gang in Singapore for deletion, because it's a redirect to a non-existent or deleted page.

If you don't want Omega gang in Singapore to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Waqar💬 20:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Typhoon Ruth (1991) has been accepted

Typhoon Ruth (1991), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tavantius (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: Ruth

Hey there, good job on Ruth! If I had to give one piece of feedback, you use the "would" verbiage a lot, ten times in the article. It's a fluff word that doesn't add much to the meaning. For example: " before weakening into a tropical storm over land. A weakening Ruth would recurve south of Taiwan" -> works better without "would" and mentioning "weakening" twice. Sometimes less is more. But thanks for working on an old storm article, and helping make Wikipedia a bit more complete. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Tavantius (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Deaths in October 1986

Hi. You recently declined the article Draft:Deaths in October 1986 due to insufficient inline citations. I have taken over the editing of this draft. Could you check that there are now sufficient citations, and approve it if there are. Bryan Krippner (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Tavantius (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Bryan Krippner (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you so much for reviewing Speak Out (newsletter). The page was created by a new editor at a Wikithon, hopefully they feel encouraged to keep going!

Medievalfran (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Typhoon Thelma (1977) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Typhoon Thelma (1977). Thanks! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Effects of Hurricane Helene in Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Kirk draft MfD

Good morning, Tavantius, and I hope this message finds you well. I am asking you to revert your closure of the MfD for Hurricane Kirk's draft. Although new information has emerged that could (and, with enough time, probably will) influence the outcome of the discussion, it isn't appropriate for anyone who voted in that discussion – including you or me – to close it. What makes this case worse is that, at the time of closure, most of the votes were in favor of deletion (though I would switch my own delete to a keep if the discussion were to be reopened), which causes the 'keep' closure to appear as a supervote. I was close to reopening the discussion myself, but having also participated, I had second thoughts about whether it would be appropriate. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 11:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hey @Tavantius: You should never close an RfC, AfD, MfD or any other discussions in which you have participated, unless the nominator withdraws the nomination. If you believe something new has occurred that could change the votes, you should ask others to reconsider and wait for a third, uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Thank you. GrabUp - Talk 12:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Tavantius for self-reverting the closure. I note that you also reverted your change of vote from 'delete' to 'keep' – just giving you a heads up in case this was an accident. Cheers, and happy editing, Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Maka (TV series)

Maka (TV series) has been deleted G6. Please proceed with acceptance of the draft. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That we disagree is fine

If you are correct, then someone will send John Gower (British naval officer) for AfD. If I am correct, they will not. I feel it stands a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion, hence my reply on WP:AFCHD and my acceptance.

I'm sure you won't take disagreement personally. I've been wrong several times before over acceptances 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Typhoon Ruth (1991)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Typhoon Ruth (1991) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dora the Axe-plorer -- Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Moving a draft

Hello, Tavantius,

If you are seeking to move a draft article to a page title occupied by a redirect, please do it this way. Go to the Redirect page, using Twinkle, select CSD>G6 Move and in the field putting the name of the draft. This tags the page appropriately, providing a live link to the draft. After the patrolling admin has reviewed the draft, they can hit the "Move" link and delete the redirect and move the draft in one edit. You'll get a much faster response than if the admin has to cut and paste the draft title in the search bar to get to it and then use the manual move page option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Tavantius (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Updating track maps for the 1876 Atlantic hurricane season

Hey, thanks for reviewing and passing the 1876 Atlantic hurricane season. Because I can't add any comments to the review now, I'm going to say this here. I'm not against the new color scheme or anything like that, but I've never updated tracks and I'm not sure how to. 12george1 (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: 1967

Hey there, I think that's a great project to work on! 1967 was such an active and important year. As for JMA intensity, I have a few points. First, you have IBTRACS, which lists the estimates from a bunch of agencies. Take Carla, the strongest storm of the season. It backs up the 900 mbar intensity estimate by JMA, and the fact that it was a typhoon (under the part "Tokyo Grade", and it's listed as "9"). As for JMA wind estimate, I don't see that anywhere in the season article right now. I just see 1-min minutes, which would suggest the JTWC. However, IBTRACS also includes other agencies, for more than just the JTWC perspective. You'll have to double check, but the China Meteorological Administration (CMA) might use 10-min winds. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I wanted to fix up 1967 as it was the most barebones of any typhoon season article (despite multiple systems killing dozens, and in some cases hundreds, none of them got an article). However, oddly, this piece by the American Meteorological Society and the Chinese Wikipedia's article on Typhoon Yagi states that the CMA uses 2-min winds. Tavantius (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hah good find about CMA being 2-min. But yea, a lot of older typhoon season articles are pretty barebones. There are many years that don't even have an article, as recent as 1934. Due to the high number of storms, you're definitely on the right path if you want to create a few articles. Carla and Clara both seem like good candidates, not just because of their similar names! Also Emma. But probably several more, considering there were 35 storms and 20 typhoons. That's a lot to write about, and there is a word limit at a certain point. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

With that in mind, should I make it so that the season will use JTWC/CMA winds instead of JTWC/JMA winds? Tavantius (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

JTWC or CMA is fine. The JMA didn't become the RSMC until 1997, so we use them whenever they say something official, like the pressure, but for winds, yes, it's ok to defer to JTWC/CMA, since it looks like JMA only has winds going back to 1977. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty good so far. For Sally, you should try and find more Philippine impact. You'll probably find info if you search for its PAGASA name, or once you have access to newspapers archives. Also, because Sally has its own article, you need to make sure its section in the season article is as short as possible. That's the whole point of having a sub-article, since the season article would be too long if it covered every storm in depth. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Tropical cyclones in 1900

Hello, Tavantius. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tropical cyclones in 1900, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Great Salt Lake whale hoax

On 17 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Great Salt Lake whale hoax, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that a sensational story in 1888 claimed that James Wickham, a British scientist, introduced two whales to the Great Salt Lake in an attempt to start a whale oil industry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Great Salt Lake whale hoax. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Great Salt Lake whale hoax), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Typhoon Ruth (1991)

The article Typhoon Ruth (1991) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Typhoon Ruth (1991) and Talk:Typhoon Ruth (1991)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dora the Axe-plorer -- Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Typhoon Ruth (1991)

The article Typhoon Ruth (1991) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Typhoon Ruth (1991) for comments about the article, and Talk:Typhoon Ruth (1991)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dora the Axe-plorer -- Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Review of draft

Please review Draft:Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 as i have submitted it with sources using footnotes for each and every thing as per your recommendations. Kaustubh42 (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Arne Bonde (footballer)

Hi Tavantius. I'm reviewing Arne Bonde (footballer) as part of NPP, and I saw that you accepted the article for publication via AfC. How did you access the sources cited in the article during your review? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Prior to accepting it, I contacted a Norse friend to see if the articles existed in Digitalarchivet and they said that most of the sources existed there. Tavantius (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Honeyman and the Hunter

Hello, Tavantius. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Honeyman and the Hunter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Sector 47, Noida

Please find and add three reliable sources to this draft, before submitting it for formal review. Bearian (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm the user who moved it into draftspace. @Whatif222 is the editor you're looking for. Tavantius (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Tavantius. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that this is to make it easier for you to accept AFC drafts. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Tavantius (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Rick 85

Hey there, I see you closed the merge discussion for Hurricane Rick (1985) and redirected the article, but are you planning on merging the content in? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Tavantius (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Good, just making sure. Some people close merge discussions and redirect articles without actually merging the content in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Finished merging it. Tavantius (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice, just make sure you remove the Rick links from the season article. Thanks for merging that in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Lewis family of Van, Glamorganshire

Hi,

Can you be more specific about why this article was denied, it is fully referenced so there isn't much else that can be done to fix it, you would have to help edit it rather than just simply denying it. As you haven't provided any valid reason for denying the page I have re-submitted and shall continue to do so until you have either fixed what ever your grievance is or accept the page. After checking the guide there is nothing on this page that includes "material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations" If there please point it out.

Demosthenes1999 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The second and third paragraphs in the "Heraldy" section alongside three of the people in the "notable family members" section aren't supported by a citation. That was why I declined it, so I'm not sure why you claimed it was fully referenced. Tavantius (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Have removed the family members but the heraldry para is referenced. I can't delete the House of Wyndham Lewis picture though if there is any chance you can help me with that it would be great. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The two paragraphs in the heraldry section are referenced below as are all the notable family members. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

We could just delete the family members for now though to make it simple. The reference for the heraldry paras is definitely there unless you didn't read it. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As I stated previously, only the first paragraph has a citation next to it. Meanwhile, the other two don't have a citation there. Tavantius (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That's because all three para come from the same source, do I put the citation at the bottom of the three paras instead of at the top? Demosthenes1999 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You should add them after each paragraph. Tavantius (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok done and removed notable people for the time being until fully cited thanks for your help! Demosthenes1999 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

draft : WePlanet

I am really at a loss, confused and puzzled by the comments received when declining my submisssion of this draft could you point for me the precise sentences which you consider as non-neutral, or even worse, "peacock"- like ( itself a highly non-neutral term....) in this version of the draft. I had already rewritten this from a previous version following previous similar comments from another editor, and you make me feel very very distressed, because I feel as if have worked in vain... I am not writing about myself and have no financial interest whatsoever in what I write about for wikipedia . Organizations like Weplanet are the target of frequent defamatory campaigns on the part of conspiracy-minded people and I have tried to provide a balanced viewpoint which is not easy because the mainstream organizations are much more powerful and vocal than WePlanet, and their views are more widespread I have provided many references from secondary sources like the guardian, which cannot be considered as biased (some people would say they are usually biased in the opposite direction...). I did also provide citations of a few contrarian views, but I could find only those among sources which are not really secondary sources, but mouthpieces for contrarian orgnaizations (like GMwatch, a very biased source if any...) 103.43.169.75 (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Tavantius, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)