User talk:Aervanath/Archive 8

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 07:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article

I'm not sure exactly how to make this happen, but I was wondering how I could get a copy of a page I created: "Green Earth Players." It was deleted (a little prematurely if you ask me, but rules are rules) on February 24. Thank you very much for your assistance. kb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbitterman (talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article can now be found at User:Kbitterman/Green Earth Players, where you can work on it at your leisure. Once you've got in a somewhat final form, you can move it back to article space. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the close of the Maliseet move request

Thanks for your close of this move request. I originally nominated as it was a possible means of resolving a dispute, I though the move arguement had some merit and even if consensus was against a move at least we then we'd had a consensus to redirect Wolastoqiyik to Maliseet. All in all an acceptable outcome which I hope is accepted by other editors. Dpmuk (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've also gone through the article and removed the circular redirects that resulted from the merge, and reworded it to make clear the reason for the 2 different names. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

LC classification

I happened to see a link to your discussion with User:Eclecticology, now in your archive 3, most easily findable as [1] referring to [2]. I always meant to follow this up, but that was back in the days when I thought I would have time to work on actually writing library-related Wikipedia articles, instead of what I've ended up doing , working to rescue the lowest stratum-- if you want to renew the discussion, let me know. DGG (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the best way to deal with it now would be to merge all the subclasses up to the the first-level classes, like I did with class Q. I agree with your last comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible, that the ideal end result for these articles would be that each one would have a lead describing the logic behind the classification scheme. I'm willing to help out with the merger, but I have no knwoledge in library science, nor (unfortunately) much interest in it, so it'd have to be up to someone else to write those lead sections. However, I do think they should be kept, even without the leads. Looking through them, I'm surprised at the number of redlinks they have, some of them to fairly significant areas. Gives you a perspective on just how far we still have to go. Lucky for us there's no deadline, eh?--Aervanath (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Teitur Thordarson

Hello Aervanath. You have just closed the move request at this talk page. With two "support" and two "oppose" (and one half-oppose to the new title), rationales provided, could you please explain how come you closed this as "move"? Thank you. Húsönd 09:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. As the "half-oppose" commenter, it seems that there is no consensus to have made the move. Please explain your decision.--Atemperman (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which states, in relevanat part:

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English.

As the former name was not in the Latin alphabet, transliteration in the title is clearly required by the guideline. Consensus is not a straight vote, but must be interpreted with regard to standing policies and guidelines.--Aervanath (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The former name was NOT in the Latin alphabet?!? In what alphabet was it then, if you would kindly explain? And what guideline are you evoking to justify your decision? If you do not provide concrete explanations, I will have to request a review of your closure by other admins. Thank you. Húsönd 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The "thorn" letter is most definitely not part of the standard Latin alphabet, nor is it "generally intelligible to literate speakers of English". As I stated above, I am using Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) as the relevant guideline in this case. If you would like to request a review of my decision by other admins, that is perfectly acceptable to me. If you post a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, other admins active in this area will see it, or you can post at the admin noticeboard to get input from a wider cross-section of admins.--Aervanath (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "standard" Latin alphabet, we got plenty of articles on Wikipedia that use thorn. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) does not regulate on this matter. I will most definitely request a review of your decision at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. This is not for WP:ANI, as I don't think there's an incident here. Regards, Húsönd 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Aervanath (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether thorn and eth are part of the Latin alphabet, or the English alphabet, or are generally recognizable to English speakers, the o-acute is a modified o, which is part of the Latin alphabet generally and the English alphabet in particular, and is recognizable as a modified o rather than as a funny Druidic or Viking thingy. No one involved in the move and the debate over it has offered an reason, let alone a convincing one, for the o-acute to be changed to an unmodified o.--Atemperman (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any English sources which use the o-acute with the English spelling? None of the sources cited in the discussion used it.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Old page move

Back in December, you moved Non sequitur, but the talk page redirects to the disambig page. I'm not sure which talk page goes where, as the move discussion was hard to locate. Can you take a look at this this? Thanks. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It looks like the talk page didn't move with the article, for some reason. I believe I've gotten them aligned correctly now.--Aervanath (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I²

Thank you for restoring I², I added external sources but I don't see how I can alter this page, because I can't imagine how this is blagant advertising.. Any input would be welcome, thank you. .IT (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded some of it so that it focuses more on the technology itself than the company. You could also try to expand the article with some of the information from the sources you provided. I would say that you could probably re-upload the pictures (under free licenses) and then move the article back into mainspace. However, I would recommend the article title Intelligent interweaving instead of the current one: this takes the focus away from "I²" the brand name and more onto the technology itself. Hope this helps, --Aervanath (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Elephant Strategy+Design

Hi Aervanath,

I had created a page .... Elephant Strategy + Design that was deleted. I have read the guidelines. I have not voilated any policy. Whay has the page been deleted?

Tpecca (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tpecca. The page was deleted because it was promoting the company, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. If you would like, I can undelete the article and move it a page in your userspace so that you can re-write it from a neutral point of view.--Aervanath (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Portland Pilots

Dear Aervanath,

Why was the original Portland Pilots article, which pointed to a former baseball team (I think), deleted? Maybe I am not remembering it correctly, but I think I created a stub on a baseball team at Portland Pilots. Shouldn't a disambiguation page have been created instead of deleting the content?--TM 14:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi TM, the article was not actually deleted, but was moved to Portland Pilots (baseball team), and I forgot to add a link to it from Portland Pilots so that people could find it. I have now added a hatnote at the top to disambiguate. Sorry about the oversight.--Aervanath (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New page

Hi,

I want to put up an entry page for our company (but you deleted my first attempt). How can I do this? We are trying to protect ourselves from recent cyber squatting problems we have had where people create pages unrelated to us, but block our use of the name on those sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GenoNakamichi (talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the article was deleted because it was a) copied directly from the Genovation website (see WP:COPYVIO) and b) because it was overly promotional. I recommend that you post at WP:Requested articles, so that someone who is not involved with the company can write an article. If you'd like to write the article yourself, please read Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nakamichi" is the admin for Genovation's user forum. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Gillhiscott

Earlier today you blocked this editor for her username, then unblocked to give her time to get used to Wikipedia. Since then, however, she's taken to harrasing everyone who voted delete of her article in the AfD, continuing to complain at the closed AfD's talk page (including attacks against specific editors), and spamming herself in multiple articles. I don't think she has any intention or interest in learning the ways of Wikipedia, from her removal of one explanation from her talkpage[3]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Her last contribution seems somewhat promising. Let's keep an eye on her. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but if she does continue to spam Wikipedia articles, I can re-block her. I also went through and removed some of the promotional material she inserted.--Aervanath (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

So, thanks for the deletion of the page. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The New Mikemoral ♪♫ has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Well, you're welcome! :)--Aervanath (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Club Mahindra Holidays

Hi

Apologies for the "spam"; I'm writing to you and other editors because you have edited the Club Mahindra Holidays article recently.

Concern has been expressed that the article is too promotional and is about a non-notable subject. I do not necessarily agree with this, however I am concerned that unless these issues are addressed then the article may be deleted. I am therefore asking for your help in improving the article, and wish to make the following suggestions:

• The article should avoid being a promotional vehicle for Club Mahindra: the article should adhere to Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view.
• The article should avoid being an attack on Club Mahindra: while some criticism is to be expected the article should not be an attack page.
• Positive and negative comments about Club Mahindra should be referenced by reliable sources such as major newspapers and business magazines.
• Controversial claims - either for or against Club Mahindra - should be discussed on the article's talk page.

Once again, apologies for disturbing you with this matter but I hope I can look forward to working with you on improving this article!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to tell you I'm not actually that interested in the article, I only came across it because I declined the speedy deletion of it. I wish you good luck on improving the article!--Aervanath (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM

Hi, I've asked for this change to be reverted at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Change_the_MOSNUM_section_regarding_this. Sorry for that, but as far as I can see there's no consensus using the proposed new syntax (as in {{birth-date and age}}) used in the set of templates like {{birth date and age}}. Nsaa (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is an area where I have no expertise, and frankly not much interest, either. I stopped being active at MOSNUM a long time ago. I hope you all reach consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You made the change on the 12th March, so clearly you are active. The request for that change was based on a non-existent consensus. Please see current discussion (here) and revert. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize at first that the edit was one that I had made. I'll take another look at the situation.--Aervanath (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the change done here. Nsaa (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Need Your Help to Review UNI/O Bus Ariticle

Dear Aervanath,

I am User20090319. There is an article which is speedy deleted. Could you kindly review the article I post today and compare with I2C, SPI etc? UNI/O Bus is one new member for serial bus. It is valued for engineering and it will bring benefit to Wikipedia readers.

Could you take a look at it again? The UNI/O Bus has been created close one year. You can search much information in searching engine such as Google etc. I believe the UNI/O Bus article will contribute to Wikipedia. Please advise if it can be posted in Wikipedia.

thanks for your consideration.

best regards,

--Username20090319 (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)User20090319

Mar 27, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Username20090319 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to have an article about it, you should try to build it on your own userpage, for example, at User:Username20090319/UNI/O Bus. Once you have finished, I will be happy to review it for you to help turn it into an acceptable article. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I tried to post it in my username page. But it was deleted immediately again for some rules I don't know well.Then, I got advice to post it in my username/sandbox. OK, I can put it in username/sandbox. But I don't know if you can kindly help to review it if I put into username/sandbox. thanks...

--Username20090319 (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting it on your userpage directly should also be ok. Some people seem to think that it shouldn't be on your main userpage, but there's no consensus for that. Wherever you do put it, I will be happy to review it with you. Let me know when it's ready.--Aervanath (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Addition to DRV process

Hi, you've been active as an administrator in the DRV process in the past so I would appreciate your comments on my suggested change to DRV requirements. Thanks! Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the move over at Shirley,_Southampton.
Cookies are delicious.

VJ (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

You're welcome! Mmm, yummy. :)--Aervanath (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14

I was the original person who nominated this for deletion, and was never even notified of this. Surely that cannot be in line with the DRV procedure? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV procedure says nothing on the subject. There is a strong recommendation that the deleting admin be notified, but there is nothing (and never has been, as far as I know) about notifying the original Afd nominator. If you'd like to change the procedure, yYou could bring it up at WT:DRV, but it's not a part of the procedure now. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_23

#Survivors_of_aviation_accidents_.E2.86.92_Flight_.23.23.23.23

Given that the others didn't have time discuss my comment, can you re-open this discussion and hold the deletion ? -- User:Docu

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- User:Docu

You're welcome, although it would be easier if your signature included the standard timestamp so it would be clear when you made your comment. I didn't realize that it was a recent comment until I looked at the history.--Aervanath (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Disney_XD#Merged_Toon_Disney_into_this_article

Since you are an administrator, I wanted to ask if you could close out the following discussion Talk:Disney_XD#Merged_Toon_Disney_into_this_article. Thank You. --Gman124 ^talk 23:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Newcastle Central railway station

Talk:Newcastle Central railway station

Why did you move this, when there's so clearly no consensus to support it? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you moved this as a batch of three. Did you even read the article's talk page first? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my butting in, Aervanath, but I thought I'd point out User:Aervanath/Newcastle_railway_station, which should shed some light on your reasoning to Andy. Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the old "GHits are all that matters" reasoning. Thanks for pointing it out. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good snooping, Parsecboy. :) And no, it's not "Ghits are all that matters". However, they are useful as a rough measure. After reading the discussion, I was pretty much convinced that there was a good consensus for the move. The arguments against the move were reasonable, but not convincing. However, I did want to do some checking myself. The Ghits listed on the subpage reassured me that I was making the right decision; they were not what pushed me to that decision in the first place.--Aervanath (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

They're a very rough measure. GHits measure usage, not definition. They're also skewed in favour of recent uses, and in favour of "shorthand" uses. As mentioned on talk:, there _is_ a current fashion to simplify the station signage and this probably makes travelling easier for tourists. However those are good things for managing public use, bad things for historical records in an encyclopedia. "A good consensus" also usually includes more than one person. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, the Ghits were not what made my decision for me. I agree that the Google test has its weaknesses, but that's not what made my decision for me, it was just a way of reinforcing my own conclusion from reading the discussion, in which 7 editors participated. Four !voted for the move, and and 3 !voted against it. All arguments being equal, I would not usually move an article with a 4-3 majority, but the arguments were not equal. The Google hits just reinforced the pro-move editors' point that "Newcastle railway station" was probably the best name for the article.--Aervanath (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

HI

HIFireFoxUser2343 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Future film

Hello, Aervanath. First of all, I've got to things to say.

1. Good luck, and congr....... for being choosen as an administrator.
2. A question ? If there's a future film, example Spider-Man 4. The release date is still far one or two years. And when we search for it in wikipedia, it redirects to the series's section called Future. So, when can we change the redirect for the future ?

- World Cinema Writer (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, for the answer to your question, see Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films, which discusses that. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Percy Pringle/Paul Bearer

I'm not sure if you followed the discussion, but it was pretty clear that Percy Pringle and Paul Bearer are equally well-suited to be considered the most common name. Because the discussion stalled at that point ("I'm right" - "No, I'm right" - "No, I'm right"), a compromise solution was put forward to go with the real name. As such, the arguments for keeping it at its previous location were struck. Had anyone been aware that someone from outside the project would come in and impose a decision, it's fairly safe to say that people who initially opposed any move would have also clung to the "No, I'm right" argument. I'm disappointed that you moved the article when there was clearly no consensus to do so, and I urge you to move it back, as no consensus should default to no move. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to be pretty clear from the discussion that Percy Pringle was not as well known as Paul Bearer, and that he was not known at all by his real name. As such, our naming conventions are pretty clear that he should be at the name he is most known as.--Aervanath (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to wikilink well-known policies. I am confused, however, as to how you came to that conclusion from the discussion. The closest that any of the people who supported the move to "Paul Bearer" came to formulating an actual argument was by saying that anyone who disagreed with them must be illiterate. On the flip side, it was pointed out that he used the name "Percy Pringle" in major promotions for longer than he used the "Paul Bearer" name, that he has published a book under the "Percy Pringle" name, that he can never use the "Paul Bearer" name again due to copyright (and thus any further notability will be gained under the "Percy Pringle" name, as this is how he refers to himself and the domain name of his website, percypringle.com). If, as you said, the strength of the argument is what matters in the end (a statement that is supported, of course, by policy), then it seems that the move should not have been made. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with my decision, and if you would like to get others to review it, I invite you to ask the opinions of the other requested move admins at WT:Requested moves.--Aervanath (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Korean Air Flight 801

How come you deleted this article? -- Prince Kassad (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It was an accident. I was deleting some redirects to it and deleted the actual article by mistake. My apologies. It has now been restored.--Aervanath (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_18#Category:National_Hockey_League_players_with_retired_numbers

Please clarify/explain how you weighed the arguments in the closure. - jc37 08:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It came down to: "Is this a defining characteristic or not?" A clear majority of participants felt that it was.--Aervanath (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cannon Beach City Center, Oregon

You deleted this, but it's currently linked from U.S. Route 101 in Oregon, and will remain linked per WP:R2D. --NE2 13:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, here. What does that have to do with me? There is nothing wrong with having that link. See WP:REDLINK.--Aervanath (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is, however, a minor topic that is best covered in the Cannon Beach article, so a redirect makes sense. The "delete" arguments were flawed because they assumed that the redirect should be bypassed. In fact, both stated that there are no incoming links, which is not true. --NE2 17:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No incoming links isn't a valid reason to delete a redirect, so I ignored it in my decision. The "implausible search term" rationale was what made my decision for me. I have reviewed the decision again, and still feel I made the correct decision. If you would like to appeal it, you can open a Deletion review.--Aervanath (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how it's done--a piped link or a redirect to Cannon Beach, Oregon or an new article that says "The city center of Cannon Beach, Oregon is...etc.", but it seems like a good idea to turn the redlink into a bluelink as it's clear that the highway exit in question leads to downtown Cannon Beach, Oregon. I hope a compromise can be found. I think the easiest solution is to pipe the link while you work out what to do about the redirect. I'd encourage you to do a deletion review. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is already at DRV. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_4, second discussion from the top.--Aervanath (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A1 deletion

Hiya Aervanath, I don't think you meant to delete A1 itself! --JaGa^talk 07:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (oh and you missed A1 (artist), sorry to be picky)

Oops, now restored! I need to be more careful when deleting batches, that's the second time I've done that this week.--Aervanath (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And A1 (artist) now deleted.--Aervanath (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected user talk pages

I see you attempted to add this bit to the protection policy back in November. You may be interested in contributing to a discussion regarding this at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages: should policy require an unprotected subpage?. –xeno (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've commented over there.--Aervanath (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for the userfycation. If copied what I might find useful, and tagged the pages db-u1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, that's exactly what I'd expected. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hello. You recently closed a discussion on a number of requested moves here [4] and said that, because there was no consensus, the pages in question should be moved back to their original stable locations (as I requested). Since I am not sure whether you expected that I would move these pages myself, I wanted to check if you were aware that an administrator will need to effect the moves (the redirects have a page history because of User:BOTijo which adds categories to redirects). James500 (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that it needed administrator action. I will move them back.--Aervanath (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Otheruse / Otheruses

I'm considering recreating these as redirects to Word-sense disambiguation. My thoughts are that a DRV would not be necessary since the RFD was for cross-namespace redirection and this is a redirection to the same namespace (so G4 doesn't apply). Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that you do not need a DRV, nor would it be eligible for deletion as G4. However, as an editor I would have to question the plausibility of the redirect. Are readers actually going to type in "otheruse" or "otheruses" and expect to get to "word-sense disambiguation"? I would suggest leaving them empty unless a more suitable target can be found. If you do decide to recreate them, I will probably nominate them for deletion at RfD to see what other editors think. You might also invite the other participants in the RfD over to this thread to get their opinions on the matter, and obviate the need for an RfD.--Aervanath (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Essay

I do recall that particular essay. To me, it didn't seem particularly relevant anymore, and I was cleaning up my subpages and decided to delete, but if you like it, you're more than welcome to place it in either a project space or under your userspace, if you like. All I'd ask is some mention of my original authorship. Feel free to add anything to it you'd like, as well. Cheers, DoomsDay 19:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Abdy, 1st Baronet

• I moved Sir Thomas Abdy, 1st Baronet back to Sir Thomas Abdy, 1st Baronet, of Albyns, because was also a Sir Thomas Abdy, 1st Baronet, of Felix Hall, whose page redirects to Abdy Baronets. Was the 1st Albyns baronet much more notable tham the 1st Felix Hall baronet? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the Felix Hall Baronet was a redirect to the Adby Baronets page, I just assumed the Albyns baronet would be considered more notable. Looking at the page now, there certainly seem to be more sources for the 1st Baronet of Albyns than for that of Felix Hall, so yes, I would say that the Albyns baronet was more notable, especially considering the fact that he has his own article.--Aervanath (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I had requested this move. A little while ago there were some discussions about the notability of baronets (see on one, two, three as well as various AFD's and talk pages) with the result to create and keep only articles about baronets notable by other features then the mere fact that they held once a baronetcy, and to redirect and merge the already existing articles about not notable baronets to the respective baronetcy (note that about 3500 baronetcies were created till now with averagely three or four incumbents). One of the articles to came under this was Sir Thomas Abdy, 1st Baronet, of Felix Hall, which was redirected and merged to Abdy Baronets. I therefore reckoned it sensible to move Sir Thomas Abdy, 1st Baronet, of Albyns to Sir Thomas Abdy, 1st Baronet as the only notable baronet with this name, and to dissolve the disambiguation page on Thomas Abdy for the same reason. Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. If Anthony's not convinced, then you can start a formal WP:RM request on the talk page of the article.--Aervanath (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Spiddal move request

Hi, I'm pretty sure you meant to write "not moved" instead of "moved"? :-) Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I have fixed my mistake. Thanks for the notice!--Aervanath (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM birth and death change

Regarding your change of language in MOSNUM regarding birth and death templates, your new language recommends the old template. I don't understand how this is a neutral change. I am sorry I could not respond earlier in the debate. I was on wikibreak. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I was referring to as "neutral" was the language that follows, regarding the documentation. I removed some drama-causing language about how the template was treating Julian/Gregorian dates. The reversion to the old template was because the new templates had not yet reached consensus. The documention for Template:birth-date and age currently says, "This is a proposal and should not be used before consensus has been reached. Use {{Birth date and age}} for the moment." When a true consensus develops to use the new templates, then the guideline should be changed again. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that MOSNUM should recommend the old template? -J JMesserly (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The old template was recommended by MOSNUM for quite a while, I believe. Therefore it would take a clear consensus to remove it.--Aervanath (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that I did not accurately understand that there would in fact be opposition to the MOSNUM change, but I was not attempting to submarine anticipated opposition. Note that none of the people participating took part in the earlier February discussion with the exception of Tony, who is in favor of the new templates. I posted at MOSNUM talk, I posted at the village pump. Note that the proposal I made was never protested at MOSNUM talk. Silence implies consent. So much time passed in fact that the message was archived. Consensus on moving to plain text date templates was established in the extensive discussions regarding free text dates at MOSNUM talk in february. All Birth date and death date templates are simple variants of the templates. (For example {{birth-date}} is identical to {{start-date}} with the exception of an emitted bday tag.) There was even a discussion of the Julian problem with the old templates in that thread in February, and everyone from both sides agreed about it. It is true that the documentation of Template:birth-date and age states that it should not be used, but note that this text was added by an individual of the opposing POV[5]. So how is it that 3 days for a proposed change to MOSNUM is sufficient to gauge consensus?

The change I requested to MOSNUM was fair. There is not consensus currently on how the passage should read, but I am very interested in working out what the common ground is between both sides. That process of course will be quite different if it is factually true that there was no consensus for my proposed change. If you believe the change to MOSNUM was not correct, please state why the February discussions and the absence of protest at MOSNUM talk did not constitute consensus. -J JMesserly (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that silence implies consensus, the very first sentence of that essay says that "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". (emphasis mine) Based on the discussion I saw at Wikipedia_talk:Mosnum#Undo_the_previous_change_to_the_MOSNUM_section_regarding_this, the change in templates certainly instigated some disagreement. Just because people are silent, it doesn't mean that they agree with the change, it might just mean they didn't know about it. You may have posted in a lot of places, but simply because they missed the initial conversation doesn't mean they've lost their chance to have it reverted. If there's no consensus for a change, then it should be reverted, even if the lack of consensus only became apparent after the change was made. If you feel that the new templates would be better, then go convince the other editors who are active at MOSNUM. I feel that it is out of my hands.--Aervanath (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) That's a reasonable position given the particular circumstances, but are you not responsible for the determination of "no consensus" after the fact? Let us assume that there was a spirited and long duration discussion similar to the one in February and it explicitly discussed the change to the MOSNUM passage mentioning {{birth date and age}}. Let's assume that this discussion completed on February 21 and you made the change to the protected MOSNUM page based on that apparent consensus. Now, on March 21, folks from an opposing POV become aware of the implications of the MOSNUM change and have well reasoned arguments that evenly divide the community. Is your response to them at that point "it is out of my hands"? If not, then what if the discussion concluded on January 21? Is there no time at which the objection of being unaware expires? How about if 100 days had passed? What about 6 months? I ask because there can frequently be vocal individuals that could make this sort of objection. I am a relative neophyte to the process of working through these sorts of proposals on wikipedia, so I am trying to get a feeling for what time commitment is implied by your proposal. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I am responsible for the determination of "no consensus" in this specific case. Unfortunately, in the general case, I can not give you a broad ruling on what sort of time that these sorts of things are limited by. There is no "statute of limitations" in the Wikipedia community. I would be willing to say that anything over six months would be well on its way to being accepted as consensus, and thus requiring a new consensus to revert or alter. However, I can't promise that there won't be situations where a change older than six months got reverted as having no consensus. There is no community-wide consensus on exactly how these things are supposed to work. I have participated in several debates where this issue came up, but WP:Ignore all rules pretty much guarantees that we take things on a case-by-case basis. This can sometimes generate feelings of unfairness; I can certainly identify with you in that. It can be frustrating when an issue which you thought settled is re-opened again, especially when the resulting change is contrary to what you wanted.

I hope the above doesn't sound too much like "it's this way because I say it is". That's not the impression I want you to take away from this. Wiki is fluid, and things are constantly changing. We've always taken things case by case. There are no binding precedents here. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are still not satisfied with my answer, I recommend that you post to the Administrators' Noticeboard, where other admins' will see and can give you extra opinions on what I have said and done. I think that I have acted correctly in this case, but I am always willing to admit that I am wrong, and I respect my fellow admins enough to accept their judgment if they feel I acted in error. If you do post there, please let me know with a link to the thread. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You misread my interest. Nothing of the kind will be necessary. You have a reasonable position as I stated and there were mitigating circumstances. I actually do not have a very typical attachment to the minutiae of this particular topic. This is a case study for examining the applicability of a consensus based collaborative system in community organization/ political work. WP process has some fundamental weaknesses that make it impractical for such applications. For example in this case, 6 months is an enormous time commitment for something that is actually only a minor step in a long change of innovations to discuss. One last question- when this change went in, one of the objections was that people could make massive changes from the old template to the new template based on the MOSNUM guidance. This was not my intention at all, and I said as much, feeling that the text should be modified to exclude this outcome if this was indeed true. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Is it so that the MOSNUM guidance now means there is carte blanche to eradicate usage of the new templates? -J JMesserly (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, 6 months is a long time, but I only used it as an example of an upper limit to a possible statute of limitations for these things. In almost all cases the time limit would be lower than that, but as a community we are unwilling to put a strict rule down, to avoid wikilawyering, e.g. "The change has already been there for a month and a day, and the rules say you needed to object within a month, so now you have to have a positive consensus to change it back." I am sure you can see where that road leads. :)

As for performing massive conversions from one template to another, that is also not desirable, especially if there is not a huge difference between the templates, and both display what they're supposed to display in a manner which follows MOSNUM's other instructions. Perhaps the guideline should simply mention both templates as options. Or, in the alternative, the templates can be merged, so that one template is a simple redirect to the other, so it doesn't matter which template name is actually used in the guideline. This would require that the resultant template be coded in such a way that the transfer was seamless: the new template would have to accept parameters in the old template's style. I don't know how feasible that would be in this case. I think, however, that a template merger of that sort, and/or changes to the template in question, would be better discussed on the talk page for those templates. Yours,--Aervanath (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is not desirable. As an administrator knowledgeable about MOSNUM disputes, I was asking you whether the current MOSNUM guidance sufficient to justify conversion of articles using the new templates so that they instead use the old template? It seems to me that in an ANI dispute, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. True? Side note: the dispute on MOSNUM mostly had to do with syntax. A hypothetical merged template would not be acceptable to the opposing POV because it allowed the plain text syntax. EG: the translation objection, Nsaa's "Pandora's box" objection. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No, it should not be used to justify wholesale conversion in either direction. It seems like the best thing to do in this sort of case, where it seems like neither set of templates currently has consensus, would be to remove them completely from the guideline.--Aervanath (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) As far as I know, there is no such wholesale conversion going on, so I don't see any necessity for removing the current passage. It's a Solomon's baby situation. So I would rather like to build on what we have so far, and incrementally move towards a mutually agreeable solution for all parties. I could be wrong, but there may be some new perspectives after the arbcom thing on autoformatting/ date linking is resolved. Thank you for your generous patience with my questions. -J JMesserly (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I wish you luck in building consensus on MOSNUM for your changes. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Regretably, we have been unable to achieve consensus at MOSNUM regarding the plain text date template issue despite concerted efforts. Representatives of the opposing POV no longer wish to discuss the subject, so since neither passage has consensus and we have been unable to achieve common ground on a new passage your proposal to strike the passage is regrettably the only option that reflects the community's collective opinion on the MOSNUM guidance for birth and death date and age templates. I have placed an editprotect request on the talk page. If there is some alternate process you would recommend, I would be happy to pursue an course that avoids this outcome that I feel is a step backward for MOSNUM. -J JMesserly (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could, but I don't really have any other ideas. Sorry I haven't been more help to you.--Aervanath (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It suggests an interesting process question for a consensus system's responsiveness to innovation. Let's consider how well it responds to revolutionary innovations, painting a picture of starker contrasts than my situation. A few years ago, say consensus is established for endorsing a particular template on a MOS page. The template does useful stuff but also has some serious limitations. Then some contributor comes up with a better mousetrap that blows away the limitations of the earlier template. For people who care to voice a preference, most people like the new template, but many others do prefer the old template. It's not just one or two, but several people. These opponents successfully block any change to the MOS guidance, and also block any change to the templates. Further, they convert any use of the new template to the old template, pointing to the guideline document as authority for conversion. What is the release valve? No need for an answer, it is a theoretical question.

Anyway, regarding my situation, you stated that "It seems like the best thing to do in this sort of case, where it seems like neither set of templates currently has consensus, would be to remove them completely from the guideline." That opinion hasn't changed, right? What if I challenged your revert to the old template at Administrators' Noticeboard, with the argument that it unfairly advantaged one POV for a template choice question that never had consensus. I would give your solution, that the correct edit would have been that the entire passage should be struck since the consensus for supporting numeric dates never anticipated the plain text option, nor was there ever consensus for the notion that plain text dates be effectively banned from use with any date and age templates. -J JMesserly (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with your bringing it to WP:AN for more discussion.

While I realize that the first paragraph is theoretical, I will answer it anyway: the problem there is not the guideline per se, but the behavior of the editors involved, so mediation and then possibly arbitration would have to be pursued to stop that.

Actually, I have just thought of another way to proceed here: RFC. A good way to get over the lack of local consensus is to start an RFC or straw poll and advertise it in other locations (see Wikipedia:Advertising_discussions) to get much wider participation. This brings in more opinions than just the comparatively few editors who have the page watchlisted.--Aervanath (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the RFC idea. Seems much less contentious, and much more inclusive. I'll study up on that. Thanks again. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. :)--Aervanath (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)