User talk:Aervanath/Archive 9

Re: File:John-Serry-Sr.gif Undeletion Request

Thank you for your note regarding the undeletion of this photograph. I shall attempt to edit it and include the name of the photographer. Kindly notify me if this does not work prior to attempting another deletion. Thank you again for your kind assistance. --Pjs012915 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Hi, I probably won't be personally involved with the case; my interest was solely in determining the correct outcome of the Deletion Review. You should continue discussion with User:Nv8200p about the suitability of the image. If you are unable to reach an agreement with User:Nv8200p, you may file another request at WP:DRV to challenge his deletion. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Black Nova Scotians

I'm confused by the no consensus close of this CFD. The arguments in favor of the category were "it was considered before and kept", "there's a parent article" and "it's interesting" along with a per another editor !vote. The arguments against it are that it is a recreation of a previously deleted category, that it is overcategorization on the basis of race/ethnicity, that it's vague since Canadians of any race or color are free to move from one province to another. The arguments in favor of the category do not appear to be based in an understanding of WP:CAT and WP:OCAT and arguments like it's interesting are extremely weak. No one was persuaded to change their opinion on the basis of the keep arguments whereas someone who was fairly staunch in his support of the category was persuaded to switch sides during the discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What it came down to was the argument over whether Black Nova Scotians was a defining characteristic or not. At the time, it seemed to me that the implied subtext of the "keep" votes was that Black Nova Scotians were sufficiently different, and had a unique enough history, that the issue was essentially up in the air between editors who thought that this was interesting enough to make it a defining characteristic, and editors who did not. I note that Alansohn explicitly stated that he thought it was a defining characteristic, which is essentially the basic principle of OVERCAT. If you still feel that I made a mistake, you may appeal my decision to WP:DRV (please notify me if you do), or file another CFD. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do believe your close was in error, especially if you relied in large measure on Alansohn's comments as he is an extreme inclusionist. However, the likelihood that you'll be overturned at DRV is nil. Thanks for the additional information. Otto4711 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because he's an extreme inclusionist doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. I encourage you to bring the category back to Cfd at a later date in the hope of gaining a consensus one way or the other.--Aervanath (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

File:WormsArmageddon1.PNG

Hi, why did you decide to delete File:WormsArmageddon1.PNG out of process? The FFD discussion on File:Worms World Party screenshot.png barely touched this file. I don't think it should be deleted, much less out-of-process, for the reasons ZeroOne and I mentioned in the discussion (it demonstrates the terrain generation engine used in all three games of that generation, which the small existing screenshot can't do in the same manner). I also noticed some other game articles (e.g. Half-Life 2) have more screenshots demonstrating technological/game engine aspects, so why not? --Vladimir (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seconding what Vladimir just said. I think we agreed or were about to agree to delete just one file and to keep two files. File:WormsArmageddon1.PNG wasn't supposed to be removed. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The direction of the discussion seemed to be that only one out of the three was needed, but since it was out of process, I'll restore the file.--Aervanath (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Burnaby categories

Note for my talk page stalkers: The following post was in response to this warning.--Aervanath (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologized and too eagered for the categories for discussion, and I know I didn't made vandalized edits, I sometimes feel a little upset when the user opposed to rename the categories and I didn't make mean comments to any of the users but I was talking to fellow Canadian Wikipedians softly and calmly. So, once again I apologized and it won't happen again. Steam5 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that you were "mean", and no one is disputing that you spoke softly and calmly. The problem lies in that you specifically chose to solicit "fellow Canadian Wikipedians" to the discussion that you knew would support your point of view, and I hope you see that the act of solicitation was the problem, and the fact that your notices were not neutrally-worded. Nobody is accusing you of being uncivil.--Aervanath (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Burnaby

Would you please clarify you closure? Please also explain how you weighed the arguments. And was the canvassing a factor in your closure? - jc37 08:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Basically, I had to consider how the naming conventions apply to categories. According to WP:CATEGORY, "Categories follow the same general naming conventions as articles". Similarly, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) says "Standard article naming conventions also apply". The applicable naming convention in this case is WP:CANSTYLE, which states that "Dedicated city categories should always be named with the same title format as the city's main article". The editors opposing the move seemed to be focusing on the need to disambiguate with other towns of the same name, saying that WP:PRIMARYUSAGE didn't apply to categories. While this is true, this isn't just a case of one Burnaby cat having primary usage over another; this is a case of there being no other Burnaby cats at all, so I didn't see much merit in this argument, nor did I see any other arguments of merit in the opposition.

As for the canvassing that did occur, I don't think it affected the outcome of the discussion, as only two of the participating editors joined the discussion as the result of the canvassing, and I didn't really take numbers into account anyway.--Aervanath (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Arguments aside for a moment, every single person who supported was canvassed. See this. - jc37 16:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I had looked at his contributions, but apparently not thoroughly enough. However, just because they were canvassed doesn't mean their arguments weren't valid. The behavioral issue is a bigger concern, though. I will post a warning at Steam5's talk page, as this can't continue in the future.--Aervanath (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the nominator didn't seem to understand about the canvassing, even though several others tried to explain. And while I said at the time that I wasn't that concerned because I at least wanted to hear what they had to say, the fact that they were everyone in "support", concerns me.

At this point, I think I'd like to see this re-nominated so that we can attempt to actually find a consensus sans canvassing (though I'm not certain if that's possible in this case).

Is this something you feel you would oppose? - jc37 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would recommend that we take this to WP:Deletion review first, because this is exactly the kind of thing that it is for; I would like the input of other admins and editors experienced in deletion discussions on this, so I know how we, as a community, respond to a situation like this. Your opinion in this matter seems to be that canvassing should generally make the resulting discussion null-and-void, whereas I think it depends on the situation: since the canvassed editors here provided cogent and valid arguments, I am inclined to let the decision stand, as deletion decisions are supposed to be decided on the basis of the arguments, not number of votes, and I thought the arguments on the other side was stronger. However, I can see the potential for the community to disagree with me on this matter. If the DRV results in an overturn of my close, I will accept that. If that discussion results in no consensus to overturn my close, then we should relist it at CFD in a new discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: if you do open a DRV, please let me know. Thx.--Aervanath (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.

In most cases, I prefer to discuss with the closer than to just open a DRV (for several obvious reasons).

But if we need to head that way, that's fine. I'll probably post it in the next day or so. I'll leave you a notice when I do.

To clarify about canvassing: The whole concept of how a discussion of Wikipedians (fewer than the total sum of editors on the wiki) is that it's roughly representative of all who may care/have interest/have a clueful opinion. Canvassing (regardless of the arguments brought) typically skews that representation. And so the representative consensus is pretty much nullified, and determination needs to at least take that into account, if not just discounting the "quantity = strength" entirely.

So yes, having an entire "side" to be merely as a result of canvassing would indeed seem to nullify the result. - jc37 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

However, with such a small number of editors participating in the CFD, how can we be certain that the consensus in any discussion is actually a representative subset of the community? Or at least a representative subset of the people who care? In this case, there were essentially two groups of editors at odds here: those interested in categories in general, and those interested in Canadian topics. If the canvassing hadn't occurred, the Canadian side would not have been fairly represented; it is quite obvious from Steam5's posts that English is not his first language, and the editors he recruited were able to represent his point much better than he did. Does that then mean that the arguments in favor of the rename should be disregarded? Anyway, I appreciate you discussing it with me before taking it to DRV, however. this is actually a case where I would prefer a referral to DRV; this is the kind of thing that the wider community should have wider input on, as the implications go far wider than simply this CFD. With your permission, a DRV on this topic should at least be advertised at WT:CANVASS and WP:VPP, to get a more general spread of opinions on what the community thinks on canvassing and what sort of consequences result when canvassing occurs.--Aervanath (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My move of fistfight to Russian fist fighting

I BOLDly moved fistfight to Russian fist fighting, the title I would have recommended had I gotten to the move discussion earlier, since it seems there was widespread dissatisfaction with the original title. My rationale is available at Talk:Russian_fist_fighting#Move_to_Russian_fist_fighting. My move was made with no disrespect intended to your closing decision; feel free to revert if you object. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I closed the discussion as "no consensus", that doesn't imply disrespect to my decision at all, as far as I'm concerned. I didn't think "fistfight" was a great name either, but I just came along to interpret the consensus, and the discussion certainly didn't reach one. If your move gains consensus support, or at least stimulates a new discussion that leads to a consensus for a different title, then I will be happy.--Aervanath (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, glad we're on the same page. Baileypalblue (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Artificial_satellites_formerly_orbiting_Earth

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 4#Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth

It's closed, but rather than just post it on the manual working page, I though I would ask if you would do it, since you seem versed in what needs to go where. - jc37 02:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would just put in on the manual working page; I'm not actually that well-versed in the details. Perhaps contact some of the other editors who argued against the merger, who specifically cited the satellites involved, or post a message on a related WikiProject? I was basing my opinion on a general knowledge of satellites, not a satellite-by-satellite knowledge of which goes where. I would be willing to help out, but it would take me longer, since I'd have to go through and read each article in order to figure out which were still in orbit or not.--Aervanath (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
• Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
• News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
• Dispatches: Valued pictures
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Article

I'm a new contributer to Wikipedia and have had an article deleted. It was an article about a band and was deleted because "it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant." I believe I can add the needed info. Can you please send me the deleted article? Jonny Voodoo (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is now available to you at User:Jonny Voodoo/Irving Klaws for improvement. Once you've added the necessary information, feel free to move it back to its original location. You might also read WP:Notability and WP:Notability (bands) to make sure you've got what you need to make it delete-proof. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Collect

You unlocked Joe the Plumber's page, so it's weird nobody seems to have told you about the discussion regarding the page's most contentious editor. [1] SluggoOne (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, although the only reason that I unprotected it was that it had already been full-protected for over two months, and that's usually long enough for edit wars to die down. I wasn't really involved in the article. I'll take a look at the RfC and see what's going on, though.--Aervanath (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear program of North Korea

Apparently you changed the name of this article to "Nuclear Power in North Korea." That name is inappropriate, for the reasons cited on the discussion page. I'm surprised that you would make the move, when the weight of opinion on the discussion page was opposed. NPguy (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that you do not agree with the name change. However, the reasons given for opposing the move were that the article should instead be split off into two articles, and there was much disagreement about what that article would be called; however, since there is already North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_weapons, such a split is not needed. If you really think that there is no nuclear power in North Korea besides the weapons program, shouldn't the articles be merged, instead of moved? If they are not merged, then the move was appropriate. If they are, then the move was redundant; either way, I see no reason to reverse my close, and reviewing the discussion again, I have come to the same conclusion as before.--Aervanath (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you were the one who made the move against consensus, when you changed the name from Nuclear program of North Korea to Nuclear power in North Korea. I disagreed strongly with that change, and there was nothing resembling consensus in the discussion before you made the change. There has been no proposal to split the article - only to revert to the previous, more apt name. NPguy (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you say there was no proposal to split the article, then it is clear that you didn't actually read the move discussion, as the first half of the discussion consists of two editors discussing the merits of splitting the article. I did not make a unilateral move against consensus; I read the arguments for the move and the arguments against the move. If you disagree with my evaluation of the discussion, you may request other editors to review my analysis at WT:RM. If you feel that I am really "abusing my power", as you have stated at Talk:Nuclear_power_in_North_Korea, then you can get the opinion of other admins at WP:AN.--Aervanath (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First, you have to acknowledge that there was no consensus. There were at least two voices against the move. Second, there was no consensus to split the article. My position was opposed to that as well. Third, the article has not been split. To justify a name change on the basis of other changes that have not taken place seems disingenuous. I don't see how you can infer anything close to consensus from a discussion where, as far as I can tell, one person favored the move and two opposed. That's not even a significant sample. NPguy (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you think there was no consensus; I think there was. I don't think we're making any progress between the two of us, and I don't think any more discussion between us will do any good. As I have said before, I welcome other editors' input on the matter, and will reverse my decision if consensus by outside editors is that I incorrectly evaluated the discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at my latest on WT:RM. See if this helps you understand my perspective and (I hope) reconsider. NPguy (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

←Hi Aervanath. There is a discussion on Administrators' noticeboard regarding this issue. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Aervanath's Day!

Aervanath has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Aervanath's Day! For your excellent deletion work and your dedication to WP:O, enjoy being the star of the day, dear Aervanath! Signed, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

--Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 00:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Flattery...will get you everywhere! Thanks. :)--Aervanath (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

2 different cases treated differently

Deletion Log April 16 For very similar 2 cases List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" staying undeleted, but a stronger case for Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie gets to be merged into main article. So I really wonder how the system works here, the decision is against wiki guidelines, people just voting however they like, admins verdict as ignoring wiki guidelines, so what should I do next about this, because it is a clearly wrong verdict. Kasaalan (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, both cases were treated exactly the same. If you look at the way I closed them, you will notice that I closed them both with the same message: "endorsed". Consensus in both debates was that the original close was made reasonably. The point of WP:Deletion review is NOT to have another deletion debate; it is to review the action of the admin that read the original debate. In both of these cases, the consensus at WP:Deletion review was that the closer of the original Afd made no error. If you believe I have violated wiki guidelines, please show me the wiki guidelines I have violated.--Aervanath (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't violate the wiki guidelines at all. I am not even complaining about you. Where did you get the idea. 2 cases treated differently because in List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" case well I support keeping the page too, but it is can be called trivia one way or another, but it endorsed keeping. On the other hand Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie page is not a trivia at all, yet the verdict was merging it back. So a stronger case rejected, but a weaker case got approved. So same rules applied in favor of a weaker case, yet against a stronger case. Also the case not endorsed at all for various reasons. Firstly our main page editors taking a wiki break and they didn't even vote yet in the 2 votes. Second while at first deletion review, we got majority of the votes, the admin said afd is not about majority of votes, and get a verdict however he liked ignoring the guidelines. I proved my case is right according to the wiki guidelines, we have endorsement among main page editors, and we have space and content limitation for a main page therefore we created the sub article, but he kept ignoring my proof. It should be about whether admin misjudged the wiki guidelines or not, the voters didn't even read the main article, sub article or the related wiki guidelines before voting. Therefore it shouldn't be about number of votes, but about their proof of what they claim. I need an admin fully review the case, this is not about vote counting. They claimed the article is POV fork and I already proved it isn't. Keep page voters already listed several sound reasons for keeping page, but endorse voters didn't. Saying something is right, doesn't make it right unless you prove it.

The closing admin's verdict is 100 percent wrong, and since he is ignoring my proof and comments by not replying accordingly I need a higher review somehow. All I want is a right verdict according to the guidelines. What should I do next for a righteous decision. I don't know all the rules in wikipedia, so this is why I ask. The closing admin told me I should take it to deletion review if I feel the verdict is wrong, so I took it, now what should I do next. I don't claim the closing admin has bad intention or anything, but he verdict a wrong decision, and I try to change the situation. Kasaalan (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately there's not much more you can do as far as directly restoring the article to its previous state. The Afd was endorsed by the DRV, so there's really nothing more you can do as far as overturning the Afd. However, I note that at the end of the Afd, there were three editors who suggested approaching it from a different angle: expanding the entire "Reactions" section of Rachel Corrie into something like Public Reaction to the Death of Rachel Corrie. I personally don't really like that title, but I think you can see what I mean. That would quiet the concerns of the other editors as to the unbalanced nature of the artistic tributes article. In fact, looking at your discussion with MBisanz, I can see that even he suggested that would be fine. This option has the advantage to the editors of Rachel Corrie of splitting a larger chunk out of the article, and including far more information in the sub-article(s) than would otherwise be the case, as well as more closely adhering to WP:NPOV, which was the main concern raised at the Afd. So I think that's your best route from here.--Aervanath (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Created the page, yet still there should be a higher admin court for these matters, 1 admin's decision should also be taken to appeal. If the admin rejudges his decision he won't change his mind anyway assuming he has good faith and same judgement. Kasaalan (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, DRV is the higher court. The people who take part in DRV discussions are mostly admins, and any "higher court" than DRV would probably be frequented by the same admins, so I doubt you would get any different outcome from that higher court. I appreciate that you feel that the outcome is incorrect, but that happens to all of us. For example, I personally feel that New York should be about New York City, not the state. See Talk:New York (state)/Archive 3 for a long discussion, in which I took a very active part, which I still feel came to an incorrect conclusion. However, in the end, I and my fellow proponents had to accept the lack of consensus behind our idea. At some point, it is no longer constructive to argue the point; it is better to seek other avenues that will lead to a version of the article that all sides can, at least, tolerate, if not actively endorse. I think you have come to such a point; you can either give up completely, or try to find a compromise position. Obviously, I advise you to find the compromise position; what you are trying to achieve here seems to be beneficial to the encyclopedia, it's just that other editors disagree with the details of implementation. If you can find the right way to achieve your goals while not stimulating objections from other editors, then everybody's happy. I wish you luck in your endeavors. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

First I have to talk to closing admin. Can you also please review the case again. User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FArtistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie Kasaalan (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: DRV log pages

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Rae White DrV

Hello, Could you please explain how you got userfy out of that discussion? Hobit (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, where was it userfied to? Hobit (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, originally I was going to close it as "no consensus", but Fritzpoll had suggested userfication towards the end of the DRV, so I decided to go with that as a compromise. If you only look at the numbers, it would seem that the consensus would be "overturn and keep". However, if you review the DRV again, you will see that you were the only editor arguing for an overturn who actually treated DRV like it's supposed to be treated: a place to analyze the Afd discussion and determine if the closing admin made the correct decision. The other editors were all treating it as another Afd. They weren't providing evidence that Fritzpoll made a bad close, they were providing reasons why the article should be kept. Deletion review is not a place to re-argue whether or not the article should be deleted or kept; it is a place to discuss the Afd closure's validity.

Given that lack of germane argumentation, I figured userfication was the only plausible outcome. I generally userfy articles after a DRV anyway, to allow editors to improve them to the point where they can be re-mainspaced. Since the main issue with the article seems to be that it lacks sources to prove notability, all editors need to do is provide those sources and then move it back to mainspace.

The article is now located at User:Emma white20/Sydney Rae White--Aervanath (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I seriously object to your actions here - If you read my last comments at the DRV, you'd have seen that I clearly stated why I though the actions taken by Fritzpoll were in violation of policy, and why I believed that their decision was wrong - And I also provided evidence in support of that fact from the Wikipedia guidelines. By userfying the article, I believe that you too have almost certainly violated policy concerning DRV - and definitely ignored the arguments I made concerning the actions of Fritzpoll!! Please return the article to its rightful place immediately... And FTR, I don't believe the discussion had been anywhere near closed, and your actions seem to indicate that people like Fritzpoll and yourself are more concerned with slavish devotion to arbitrary time limits than you are to actually reaching agreements about issues - And thatr's something which is making me seriously reconsider my continued participation as an editor or Wikipedia!

And who makes the decision about moving the article back - you, or people who actually care about the topic????????? JS3C (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone back and reviewed the arguments you made, and I agree that you did in fact state why you thought Fritzpoll was incorrect, and I apologize for my misstatement above. However, your arguments are still not sufficient to overturn Fritzpoll's closure. You argued that reliable sources exist for the article. This may be true; however, this only meets Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability. In order to meet our WP:Notability guideline, Sydney Rae White needs to have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and no evidence of such significant, independent coverage was provided. That being so, there was no way to overturn Fritzpoll's closure.  ::::If these sources exist, then please do add them to the userfied article. Once enough reliable, independent sources are added to the article to prove notability, then the article may be moved back to its former location by any editor. However, if the article is moved back to its former location before such sources are added, it will probably be deleted again. The best route for you and other interested editors to take is to find the independent sources with significant coverage that have been claimed to exist, add them to the article, and then put the article back to where it was.

As for your allegation that "people like Fritzpoll and yourself are more concerned with slavish devotion to arbitrary time limits than you are to actually reaching agreements about issues", I will note that Fritzpoll make his close until three days had passed since the last editor commented, and that I waited over a day before I made mine. Neither of us are in any rush to close discussions as fast as possible, and we are both looking to reach agreement on issues. However, even as administrators, it is not possible for us to reach agreements that ignore well-established guidelines.--Aervanath (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't take these things personally. Your continued participation in Wikipedia is still valued, and your efforts to improve the Sydney Rae White article will be greatly appreciated once it is adequately sourced.--Aervanath (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

happened to stop by: finding published reviews of the her roles in the performances will be much more valuable than any degree of argument. DGG (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

As I said here, if he really intended to create a new article, why, from a March 22nd decision, the fight over merging here and here and only then we have the rename? I say either force a merge or another AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if you're watching, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie. A second DRV seems nonsensical (since we'd be debating the deletion of an article that wasn't deleted) so I'll let people decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My21cents block

I noticed the reason for blocking My21cents (talk · contribs · block log) is for page abuse. Not only that. I noticed he/she uploaded unfree images. Do you read the talk page? There is many warnings about unfree images. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that My21cents received a lot of warnings for unfree images. Now that they're blocked, they won't be uploading any new ones, though. The unfree images should be caught by bots and deleted by image admins as time goes by, although if you want to go back through their contributions and check all the images, that's fine.--Aervanath (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of BYOND

I am the owner of BYOND (http://www.byond.com). Our wikipedia page was deleted by MBisanz, who is currently unreachable (Log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=BYOND). I'm contacting you because you were involved in the deletion/restoration review.

The reason given for deletion of the BYOND article was "lack of notability". While that may very well be true (hard to say, since we have many smaller references but nothing famous), I suspect that the real reason for deletion is that a Wiki user or mod has some grudge against our system (the nature of our community can have that effect).

I bring this up now because I recently added BYOND to the list of game engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Freeware_engines), where it is somewhat useless without a corresponding page. In perusing the other engines, I'm noticing that the majority of them also "lack notability" by Wikipedia's standards, nor are they nearly as extensive or widely used as BYOND. It really is ridiculous that we are not entitled to a page where we simply want to provide information about the system.

Is there anyway this can be restored? I don't even care if we use the original content-- it wasn't well written and I'd be glad to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic manner, if I can be assured it won't just be deleted again.

Thanks for the consideration, TomOfDantom (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the article was deleted because of concerns about notability. Please read Wikipedia:Notability first, so that you can get an idea of what Wikipedia editors are looking for when they evaluate an article for deletion. Please also read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYOND and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYOND (2nd nomination), and the policies and guidelines that are linked to from those discussions. If you think you can muster up enough significant coverage in reliable sources to show that BYOND justifies an article, then a good start would be to develop an article in your userspace, for example at User:TomOfDantom/BYOND, with all the sources you can find. If the sources in the new article satisfy Wikipedia:Notability, then you would certainly be able to add it to the encyclopedia. When you have put something together, let me know and I'll be happy to advise you on what does and what doesn't pass muster and why, to give the article the best chance of being kept. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_23#Intercept_theorem_1.jpg

Would you be so kind as to explain the rationale behind, "The result of the discussion was: Delete"? Other than the nomination, the other !votes were 2 keeps and a neutral. How does that equate to Delete? I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong or anything, but I simply don't understand the logic here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Same question for Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_23#Bullet_nose_curve.PNG. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

For the first one, the "keep" !votes were based on the requirement to keep an attribution history as required by the GFDL. However, the image was actually public domain, which releases us from that requirement. If that were not enough, the author of the image, who was the "neutral" !vote in the discussion, explicitly waived any attribution requirements during the discussion. This rendered the "keep" !votes moot.

For the second one, the "delete" !votes didn't address the requirement to preserve the GFDL that was advanced by the "keep" !voter, but no argument was made that the orphaned image needed to be retained on Wikipedia, so a move to Commons seemed the only logical outcome.--Aervanath (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but why wouldn't both be {{PD-ineligible}}? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think you are correct that they are both PD-ineligible; therefore, I've gone back and changed the rationale at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_23#Bullet_nose_curve.PNG to delete, and I note that both SVG files we're discussing have already been marked PD-ineligible.--Aervanath (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Siegel+Gale

Hi Aervanath,

TenPoundHammer has been helping me out because I am new to the Wikipedia community and need help navigating the site. I asked TenPoundHammer to help me with having an old Siegel+Gale entry page deleted. TenPoundHammer requested an author requested deletion for me. This was denied by EurekaLott and that person referenced the conversation between you and CleanUpGirl below. I don't know who CleanUpGirl is, but I am the author of the actual Siegel+Gale entry page and don't want the User:CleanUpGirl/Siegel+Gale showing up when you Google Siegel+Gale and displaying an incorrect entry.

Can you give me some insight as to why this person wanted the old/wrong entry undeleted? Just so you know, the page in question is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CleanUpGirl/Siegel%2BGale) and the actual Siegel+Gale entry for which I am the author is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegel%2BGale.

Thanks!

(Sgnyc01 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

Hi CleanUpGirl, I received your e-mail. The article has been undeleted and moved to User:CleanUpGirl/Siegel+Gale for you to work on. Once you've cleaned it up a bit, you can move it back to it's original location. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Aervanath. Thank you for the undelete and quick responce. I'll get to work! -- (CleanUpGirl (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi, Sgnyc01, I went back and looked at the e-mail CleanUpGirl sent me, and all she said was that she wanted the copy in order to update it make it suitable for inclusion. However, I think you should read WP:Ownership of articles; there is no competition going on here. Also, after reading the article you posted, I have removed it from article space, as the version as currently written is far too promotional to be credible as an encyclopedia article. It is now located at User:Sgnyc01/Siegel+Gale for you to work on. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as well as Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING, which dictates how articles about companies should be written. I also recommend that you post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business, where editors interested in business articles could aid you in creating a neutral article. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I now see that TenPoundHammer has moved CleanUpGirl's version to Siegel + Gale, and it is a much more neutral version. You may add material to that article, as long as it complies with Wikipedia's policies.--Aervanath (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up of userfy

Hi Aervanath,

I am a ZK fan, but pretty new to wikipedia, would you please point out some references about userfy? And I can help to improve the notability of ZK page. And what's the next step if I finished the improvements? Thanks Robbiecheng (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For information on what the term "userfy" means, see Wikipedia:Userfication. In order to improve the article, you should start at Wikipedia:Notability, read it thoroughly, and then add sources to the article which satisfy the notability criteria. Once you have two or three reliable sources which significantly cover ZK (new articles, books, etc.), add them to the article, and then you can use the move function to move it back to its original location. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I've finished the revision, and move it back to wikipedia. But I made a mistake by inserting a backsplash, ex. /ZK_Framework instead of ZK_Framework. Would you please delete the one with backsplash? Thank u! Robbiecheng (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was already taken care of.--Aervanath (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, really appreciate your help! Robbiecheng (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work

I've seen you closing a lot of deletion discussions, doing requested moves, and doing other (usually boring) administrative tasks. I know that it can feel as though nobody notices or appreciates your work, but I wanted to drop a note saying thanks. Efforts from people like you keep this place running smoothly. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The work is the reward, actually; I enjoy evaluating and closing discussions. Thanks for your thanks! It made my day. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WWWQ-HD2

A user decided to undo your close of the discussion and revert the move of the article. There is some discussion at WP:WPRS. I have moved the article back to where you had moved it. But since I was an involved party, you might want to comment there. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It was completely inappropriate to move the article since there was clearly no consensus at all. (In fact, a slight majority was against it, but they want different solutions.) 99X (Atlanta) is neutral territory and it should have stayed there until overall naming issues for this new type of station (HDR-into-FM "translators") can be resolved.  –radiojon (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the talk page of WP:WPRS, once the general guideline on these has been ironed out, I will be happy to move it to whatever location is deemed best. I understand that you disagree with my reading of consensus. You may request the opinions of other administrators at WT:RM or WP:AN as to whether or not I made an incorrect reading of the discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Stewart Island/Rakiura

There is no consensus for this move. Please attempt to find consensus rather than overriding the arguments of a substantial number of people on the talk page, which includes almost every regular editor on New Zealand topics.-gadfium 04:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

When evaluating a discussion, administrators are expected to evaluate the strength of the arguments in light of Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia's policy on standard naming conventions, which enjoins us to use the most easily recognized name. None of the editors in the discussion provided any evidence to overcome Wikipedia policy.--Aervanath (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on the talk page. The appropriate naming conventions are WP:Naming conventions (New Zealand).-gadfium 05:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Specific naming conventions do not override Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which is site-wide policy.--Aervanath (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither do the thoughts of one administrator override the need to find consensus - it is clear that the majority of those indicating which name is preferable - and the stronger arguments regarding such naming - lean towards Stewart Island/Rakiura. If you read WP:NC more thoroughly, you will note that the full convention you refer to states "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article" (my italics). In this case, other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions - namely WP:Naming conventions (New Zealand) - make clear that Stewart Island/Rakiura is the most appropriate name for the article. As such, I endorse Gadfium's return of the article to Stewart Island/Rakiura, at least until such time as consensus suggests it should be named otherwise. Grutness...wha? 05:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the first subsection of WP:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize".--Aervanath (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring Grutness' argument. Your argument is directly contrary to the advice given in the guideline you appear to be using. You should seek to change that guideline first, which would presumably involve nominating all of the more specific guidelines for deletion.-gadfium 06:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:AN#Stewart Island/Rakiura. I'm disappointed that you were unwilling to discuss this on the appropriate talk page and insisted on going directly to the higher forum.-gadfium 06:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate protection

Please don't protect articles when you are involved in a dispute relating to the article, as you did with Stewart Island. This is fairly basic Wikipedia etiquette.-gadfium 06:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article back. Please follow general Wikipedia etiquette and policies. As an administrator, you should know better. Grutness...wha? 07:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider that I was involved; I was just seeking to enforce the outcome of the discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

As a participant in the RfC, this is to inform you that Brendan19 has recently filed a request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide

The Four Deuces (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My only participation in the RfC was to state that I thought the RfC was pointless, so I doubt my input is needed at arbitration.--Aervanath (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Orobator

Curious about your relisting here, which on its face seems contrary to WP:RELIST: the discussion was sufficiently visited and widely considered the policies implicated, and no information was presented late in the debate that would tend to require those having already !voted to reconsider their positions. I imagine that I'm missing something, and if you might, when you've a moment, tell me what it is, I should be appreciative. Thanks, Joe 04:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, when I first read the discussion, there was no consensus. The reason I relisted instead is because I felt that there was an option that hadn't been considered yet. You'll notice that I added a !vote immediately after the relist, suggesting a merger to Human rights in Laos. Since this option hadn't been discussed at all, I felt that a relist was appropriate in order to gain input on that further option, since there didn't seem to be a consensus to keep or delete at that time. Obviously no one else went for my suggestion, and the later input was mostly in favor of deletion, but at least the discussion did reach consensus in the end, which it wouldn't have if I hadn't relisted it. So I think that this case was an exception to the WP:RELIST guideline.--Aervanath (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don't know, though, that one's relisting in order that he/she might offer an option as yet unconsidered is appropriate or consistent with policy and practice; it would have been better, I imagine, if you'd offered the merge suggestion as a !vote and then left for a different, uninvolved closer the matter of determining whether relisting to permit discussion of your proposal should be in order. Although I am concerned that your relisting might have had the effect of transforming what would have been a no consensus (one that probably would have defaulted to keep, although a closing admin might have invoked the "relatively unknown, avolitionally public" provision of WP:DP#Deletion discussion [that, though, it is likelier than not, I think, have been overturned in favor of "no consensus; default to keep" at DRV]) into a delete, I certainly won't take the matter to DRV, and I surely recognize that this is a practically trivial issue, one in which your actions were not unreasonable, that should not be belabored; I mean only to suggest that should a similar issue present itself in the future, you might want to handle it a bit differently. Cheers, Joe 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll take it into account in the future. I actually did think of the concerns you have stated when I did the relist, but at the time I thought that the additional discussion would be more valuable than a "no consensus" close; call it an application of WP:IAR, I guess. I usually don't do things like that, anyway; this was definitely the exception to the rule. I appreciate the input. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)