User talk:Aervanath/Archive 3

re: Allwiki

I am uncomfortable with the solution that you executed here. Moving that section and then marking it {{historical}} gives the impression that the decision not to use allwiki was rejected. That's the reverse of what was decided. I think we need to either rework the moved content so it's an affirmation of allwiki, then reject it (which seems cumbersome and will be very confusing in the logs) or remove the historical tag. Or pull it back into the Build the web page. It wasn't all that long a sidebar discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the historical tag does make it look like that. I'll remove it. I don't think it's necessary on WP:BUILD, for the simple reason that we have WP:CONTEXT, which is a limit on overlinking that stops so far short of Allwiki that I see no chance of Allwiki being revived. If anyone wants to revive Allwiki, all we have to do is refer them to WP:CONTEXT, which I have never heard anyone reject. If anyone does reject it, then they would have to do it in spite of you, me, Tony, Lightmouse, and large amounts of other editors who explicitly support CONTEXT. Let me know if you have any other concerns.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm also going to re-word ALLWIKI to make it explicit right from the first statement that the community has totally rejected it. I'm also going to add it to the Perennial proposals page, just for reinforcement. I'd appreciate your help in editing and improving whatever I write to make it clearer and more emphatic.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Context

Hello... FYI, I've revised some of the changes at CONTEXT. Sorry, but despite monitoring the page daily I've only just seen your tweaks, and I honestly don't think there is consensus yet. (Beyond that, there is a real issue with some of what was specified as it can lead to mass removal of links.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See my reply at WT:CONTEXT. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to stabilize this discussion; the SP request was good as well. MOSNUM could probably use protection as well, given the mess that is the dates debate... Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals

My timing is horrible... I had just gotten back and was formulating my comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals when you archived the conversation. I've reverted it so that I can post my comment. I agree that the conversation was not going anywhere at that point but I hope that I can help move it in a positive direction. I hope this doesn't seem presumptuous of me, or that my reversion looked untoward. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

JohnnyMrNinja, the very fact that someone wanted to comment on it means that I was too quick to archive it. You were absolutely right to revert it. Be bold! I can certainly understand why you might feel diffident about reverting other editors, though. There are quite a few editors who feel that any undoing or reversion of their edits is a personal insult. I wish more people would assume good faith, or at least be more polite. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I just change it to a straw poll at this point and canvas the forums to get people to vote? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Just re-read WP:CANVAS first.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I forget that "canvas" is a dirty word here. ;) I meant the good kind, just Policies, Proposals, AN and DRV. I might even get one of those Watchlist messages for it, as it's a big decision. I have created a mock-up of the text at User talk:JohnnyMrNinja/SPtext, would you mind reviewing it? I will copy and paste it to the bottom of the proposal. I was thinking of putting a 2-week deadline on it. I figure, if this idea dies, it should be because of consensus, not from old-age. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sphinx Senior Society Page

Hello,

You removed the membership and history of the Sphinx Senior Society because of copyright violations I believe. I completely understand, but since you have more experience in such edits, could you illuminate how best to keep that information there? I actually know both the current web master and the official sphinx board. How do I note that it is permissible to post such info? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshen (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To confirm that you have official permission to use the copyrighted information, please follow the instructions at: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:ABC Michigan

This morning you responded to my helpme tag... I think I was supposed to leave my message here for a response... Anyways, I was checking the corresponding articles and they didn't show the updates to the template... I don't know if that is still the case but if it is what do you suggest??? WIKIVUE Detroit MON SEP 29 2008 8:29 PM EDT | TUE SEP 30 2008 12:29 AM UTC

When you update a template, the server does not immediately update all the transclusions at once. See Help:Job queue. If the servers are quite busy, it can take some time before the changes you made to the template will be visible on all of the transclusions. This is especially true with high-visibility templates. The changes should be visible now. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin protection

Hi, Aervanath! I actually wasn't the person who fully protected this article. It was already protected at the time I move-protected it, so I simply carried that protection over, assuming that it was done for a reason. Looking closer, the article indeed does not seem to need full edit protection, but by the time I am writing this the article has already been unprotected by another admin. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Aervanath. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:BUILD

Okay, quick reactions because it's past my bedtime and I'm fading fast. First, I think your instincts are good; there was an impulse several years ago at BUILD to push writers to include a lot of links in all directions; writers don't usually comply, but then, but then, maybe it should happen more often, and maybe the style guidelines should say something about that. Second, I didn't see the conversation at WT:CONTEXT when I was doing the monthly WP:Update today; if I had, I wouldn't have reverted you at WP:MOS and WP:MOSLINK. Third, let's get the remaining 3 guidelines (MOSLINK, CONTEXT and BUILD) down to 2 or even 1. The reason things were working before was that no one was reading BUILD (which is evident from the sorry state it was in before you started working on it); if you'd like to promote it now, then it's time to work out the conflicts and probably merge it, although I'm open to arguments for keeping it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment at WT:CONTEXT#Break 1. Until we get this issue settled, then, could you unrevert me?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for your work on this! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you, too. I hope we can get a critical mass of editors together who are more focused on simplifying and clarifying the current maze of procedures of guidelines than on the nit-picky details of what they actually say.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Critical masses are good, but one person with a good idea also works; feel free to make suggestions any time. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reading over the discussions, I think everyone is really close. Do you think we could at least work in the direction of merging everything into WP:MOSLINK? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism

How could you close debate on discussion for deleting this article before the motion to delete it was announced on the article talk page? How are people who watch the article supposed to participate in a discussion for deletion when they are not informed it is going on? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Afd notice was posted to the very top of the article when the article was nominated for deletion. This should have shown up on the watchlist of any editors who were watching the page, which is why talk page notices are not usually posted. There have been some issues with the watchlists this past week, though, which is the only explanation I can think of for why you did not see the posting. Apparently you are not the only one who was surprised by this, so a 2nd discussion is being started, per Jheald (see the section immediately above). Please seek further consensus there.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

[Just letting you know what I'm posting on talk pages, Aervanath; I know you know :) ] Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion process update

Just to let you know that there has been a recent update to the criteria for relisting AFDs. You can see the full details at WP:RELIST. The main update is that relisting an AFD a second time should only be done in exceptional circumstances. I'm letting you know because you have recently been active in relisting AFDs. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Thanks for the invite! I'm not really active at WP:GAN right now, so I'm just going to hang out in the background for a while. If I get more involved, then I'll add my name. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NetSupport Manager AfD

Hello, I noticed you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetSupport Manager (2nd nomination) with no consensus. Since you are not an administrator, I find it odd that you made that decision with so few votes in the AfD. I thought non-admin closures were to wrap up snowball keeps and the like. It is my opinion that the AfD shouldn't be closed as no consensus yet since it could still go either way. Themfromspace (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions: "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." However, in my view the arguments were quite equally balanced, and therefore it wasn't ambiguous. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No consensus non-admin closures

Though Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is only an essay, generally speaking it is usually best not to do non-admin closures of Articles for Deletion discussions if the close is "no consensus". Cirt (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically with regard to this one. Though I tend to think your closure assessment was correct, might be best to leave these types of drawn-out discussions for others. Though so far your judgment seems pretty good, so I'll leave that up to you. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, thanks for your concerns, and for the vote of confidence in my judgement. :) There is quite a range of opinion on non-admin closure, and I realize that not everyone accepts it. I have tried to keep my closures to those which are more unambiguous, so as to keep out of controversy, and I will do my best to continue doing that. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEMAND Campaign

Hi
I'm not quite happy with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEMAND Campaign. I realize that the relisting guideline has changed, but if that AfD didn't recieve "extremely poor participation" I don't know what ever will: the only comment came from the topic's original author.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 05:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-open it. I think you're right. I'm going to interpret WP:RELIST a little more liberally from here on out. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast, thanks. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 05:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:Oklahoma City Thunder roster

Oklahoma City Thunder roster

Players

Coaches

Pos. No. Name Height Weight DOB From F/C 4 Collison, Nick 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m) 255 lb (116 kg) Kansas G/F 35 Durant, Kevin 6 ft 9 in (2.06 m) 215 lb (98 kg) Texas F 22 Green, Jeff 6 ft 9 in (2.06 m) 235 lb (107 kg) Georgetown SF 34 Mason, Desmond 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m) 222 lb (101 kg) Oklahoma State C 27 Petro, Johan 7 ft 0 in (2.13 m) 247 lb (112 kg) France C 18 Sene, Mouhamed 6 ft 11 in (2.11 m) 230 lb (104 kg) Senegal PF 7 Smith, Joe 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m) 225 lb (102 kg) Maryland C 31 Swift, Robert  7 ft 1 in (2.16 m) 245 lb (111 kg) Bakersfield HS (CA) PG 25 Watson, Earl 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m) 185 lb (84 kg) UCLA G 5 Weaver, Kyle 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m) 201 lb (91 kg) Washington State G 0 Westbrook, Russell 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) 192 lb (87 kg) UCLA F 3 White, D. J. 6 ft 9 in (2.06 m) 251 lb (114 kg) Indiana F/C 54 Wilcox, Chris 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m) 235 lb (107 kg) Maryland G/F 21 Wilkins, Damien 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m) 225 lb (102 kg) Georgia

Head coach P. J. Carlesimo (Fordham) Assistant coach(es) Scott Brooks (UC Irvine) Mark Bryant (Seton Hall) Brian Keefe (UNLV) Ralph Lewis (La Salle) Walt Rock (Southwestern) Paul Westhead (Saint Joseph's) Legend (DP) Unsigned draft pick (FA) Free agent (S) Suspended Injured Roster Last transaction: 2008-08-27

How can I use templates like these for other uses such as television stations, television programs, media companies and more without using subtemplates??? I'm just curious!!! Also, if it is possible how can I also use the NavHide feature with the (v-d-e) tools displayed???

Examples:

{{Amigas y Rivales}}

{{EWS CORP}}

{{Detroit TV}}

{{ABC Michigan}}

{{CHR-T40 Michigan}}

How can I convert these templates to use the format of the OKC Thunder template??? In addition, I would also like to use this for tables... If it's not too much trouble!?!? WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) THU OCT 9 2008 12:50 AM EDT | 4:50 AM UTC

I think reading the documentation at Template:Navbox would be quite helpful for you. That meta-template is where the (v-d-e) and NavHide feature is based, so you would either have to copy the source from Navbox, or make the OKC Thunder template a sub-template of Navbox. I would recommend that you do what I did to learn templates: create a sandbox in your userspace, and experiment. Copy the source from different templates and modify it to see what happens. That's probably the best way to really get an intuitive grasp of what you're doing.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't quite get it done... It's too complex!!! Are there any more ways to reformat these templates??? Is it best that I try the help desk or do you any more ideas??? WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) THU OCT 9 2008 1:53 AM EDT | 5:53 AM UTC

I guess I don't really see exactly what you're trying to change. What exactly is it about {{Template:Oklahoma City Thunder roster}} that you would like the other templates to mimic?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The unique lining of the columns and how there are no lines dividing each column!!! Think of the possibilities!!! WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) THU OCT 9 2008 2:25 AM EDT | 6:25 AM UTC

Yeah, I think we've gone beyond my expertise. The OKC Thunder roster template is actually made from three separate sub-templates: {{NBA roster header}}. {{player2}}, and {{NBA roster footer}}, which have all been designed to work together to facilitate constructing these kinds of templates. My advice: contact the designers of those three templates and ask them for their expertise. Good luck!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The orphanage could try harder

You could easily have undone this edit. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit in question had already been completed 13 hours before I saw the article (note the time), so I had no way of knowing that there was something to undo. Thanks for pointing it out to me, but outside of telepathy I'm not really sure how I could have caught that.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Checking on the author's other edits ain't telepathy! But I admit my comment was nit picking. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I admit I'd never thought of doing that, actually. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Lakers

How's the review for Los Angeles Lakers going? I just wanted to check in, as it has been tagged as on review for over a week, and I didn't see one on the talk page. Are you still planning to review the article? Nikki311 19:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd started the review, but then I got sidetracked by other projects. I'll go take my tag off of it so someone else can get started on it. Thanks for letting me know!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian

I've just seen the AfD you recently closed at WP:AFD/Christianity and Judaism, and I wonder if you can advise me how to proceed.

Unfortunately the merge proposal was never flagged at the article Judeo-Christian, nor was the AfD ever flagged at WT:JEW which tends to be a clearing house for such discussions; which is unfortunate, because as far as I can see, as a result nobody familiar with the Judeo-Christian article appears to have participated at all.

Two points in particular I would like to have made,

• Per WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:MOSNAME, we use nouns and noun-phrases for article titles, not adjectives. So a general survey on the relationships between Christianity and Judaism (a topic this encyclopedia should certainly cover) should be called Christianity and Judaism, as per the articles Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism.
• The reason the article Judeo-Christian exists, as its own hatnote declares, is specifically to survey the history and use of that word-phrase -- which has its own controversy, and its own tale to tell. (See here where I've set things out in a bit more detail.) That story is a good fit for its own article, and will get completely lost if the contents of Christianity and Judaism get inappropriately dumped on top of it.

What people seem to have objected to is the statement in the lead of the Christianity and Judaism article that:

The article on Judeo-Christian tradition emphasizes continuities and convergences between the two religions, this article emphasizes the widely diverging views held by Christianity and Judaism.

I would agree, if that were true, it would set up a completely deprecated WP:POVFORK. But the truth actually is that the Judeo-Christian article does not review the "continuities and convergences between the two religions". Instead, its hatnote says "For the relationships between the two religions, see Christianity and Judaism." -- which, per WP:ADJECTIVE is exactly where that discussion should be found.

Since nobody seems to have considered any of these issues, which I believe are fundamental points, I would welcome your advice as to how to proceed. Would it make sense to simply re-run the AfD? Jheald (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jheald, the points you bring up are good ones. My advice:

1. Start a discussion on Talk:Christianity and Judaism about this, making sure to mention your points above.
2. Re-read WP:CANVAS.
3. Post notices on Talk:Judeo-Christian, WT:JEW, and WPT:Christianity, as well as on the talk pages of the editors who contributed to the Afd discussion, make sure that the notices follow CANVAS, and include a link to the discussion.
4. Discuss. Should a new consensus be reached, then, per WP:CCC, the new consensus should be followed. I don't think it's necessary to have another Afd, or take it to WP:DRV, because this discussion isn't really about a deletion anymore, it's about a merger.
5. Joy,

Should you require any assistance, just let me know. I'm always happy to help out. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very good advice. There is now already a discussion running on Talk:Christianity and Judaism, and I'd also already flagged the issue at WT:JEW; but it's good thinking to raise it at WPT:Christianity and the talk pages of the editors who contributed to the Afd discussion as well.

If it's okay I'll reference your opinion, that you don't think there's any need for a DRV or a new AfD, if a new consensus can be reached on the talk page. Jheald (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I'm glad to help. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT: I'm reviewing Aervanath's edits, see below, so I wanted to point out that according to the AfD, this was announced at both WP Judaism and WP Christianity.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Underconstruction

Re your revert of my edit here[1], the addition of the noinclude tags is fully appropriate per the TfD instructions and is done so that the TfD notice is not included in every page that uses the template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, but the instructions go on to say "...if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude the template". Given how this template is transcluded, I really don't see any disruption. Also, if we don't transclude the tfd notice, how are editors supposed to find out about the tfd debate? Most editors don't watch every template that they use like they do for articles they're interested in. Is the tfd notice in this case so disruptive that it justifies hiding the notice?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is transcluded at the very top of the page, which I would say is fairly disruptive to me. It seems unlikely it will be deleted anyway, though if there is a concern that it isn't getting enough notice, I guess the noinclude could be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Corporation

I notice that you did an incomplete merge in the articles. 2 months later it is still in sad shape. Would you work on merging the content? I can do the history merge if you want. Feel free to remove that picture that I just added. Royalbroil 01:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just glanced over the two articles. They are actually rather close already. If you feel like more of the material needs to be merged over, please be bold. I don't OWN the articles. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page was still on my watchlist from this thread. I noticed the RFA talk below. This content merge would be exactly the type of thing to do to address the "article building" concerns. I agree with the assessment that Tony is extremely well respected for his copyediting skills, but he does come across as having strong opinions. A disagreement with Tony is probably not a big deal if it didn't escalate real high. Non-major issues from 2 years ago with a relatively clean record since then probably won't be a problem. Even a block from 2 years ago would probably not be an issue. I agree that you should work on content for a month and then serious consider a run for RFA. I didn't review any of your edits. Royalbroil 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the Oliver Corporation article would help with my article building portfolio, although, to be quite honest, the Oliver Corporation article isn't really the sort of topic I'm interested in. I might pop in now and then to work on a few things, but I'm going to be doing a survey of Wikipedia to find out if there's somewhere I can contribute content that fits closer to my immediate interests. Thanks for your input!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that - you're making the right decision to step away from the article. I only help in areas where I feel very comfortable. I do have a farming background from my formative years, so I'll add it to my To Do list. Royalbroil 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it over. The only reason I got involved in the first place was because one of the two articles was an orphan. Let me know if there's anything you still need my help on, though!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I completed the merge, which included the history of the company after its 1929 acquistions. I removed the expand template, so return it if you feel it is still needed. Hopefully Oliver experts will "edit it relentlessly". Royalbroil 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The merge looks great! Thanks for putting in the time!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 23:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA/Coaching

Hi Aervanath, Usually I respond where the conversation begins, but when I do a coaching/rfa preview, I respond on the users talk page.

I've just spent about 2 hour reviewing your edits. You have few options at this point. First, I think that you would have a decent chance of passing an RfA at this point. Your talk page shows a person who has excellent communication skills and temperament. One issue that MIGHT hurt you is that some people don't believe that non-admins should ever close AfD's unless it is a clear keep---your closing "no consensus" AfD's might be seen as overstepping your bounds, but I noticed you've recently been approached about that concern. Another issue that might hurt you is your lack of article building, see this RfA for how your lack of article building can hurt you. That being said, I think your scenario is significantly different. First, you are active in several areas where you are actively discussing policies and what is best for the project. Your edits around the project show a person who has a certain amount of clue. Second, and this is big, your edits are manual. You might not be an article builder, but I can easily see how you think and how you respond to people. You do communicate with others which is very important. Third, you act like an admin. People come to you seeking your help/guidance. IMHO, this is the single biggest attribute that I want to see in candidates.

With all of the above being said, I have to ask why you think you need coaching? My initial response is that coaching would not be a wise choice for you. Coaching is for the person who needs help/guidance. Am I missing something? Is there an area where you feel you need help in? Are there any skeletons in the closet that I missed?

IMHO, you have two real choices: First, you bite the bullet and you go for it now. I'd be willing to nom you (assuming that there isn't something I'm missing.) With your article building history, there is a chance that the RfA will fail... but I think we can point to other areas to overcome this weakness. There are no guarantees. If you fail, then you can work on the article building and run again in a 3 months. Second, the area I see the most need is the one area that can't be coached, and that is article building. Many, myself included, like to see article building in potential admins. By building the project, you learn to gain an understanding of what others feels/sense and you take pride in the project. If you choose this option, it would probably take you a month or so to build that edit history.

Personally, I lean towards going for it. Again, I can't guarantee that your RfA would pass, but I do think we can overcome the objection of weak article building based upon your edits in policy based arenas and your talk page. Ultimately, it is your call. Either way, unless I am missing something, coaching isn't something I would recommend for you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, thanks for the time you've put in looking over my contributions. Your feedback is pretty much what I was looking for. I usually don't like attempting something unless I know it will probably succeed. I wanted to be coached primarily to find and address any areas that I'd overlooked, but it seems, from your thoughtful analysis above, that the only thing I'm lacking is the article building. I will take your advice about the article building, and try to put some time in on that. As for skeletons, I guess there are two possible negatives. For the first one, if you look at my first talk archive, you'll see that I was (justifiably) accused of being BITEy on one occasion when I first became active. I don't think that's a big deal, as it was only one incident, it was 2 years ago, and that incident prompted me to stop contributing for a long while. The second one is here: Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Countries on infoboxes, where User:Tony1 and I had a non-love-generating interaction about linking. I didn't receive any third-party rebukes about that, so it's probably ok, but it still bothers me that he was accusing me (as I read it) of destroying Wikipedia. I'm not sure how much inluence those two might have in an RFA, but I would appreciate any input. Also, how big a deal is the no-consensus Xfd closure likely to be? Quite frankly, that is one of the reasons I started thinking about becoming an admin, so that I wouldn't have people making those objections purely based on my status, but based on the actual quality of the decision. I guess I'll stop making those until my RFA. If you have any other input, I'd love to hear it. Thanks so much for your time!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

1. Re the bity incident 2 years ago---not an issue. Isolated incidents can be overlooked---especially if they are 6 months to a year or older. I personally don't look at anything over a year unless it is part of a continuing pattern.
2. The issue with Tony, IF he is who I think he is, then A) he is a respected member of the community whose voice does get many people to listen---but I rarely if ever see him at RfA B) he is known to have some issues---EG is known to be a little too blunt at times. I'll take a closer look at the issue tonight and see if Tony is the person I'm thinking of and how this issue might affect your chances.
3. The fact that Cirt, the person who informed you of the "essay" praised your closes and explicitly stated that it isn't a policy/guideline, means that it probably won't hurt. What it will do is cause people to pay a little closer attention to the cases that you have closed to see if there were any that were borderline or where they disagreed with your rationale. This is always a danger because even experienced admins have been challenged on closes. It does play into your need for the tools.

As an FYI, one of the reasons why I think we can get around your lack of article building is because you aren't a "Vandal Fighting" individual who goes arouund tagging articles for deletion. You are niche candidate, somebody who works with Orphans. While you may not have much work on specific articles, you've found a niche that you like wherein you help to build the project. I personally like niche candidates because it shows a streak of individuality and isn't cliche. The one question that I do have, how might being an admin help you with your work with Orphans?

Tony is who I thought it was... he can be a curt... which has landed him in a few ANI reports and possibly RfC's. So his response to you (and others) didn't really surprise me. He is a HIGHLY respected editor, if you want an FA, he is a person can make or break you. That being said, while he might oppose you, I'm not sure that it would garner much strength---epecially as we would link to it in a potential nomination. Again, if you want to work on article building for a while, that's fine if you want me to work on a nom... I'll be happy to do so.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do mainly focus on WP:O. The admin tools wouldn't really help much, there, except for the occasional CSD candidate that I come across during my orphan scanning. Also, it would allow me to directly maintain {{orphan}}, {{articleissues}}, and other fully-protected templates that are associated with the project. I think I'd mostly be using the edit-protected right, since it's a logical extension of my CAT:ESP patrolling. As I do some responding to {{helpme}} templates as well, I'd probably also start tracking {{adminhelp}} requests, as well. However, as I said, I'll work on building an article or two, and then get back to you about the nom. Thanks for all your help and advice! If you think of anything else I should know or work on, please let me know. Or if you need help with anything, also don't hesitate to ask! Regards, --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, and when you feel ready, drop me a line and I'll take another look.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 23:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you now have a new tool WP:ROLL take a look at when it is appropriate and when it isn't appropriate to use.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I already have access to something like it through Twinkle, but I think the hardcoded method will be faster. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The big key with rollback is to only use it on obvious vandalism... NEVER use it on content disputes... I won't use it on vandalism if there is ANY chance that the other person might claim it is a content dispute. Use it on a content dispute and you can pretty much kiss any dream of becoming an admin goodbye for at least 6 months---and the tool will be removed from ya.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd pretty much figured that. I'll be careful, I promise. :) --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

LC Classification

To put it simply this classification scheme is (along with the Dewey Decimal System) one of the two most used systems for classifying books in North America. The articles together are a valuable reference for understanding how many libraries organize material. The extent to which any of these articles may be expanded or consolidated is a matter of personal taste, and thus there is no one way to handle this. Some of the subclasses are indeed small, and have not been made the subject of separate articles. I suppose some of these classes could be expanded much further since whole books have been published for each class, but even I do not have the enthusiasm to go that far. Some of the articles could stand more wikification, though certainly not Class Q where nearly every term already has a link. As to the "orphan" status, their interconnectedness insures that there is no chance that these articles will be lost. Eclecticology (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see that the classification scheme itself deserves an article. I'm just wondering about the value of each of the subclassifications having their own article. For example, the Class Q article is just a bunch of links to other articles. It doesn't really tell me anything about Class Q itself, or why it's notable. Obviously the whole classification system itself is notable, and deserves an article, but I'm not sure each of the sub-sections do, especially if they all look like the Class Q article. Cf. List of Dewey Decimal classes and Dewey Decimal Classification. One article to describe the significance of the system, and one article to enumerate the system. Would you have any objection if I merged the LoC classification articles into a 2-article pair as the DD system currently has?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging all of the classes into one big page would not strike me as appropriate. Speaking at the moment only for Class Q, merging its various subclasses (Q, QA, QB, QC, etc.) could be acceptable since none of these is very long. If that works out, a similar treatment of the other top-level classes may be worth considering. Getting into arguments about why each class is notable seems like a waste of time since each so obviously derives its notability from the main article. Eclecticology (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and start merging the subclass articles, then. Once we've seen how that works out, we can get into the "derived notability" debate. I don't believe notability can be derived, but I'm not willing to fight about it now, and the recent RfC didn't reach a definite conclusion on the matter, although there was a majority in favor of requiring all articles to meet the requirements on their own. There just wasn't enough to declare consensus.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I spend most of my time these days on Wikisource I long ago gave up following what goes on at RfC; following that can be a big time-waster. I just quickly looked through the various LC classes, and find their states of development quite variable. Some, like Class A, don't really lend themselves to further development; others (especially the later letters of the alphabet) have never had much work done at all. It has been a long time since I did much work on these; maybe I should be paying a little more attention to them. Eclecticology (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you plan on improving them? DGG made a recommendation in this thread (the last entry) where he gives some suggestions for how to improve the articles. If they were all improved in such a fashion, they might be worthy of inclusion. It depends on how you think they are being used, though. If they are being used as an index to Wikipedia (which they are noted as on Portal:Contents, then I think they'd be better as subpages of Portal:Contents, since at the moment the only one that looks like an encyclopedia article is Library of Congress Classification itself. There was a consensus to delete some of them reached at this Afd (although they were subsequently undeleted after this thread), so I think there would be a consensus to at least move these out of article space, if not outright deletion, if they were brought to Afd as a group again. I've started a thread here about moving them to Portal:Contents.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I finished merging Library of Congress Classification:Class Q -- Science. You can see what you think, but I think it's a big improvement in navigability.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What you've done with class Q looks good; it's clearly more practical than having so many different sub-articles. DGG's recommendations are good. I've got a copy of the Chen book around here somewhere, but he is also right in saying that development beyond that may need to be done by people in the Library Science community who have access to the more detailed material. Using LC to classify Wikipedia articles was something that I supported back when we were discussing whether or not to use categories. Now, my support for that is more moral than material since I don't see this as a realistic development in the forseeable future; doing so would require that critical mass of volunteers be involved in the project. So, for now, I don't see the Contents portal as the best place for this material. It could be of greater interest at Portal:Library and information science Eclecticology (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

IEC prefixes

You may wish to comment on this discussion at MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your help. I am quite pleased to see that at list this {help} thing in wikipedia works fine!

One last question...you filed the request for me, but, as I write this , it is a broken red link. Is it because someone has to review it to finally enter it or maybe there was a problem at the process of filing it?

Thanks a lot Mountolive _{le déluge} 15:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason WP:TWINKLE burped or something, and didn't create the page, nor warn the accusees. I've completed it manually.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SSP

Something's wrong with the SSP you filed, like you didn't create it or something. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You Accused Me of Sock Puppetry

I noticed that you filed a sock puppet accusation against me on user:Mountolive's behalf. I find this baffling because had anyone bothered to check the IP addresses of the accounts in question he/she would see that it's not true. That's really all this case requires, comparison of the IP addresses. However, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post my response. Is it?LuisGomez111 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the right place. :) The thing is, only users with the checkuser permission can check IP addresses, and I am not a checkuser. This is what the sockpuppet page is for, to start the process to confirm that you are/aren't engaging in sockpuppetry. The proper place to comment is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LuisGomez111 (2nd nomination), under the "comments" header. It looks like a checkuser will be performed in this case, so you will know the outcome of the investigation very soon.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin coaching

Hi Aervanath. Right now, I am coaching three users, co-coaching another, and have two other users on a wait-list for admin coaching. If you would be willing to add your name to my wait list, I could coach you once I get an open spot, but I would understand if you wanted to begin coaching right away. In this case, I would suggest requesting coaching from either Bibliomaniac15 (my former coach, now a bureaucrat), Garden (one of my former coachees who is now an admin), or Juliancolton (a new admin who I have talked to about coaching). If you wish to add your name to my wait list, contact me and I shall do so. In the meantime, I would suggest getting a little more experience in article building (this is the best way to learn to deal with problems content editors will bring you as an admin), and using edit summaries for every edit (In your preferences, you can use an option called "force edit summary" to help do so). Cheers! Malinaccier (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Malinaccier, thanks for getting back to me! After some discussion with Balloonman, I've decided to forgo coaching and just work on building my resume on my own for a while. By coincidence, I had just activated the "force edit summary" option in my preferences about 20 minutes before you left your message, and your recommendations on article building are in line with his. Thanks again!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem! If you ever have any questions, feel free to come to me and ask! Malinaccier (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Orphan

Thanks for -ahem- welcoming me to the project. I'll do my best to help, when not busy. Happy Halloween, RockManQ ^(talk) 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACC

I hate to be a pain, but...

Why did you drop all those requests on the ACC tool?

Those accounts don't exist, even if the create account dialog shows that they do. Check Special:ListUsers, and try to edit the users' talk pages, it'll say "User account does not exist". Stwalkerster [ talk ] 13:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw that they'd all been previously closed as taken/created, and when I went to create one, Special:UserLogin/signup knocked it back with an "already exists" message. So I assumed that meant they were re-opened by accident. Sorry about that, I should've messaged you first to find out why you'd re-opened them. Is there something wrong with the interface, or were those requests closed by mistake?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume there's something wrong with MediaWiki, because it's reporting non-existant accounts as taken. Hence the requests were closed by mistake. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 14:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for the heads up.....I won't pursure it since that's the case. Cheers!--seattlehawk94 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agricultural Building + Ball of Plasma

		The Original Barnstar
		For your continued desire to learn the ins-and-outs of WP:RM and the recent completing of a handful of incomplete proposals, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work. JPG-GR (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)