User talk:Aervanath/Archive 5

List of fictional swords

Because you have relisted the article, can it please be undeleted so that editors participating in the discussion are able to a) make improvements/rescue if possible and b) somewhat correspondingly so that non-admins are able to accurately judge the article's merits? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

...which I see you have done!  :) Thanks again! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Caught me in mid-restore, I guess. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oligo_Primer_Analysis_Software_(2nd_nomination)

Hello. I have some thoughts (not complaints, just thoughts!) about this close. (Was actually reading the debate and trying to write a closing rationale, until I got edit-conflicted!). Anyway, I agree with your decisions about keep for OLIGO Primer Analysis Software, and delete for Piotr Rychlik. Clear consensus, no questions asked.

About Wojciech Rychlik, however, I was going to give that one a "keep", instead of a "no consensus". This AfD was rather confusing as it referred to three articles of different levels of notability and different inclusion guideline standards. Only six editors managed to comment on the two biographies, with 3 keeps 3 deletes for Wojciech Rychlik that I saw. Counting aside, though, I think the three delete votes were very weak. User Narayanese did not give arguments about the two bios, only the software; user Stifle voted based on Trusilver (who did not mention a word on the bios, either!) and ChildofMidnight (whose sole argument is "no evidence they are notable per guidelines" - weakish argument I think, given the lack of elaboration.) Users who voted keep, on the other hand, at least gave clear reasons why they think the person may be notable: "seem to meet WP:PROF with notability shown by having multiple academic works published" (1), "He "was instrumental in discovery of human protein synthesis initiation factor eIF-4E mRNA" may qualify him via WP:PROF point 1" (2) and "Anyone who can invent a method where the key paper gets 339 citations is highly notable." (3)

Could you review that discussion? I know there's no big deal either way because no consensus and keep are largely the same. But still... :) Your thoughts on this? --PeaceNT (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a close one. I agree with you that the delete arguments are rather weaker than the keep arguments. However, I always count the nominator when doing the initial vote count, so it's actually 4 votes for delete and 3 for keep. While the keep arguments are stronger, the delete votes aren't completely invalid, either. So I'd say that the outcome was still "no consensus", with a leaning towards keep.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, thanks for being so polite about your note. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I agree AfD nominator must be counted as a delete !voter, too. Forgot to count them in. :) Still a bit confused though, because Pgallert only nominated the bios for AfD due to their opinion that the software was non-notable, which was later proven wrong by consensus. (Their words: "I am also nominating the following related pages because the notability of the two biographies is solely (for Piotr Rychlik) or mainly (for Wojciech Rychlik) established on the development of the product in question)" I read this as "conditional" deletion rationale, the condition being that the software is non-notable. Without that condition, the nom vote didn't carry much weight. What do you think? --PeaceNT (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have altered the outcome for Wojciech Rychlik to keep, both because of your points above, and something we both missed: if you look at User:DustyRain's argument, he was also tangentially arguing for keeping that article, which, based on the strength of the keep arguments versus the weakness of the delete arguments, tips the consensus into "keep" territory, if only barely. Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right about DustyRain's comment! :) And thanks for reviewing the debate. Cheers, --PeaceNT (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

deletion of User:Apovolot

I find it ironic that the original deletion of User:Apovolot was done without regarding that "no consensus" was achieved during the MFD discussion and that was the reason of my protest BUT you used "no consensus" reason to stay that "no consensus" based deletion ? Could the issue be further appealed ? Apovolot (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the standards of the two fora are different. In an XFD discussion (AFD, MFD, etc.) a "no consensus" decision means that the item under discussion is kept by default. In a WP:DRV discussion, ANY decision can be appealed, whether it be keep, no consensus, delete, redirect, merge, or anything else. So the result of a "no consensus" DRV discussion is that the decision at the XFD is not overturned. In this case, there was no consensus to overturn the MFD decision, so the deletion stands by default. Should you wish to appeal the case further, you can start a thread at WP:Administrator's Noticeboard asking for other admins to review my decision. If a consensus develops there that the WP:DRV was closed improperly, then I will reverse myself.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another option is to start another WP:DRV discussion asking for review of the first one. While this has historically not been a successful path, it is an option available to you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear - Aervanath as You just have said (in the first entry): "In an XFD discussion (AFD, MFD, etc.) a "no consensus" decision means that the item under discussion is kept by default. " - BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT administrator "Doug" did !!! - you see that ? That is what I tried to appeal ... And you actually "rubber-stamped"/approved "Doug"'s wrong action ! So in that sense you ended up in supporting administrator's "Doug" bad decision ! Am I giving you enough reasons for you to reverse your decision ? Apovolot (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, you're not. If Doug closed the original Mfd as "delete", then the DRV discussion is aimed at whether or not to overturn that decision. You disagree with Doug's analysis of the Mfd discussion, however you were not able to get a consensus of editors at DRV to agree that Doug's close was incorrect, so it must stand. As I said above, you are free to post at WP:AN to get the opinions of other admins on whether or not my closure was correct, or you can start another DRV to attempt to overturn my decision. While you can continue to try to convince me that Doug's decision was wrong, I have to abide by Wikipedia's conventions, which say that you need a consensus of editors to alter the status quo. The status quo is that your userpage was deleted. There was no consensus at the DRV to undelete. By closing the DRV, I was judging whether or not consensus existed at the DRV; I was not judging the merits of the original discussion directly. So, as with everything else on Wikipedia, please don't take it personally.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

David R. Hawkins

I was the original person who deleted the article, and I restored the article myself. If I chose to restore the article under my own power, then we can ignore the DRV. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've amended the closing comment on the DRV. In the future, if something like this comes up, you can just close the DRV as moot yourself to save other admins the trouble. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rolando Gomez

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rolando Gomez. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know why you decided to re-open an AFD that closed three months ago when relisting it, but I've fixed the error.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that "Relist" meant "Open a new AFD"; I thought it just meant to literally "re-list" the original AfD. Thanks for enlightening me, and fixing the error. I like what you did with the transclusion, too.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your all-around awesome contributions to Wikipedia in so many areas that I can't list them all, I award you the All-Around Amazing Barnstar. You're a huge asset to the project and one of the most tireless contributors that I can remember seeing in a long time. Keep raising the bar for everyone! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Honestly, Ioeth, that's even more flattering, considering I think you deserve about 27 of these yourself. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dan Kroffat

Lovin' the consensus you're talking about. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Noted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

wut RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your general DRV philosophy

Hi Stifle, I notice that your wizard directs editors appealing your Afd closures to go directly to DRV, yet you seem to routinely ask users why they haven't directly contacted the closing admin, in cases where you didn't close it. This seems somewhat contradictory to me, so I was wondering how you reconciled it. Just curious, --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The instructions at DRV require users to contact the closing admin, but I have waived that rule for myself regarding AFDs because I find that it doesn't help. Other admins are free to do so (and some indeed do). Stifle (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. I guess you're the exception that proves the rule, then. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute

Thanks for taking on the closing of the requested move of 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute and especially for clearly explaining your rationale for the decision. It is appreciated. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! It's always nice to know you're appreciated. :) Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits to "Joshua Marquis"

Please note that substantial number of reliable outside links have been placed that will hopefully remove this page from the Orphanage.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastda (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Rownon

Please do not unblock this user unless a checkuser request is carried out. Wikipeire is a chronic sockpuppeteer and master of crying "admin abuse". For a start, notice how he knows what template to add to his talk page without being prompted - he's quite experienced at this.

Not convinced? Have a look through Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire. That should show the extent of his abuse.

I recognise the articles this editor is changing and moving - they've been targets of him before, and the style is identical. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than confident that this is a sock puppet. User:Ddstretch and User:Alison would probably be good users to ask for a second opinion mind (they've also "managed" Wikipeire, for want of a better word). I suppose one could file a check user request if we feel quite liberal about this user and want to be absolutely sure. Infact a check user might show up his latest ip pattern and any other socks he has been operating. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yucca brevifolia

I am an interested party to this debate because I objected strongly to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), which is a guideline contradicting the Naming Conventions policy. The wording has now been changed so that it can be interpreted as complying with WP:NC.

As The move in November was made using a guideline that was at the time clearly in breach of WP:NC. I think you should reconsider you decision on Yucca brevifolia in the debate under Talk:Yucca brevifolia#Requested move and consider it a request for the initial move. This is not such an uncommon thing to do as it discourages people making preemptive moves and reverts so that the interested parties can argue not move from the current new name because of "no consensus". Further you should consider what the general Wikipedia consensus is over the Naming Conventions not just that of the local "vote". --PBS (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right that as the closing admin I should take into account the general Wikipedia consensus when evaluating the outcome of a discussion. However, at the time I closed the discussion, there was still clearly debate going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) (I see the RFC has not finished yet, either, and that the "disputed" tag is still on the guideline). I am not going to get into whether the current version or one of the past versions of NC(flora) was/wasn't in compliance with WP:NC; it is clearly in flux at the moment, and my close was a reflection of that. Essentially, until a consensus can form with regard to NC(flora), continuing the discussion is sort of pointless. I see that User:Una Smith has filed a request to move Joshua tree (disambiguation) to Joshua tree, so it would be premature for me to move this article back at this time. Basically, in order for this to be moved back to Joshua tree, three things need to happen (in no particular order):

1. the requested move I just mention would have to be unsuccessful; and
2. consensus would have to form on WP:NC(flora).

After these two things happen, the next step would be to start another requested move discussion on Talk:Yucca brevifolia. If the community has already come to a clear consensus on the above two issues, a consensus decision in this specific case will be much easier the second time around.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

re: early close

I admit that I don't know the exact process behind XfD (I know how to keep and delete, yadayada, but apparently the "wait a while" clause never registered; to think I got the bit :-p). At any rate, the discussion was getting circular. If Tony1 wants to keep a process on his userpage then that'll be his problem, which is why I explicitly said that if it moved to project space then the MfD is void. I should probably have added that if the process diverges significantly from his stated goal -- and for the moment I'm assuming good faith, perhaps despite myself (and hopefully not the project) -- then the page ought to be relisted. For the moment, it's too early to tell. If this was a mistake, please trout me and cluebat me and all those good things :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I always thought there was some sort of "speedy keep" criteria, which is why I didn't list it as such ;-)

Replied on your talk page.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Work at WP:RM

Congratualtions on all your work at WP:RM, just one thing I picked up on.

In moving Moe Solomon to Mose Solomon, two seperate talk pages were left: Talk:Mose Solomon and Talk:Moe Solomon. The latter is now an orphan of the redirect. What should be done about this. Would it be right to try and merge its content and redirect the orphaned talk page. Many thanks, and keep up the good work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I seem to have overlooked that. Thanks for letting me know! I've merged the two talk pages and their histories.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No problems, I'm impressed by your prompt action on the matter. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing Cantonese move discussion—thanks

Thank you for stepping in to close the discussion over at Talk:Cantonese. I meant to do it myself (as I had nominated the move and all), but I've been terribly busy lately preparing for the holidays. Well done :) --The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No sweat. I've been trying to keep the WP:RM backlog down, so that one was just one of a long string of discussions I closed. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Little context in New Romantic

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on New Romantic, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because New Romantic is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting New Romantic, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

HMS Bounty

You're a quick one, you know. I was reviewing the move proposal and had decided to close it as "move", when I clicked on the edit section button, and guess who beat me to the punch? Who do you think you are, stealing my WP:RM thunder? Anyways, I thought it might be somewhat controversial, and wanted to say that I would've closed it exactly the same way. Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You've done the same thing to me already today, so call it even. :)

I guess we're even on that :) I also noticed you cleared out the moves listed on the 18th. Leave some for the rest of us! Parsecboy (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, since there were something like 20 articles in the backlog a few days ago, I figured I'd better work ahead and clear out any that were obvious. If they'd been at all close, I would've waited the full procedural five days before doing the dirty deed, but all of them were pretty clear. However, now that we're a day ahead, I'm going to go play at DRV, MFD and RFD for a while. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes articles just sit there for days and even weeks (like the Mystery (pickup artist) article I closed earlier). Part of the backlog-buildup may have been the fact that I was out of town and away from my laptop over the weekend (and thus unable to pitch in). I usually play around at WP:MDP and AIV when I'm not at RM (or doing content-related stuff). Have fun at the deletion discussions :) Parsecboy (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason the talk page Talk:Bounty (ship) did not follow along with the move of Bounty (ship) to HMS Bounty. I attempted to move Talk:Bounty (ship) to Talk:HMS Bounty, but there's some article history or some such that prevents a lowly non-admin, such as myself, from moving it. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the second or third time that's happened to me. I've never noticed anything saying that the talk page didn't move, so I guess I'll just have to manually check each time. This one turned out to be somewhat complicated, because the old content of Talk:HMS Bounty had actually been copy-pasted to Talk:Mutiny on the Bounty, so I had to delete that talk page, move the original Talk:HMS Bounty over top of it, delete that, and then undelete the whole shebang to merge the histories. Such a pain. Oh well, it's all fixed now, anyways. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason, the developers have not given us the ability to delete+move the talk page at the same time as the article. It should say at the bottom of the "move succeeded" page either "Talk:_____ has been moved to..." or "Talk:____ already exists, and cannot be overwritten". At least that way, you can check it then and fix it if need be. Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It probably has been saying that, I just hadn't been reading the whole thing. I just did a short test in my own userspace which brought that line to my attention. I hadn't really paid attention to it before; the interface messages have always been sort of a "too long; didn't read" for me before; guess it's time to start reading them all the way through! (In other news, adminship does NOT, repeat NOT, confer omniscience! Who knew?) :-D --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was doing the same thing for a while; I couldn't figure out why sometimes talk pages wouldn't move (especially in cases where it was only the redirect at the new location, and it didn't need deletion). Then one day I actually read that message, and the light bulb turned on. You know, I too was expecting omniscience when I got the mop, but I'm still waiting...maybe they just forgot ours? Is there a returns desk where I can get it exchanged for a working model? Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Hi, I'd like to exchange this mop I was given? I asked for the one with the omniscience attachment, but it wasn't in the box!" "Sorry, sir, only one of those was ever made." :) --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 17

With regards to the deletion review of "Numerous Images all deleted by bjweeks", in light of the recent development whereby the uploader has provided evidence of the original images to demonstrate that they are not copyright violations, might it not have been appropriate to leave this discussion open for longer to allow an opportunity for this evidence to be discussed? I must admit I am not completely familiar with the deletion review process so I appreciate if this isn't possible. Regards. Adambro (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've re-opened it, as more discussion couldn't hurt. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Bounty move

Thanks for moving Bounty(ship) to HMS Bounty per the debate on the talk page. Unfortunately the HMS Bounty talk page is redirected to Mutiny on the bounty. Cheers --Petecarney (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's been fixed by User:Parsecboy. It was the last step in a complex history merge of the talk pages, and I overlooked it. It's the first time I've performed one that complex, so hopefully next time I'll remember to thoroughly check that everything's in place! Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Aervanath, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 11:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Special Category Status

Hi, could I ask for your reasoning in closing the RM at Special Category Status? It was closed while I was banned, which doesn't seem very fair. User:O Fenian failed to provide the primary source, yet it was found in his favour - backed up by User:Domer48 amd User:Big Dunc - editors with a history of personal conflict against me. It seems clear that there are different forms of the term "special category status" used - sometimes with capitals, sometimes without - but the sources closest to the primary source do not use capitals. Mooretwin (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with what Mooretwin has said above he in fact is the one who is in conflict with not only myself and Domer48 but a number of Admins ask SirFozzie and DDstretch and check his block log and mine to find out who is the main person involved in conflicts. This editor has accused numerous editors who disagree with him of tag teaming him and has been told to drop it here and has told another admin who commented on his behaviour that they were making personal attacks here and given a final warning about future behaviour here. As you can see he is still making attacks on Domer by saying he drove another editor away despite warning from Jossi. BigDunc^Talk 10:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin you were told about your canvassing here, and despite the comments of the closing Admin here you have gone and canvassed here, to re-ignite the issue. This did no go unnoticed, and yet another Admin has commented on it here.

You’ve gone back to the Admin who agreed with you to make the same complaint here, and now you’ve had to come and try involve another Admin here. Now again you engage in personal attacks, and so what if they were closed while you were banned. If you can’t conduct yourself properly, you exclude yourself from the discussions.

Now before Jossi retired you were given a final warning on the AE page, and on your talk page. SirFozzie has expressed his complete frustration here, and said as much to MBisanz here.

I’m getting a pain in the arse with these snipping accusations [1], [2], [3] [4] and regardless of who warns them and I’d like something done about it. All the move requests were rejected, so why persist? Why persist with the personal attacks on me even on this Admins talk page despite the multiple warnings.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks on me. You appear to be following me across Wikipedia in order to do this. Please stop. I am perfectly entitled to ask the Admin who closed the RM to explain his reasoning. I haven't made any personal attacks, and it is unreasonable for you and BigDunc to invade this page with personal attacks against me. Mooretwin (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"editors with a history of personal conflict against me" I don't think so. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a simple statement of fact: not a "personal attack". You're demonstrating that fact this morning and in recent weeks with your posts about me on various Admin pages, etc., and regular visits to my user page to post "warnings", etc. You have also engaged in several edit wars with me, most recently on Sinn Féin. I beg you please to stop. Mooretwin (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Closure rationale

Hi Mooretwin, even though the discussion was closed while you were blocked (not "banned", technically speaking, see WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK for the distinction), I am not of the opinion that it would have made a difference, as you had already made your opinions clear, and I took them into account when I closed the discussion. The number of editors supporting each side was roughly equal. Given that, I looked at the strength of the arguments, which were also evenly balanced. Both sides have sources that they can point to that use their preferred capitalization scheme. Neither side has an overriding policy argument. So there was no consensus. Given no consensus, the title stays as is. I did not decide "in favor" of any one, I just read the discussion and reported what I saw, which was no consensus. I will tweak my closing note to make this clear.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Mooretwin (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy holidays. :) --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Response

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

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		Aervanath, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 03:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Merry Christmas!
		DiverseMentality is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Stay safe! DiverseMentality 08:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Argentina-related articles et al

Would you please let me know what appropriate procedure we failed to follow for the multi-move at List of Argentina-related articles. Yours has been the only objection so far, and that was made on strictly procedural grounds. Thanks for the help, Buaidh (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the note I left carefully, you'll see that I referred you to WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves. Please follow all three steps there to file the requested move. Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Talkarchivehist

Happy holidays! I noticed that you had some frustration when trying to use {{talkarchivehist}}. I'll look into making the template more robust against extra whitespace per Template talk:Talkarchivehist#Whitespace padding. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, although now that I know how it works, I'll be able to do it properly this time. :) Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Move-protection of December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes

You can, of course, scan the talk page yourself, by copying the statement I just made on the talk page:

It's obvious those in favor of this name are heavily outnumbered. It's time to move the article back to its original location. If anyone is actually interested in letting the move request last a full five days, it should be with the original name as the default, not the name decided by one person mid-stream.

-- tariqabjotu 06:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It will be much more obvious once a full discussion has taken place. After 5 days, I or another admin will read the discussion thoroughly and see what the consensus is. If the consensus at that time is that Operation Cast Lead is the most favored title, then it will be moved back there. Please be patient.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see your response until now, but thanks for telling me how discussion works. Anyway, in case you're interested, this is back at RFPP. -- tariqabjotu 03:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, Aervanath! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Quebecois page decision

Hello,

Your closing rationale (09:14, 25 December 2008) for the requested move of the Quebecois page reads:

"A clear majority of editors feel that it is ambiguous enough that there is no primary topic. The same majority feel that this article could be better disambiguated by adding "(word)", so that is what will happen."

Firstly, I recognize your good faith and realize that in a long complex discussion that is difficult to read, it's easy to miss all the arguments made on any side of the issue. I'll also take into account my own role in being unclear about what the main points against the move actually were. Specifically, points about what constitutes consensus were secondary. I appreciate your explaining your thoughts on this matter anyways.

I'd like to make sure that you've taken into account the key arguments against moving the page. Please acknowledge these by either adding the rationale for why these policies do not apply in this case, or by reconsidering your decision.

Please consider the following:

1. The principle argument against moving is that there are no pages to disambiguate. My understanding is that disambiguation pages are not there to explain terms with ambiguous meanings or serve as a primary page for a topic; they are there to disambiguate articles with similar titles. There are no competing articles vying for the single term "Quebecois" at this moment, nor are any being proposed. Hence, there is demonstrably a primary topic until someone wants to name another article "Quebecois".

"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic ... Since only one Wikipedia page can have the generic name "Mercury", unambiguous article titles are used for each of these topics: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile), Mercury Records, Project Mercury, Mercury (plant), Mercury (mythology). There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation. In this case it is achieved using Mercury as a disambiguation page. [5]

2. Majority votes do not constitute consensus and should not be cited as the reason for moving the page; arguments need to be made to justify a move, and your decision cites this as the reason for your move. Hence, the there is no rationale for a move.

"Wikipedia has several processes to deal with such things as deletion debates (e.g. WP:AFD, although most deletions are resolved through WP:PROD and WP:CSD), requested moves (e.g. WP:RM), and featured content (e.g. WP:FAC). These are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. Each of these processes is not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented."[6]

3. References to other pages on other topics should not weigh in any decision here. It appears that many of the arguments to move the page offer paralels to other pages as arguments to move this one.

"Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another ... Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed.[7] "

Could you please include answers to these points in any final decision on the matter? Even if you do decide to stand by the original decision, a rationale on these points will only add to the strength of the consensus represented by your closing statement.

Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I've expanded my rationale in your response to your request: Talk:Québécois_(word)#Requested_move. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. Thanks for the response. Sorry for doing this on your user page, but there's no more appropriate forum that I can think of; if you can think of a more appropriate venue, maybe we can move it there by having you copy this discussion there.

1. I still believe that you are misinterpreting the use of the disambiguation page. I'm basing this on my understanding of wikipolicy, and I'll try to avoid the content issues about overlapping definitions and such. I'll try to focus on the principles involved. You write:

Disambiguation is required when there is more than one topic associated with a given article title, not just when article titles conflict. A look at the disambiguation page (now at Quebecois) gives 7 possible different meanings. A disambiguation page is located at the ambiguous term when there is no primary topic. Consensus here seems to be that there is no primary topic.

To me, this contradicts the reasoning given in the actual primary topic link, which makes direct reference to competing articles:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

Where has there been an argument that another article is truly the better meaning of Quebecois? Could you point to where wikipolicy on this matter does not refer to competing articles vying for the same name?

2. I think you're defaulting to a head count too quickly. You write:

"However, there were no concrete arguments below that established what the primary meaning of the word Quebecois actually is. In the absence of strong arguments on either side, it's impossible to consider the strength of the arguments, so it essentially defaults to a head count. If an overwhelming majority of editors are in favor of something, and there is no policy-supported reason to defeat their arguments, then consensus should follow the majority. In this case, with 5 in favor and 2 against, there is enough consensus for the moves."

I appreciate you acknowledging that there were no strong arguments for moving the page (albeit also acknowledging none for keeping it). But I see no Wiki policy indicating that this situation defaults to a head count. Indeed, the policy I quoted before says the opposite about voting. Moreover, naming conventions explicitly say that it defaults to the original name in such cases; it's up to the people proposing the move to make strong arguments for doing so, especially for an article that has been stable this long:

If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail.[8]

Did you take into account this principle before defaulting to a majority vote?

3. I think the difference between "analogies" and "precedents" here are minimal here. You write:

There is a difference between citing other pages as precedent and using other pages as analogies. The arguments below that do cite other pages are using them as analogies to the current situation, and not as binding precedents.

As I see it, if editors factor "analogies" into decisions about moving pages, they are using the analogies as actionable precedents. Nothing is 100% binding of course, but analogies should not even be weighted into decisions like moving pages; analogies to other articles prevents matters from being decided on a case-by-case basis and on sound arguements. Other articles should not serve as precedents or analogies unless they serve to illustrate some basic underlying wikipedia principle. Otherwise, Canadian linking to Canada could be seen as equal to Acadian NOT linking to Acadia, and we go nowhere.

Anyways, hope to hear your reply. It could very well be I'm missing something something in what you say. --soulscanner (talk) 12:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think you may be interpreting policy a little too narrowly. You can't just look at one quote at a time, but you have to look at the broader picture. (Cherry-picking selected sentences from editing guidelines may be interpreted as wikilawyering by some, and is generally frowned upon.)

1. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is aimed at helping editors decide which article, if any, is the primary topic, in case of a dispute. In the quote you provided me, please note the words "if" and "may". This sentence is not to be read to require extended argumentation before deciding to locate a disambiguation page at an ambiguous title, it only points out one possible scenario that might indicate it. It is not a requirement, but a suggestion. As with all things on Wikipedia, if there is a consensus that it's ambiguous, then there's no real need for a huge debate on it. Which brings us to point 2.

2. Your quote from WP:NC is not meant to obstruct consensus, but to provide a guideline when consensus is in doubt. In this case, the majority is large enough that I do not feel a consensus is lacking, merely because of the objections of two editors.

3. There is quite a significant difference between using other articles as analogies and using them as precedents, and that line has not been crossed here. What I saw in the debate was along the lines of: "Article X is located at title FOO. Why is it at title FOO? Because of reasons Y and Z. Reasons Y and Z also make sense in this case." If they were merely being cited as precedent, the reasoning would be that "Article X is at FOO, so this article should be at BAR." Do you see the difference? Argument by analogy seeks out the underlying reasoning, and then applies the reasoning to the current case. This is ok, because you are still arguing from the reasons. Arguing from precedent ignores the deductive process altogether, and is not ok.

If you continue to be dissatisfied with my reasoning, you may post to WT:RM and ask other uninvolved editors to review my decision. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I think before I do that, I want to be sure that I understand these policies correctly. If it's true that I'm wikilawyering and interpreting policy too narrowly, I'll want to avoid embarrassing myself by rehashing an old debate. Naturally, I believe I use the quotes not to be pedantic but to summarize my concerns in good faith. I'd prefer a few WP:RfC's on the relevant policy pages, and then either proceed to [[WT:RM] or accept the decision based on this. Before I proceed, though, let me see if our understanding of the dispute is the same. I don't want to unfairly characterize your decision. If there are additional points that I'm missing, please let me know and I'll include those.

1. I contend that direct links to disambiguation pages (e.g. Mercury)are there to point readers to different articles with similar titles ; you contend that this extends to articles with similar meanings that don't necessarily compete for the same title.
2. You contend a) Your main reason for moving the page was that the 5-2 majority vote represents a consensus; b) there is no compelling argument for keeping or moving , and in that case the poll and not the existing situation represents consensus. I disagree that this is a valid rationale for moving a page.

I'll leave the third point alone for now. I believe that this is a dispute about policy and not content. It could very well be that this move could be considered appropriate given a longer discussion, more valid arguments for the move, and a more complete closing rationale, but I don't think it is there yet. --soulscanner (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have fairly summed up the differences in our views of policy. Some further reasons for my interpretation of policy:

1. Let's say you have an article that is named FOO. There is another article, BAR, which is about a completely different topic. However, due to the inconsistencies in the English language, BAR can also be called FOO in some contexts. Well, with only two articles, a disambig hatnote is enough. But what if you then have some other articles with the same issue? That is, you not only have BAR, but maybe also AER, VAN, and ATH, where all the article titles are different, but all are possible meanings of the word FOO. In this situation, we have to ask ourselves, what is the primary meaning of FOO? If there's no evidence that there is a primary meaning, then FOO should be a disambiguation page, because that will be the least confusing option for our readers. (Keep in mind, that's who we're writing this whole thing for.)
2. If you have a move discussion, and 100 editors are in favor of the move, and one editor opposes it, then according what I understand your position to be, if no one has a great argument on either side, the page just doesn't get moved. This goes against my experience of the way Wikipedia works. By definition, a consensus decision requires at least majority support, however, it does not require unanimity. The first two subsections of WP:What is consensus? give a nice explanation of both our points, actually. We have just come to the point where we have to decide if a 5-2 split in opinion, lacking any compelling arguments on each side, is enough to determine consensus. I would say that it is.

I agree that this is a disagreement on policy interpretation, not content. If you would like to start discussions on the policy talk pages about this, then please let me know. If the wider Wikipedia consensus is in disagreement with my decision, then I will gladly reverse myself.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you're openness and obvious good faith, and I particularly appreciate acknowledgment that you might be wrong. I'm glad you agree with the RfC policy discussion. It's less personal and confrontational and more collaborative than trying to overturn a decision with another admin. If you don't mind, I'd like to formulate the RfC here first to make sure that it's neutrally worded. Also, there appears to have been a recent similar discussion on the use of disambiguation pages with regards to the Pop music article at the Disambiguation Project Discussion Board. It might be useful to review that before proceeding.

I also cannot resist responding to your other reasons:

1. I don't see where in wikipolicy it says that a disambiguation page is designed to play this role; I may have missed something, but this appears to be a personal opinion. I would argue (an I have done this) that this situation makes FOO a very tricky word, worthy of a neutral, referenced article that explains how it may overlap with the meanings of BAR, AER, VAN, and ATH, and a full description of the contexts in which these meanings overlap and become important. These words would be wikified, linking to the relevant articles within the FOO article. That would do more for a reader than a disambiguation page. Such an article would naturally be the principle topic, as it would contain all the possible meanings.
2. If 1 in 100 editors cannot come up with a compelling reason to move an article, then there is something awry. There are questions that should be asked and clarified. For example, has there been a votestacking WP:CANVASS? This would be time consuming to verify. I believe that is why Wikipedia makes it clear that moves are decided by arguments, not headcounts[9], and that if there are no good arguments, stable articles should remain as they are [10]. I really think that these guidelines leave little room for interpretation, but I acknowledge that disruptive or tendentious editors could really torpedo progress in some cases; in those cases it's usually easy to find a good argument on the majority side.

I'm a little zonked from reading through the Pop music controversy, so I'll complete the RfC proposals tommorow. --soulscanner (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who first proposed the page move. I do not believe that the policy issue raised at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, even if decided in Soulscanner's favour, would settle the issue of Québécois the way he would like.

First, contrary to the situation envisaged by Soulscanner in which "there are no compelling or clear arguments for or against moving" the page, there was in fact a clear argument, namely that either there is no primary topic for Québécois, or there is one, but Québécois (word) is not it. The alternative meanings Quebecer, French-speaking Quebecer and French-Canadian Quebecer were suggested. Sorry for stating the obvious, but, whether entirely persuasive or not, this is a clear argument and it was made in the move discussion. The fact that an argument appeals to editors' common sense about which meanings are most common does not make it unclear. Also:

1. Aervanath writes this: There were no concrete arguments below that established what the primary meaning of the word Quebecois actually is, and Soulscanner interprets this as meaning that there were no good arguments advanced in favour of the move. This is false, since the object was not to demonstrate that a particular sense of Québécois was primary, but merely that Québécois (word) was not primary. It was noted in the arguments that the majority of incoming links were of the form "so-and-so is a Québécois such-and-such", and this fact was not disputed by Soulscanner or DoubleBlue. (WP:DISAMBIG explicitly recognizes incoming links as a relevant consideration.) I believe it stands to reason that in these cases, the meaning Québécois (word) is not intended. It was not necessary for me to establish that another particular meaning was primary since I wished to locate the disambiguation page at Québécois.
2. Without meaning to be presumptuous, when Aervanath refers (in the revised reasons for the page move) to the "absence of strong arguments on either side", I wonder whether on reflection he/she would maintain this formulation, rather than merely asserting the difficulty of determining for himself/herself whose arguments were more persuasive. Perhaps more simply, I would suggest that an administrator in Aervanath's position might not have seen the necessity of judging whose arguments were more persuasive, since he/she felt that this had already been determined by a consensus of editors. In such a case, and assuming that the minority side does not have overwhelming arguments in its favour, it would be normal for an administrator to decline to make a determination as to their own view of the persuasiveness of the arguments presented.
3. Ultimately, decisions rely not only on policy, but also on facts, such as which meaning of a particular word is most common. Where there is some uncertainty surrounding the facts, I can see no reason why an administrator should not rely on the determination of the facts by participating editors, even when they have arrived at this determination by relying on their own experience, as is sometimes necessary, rather than on articulable reasons. Otherwise, administrators would be required to be experts on every topic in the encyclopedia. In the case of Québécois, Ramdrake wrote for example:
   Let's face it: most people landing at the Quebecois page are there to look up one of the several possible meanings of the word, not to read up on the entire controversy surrounding usage of the term.
   Ramdrake is here stating a fact and appealing to editors' personal knowledge to establish it. Participating editors are generally in a better position to determine these kinds of facts than are administrators, since they are more likely to be familiar with the subject matter. I reject the idea that arguments appealing to facts known to the editors but not easily demonstrated in an objective way are not valid; the facts merely have to be acknowledged as true by a consensus of those editors familiar with the subject matter. It would be misleading to characterize a debate in which arguments rely on this kind of knowledge as being one devoid of serious arguments, as seems to be implied by the language at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves.
4. Even assuming that there were indeed no strong arguments on either side, it had been my understanding that the onus is on the editor asserting that there is a primary topic to demonstrate that fact. In this case, it was Soulscanner who claimed that Québécois (word) was primary, and I was saying that it was not.
5. Soulscanner argues at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves that "silence is consensus." It is hard to see what kind of system would result if the kind of consensus resulting from silence were deemed to be stronger than, or as strong as, the kind resulting from editors actually expressing opinions. Even granting this, I truly do not see how Soulscanner can make this argument, since he has often argued on the talk page that the "consensus" of the previous deletion discussion needed to be respected, and he indeed continued to argue this in the move discussion. Thus, on the one hand, he would certainly have argued that a move request too soon after the deletion debate would have been inappropriate. Yet on the other hand, he is now arguing that it is too late because silence has supposedly established consensus not to move the page. Can it not be presumed that editors were simply allowing some time to pass after the deletion request? Soulscanner cannot have it both ways. (I'd also like to point out that "silence" is not entirely accurate - I suggested the idea of moving the page to Use of the word Québécois a long time ago; Mathieugp and Pomte, at least, expressed some support for the idea, and I do not recall anyone other than Soulscanner opposing it.)

For all these reasons, I submit that the hypothetical facts described by Soulscanner at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves do not apply to the case of Québécois. Joeldl (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Both Aervanath and I agree that he has based this decision to move the page on a clear majority vote. We agree that our main conflict (civil as it is) is based on the interpretation of guidelines used to make this decision, not on facts presented in the move discussion.

I would also request that you not make this personal. Statements like "Soulscanner cannot have it both ways." are too aggressive for civil discourse. No need to make accusations of duplicity. --soulscanner (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you disagreed with Aervanath's decision, and came here to argue your case. Even if you and Aervanath "agree" about something now, I have just as much of a right to object to that as you had to object to Aervanath's original decision.

I used the language "Soulscanner can't have it both ways" to emphasize that you've made mutually contradictory arguments. This is an entirely permissible way of expressing that. Joeldl (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on the argument, and not the person making it. --soulscanner (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)