User talk:Aervanath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived.

[edit] On Impostors and Trolls

Conversation moved to User talk:Antandrus#Good spotting!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		Christmas medley A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D Problems listening to this file? See media help. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] RFD Closures as "Unnecessary"

Recently, you have speedily closed a couple RFD nomination as "unnecessary". While I agree that redirects can be converted to articles without deletion, I'd caution against closing such nominations blindly. We have red links for a reason and it's a valid reason to delete a redirect so that there we have a red link to encourage article creation. New users can be confused by redirects & so they actually tend to discourage against article creation. If the topic is notable, sometimes a red link is the best approach. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but this is the first time I've heard of this point of view. Has this been discussed elsewhere already?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Past precedent mainly. And on the flip side, it's not a speedy close criteria either. It really depends on how much information is in the target article and how much could actually be expected to be written about the subject in a stand alone article. I don't believe in either of the recent cases, stand alone articles are to be expected so keeping the redirects was fine. I'd just rather see that decision reached by community agreement. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll keep that in mind from here on out. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oriental metal discussion

Could you have a second look at the Oriental metal deletion discussion? I can’t see how the result is perceived as “no consensus”. If we go with the main argument given: What we have is one journalist making reference to the term “oriental metal” and two books which also utilise the term, but no indication is given that these books are a true study of a genre “oriental metal” as opposed to simply a study of heavy metal in the oriental region (likewise, you could likely find books studying metal in the U.K., in the U.S., and so on). This does not meet the notability guideline about having “significant coverage: sources address the subject directly in detail”; and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discounts any argument regarding other such metal genre articles. If we go with headcount, we have 6 for delete/merge, 3 for keep: double the number in favour of deleting/merging it, and with stronger arguments (according to wikipedia guidelines) on their side. Prophaniti (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to go with a headcount, there were 2 for outright deletion, one for deletion/merging to doom metal or death metal, two for a merge to Folk metal, one (you) arguing for deletion or a merge to Folk metal, and three for keep. So, you have four editors who would support deletion, and five who would oppose outright deletion (two of whom would want the content merged somewhere else). This hardly looks like a consensus to me. It looks to me as if the option most likely to gain consensus would be a merge with Folk metal, but it wasn't there yet. If you would like, I can relist the article to see if more input would gain more consensus.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But in truth, how different are "merge" and "delete"? In one case, we remove the article. In the other, we still remove the article, but keep certain parts of it. I think pretty much all who voted "delete" (myself included) would be happy to see parts of the article merged. In other words, all those voting for merge or delete are voting the same way. There was a consensus that the article should be removed, even if there potentially wasn't on whether parts of it should be kept.

A quick look at the votes: I voted delete/merge, I'm happy either way. WesleyDodds just said "per nom", suggesting he backs me up. Philknight simply votes delete, again doesn't say he would oppose integrating parts of it. Jerry votes a merge into folk metal. JD554 votes that "maybe merge relevant parts into death and doom metal". What he means is that certain parts are relevant to those articles, because certain "oriental metal" bands are death/doom metal bands. And James votes merge into folk too. That's 4 votes to merge with folk, two that don't specify that but don't deny it either, one of them just saying relevant parts should be merged with death and doom metal. Then we have three for keep, one of which should really be discounted because it's based on an argument rendered meaningless by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You could argue there's not a perfect consensus, but there would seem to be one firmly that it should be removed.

However, if that doesn't sway you, a re-list would be appreciated. Prophaniti (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the difference between a merge and a delete is actually somewhat profound, although on a more abstract level. Yes, in either case, the article as such wouldn't be there anymore. Yet, a delete outcome would result in the complete obliteration of the article, while a merge outcome would keep the title as a redirect, with some of the information going into the target article. Also, the whole article would still be available in the history for others to view, and possibly use to build into a notable-enough article, whereas a "delete" outcome would block that possibility.

I'll relist it now, as that seems to be an acceptable outcome for both of us.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Y Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on poll results and moving articles

I've decided it will be more manageable for both of us if we deal with these issues one at a time. Please see RfC on [or renaming articles based on poll results]. I left space on top for you to change my summary of your arguments. It's probably better that it be in your own words, so feel free to add your own wording. --soulscanner (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to post links to the RfC on pages where votes have been an issue in the past to encourage consultation with a broader community. This will include the Canada, Quebec, and Pop music discussion pages. Before doing so, I'd like to make sure that you've had a chance to fairly formulate you arguments, and make sure that you would not consider this an unfair WP:CANVASS. I'm not in a hurry here, but I would like the RfC to move forward. Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with neutrally worded posts. Since the RfC is not on content, but on policy, and therefore has broader scope than just Quebecois-related articles, I'd appreciate it if it was posted to WP:AN and WP:BN, as well as WT:NC. I'm sorry I haven't yet had time this week to get in there and put my arguments in order, but I'm hoping to do that today. Before you do the canvassing, could I see the wording first? Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:06, to the 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and fleshed out my portion of the RFC. Here's my suggestion for the wording of the notice:

There is an ongoing Request for Comment at WT:Requested moves#Moving or renaming articles based on poll results. The aim of the RfC is to determine whether and to what extent a majority of editors can be seen to represent a consensus, in the context of page/article moves. Note that this is a policy and not a content issue/dispute. All considered opinions on the nature of consensus are welcome.

Tell me what you think about that wording.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a line to the proposal. I'd really like the focus to be on policy to keep the discussion manageable.

I'd actually prefer canvassing editors outside the Canada and Quebec crowd here for a truly non-content based opinion; I've posted enough RfC's here for now.

No problem with taking our time. I realize this is a pain, and I appreciate you putting this much time and effort into it. You've gone beyond good faith and shown more openness to the process here than most would. --soulscanner (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your addition to the notice is ok. I'll go post it at various points. I'll keep a running list here of where I've posted it. Let me know here of any places that you post it to, so we can avoid duplication.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The notice has been posted to: Talk:Canada, Talk:Quebec, Talk:Pop music, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, Wikipedia talk:Consensus, Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard, Wikipedia:Bureaucrat's Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A quick favor

Hi, Aervanath, I've got a favor to ask of you. A proposal at RM has been listed to move M36 Jackson to M36 Tank Destroyer, on the basis that "Jackson" is a made-up name, never used by the US Army. I did some searching on Googles Books and Scholar, and found there to be a significant preference in both for simply "M36", not "M36 Jackson". If you could review the findings and if you concur, move the page, I'd appreciate it. I will add that it should probably be "M36 tank destroyer", since "tank destroyer" is not a proper noun. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, sorry I didn't see your request until just now. At the time you posted, I would have closed the discussion as an apparently uncontroversial move, but now that that IP editor has introduced some debate, I'd rather let it stew for a couple days to let the regulation time run out. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine as far as missing the question, it happens to me too (I guess from hitting the "last change" button and not checking the history), and sounds like a reasonable course of action. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in my case it happened because I was AFK for a few days, due to some personal issues. That's all resolved now, though. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year!

		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)

[edit] Template edit request

Happy new year! You made a change to Template:WikiProject Judaism for me in Nov 08, but unfortunately the code I provided for you inadvertently knocked out the C class. Would you mind trying it again please? I put revised code on the talk page. Thanks again! shirulashem (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. Thanks anyway! shirulashem (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Userfy request

Hi there,

I wondered if you would do me a favour and userfy the page: Quality Solicitors Organisation to my page so that I can work on it to make it more wiki-compliant. I'd also greatly appreciate any help you can provide to ensure it improves. I thought it was quite neutral in the way it was written (esp compared with similar commercial entities eg legalmatch and uswitch. We are about to have an article published in a very major publication and this should lead to a number of increased external references about us. Will this help?

Many thanks,

Delphys50 Delphys50 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Y Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that so quickly - much appreciated. Do you have any useful feedback as to how I might improve the page so that it is acceptable?

Best wishes,

Craig (delphys50) Delphys50 (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the page that is now at User:Delphys50/Quality Solicitors Organisation could be made more neutral, for a start, by eliminating everything in the article that is not sourced outside Organisation's website. As of right now, most of the article is made up of sentences that start with "The organisation states..." and "It claims..." Look at our policies on neutrality and verifiability, as well as our guidelines on reliable sources and notability. Then seek to apply them to your article. Good luck, and happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Get a deleted page I created back

I created two articles for Hyper Crush today. One was deleted, so I made one that was a lot better and just needed references and it was immediately deleted. I was wondering if there was any way I could get the second page back? Killercalamari (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to copy the page to your userspace, but it seems like it already exists at User:Killercalamari/Hyper Crush. Looking at the history of the page, and particularly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Crush, it looks like you're going to have to come up with some particularly strong sources in order to overcome the notability concerns raised about this article. Once you add those sources, let me know and I'll take a look for you to verify that it's ready before you move it to article space again. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I started working on the page a little bit. I was wondering if a video interview with Hyper Crush could be a reference? I got a lot of my information from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercalamari (talk • contribs) 23:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on who published the interview. If the interviewer is from a reliable news source, then probably. If it's done by their roadie, then add it anyway, but make sure you've got some other reliable sources above and beyond that.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I finished everything. I have soureces for most of the info. The other stuff I know because I'm a Hyper Crush fanatic. Haha. Hopefully there's enough sources on there. Can you look it over for me and see if it's ready to be put on the wiki page for them, please?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Killercalamari/Hyper_Crush

Hi Killercalamari, I've taken a look at the sources, and I'm afraid nothing there rises to the level of a Reliable Source. My advice is to take a break from this article for a few months, and wait for a mainstream news outlet to feature some coverage on them. In the meantime, there are lots of things you can do to help out! Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Can you give me an example of something that is a proper source?

(outdent) Well, there's a broad range. Ideally, a respected news outlet such as a city newspaper, or a broadcast TV station. See the official guideline on the topic, WP:Reliable sources, as well as WP:Reliable source examples.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks for all the help! So were my links to MTV's page for Hyper Crush good, cince they're a TV station? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercalamari (talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If it were MTV News, it might have been good, depending on the depth of coverage. However, the link you provided was actually a networking site, and so the material there on Hyper Crush was actually self-published. (See WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources for the policy on this.) As it was self-published, it doesn't rise to Wikipedia's level of a reliable source. This is a problem that is faced by a lot of bands that are just becoming famous. However, once the band receives wider notice, they'll get more stories about them written real fast. Just be patient. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)