User talk:Aervanath/Archive 6

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

Request for comment

I almost cut through the chase and posted my bringing back Lonelypages question here, but I figured I should go for the democratic approach. Still, I'd really value your input. I've been working on this puppy for some time now, and I'm into the finishing touches phase. I'm hoping this will be a hit with the orphanage project. --JaGa^talk 09:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have commented.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Prince/ss of GB pages moves

Cheers for sorting that out. I've, however, just realised that I missed one off (Princess Amelia Sophia of Great Britain → Princess Amelia of Great Britain). Would you be able to move her on the basis that it's a case exactly the same as the ones you moved? Or do I need to hold another RfM? Cheers DBD 13:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Page movement

Hi, Aervanath. There's a new guideline page that deals with page moving; you may want to participate in the discussion here. It may have some impact on the current discussion regarding bold moves (and vice versa). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made some changes to it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Michałowo, Podlaskie Voivodeship‎

Sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. Why did you close this without making the move? The only objection had been (I assume) satisfactorily answered.--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to move the page according to consensus. As you were the only editor supporting the move, and two editors opposed it, consensus is clearly not present. If you can convince Parsecboy and Tassedethe to continue the discussion and come around to your point of view, then I will move the page. Until then, consensus is clearly against the move.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 16:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You know you're supposed to look at the arguments, not count votes? The only oppose "vote" was in fact a request for evidence, which was supplied and not disputed by anyone, including the opposer. So there aren't really any outstanding arguments against the move, or anyone actively opposing the move (Parsec's apparent opposition was answered similarly). I have left notes with Tassedthe and Parsecboy, but this is starting to seem like procedure for procedure's sake.--Kotniski (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To me it seemed that this was merely an administrative promotion i.e the local government of whatever region had upgraded this place from a village to a town. That seemed a poor reason to move this page to the primary topic. You write "is it not obvious that a town is of far greater probable interest". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC deals with actual interest. If the town is not significantly more popular (within Wikipedia not just Google) then the disambiguation page should stay. Saying all that, if the WP:WikiProject Poland has a de facto standard for Polish place names (which you mention but don't link) then I wouldn't stand in the way of a move on those grounds. Tassedethe (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a real opinion one way or the other in regards to if the page is moved or not, I was mainly asking for evidence that this town is the primary topic as Wikipedia defines it. So, in general, I agree with Tassedethe's comment above. Also, if there is a standard system for towns vs. villages at WP:Poland, then it's fine by me. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a de facto standard, probably not written down anywhere (I would have added it to the Poland section on WP:Naming conventions (settlements) when I edited that recently, but wanted to wait till this discussion concluded). Anyway, I have a complete list: out of c. 900 Polish towns, of which probably about half have identically named villages, the only one that has a dab tag to distinguish it from a Polish village is Koziegłowy, Silesian Voivodeship (that's because there's a particularly large village of that name, much larger than the town).--Kotniski (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the "evaluate the arguments, not the votes" rule is for when there are arguments based on standing Wikipedia policies and guidelines to consider. As the policies represent overriding Wikipedia consensus, those take precedence over votes. However, as the above discussion shows, there has (until now) been no overriding convention to follow on this topic. Thanks for getting Parsecboy and Tassedethe to comment. Now that they have, it is clear that they are not objecting to the move anymore, and I will perform the move later today.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 02:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 05:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for getting this sorted out (I know it doesn't seem vitally important, but I wanted to get it right). I'll make some clarifications to the Polish settlements naming convention now.--Kotniski (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversies etc.

Aervanath, I saw you closed the move discussion by moving Controversies concerning the word "niggardly" to Controversies about the word "niggardly". You closed the discussion saying "reverted to original name", but in fact the original name did not have the quotes; it was Controversies about the word niggardly. I don't know if you meant to remove the quotes, or did not mean to say "original name"; either way I thought I should let you know of the discrepancy. Mike Christie (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When I was reading the requested move discussion, that's what I thought, too. However, if you look at the page history, you will find (as I did) that the original title actually did have the quotes. Cheers,--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 16:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I'm glad you're thorough. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Soggy biscuit

Please restore Talk:Soggy biscuit. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my tpsing, but I restored the talk :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalk away, my friend. :) --Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 02:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Scientology

Since there's an arbcom case up above this right now, I think you case reduce the protection without anything stupid happening, ideally. Wizardman 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give it a whirl.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Pop music move review

Hello, just noticed your review of the pop music WP:RM discussion. For what it's worth, your account of my part in the discussion struck me as fair-minded and balanced, so thank you. --Muchness (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Requested_Move_4_January_2009#Requested_move

I disagree with you decision on Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Requested_Move_4_January_2009#Requested_move, but I must say it was very courageous. Someone needed to make a call, and you stepped in and did it. I wish more people had that kind of courage! Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you say, someone had to do it, and as one of only three active admins at WP:RM, I'm not going to shy away from closing a move discussion just because it's contentious. If we did that, no one would ever get anything done. I appreciate your note very much. Cheers!--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

user recovery

cpuld you recover the article titled Kapilands for me—Preceding unsigned comment added by Koop writer (talk • contribs)

The entire text of the article was taken from [1]. As copyrighted text is expressly forbidden on all Wikimedia projects, it is impossible for me or any other admin to restore the article. The text is still available at the kapilands forum thread; please do not import it to Wikipedia again. Continual violation of Wikipedia policy in this matter may result in your account being blocked. For more information, see WP:Copyrights--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Faceless

Hi
I noticed that you restored The Faceless following WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 4#The Faceless (closed). Could you also have a look at their albums Akeldama (album) and Planetary Duality, which I AfDed (1, 2)? I'm not sure if they have anything useful, but I'd expect both articles being recreated before long, and at least the latter passes WP:MUSIC#Albums and can at least be stubbified from the deleted version I'd think.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They have been restored to User:Amalthea/Planetary Duality and User:Amalthea/Akeldama (album). If you can add enough reliably sourced material to show notability, then you may move them back into article space. Cheers,--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Amalthea 11:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [2]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given my opinion there.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Aervanath, are you currently in favor of no straw poll, or a straw poll with 2 options, 3 options (RFDA only for future admins), or more? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

2 options, whether to adopt the proposal or not. I think the only people who want the third option are current admins, which rubs me the wrong way for some reason.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's unanimous for 2 options from the people who indicated interest in a straw poll, then. I'll run this information by EVula. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ok--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 06:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Museum Template

Thanks for taking care of it. I had no idea how to fix it even though I was in full support. StarM 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

All I did was copy the text from the sandbox Martin provided. No template knowledge required; just a willingness to take the heat if the sandboxer did it wrong. Cheers,--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 20:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the template help

Thanks for adding the category to {{Catholic}}. I have been doing a lot of work to get the massive collection of attribution templates standardized and up to date. Incidentally, I removed my earlier request for the same category on {{CathEncy}}, after determining that it really wasn't necessary to include the category on both templates. --Eastlaw (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, I saw the other request after you canceled it, because it hadn't been removed from the editprotected category yet. Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is more appropriate on {{Catholic}} than on {{CathEncy}}, anyway, since the articles which use CathEncy are (or should be) just citing it as a source, not actually incorporating text. Happy editing!--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 20:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 RfC

Could you take a quick look at the section header you posted on the talkpage? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that so fast. It's definitely time for bed. Cheers!--Aervanath (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

STAR TV

OK. You finished STAR TV (Asia) page move discussion with the comment saying "Official names don't override WP:COMMONNAME.". However, the company is officially called just "STAR" now. [3] -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misinterpreted my comment. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Once you've established that it is more usually called "STAR" instead of "STAR TV" by other sources, (not just the company itself), then you will be able to convince other editors to change the name. We have many articles on Wikipedia which are not called by their "official name". See, for example, United States, which is not the official name of that country, either.--Aervanath (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You deleted my topic whilst I was working on it.

I specifically was adding details why the 'group of people or organisation' was important and signifcant and my page was deleted, I spent several hours writing up that information and it's all gone. Is there anyway I can get it back? Or have I just wasted my time.

--Ghost Operative (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the content to User:Ghost Operative/The Ghost Clan, so that you may continue working on it. Please be advised, however, that it appears to be promotional in nature, and Wikipedia is not a web host.--Aervanath (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cat importance template

Hi, Could you look at my editprotexcted request again at Template talk:Cat importance#Category Sorting as there's a bit of code missing now. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it, thanks for telling me.--Aervanath (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Norfolk (disambiguation) move

What was your basis for closing this as no consensus? I can see that close from vote counting, but that decision does not appear to be supported by the strength of the discussion points. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, neither side had convincing arguments. I'll re-evaluate it tomorrow and give you a deeper rationale.--Aervanath (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've looked at it again, and the strength of the discussion points on both sides is close to nil. The rule to look at here is clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which neither side was very convincing on. The burden was on the proponents of the move to show that there was no primary topic, and that just wasn't proven conclusively. Somebody provided some grok.se stats, but those aren't really probative, and were mostly ignored during the debate anyway. The proponents of the move kept citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as the controlling guideline, but no one backed it up with solidly convincing evidence that there wasn't a primary topic. I'm not saying that the arguments on the other side were terribly convincing either, but the weakness of the arguments on both sides means that there was clearly no consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Move requests

Hi, sorry for my jumping the gun on the mass move requests. Having only cursorily glanced at NAME and checking WP:RM and seeing it was possible to do a bulk nomination I decided I'd try and help achieve some form of clarity by directing people to the initial discussion on the Obama page. Apologies for any hassle - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that it was a hassle for me; it's that it would be a hassle for you; you'd have to set up individual discussions on each of the articles' talk pages, and monitor twenty-something discussions, when all you currently have to do is pay attention to what's going on at the Obama page. There's no requirement that all moves go through WP:RM; as I said on your talk page, just wait to see how that turns out, and then move the others into alignment with that outcome. Much less hassle for you and all involved.--Aervanath (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to respectfully but strongly disagree with your apparent suggestion that all other presidential articles on inaugural be changed on the basis of a decision on the Obama article. My concerns are Lincoln's first inaugural address and Lincoln's second inaugural address. Each of these has its own particular place in history and are referred to as such in the vast literature cocerning Lincoln. There are unique considerations in Lincoln's case (as well as Jefferson's, Washington's, and possibly a few others) and WP:NAME does require that article titles be determined on a case by case basis. Eliminating these names from wikipedia without a specific discussion, will be, to say the least, controversial. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I think you're right, at least on the Lincoln ones, because those two are about the speeches, not the inauguration as a whole. That wasn't my main point, though, which was that there's no point in even trying to make the bulk move if the initial case fails. However, let's assume that the Obama move gets approved. The logic there will probably apply to most of the other articles. That does not mean there won't be exceptions, it's just that for most of them there won't be a need for a separate discussion rehashing the same issues. Where there are unique circumstances, those can be dealt with case-by-case. But that'll be a much smaller number of discussions than the block that Chrism initially mass-nominated, and much easier for everyone involved to handle.--Aervanath (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

America's Next Top Model Redirects

You closed the America's Next Top Model redirect debate, but you haven't removed the rfd template from the redirects themselves. You still need to finish that part. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know they need to be removed. I've notified the nominator that they need to be removed. Since he nominated and then withdrew the nomination, I think it only fair that he remove the templates. If he doesn't do it soon, then I'll step in and do it when I'm next online. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 DoneWell, he didn't, so I've done it.--Aervanath (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)

Deletion of 'Wargames Developments'

You deleted this page for copyright infringement, but the page was written by the same guy that produced the website quoted. Also, it had been undeleted twice within 24 hours to allow the original author (and others) the opportunity to edit it. Difficult to edit pages that don't exist. Frank.IFU (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frank, Wikipedia has very strict rules about copyrights. For someone wishing to donate their own work to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to do that. Since this material is already online, I recommend following the procedures in the section marked "Granting us permission to copy material already online". To prevent your work being deleted for reasons other than copyright violations, I recommend creating it in your user space first. For example, you could create the page at User:Frank.IFU/Wargames Developments, work on it until it is ready, and then move it to Wargames Developments proper. I hope this helps. If you have need of any more information on Wikipedia policy/guidelines, or help bringing your article into line with those guidelines, let me know. Happy editing!--Aervanath (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Undo delete

Hello, please undo the deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Khitan, or open again its deletion page.

1. the scope is not to copy content from one book, that's just that this book is freely accessible online, and so the most convenient start point for users wishing to join the project. Other sources are also use : Cambridge history of China (100 pages), History of the Liao (300pages), mainly.
2. the scope is the Khitan people : History of the Khitans (388-1211) including Pre-dynastic history (planned),Liao dynasty, Kara-Khitan Khanate (post Liao), and its context : other steppes peoples, Goryeo-Khitan Wars, Khitan-chinese wars (planned), VIP's biographies.
3. One user only voted the deletion, without contacting the maĩn creator (me).

The project page make a summary of this, give some advices to start, a stub-roadmap. The perfect page to encourage new contributions to these field.

Accordingly, thanks to restore Wikipedia:WikiProject Khitan or reopen the deletion page. Yug (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the WikiProject and opened a new Mfd per your request; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Khitan (2nd nomination).--Aervanath (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Purdey - re "archived debate of the deletion review"

Hello there. I just wanted to put forward a comment I left on this page before it got archived. This is for the log of 21 January 2009.
"Criteria for musicians and ensembles" #6 should apply as the band's lead singer and guitarist - Gavin Dodds - was previously a member of Jamiroquai, and subsequently a member of Spacemonkeyz. His name is on these two (wikipedia) pages (as previous member and member, respectively), and as they are both on Wikipedia, they must therefore be 'notable'.
It hasn't been said during the debate as to why - the fulfilment of - this criteria hasn't been recognised. This alone should allow for the article's inclusion at wikipedia, from what I understand. Many thanks. (Rolluprob (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Hi, unfortunately, you weren't able to convince other editors of that. Also, after looking at the article myself, I am not convinced either. You have not provided claims from reliable sources to back up the facts in the article. WP:BAND does not override WP:RS. Currently, you have two references and three external links in your version of the article. Both references appear to be blogs, two of the external links are published by the band themselves, and the other is an online mp3 store. Please find some more reliable sources before attempting to re-open the issue. Thanks.--Aervanath (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks re England leeds mission - RfD speedy keep

Thanks for that, and for categorizing the page correctly. I didn't know that was policy, so now I've learnt something! :) Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Even the guys who've been around since the beginning don't know all the little bits and pieces of policy/guideline/convention. Nobody's going to take it the wrong way as long as you learn as you go and assume good faith. We've even got a policy about it: WP:BITE. Happy editing,--Aervanath (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and the same to you! Thanks and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

cat. renames

hi Aervanath,

thanks for pointing that out! sincerely

Gryffindor (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :)--Aervanath (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Asia_topic edit

Thanks for implementing my requested edit at Template_talk:Asia_topic#Title AndrewRT(Talk) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Any time!--Aervanath (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Zionist political violence - revert to Zionist terrorism - what right do you have to stop the vote?

Hi! I don't understand who you are, or why you can stop the vote. Is this a unilateral decision on your part? The original reason for changing the name to political violence was obviously not neutral, and was made without discussion -

• * 07:08, 2 January 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs) (moved Zionist terrorism to Zionist polical violence: See Palestinian polical violence. We cannot allow such disparity in titles)

Most sources refer to terrorism, not political violence. Please explain!93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To address your concerns in the order that you raised them:

1. Who am I? I'm an administrator on Wikipedia. One of the duties of administrators is determining consensus when editors are deciding something, whether that be renaming an article, deleting an article, or any one of a number of other things.
2. Why can I stop the "vote"? See WP:Requested moves. The move was listed there for over 5 days. After five days, an administrator evaluates the discussion and declares what the consensus is. It is not a vote, per se, but a discussion, in which the strength of the arguments raised during the discussion matters more than the numbers of editors voting for each side (although numbers are taken into account). The closing administrator must evaluate the discussion in light of general Wikipedia policies. (see our main policies) In this case, as "terrorism" is clearly a non-neutral term in English discourse, and one of our main policies is WP:Neutrality, that was clearly the strongest argument put forth during the discussion. While Wikipedia naming conventions do prefer the most commonly used name, the naming conventions are overridden by other policies.
3. The original name change was discussed, and was made for reasons of neutrality, which is perfectly ok. See Talk:Zionist_political_violence/Archive_3#Title_Change.3F.21, as well as the rest of the talk archives. This article has actually had a fairly complex move history (the following is in reverse chronological order, with :

1. 07:48, 2 January 2006 Kyorosuke (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist polical violence to Zionist political violence ‎ (It's a typo)
2. 07:08, 2 January 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist terrorism to Zionist polical violence ‎ (See Palestinian polical violence. We cannot allow such disparity in titles) (revert)
3. 18:51, 1 January 2006 -Ril- (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist political violence to Zionist terrorism over redirect ‎ (the article begins "Zionist terrorism is ...." and describes actual terrorism not just political violence)
4. 09:19, 20 December 2005 Zero0000 (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist terrorism to Zionist political violence over redirect ‎ (consistency with Palestinian political violence)
5. 01:32, 8 August 2005 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist militancy to Zionist terrorism ‎ (no agreement to move it) (revert)
6. 22:37, 7 August 2005 Heraclius (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist militancy to Zionist Terrorism over redirect ‎ (no consensus)
7. 09:10, 5 August 2005 Leflyman (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist terrorism to Zionist militancy over redirect ‎ (rv. to 'militancy', as per discussion and VfD)
8. 05:55, 5 August 2005 Heraclius (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist militancy to Zionist terrorism over redirect ‎ (no reason given for move to "militancy")
9. 05:16, 5 August 2005 Guy Montag (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist terrorism to Zionist militancy over redirect ‎ (unjustified move)
10. 04:22, 5 August 2005 Heraclius (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist militancy to Zionist terrorism over redirect ‎ (no reason given for move to "militancy")
11. 19:08, 1 August 2005 Leflyman (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zionist terrorism to Zionist militancy ‎ (Renamed as per VfD vote (and to match content))
12. The article also seems to have undergone several cut-and-paste moves over its history, which I have not listed here, since I have yet to track them all down.

I hope this answers your questions.--Aervanath (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if i`m wrong, but it seems you have now deleted the article. --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It was only deleted temporarily, to merge the history from Zionist Terrorism. The article was originally started at that title, but was then copied and pasted from there, instead of being moved using the MediaWiki "move" function. It has now been undeleted, and the histories merged.--Aervanath (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sorting all of that out - is it acceptable to use Zionist terrorism as an alternative title, given its currency, or is that a violation of neutrality? There is a small group of pro-Israeli who consistently make destructive edits to promote their agenda cf Jewish terrorism They delete relevant sourced material they disagree with. Is there anything that can be done to stop this?93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Clicking on Zionist terrorism already redirects readers to Zionist political violence, if that's what you mean by "alternate title"; and yes, that's acceptable, since "Zionist terrorism" is a likely search term. As far as the editing conflicts, I try to stay out of those. If you can't work it out with them on the talk page of the article, then you could try the various processes at WP:Dispute resolution.--Aervanath (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well. Do I read well and see that "there is a small group of pro-Israeli" etc.

I don't think this is in respect of wp:agf. particularly given the IP93 has been explained numerous times the reasons and just refuse to listen.

there have been actions of terrorism during the mandate period performed by zionist organisation, of course. BUT :

• there were many (and in fact a majority of) actions that were not terrorism but that were violent, such as riposts and attacks performed in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-39, 1945-47 and during the 6 months civil war between November 1947 and May 1945. Typically by Haganah and Palmach, that were armed zionist organisation, that used violence, but no wp:rs sources classify as terrorist.
• for some of these actions, there is disagreement among wp:rs sources to state if these were performed with the goal of terrorizing people of in the context of the usual struggle of any liberation movement. And that is for these reasons that terrorism is one of the wp:words to avoid...

Ceedjee (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ceedjee, you don't need to tell me all this, you need to take this to the talk page of the article. You only need me if there are technical issues; disputes can be worked out through the methods of WP:Dispute resolution.--Aervanath (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's marvellous to see an admin actually explain the processes that are supposed to go on. This helps greatly at articles - and gives people confidence that we are actually here to improve articles by introducing RS. This article is one of a number that has suffered bad-tempered and POV administrative action (on top of simply mystifying reversions). Is there any way you could discourage this happening in future? PR^talk 15:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the appreciation. If by "discourage this happening in future" you mean "in all of Wikipedia", then no. This kind of thing has been happening on Wikipedia since the the beginning of time and will continue to happen. POV editing on both sides of all issues, especially political ones, is inevitable. We just deal with it as it crops up, through WP:DR. However, if you mean "on this article", then, yes, if other editors agree that a mediator is needed, I would be willing to help out, and try to act as a calming hand on the issue, if other admins/experienced editors are not.--Aervanath (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)