User talk:Aervanath

Thanks

So, thanks for the deletion of the page. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The New Mikemoral ♪♫ has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Well, you're welcome! :)--Aervanath (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Gillhiscott

Earlier today you blocked this editor for her username, then unblocked to give her time to get used to Wikipedia. Since then, however, she's taken to harrasing everyone who voted delete of her article in the AfD, continuing to complain at the closed AfD's talk page (including attacks against specific editors), and spamming herself in multiple articles. I don't think she has any intention or interest in learning the ways of Wikipedia, from her removal of one explanation from her talkpage[1]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Her last contribution seems somewhat promising. Let's keep an eye on her. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but if she does continue to spam Wikipedia articles, I can re-block her. I also went through and removed some of the promotional material she inserted.--Aervanath (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM

Hi, I've asked for this change to be reverted at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Change_the_MOSNUM_section_regarding_this. Sorry for that, but as far as I can see there's no consensus using the proposed new syntax (as in {{birth-date and age}}) used in the set of templates like {{birth date and age}}. Nsaa (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is an area where I have no expertise, and frankly not much interest, either. I stopped being active at MOSNUM a long time ago. I hope you all reach consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You made the change on the 12th March, so clearly you are active. The request for that change was based on a non-existent consensus. Please see current discussion (here) and revert. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize at first that the edit was one that I had made. I'll take another look at the situation.--Aervanath (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the change done here. Nsaa (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Club Mahindra Holidays

Hi

Apologies for the "spam"; I'm writing to you and other editors because you have edited the Club Mahindra Holidays article recently.

Concern has been expressed that the article is too promotional and is about a non-notable subject. I do not necessarily agree with this, however I am concerned that unless these issues are addressed then the article may be deleted. I am therefore asking for your help in improving the article, and wish to make the following suggestions:

• The article should avoid being a promotional vehicle for Club Mahindra: the article should adhere to Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view.
• The article should avoid being an attack on Club Mahindra: while some criticism is to be expected the article should not be an attack page.
• Positive and negative comments about Club Mahindra should be referenced by reliable sources such as major newspapers and business magazines.
• Controversial claims - either for or against Club Mahindra - should be discussed on the article's talk page.

Once again, apologies for disturbing you with this matter but I hope I can look forward to working with you on improving this article!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to tell you I'm not actually that interested in the article, I only came across it because I declined the speedy deletion of it. I wish you good luck on improving the article!--Aervanath (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Need Your Help to Review UNI/O Bus Ariticle

Dear Aervanath,

I am User20090319. There is an article which is speedy deleted. Could you kindly review the article I post today and compare with I2C, SPI etc? UNI/O Bus is one new member for serial bus. It is valued for engineering and it will bring benefit to Wikipedia readers.

Could you take a look at it again? The UNI/O Bus has been created close one year. You can search much information in searching engine such as Google etc. I believe the UNI/O Bus article will contribute to Wikipedia. Please advise if it can be posted in Wikipedia.

thanks for your consideration.

best regards,

--Username20090319 (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)User20090319

Mar 27, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Username20090319 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to have an article about it, you should try to build it on your own userpage, for example, at User:Username20090319/UNI/O Bus. Once you have finished, I will be happy to review it for you to help turn it into an acceptable article. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I tried to post it in my username page. But it was deleted immediately again for some rules I don't know well.Then, I got advice to post it in my username/sandbox. OK, I can put it in username/sandbox. But I don't know if you can kindly help to review it if I put into username/sandbox. thanks...

--Username20090319 (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting it on your userpage directly should also be ok. Some people seem to think that it shouldn't be on your main userpage, but there's no consensus for that. Wherever you do put it, I will be happy to review it with you. Let me know when it's ready.--Aervanath (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Addition to DRV process

Hi, you've been active as an administrator in the DRV process in the past so I would appreciate your comments on my suggested change to DRV requirements. Thanks! [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] (talk · contribs) 17:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the move over at Shirley,_Southampton.
Cookies are delicious.

VJ (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

You're welcome! Mmm, yummy. :)--Aervanath (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14

I was the original person who nominated this for deletion, and was never even notified of this. Surely that cannot be in line with the DRV procedure? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV procedure says nothing on the subject. There is a strong recommendation that the deleting admin be notified, but there is nothing (and never has been, as far as I know) about notifying the original Afd nominator. If you'd like to change the procedure, yYou could bring it up at WT:DRV, but it's not a part of the procedure now. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM birth and death change

Regarding your change of language in MOSNUM regarding birth and death templates, your new language recommends the old template. I don't understand how this is a neutral change. I am sorry I could not respond earlier in the debate. I was on wikibreak. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I was referring to as "neutral" was the language that follows, regarding the documentation. I removed some drama-causing language about how the template was treating Julian/Gregorian dates. The reversion to the old template was because the new templates had not yet reached consensus. The documention for Template:birth-date and age currently says, "This is a proposal and should not be used before consensus has been reached. Use {{Birth date and age}} for the moment." When a true consensus develops to use the new templates, then the guideline should be changed again. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that MOSNUM should recommend the old template? -J JMesserly (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The old template was recommended by MOSNUM for quite a while, I believe. Therefore it would take a clear consensus to remove it.--Aervanath (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that I did not accurately understand that there would in fact be opposition to the MOSNUM change, but I was not attempting to submarine anticipated opposition. Note that none of the people participating took part in the earlier February discussion with the exception of Tony, who is in favor of the new templates. I posted at MOSNUM talk, I posted at the village pump. Note that the proposal I made was never protested at MOSNUM talk. Silence implies consent. So much time passed in fact that the message was archived. Consensus on moving to plain text date templates was established in the extensive discussions regarding free text dates at MOSNUM talk in february. All Birth date and death date templates are simple variants of the templates. (For example {{birth-date}} is identical to {{start-date}} with the exception of an emitted bday tag.) There was even a discussion of the Julian problem with the old templates in that thread in February, and everyone from both sides agreed about it. It is true that the documentation of Template:birth-date and age states that it should not be used, but note that this text was added by an individual of the opposing POV[2]. So how is it that 3 days for a proposed change to MOSNUM is sufficient to gauge consensus?

The change I requested to MOSNUM was fair. There is not consensus currently on how the passage should read, but I am very interested in working out what the common ground is between both sides. That process of course will be quite different if it is factually true that there was no consensus for my proposed change. If you believe the change to MOSNUM was not correct, please state why the February discussions and the absence of protest at MOSNUM talk did not constitute consensus. -J JMesserly (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that silence implies consensus, the very first sentence of that essay says that "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". (emphasis mine) Based on the discussion I saw at Wikipedia_talk:Mosnum#Undo_the_previous_change_to_the_MOSNUM_section_regarding_this, the change in templates certainly instigated some disagreement. Just because people are silent, it doesn't mean that they agree with the change, it might just mean they didn't know about it. You may have posted in a lot of places, but simply because they missed the initial conversation doesn't mean they've lost their chance to have it reverted. If there's no consensus for a change, then it should be reverted, even if the lack of consensus only became apparent after the change was made. If you feel that the new templates would be better, then go convince the other editors who are active at MOSNUM. I feel that it is out of my hands.--Aervanath (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) That's a reasonable position given the particular circumstances, but are you not responsible for the determination of "no consensus" after the fact? Let us assume that there was a spirited and long duration discussion similar to the one in February and it explicitly discussed the change to the MOSNUM passage mentioning {{birth date and age}}. Let's assume that this discussion completed on February 21 and you made the change to the protected MOSNUM page based on that apparent consensus. Now, on March 21, folks from an opposing POV become aware of the implications of the MOSNUM change and have well reasoned arguments that evenly divide the community. Is your response to them at that point "it is out of my hands"? If not, then what if the discussion concluded on January 21? Is there no time at which the objection of being unaware expires? How about if 100 days had passed? What about 6 months? I ask because there can frequently be vocal individuals that could make this sort of objection. I am a relative neophyte to the process of working through these sorts of proposals on wikipedia, so I am trying to get a feeling for what time commitment is implied by your proposal. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I am responsible for the determination of "no consensus" in this specific case. Unfortunately, in the general case, I can not give you a broad ruling on what sort of time that these sorts of things are limited by. There is no "statute of limitations" in the Wikipedia community. I would be willing to say that anything over six months would be well on its way to being accepted as consensus, and thus requiring a new consensus to revert or alter. However, I can't promise that there won't be situations where a change older than six months got reverted as having no consensus. There is no community-wide consensus on exactly how these things are supposed to work. I have participated in several debates where this issue came up, but WP:Ignore all rules pretty much guarantees that we take things on a case-by-case basis. This can sometimes generate feelings of unfairness; I can certainly identify with you in that. It can be frustrating when an issue which you thought settled is re-opened again, especially when the resulting change is contrary to what you wanted.

I hope the above doesn't sound too much like "it's this way because I say it is". That's not the impression I want you to take away from this. Wiki is fluid, and things are constantly changing. We've always taken things case by case. There are no binding precedents here. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are still not satisfied with my answer, I recommend that you post to the Administrators' Noticeboard, where other admins' will see and can give you extra opinions on what I have said and done. I think that I have acted correctly in this case, but I am always willing to admit that I am wrong, and I respect my fellow admins enough to accept their judgment if they feel I acted in error. If you do post there, please let me know with a link to the thread. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You misread my interest. Nothing of the kind will be necessary. You have a reasonable position as I stated and there were mitigating circumstances. I actually do not have a very typical attachment to the minutiae of this particular topic. This is a case study for examining the applicability of a consensus based collaborative system in community organization/ political work. WP process has some fundamental weaknesses that make it impractical for such applications. For example in this case, 6 months is an enormous time commitment for something that is actually only a minor step in a long change of innovations to discuss. One last question- when this change went in, one of the objections was that people could make massive changes from the old template to the new template based on the MOSNUM guidance. This was not my intention at all, and I said as much, feeling that the text should be modified to exclude this outcome if this was indeed true. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Is it so that the MOSNUM guidance now means there is carte blanche to eradicate usage of the new templates? -J JMesserly (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, 6 months is a long time, but I only used it as an example of an upper limit to a possible statute of limitations for these things. In almost all cases the time limit would be lower than that, but as a community we are unwilling to put a strict rule down, to avoid wikilawyering, e.g. "The change has already been there for a month and a day, and the rules say you needed to object within a month, so now you have to have a positive consensus to change it back." I am sure you can see where that road leads. :)

As for performing massive conversions from one template to another, that is also not desirable, especially if there is not a huge difference between the templates, and both display what they're supposed to display in a manner which follows MOSNUM's other instructions. Perhaps the guideline should simply mention both templates as options. Or, in the alternative, the templates can be merged, so that one template is a simple redirect to the other, so it doesn't matter which template name is actually used in the guideline. This would require that the resultant template be coded in such a way that the transfer was seamless: the new template would have to accept parameters in the old template's style. I don't know how feasible that would be in this case. I think, however, that a template merger of that sort, and/or changes to the template in question, would be better discussed on the talk page for those templates. Yours,--Aervanath (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is not desirable. As an administrator knowledgeable about MOSNUM disputes, I was asking you whether the current MOSNUM guidance sufficient to justify conversion of articles using the new templates so that they instead use the old template? It seems to me that in an ANI dispute, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. True? Side note: the dispute on MOSNUM mostly had to do with syntax. A hypothetical merged template would not be acceptable to the opposing POV because it allowed the plain text syntax. EG: the translation objection, Nsaa's "Pandora's box" objection. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No, it should not be used to justify wholesale conversion in either direction. It seems like the best thing to do in this sort of case, where it seems like neither set of templates currently has consensus, would be to remove them completely from the guideline.--Aervanath (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_23

#Survivors_of_aviation_accidents_.E2.86.92_Flight_.23.23.23.23

Given that the others didn't have time discuss my comment, can you re-open this discussion and hold the deletion ? -- User:Docu

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- User:Docu

You're welcome, although it would be easier if your signature included the standard timestamp so it would be clear when you made your comment. I didn't realize that it was a recent comment until I looked at the history.--Aervanath (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Disney_XD#Merged_Toon_Disney_into_this_article

Since you are an administrator, I wanted to ask if you could close out the following discussion Talk:Disney_XD#Merged_Toon_Disney_into_this_article. Thank You. --Gman124 ^talk 23:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Newcastle Central railway station

Talk:Newcastle Central railway station

Why did you move this, when there's so clearly no consensus to support it? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you moved this as a batch of three. Did you even read the article's talk page first? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my butting in, Aervanath, but I thought I'd point out User:Aervanath/Newcastle_railway_station, which should shed some light on your reasoning to Andy. Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the old "GHits are all that matters" reasoning. Thanks for pointing it out. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good snooping, Parsecboy. :) And no, it's not "Ghits are all that matters". However, they are useful as a rough measure. After reading the discussion, I was pretty much convinced that there was a good consensus for the move. The arguments against the move were reasonable, but not convincing. However, I did want to do some checking myself. The Ghits listed on the subpage reassured me that I was making the right decision; they were not what pushed me to that decision in the first place.--Aervanath (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

They're a very rough measure. GHits measure usage, not definition. They're also skewed in favour of recent uses, and in favour of "shorthand" uses. As mentioned on talk:, there _is_ a current fashion to simplify the station signage and this probably makes travelling easier for tourists. However those are good things for managing public use, bad things for historical records in an encyclopedia. "A good consensus" also usually includes more than one person. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, the Ghits were not what made my decision for me. I agree that the Google test has its weaknesses, but that's not what made my decision for me, it was just a way of reinforcing my own conclusion from reading the discussion, in which 7 editors participated. Four !voted for the move, and and 3 !voted against it. All arguments being equal, I would not usually move an article with a 4-3 majority, but the arguments were not equal. The Google hits just reinforced the pro-move editors' point that "Newcastle railway station" was probably the best name for the article.--Aervanath (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

HI

HIFireFoxUser2343 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Future film

Hello, Aervanath. First of all, I've got to things to say.

1. Good luck, and congr....... for being choosen as an administrator.
2. A question ? If there's a future film, example Spider-Man 4. The release date is still far one or two years. And when we search for it in wikipedia, it redirects to the series's section called Future. So, when can we change the redirect for the future ?

- World Cinema Writer (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, for the answer to your question, see Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films, which discusses that. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Percy Pringle/Paul Bearer

I'm not sure if you followed the discussion, but it was pretty clear that Percy Pringle and Paul Bearer are equally well-suited to be considered the most common name. Because the discussion stalled at that point ("I'm right" - "No, I'm right" - "No, I'm right"), a compromise solution was put forward to go with the real name. As such, the arguments for keeping it at its previous location were struck. Had anyone been aware that someone from outside the project would come in and impose a decision, it's fairly safe to say that people who initially opposed any move would have also clung to the "No, I'm right" argument. I'm disappointed that you moved the article when there was clearly no consensus to do so, and I urge you to move it back, as no consensus should default to no move. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to be pretty clear from the discussion that Percy Pringle was not as well known as Paul Bearer, and that he was not known at all by his real name. As such, our naming conventions are pretty clear that he should be at the name he is most known as.--Aervanath (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to wikilink well-known policies. I am confused, however, as to how you came to that conclusion from the discussion. The closest that any of the people who supported the move to "Paul Bearer" came to formulating an actual argument was by saying that anyone who disagreed with them must be illiterate. On the flip side, it was pointed out that he used the name "Percy Pringle" in major promotions for longer than he used the "Paul Bearer" name, that he has published a book under the "Percy Pringle" name, that he can never use the "Paul Bearer" name again due to copyright (and thus any further notability will be gained under the "Percy Pringle" name, as this is how he refers to himself and the domain name of his website, percypringle.com). If, as you said, the strength of the argument is what matters in the end (a statement that is supported, of course, by policy), then it seems that the move should not have been made. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with my decision, and if you would like to get others to review it, I invite you to ask the opinions of the other requested move admins at WT:Requested moves.--Aervanath (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Cannon Beach City Center, Oregon

You deleted this, but it's currently linked from U.S. Route 101 in Oregon, and will remain linked per WP:R2D. --NE2 13:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, here. What does that have to do with me? There is nothing wrong with having that link. See WP:REDLINK.--Aervanath (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Korean Air Flight 801

How come you deleted this article? -- Prince Kassad (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It was an accident. I was deleting some redirects to it and deleted the actual article by mistake. My apologies. It has now been restored.--Aervanath (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)