Jump to content

User talk:Aervanath/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

User:Emma white20/Sydney Rae White

Following a DRV, you rightly put this into a user space for updates that were promised. A month has passed with no work on the article, and I'm concerned, because we have a BLP deemed NN at AfD languishing, and it is visible in Google, appearing in the first page of results for this individual's name. I wondered if you had any thoughts on how to proceed? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a {{noindex}} tag to it, so it should stop appearing in Google's results soon. If you feel it's still inappropriate, you can nominate it for WP:MFD, but usually consensus there tends to give a lot of leeway (at least ~6 months) for articles to be kept in userspace for improvement, with the justification that WP:Notability doesn't apply outside of mainspace.--Aervanath (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Happy for it to be there - just feel too involved to neutrally touch the article, and want it out of Google. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help. :)--Aervanath (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image deleted after you closed the DrV endorsing its keep

[1]. Not sure if this goes to DrV again (new reason for speedy) ANI, or what. The deleting admin is disinclined to restore. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm reDRVing it. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've commented at the DRV.--Aervanath (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru

I am afraid you have committed a mistake. The files were rather to be kept as they are, or shortened at worst, but nobody voted for their deletion, except the nominator. I doubt this is in accordance with Wikipedia rules...* The desire of Jaan Pärn to delete the contents and then the article Sofia Rotaru alltogether goes a little too far, even when users vote for keeping files. Do you think this deletion was done in accordance with the Wikipedia rules?--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) --Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The key criterion here is WP:NFCC#3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." As the editor who !voted "Keep...sort of" noted, there are many clips in the article, and no especial need for the deleted clips was shown over other clips in the article. No argument was made in the FFD that overcame that.--Aervanath (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, first of all there were two or three "keeps" (week or strong) and one "delete". For me, not a rocket scientist, the consensus is clearly to keep. Second, the whole paragraph deals (or used to deal, since I cannot even follow anymore all of the deltions of Jaan Pärn on the article Sofia Rotaru about these songs where. It is for the intention to release an album with these songs with Sony BMG Music Entertainment, that Sofia Rotaru was forbidden to leave the USSR for 7 years. At the same time, Soviet power allowed her to sing the Circus song representing Soviet Union in India on Universal Youth Games. Circus was the major success of the Soviet delegation. Just listen to the observations of commentators on youtube (radio live recording). That's the whole controversy about certain and namely these songs in foreign languages of Sofia Rotaru, which changed her life, caused anger and satisfaction of the Soviet authorities at the same time. This was told in the article, but I guess later deleted by Jaan Pärn. --Rubikonchik (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your argument, but please read all WP:NOTAVOTE; discussions are based on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. Also, please read all of WP:NFCC. Near the bottom, it notes that "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created". Even with these three deletions, there are still many sound clips on the article, and there was no "valid rationale" in the FFD to show why ALL of them were necessary. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Your first argument should be dismissed, as if we are following the WP:NOTAVOTE, you should have noted that not only Jaan Pärn basically lied in his arguments, but also other users have counterargumented him. Your second argument should be dismissed as well, as these were unique recordings for a Western recording company, in foreign, back then (in the late 70's!!!! - it's not that far from the hottest point of the Cold War) of the leading Soviet singer... I think all of them are complied with. Which one is missing?--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
What is missing is an explanation why it is necessary that there be more than one sound clip in the article. According to WP:NFCC#3a (which I have already cited above), Wikipedia requires "minimal usage" of non-free media. Without a sufficient argument to show why multiple non-free sound clips are required to demonstrate the style of her music, there could have been no other outcome. So far, I have seen nothing to convince me of this necessity. For each file, it is necessary to show why that particular clip, and ONLY that particular clip, could add to the reader's understanding of a key fact in the article. I have seen nothing sufficiently specifically-worded in any of the discussions, including this one. If you can give me an individual explanation why each one is critical to reader understanding, then of course I will undelete the ones which are critical.--Aervanath (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a familiar reasonuing: "first I decide to delete, just because, then I try to find a reason why exactly did I delete. And if the reason does not work, I'll always invent another one." I have provided already a detailed explanation why these audio files were important and unique. You haven't addressed any of my concernes regarding the Wikipedia rules as far as the voting and number of "keep"s and "delete"s is concerned. I could revert to you with necessary links, proper wording etc., if that's what's missing... But you will probably find another reason... Therefore, please kindly indicate me where can we discuss this with a third party input? Thank you.--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You should go to WP:Deletion review and follow the instructions there, so that other users can review my reasoning.--Aervanath (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian charts are listified

Just an FYI: the number-one singles in Australia are listified by year in the lists in Category:Lists of number-one songs in Australia. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Was that mentioned at the CFD? If it wasn't you should make certain to mention it the next time you put it up for deletion.--Aervanath (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it wasn't overt enough. I did say "Lists for most of these already exist and in many in excellent detail", but I didn't provide any links to the existing lists.--Wolfer68 (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Well, that's a point in your favor, but that doesn't really change the fact that the discussion reached no consensus, unfortunately. That doesn't prevent it from being re-nominated, though. You may want to start a discussion on the talk pages of WP:WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Songs, and try to come to a consensus with the members of those wikiprojects on whether these categories are really appropriate or not. If you can come to a consensus there, that'll be something you can point to in a later CFD.--Aervanath (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisting CFDs

Just a heads up, when you relist a CFD into the next month and you fix the link to the new discussion, don't forget to change the CFD month category [2]. Thanks, btw, for the help in closing! --Kbdank71 13:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for the heads-up on that! I wasn't even paying attention to that. I wish we had a script that would do that automatically. :) Thanks for the tip!--Aervanath (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sophia Rotaru

Greetings, fellow admin. At DRV, I said "I don't believe the closing admin interpreted consensus or policy correctly." Rereading that, I think I may have come across kinda harsh. I don't mean any slight against you, and I thank you for being willing to tackle backlogs and make difficult admin calls. We disagree in this case, but I certainly don't mean to question your work here. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, it didn't come across as harsh to me, it was just a disagreement with my decision, which is perfectly fine. I am quite aware that I am human, and there are some handicaps that come with the species. :) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL ... great minds...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions&diff=295672101&oldid=295671673

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs)
Yup. :) --Aervanath (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote rigging at Military History of British Islands

I am truly amazed at your page move of Military History of the peoples of the British Islands. You have paid absolutely no attention to the external canvassing on an Irish (potentially anti-British) discussion board which drew numerous new editors to the vote and which bolstered the option you say has won. This canvassing was pointed out to you. It flies in the face of Wikipedia principles and you appear to have condoned it. What is your explanation for this seemingly misguided decision? LevenBoy (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the canvassing was clearly pointed out in the discussion. And I have not "condoned" it. Looking at the discussion, it is quite clear which !votes are from "canvassed" editors, and I ignored those, along with any !votes who didn't actually participate in the discussion or offer a rationale. My decision was based on the content and tone of the discussion, and I stand by it.--Aervanath (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case you have possibly miscounted. The majority view, up to the time of the canvassing, was for option 1. Please see the analysis by User:Bastun within the discussion. Votes after the canvassing cannot, in all fairness, be counted. Also, if you excluded votes that didn't offer a "rationale" then some subjectivity must have crept into your analysis. LevenBoy (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Having quickly looked at the voting it is clear that a small number of users merely stated "Support" or "Oppose". To enable me to assess the fairness of the process please let me know precisely which votes you included and which you excluded (I acknowledge that voting is indicative only and not binding). Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the !votes which I explicitly ignored were:
Option 1:
  1. User:Iwasfrozen (oppose, this was only edit)
  2. User:MidnightBlueMan (support, no rationale)
  3. User:Rockybiggs (support, no rationale)
  4. User:Footyfanatic3000 (oppose, purely nationalistic rationale)
  5. User:ColmDawson (oppose, no rationale, only 33 edits)
  6. User:Jonsnow27 (oppose, purely nationalistic rationale, only 6 edits)
  7. User:Þjóðólfr (oppose, rationale unclear)
That left the !vote count at 8-7 in support, a bare majority.
Option 4:
  1. User:Deedsie (support, purely nationalistic rationale, only 11 edits)
  2. User:MidnightBlueMan (oppose, no rationale)
  3. User:Rockybiggs (oppose, no rationale)
  4. User:Footyfanatic3000 (support, no real rationale)
  5. User:Navnite (support, no actual rationale, only 12 edits)
  6. User:ColmDawson (support, no rationale)
  7. User:Jonsnow27 (support, nationalistic rationale, only 6 edits)
This left the !vote count at 8-4 in support, a much more substantial majority. However, much more important than the vote count for me was the tone of the discussion in the two sections. The feeling I got from reading the two sections was quite different. While there is obvious disagreement present in both subsections, the discussion under Option 1 got quite unfriendly, I felt, whereas the the comments under Option 4 were far more civil, leading me to believe that this would be less controversial choice. I felt that this, more than the numbers, pushed me towards Option 4. If you are still concerned about the canvassing, I would ask you to note that most of the !votes I ignored were from the Irish side. I hope that this assuages your concerns somewhat. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The debate under option one got unfriendly because certain editors raise hell about the term they dismiss, as often happens it seems their crying has paid off. Look at British Isles itself, you will see countless attempts by editors there to try and rename the article totally lying about issues just because they have a clear agenda.
The fact they were prepared to canvass is a concern but even if we forget that happened the votes were far too close for consenus to be reached. I didnt strongly oppose the idea of splitting the articles, but the reason i did now has to be addressed. What exactly is this article meant to be about. Just what happened in Britain or everything everypart has done in the world throughout history? For example, after you changed the name i removed the wikiproject tag for Ireland from the talk page and removed any mention of Ireland in the intro. Was that a correct move for what the article is now meant to reflect? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think so. Those tags would then be applied to the new Military history of Ireland page. I note that the page has now been turned into a disambiguation page, which seems to render the whole previous drama and move discussion completely moot.--Aervanath (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
sorry hadnt seen that the article had been changed that does resolve this problem, although a look at the introduction of the Military history of Ireland shows another conflict is obviously going to start right away.
"The military history of Ireland for centuries has been dominated by the role played by England and the United Kingdom, with a struggle from independence from England." Lmao, this article is going to be sooooo balanced im sure. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Yes. I hope that this is my last involvement with the whole mess. :)--Aervanath (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I dont blame you for not wanting to get involved again and i understand why you made the choice you did. The main thing is we no longer have the stupid article title of British islands, im far more happy with the current setup than how it was although just for the record, taking a look at the Ireland article so far, with the exception of the final paragraph, all others in the intro has some mention of Britain, the British or English which is why it kind of made sense to have one on our shared history. Anyway thanks for ur help in trying to resolve this =) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome. I am sure that the article will become more balanced over time, though. It'll just take a few edit wars, multiple blocks, large amounts of incivility and an ARBCOM case, that's all. Nothing to it. :)--Aervanath (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And just what gives you the right to ignore my vote on the matter! Please show me where it said that for a vote to count you had to explain yourself! I've never seen anything like it in my life! When I vote at the ballot box I don't have to say why I'm voting for a particular candidate. Okay, these votes are not true binding votes, but you have NO right to disenfranchise me just because I didn't explain why I supported one option and opposed another. If you care to look at the previous vote, just above the one you've involved yourself with, you'll see that I did offer my opinion. I considered that a repeat vote didn't really need further explanation of my view. This whole issue has been handled very badly. I suggest you move the article back (to ...British Islands), roll back recent edits and conduct a proper poll. Vote rigging? No doubt about it! MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAVOTE. Just because it has a poll-like format does not mean that is a straight by-the-numbers vote. If you doubt me, ask other admins or experienced editors, and they'll tell you the same thing.--Aervanath (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I already read it. My comments stand. I regret to say it, and please don't take offence, but you've made a hash of this. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ohhh god no, please anything but moving it back to British Islands. Thats part of certain editors agendas too, they want to make out that British islands is a regularly used term to justify getting rid of the British isles article all together. I think we should try and see how the article at military history of Ireland works out, it might not be possible for it to remain there always looking at how the basic wording has been formed. The vast majority of content is just going to be about Britain or England anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've no desire whatsoever for British Islands, but the process that's been going on here is scandalous. I was suggesting that the move made by Aervanath had no consensus, so he should reverse it. Granted, it should really be moved back to the title before British Islands, but there's no chance of that. The vote(s) and subsequent moves are a complete travesty. I bet Aervanath wishes he never came across this article :) MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You are absolutely right I wish I'd never gotten involved, but that's what happens when you respond to move requests; sometimes they're controversial. I continue to believe that I made the best decision possible under the circumstances. As for it being a "complete travesty", well, I think it was already a complete mess; I don't think I made it any worse. :) In the future, though, please add rationales to your votes, as they are much more likely to be considered that way. In fact, on Wikipedia, you'll find most people write "!vote", with an exclamation point. The "!" means "not". These are not true votes; they are discussions, with people adding a bold heading just to make their position clearer. In most discussions on Wikipedia, !votes with no rationale are routinely discounted. This applies at deletion discussions as well as move discussions. I'm sorry you feel slighted, but this is standard practice.--Aervanath (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well it just gets worse more the more I look at the !votes!. In option 1 you've counted the political rant from User:Dunlavin Green as an Oppose, and in option 4 you've counted User:MusicInTheHouse with his minimal "see previous comments" as a Support. I really do think you need to seriously look at this again. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The above list only includes the !votes that I explicitly discounted right off the bat because of obvious insufficiencies. Just because a !vote is absent from that list doesn't mean I necessarily agreed with its rationale. In the end, I evaluated the discussion not by counting vote-by-vote, but reading the entire discussion and evaluating it as a whole. See User:Aervanath/How to evaluate consensus for my standard process. You will note that the vote-counting only starts once I've read the entire discussion, and the votes are explicitly secondary to the arguments put forth.--Aervanath (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ohh ive just found out that the vote was rigged even more than i first thought. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Vote_on_renaming_article_to_include_"British_Isles". BritishWatcher (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Actually, that looks like a fairly normal notice to me. Per WP:CANVASS, neutrally worded notices to interested parties are allowed. You will note that nothing in the WikiProject post has anything like "Hey, come vote for option X!" I would have had no objection if the same notice had been posted to other relevant WikiProjects, such as WP:WikiProject Britain, as long as they were neutrally worded. I'm far more bothered by the off-wiki canvassing than by the on-wiki WikiProject notifications, for reasons of transparency. Most WikiProjects have standard notices for when an article under their purview is sent to AFD, so this is pretty similar.--Aervanath (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
But there was no mention at all of the article on military history of the British isles or islands on the Britain wikiproject, its very clear what the intentions of the IP was in that case making it sound like we were trying to have an article renamed when in fact we wanted it restored to its previous name. I agree the outside canvass was far worse, but its still probably what attracted one or two of the editors to that vote. Doesnt really matter anymore though as the change has happened, just thought id mention it as id just seen it when on that page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You are correct that the notice should have been cross-posted to other WikiProjects for a less biased call for outside opinion. However, as you say, it's pretty much moot. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Time to move on, BritishWatcher. You'll get no change here. BTW, the canvassing IP was also a voter, and his vote was counted, unlike mine. I think he may have also been the external canvasser. Like I said earlier, this whole thing has been badly handled. This is not the end of it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you did a good job in a difficult situation, few if any wanted to keep the name as it was, and there was no consensus to delete it. As the article name could have been one of several, non of which the naming policies dictated as the preferred name, and there was no strong consensus for any of the alterntive names, the name you chose was as good as any other, (I personally would have placed in under British military history). Now that is it renamed we have taken the next step, that the disagreement among editors and the overlap between articles suggested as obvious, and have made it a dissimulation page. IMHO it is a pity that the effort that went into arguing over the name has not been put into the articles because both the UK and English articles are only lists and until yesterday the Irish one did not even exist. --PBS (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, PBS. Glad to get some positive feedback out of this. :)--Aervanath (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Britain

Hello Aervanath, following your split of the articles yesterday it appears its an outcome people are prepared to accept. However now the article is only about Britain, Do you think Military history of Ireland should be linked on the page? We had a single article covering both Ireland and Britain under the title British Isles. People argued that the two were separate and shouldnt be put together, so now the article has been split one on Ireland and one on Britain. But now people are imposing a link to the military histopry of Ireland on an article ONLY about Britain, how is that fair when some of the same people were seeking the original split arguing the two were totally different and needed their own articles?

Its offensive that a link to something that has nothing to do with britain must be kept there, especially as the choice to split the articles in the first place was a very close decission, and there were two attempts at vote rigging. Do you think the link to an article on a different Ireland should be kept there? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the moment I just looked at the article, the link to Military history of Ireland is located in the "See also" section, which seems appropriate to me. Usually that section is meant for things which have a more tenuous connection with the topic, but that readers of the article might also be interested in. I think it would be fair to say that people looking at Military history of Britain would probably also be interested in Military history of Ireland. However, I don't think it should be included in the main section of the article.--Aervanath (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should include military history of France? of Germany? Why Ireland???? The article no longer has any connection with Ireland, its meant to be about Britain and ONLY Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I have added the template {{Military history of Europe}} to the article, and removed the "See also" link. That way, every single military history article for European nations will be linked. This will include Ireland, but will not single it out as somehow special. I think that should be a satisfactory middle course.--Aervanath (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats a good idea thanks, i hope its ok with others. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Me, too, but I'm sure at least one person will object, since every other action I've taken involving this subject has resulted in complaints.  :) --Aervanath (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just nitpicking. Why wasn't the article called Military history of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't one of the options suggested on the talk page. See Talk:Military_history_of_Britain#Poll_on_Article_Name for the whole discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, sorry about that. I'm a tad sleepy, today. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed

You have seen part of the discussion / conflict about renaming Wikipedia maintenance categories. You may have noticed that the fiercest resistance came from William Allen Simpson. Later I have taken him to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and he received a warning. He has also tried to repay me in style, so far without success.

I have received the advice to "Dare I suggest that the two of you take a break, from each other and from pages where you have bumped heads." The first part, about taking a break from William Allen Simpson, I didn't need, because he doesn't personally interest me. The latter I have found hard, since his main activity is on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion where I have reason to be as well.

Because of a certain discussion there, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_1#Category:African_American_rock_groups I decided to see if perhaps William Allen Simpson had anything to do with this (which he didn't, at first glance), and bumped into a few edits of his that seem really "wrong" to me. Note: I know that the word "wrong" is not very professional, but I hope you understand what I mean. The edits are [3], [4], [5] and [6].

Now I don't know what to do. If I open a discussion about these edits he will surely say (as he has done before, incorrectly), that I stalk him and open another wp:ani or wp:wqa discussion, as is his way. Not that I would find it hard to defend myself, but it is such a sad thing really. Even after all is said and done, and notice that I have been ruled right or at least not-wrong more than once already, I still feel myself like I bathed in mud (or the other substance). Do you have an advice for me, that would one the one hand avoid another confrontation, but on the other put a stop to William Allen Simpson making his point and disrupting Wikipedia in the process? Debresser (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless he's actually depopulating categories as an end-run around CFD, I don't see that he's actually doing anything wrong with the edits you reference above. One of the categories he removed is quite large, and the others have either been deleted at CFD or are up at CFD now. So unless there's something more specifically wrong about those edits, I would advise you to just drop the matter, and let your Wikistress level drop. :) --Aervanath (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
He does depopulate categories as an end-run round cfd (although I expect he will say he is removing incorrectly categorised articles). He has very high standards for inclusion, eg Roni Tran Binh Trong was firstly removed from Category:Finnish people of Vietnamese descent (which is under cfd) on the grounds that Vietnamese was not established, and then on the grounds that we cannot be sure he is Finnish. There have several other examples: George Alagiah is another (British of Tamil descent, his parents being Tamil). (He is by no means the only person who does this during cfds.) Occuli (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Perhaps we should strengthen the guidelines at CFD. The header currently reads:

Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.

Maybe something stronger, such as

Do NOT remove the category from any pages until the community has made a decision, except for cases of obvious vandalism or duplication.

Thoughts?--Aervanath (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support that. WAS also has devised {{People_by_ethnicity}} which he is adding to categories; he is effectively able to remove anyone from a heritage category using one strand or other (unless they are really well documented such as Obama and indeed George Alagiah). He also quotes guidelines which he has himself written. He doesn't ask for sources, he just removes the category. Here is another WAS edit which emptied a category under cfd (and which makes a difference to 'upmerge'). Occuli (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone told him that this is isn't acceptable?--Aervanath (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I did suggest once that he use {{fact}} or {{Category unsourced}}. I'll wait for a more egregious example than Kid Capri (which doesn't even mention Italy); I expect that will be quite soon. (Full marks for patience by the way, not so much for this but for the 'British Islands' imbroglio, which you handled with remarkable aplomb.) I do note that he has removed Alicia Keys from all African American categories ... seems a little extreme. Occuli (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone make up a template about a Wikipedia policy on his own, and start adding it to pages? I think this template is quite a big step to undertake without consensus. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
And there is {{People by nationality}} also. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention Wikipedia:Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Excuse me. He has not made any changes in that one, apart from something in the header, which is not transcluded. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
We are thinking about what to do on User_talk:Occuli#Recent_activity_in_ethnicity_categorisation. If you'd like to join... Debresser (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Promise

See here the evidence that I am keeping my promise to not make any more changes to categories without discussion. I admit being a little impatient, waiting for the outcome of what I see as obvious improvements. But that is life. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. However, what some people see as obvious improvements, others see as radical changes requiring discussion. If you want to see a worst-case scenario for what happens when people feel that they haven't been consulted on things which affect them, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride. So I'm glad you've put it open for discussion. It looks like no one has commented yet, which means it'll probably be approved. This may seem like jumping through bureaucratic hoops, but as a volunteer-driven organization, people need to feel like they had the opportunity to discuss things. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Up for discussion

First of all, thank you for your wise words. Furthermore, since you have been involved in the previous discussion as an outside mediator, I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on my nominations in this specific sphere of maintenance categories. You've already noticed this one, and then there is this one where I have again received an unpleasant remark and misleading sneers from William Allen Simpson. Finally I have nominated the category from which all the trouble started for rename here. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I shall keep on eye on them. Thanks. :) --Aervanath (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
See there that William Allen Simpson continues with making derogatory and insulting remarks. Nothing spectacular, but unpleasant. I'll keep my quit, but if this continues, I'd like to know what the correct follow-up is. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, I can see that he's on the edge of incivility, but I have to be honest, comments like "Will you please stop speaking nonsense" aren't going to help. My advice here is to ignore his incivility and direct your comments only at his arguments. "Kill 'em with kindness", as they say. Only respond to the arguments he raises that are directly relevant to the discussion. Don't bother to comment about the tone of his remarks, or waste your time on telling him your opinion of him. He certainly already knows. :) If you find yourself being provoked, leave your computer for a while and cool down. Then, when you're cool, go back and write a response. Make it as complimentary as you can. See Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy for something related. But basically, don't let yourself get angry. I rarely get into disputes like this, for the simple reason that when I'm pissed off I log off and take a Wikibreak. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I'll do just that. 90% of my reply to his arguments in my third nomination was strictly to the point. I considered some time, whether or not to add the last point. In the end I decided that in order to avoid making the impression that his personal comment might in some way be considered an argument, I should reply to it also. Which I think I managed to do in a detached way. Thanks for keeping an eye on things and helping me keep the discussion cool. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, looking at your comments, I have to say that the 10th point should have been left off. It's a personal statement directed towards him, not at the topic of the CFD. That sort of comment should go on his talk page, not there. However, given your relationship with him so far, I would avoid his talk page at all costs if I were you. :) --Aervanath (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now this

If you like (I personally profoundly dislike this kind of thing), have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#William_Allen_Simpson_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_.29 and the incredible concoction following it in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Debresser_and_Kotniski_reported_by_William_Allen_Simpson_.28Result:_.29. I am starting to think the guy needs help. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours for the 3RR violation. Hopefully he'll curb his behavior in that area, at least.--Aervanath (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have posted repeatedly on the talkpage involved, but he hasn't replied there. Just in case he goes back to reverting, tell me what to do. I see no point in an edit war. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, while he's blocked, he can't reply anywhere except on his talk page. Once his block expires, if he does continue to edit-war on that page, and does not choose to respond on the talk page, then just report him again.--Aervanath (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
What I meant is, what can I do to avoid that? Is there any other way to stop an editor pushing a point? Debresser (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
He went right back to revert. It was his first edit after the block. See Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Characteristics_of_problem_editors. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

I have placed the page under full protection so that consensus on the disputed edits, or at least an agreement to stop reverting each other, can be achieved on this talk page. Once that agreement has been made, feel free to request unprotection at WP:RFPP.--Aervanath (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for the familiarity and making fun of this sad situation, but you are aware of Wikipedia:The Wrong Version? Get ready! :) Debresser (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I am well aware of it, yes. I notice that you happened to make the last edit to the page, and, also per that essay, the protection isn't an endorsement of your preferred version, either. I just want to force the issue to the talk page and get it resolved.--Aervanath (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, now you have a live specimen of Wikipedia:The Wrong Version on your talkpage. And yes, I am very well aware that protection is no endorsement. I really appreciate you sticking out your neck for the best interest of two quibeling editors (and Wikipedia in general). Debresser (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
That was an unorthodox revert. Perhaps you were looking for this version? Debresser (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps add a {{pp-dispute}} template? I don't know what correct procedure is, but I suppose this template has a function, and that this is it. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done--Aervanath (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice job splitting the baby.

I was worried a lack of participation at DrV would just leave Roblox deleted. Sending to AfD was a good middle-ground solution. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure.--Aervanath (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Reason for move?

Interesting - I see one comment, and one oppose, yet you elected to move with no reason given the article één → Eén? 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was a fairly simple matter of applying WP:MOS-TM; User:Lambiam was pretty convincing in his argument, and I didn't see anything to rebut that.--Aervanath (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Then I hope you will add "per WP:MOS-TM" to your closing comments. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the feedback. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

2007 NLL season

On what grounds did you determine there was a consensus to move 2007 National Lacrosse League season to 2007 NLL season? Powers T 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussion, the arguments generally boiled down to "The name should be spelled out everywhere" vs. "The name should be abbreviated in the subsidiary articles", but with no really strong policy-based arguments on either side. In a case like that, it generally comes down to simple numbers. Also, in this case, the article had been stable at that name for almost three years (with a one day interruption in 2007) before you moved it to the longer name. When an article name has such a stable history, usually it requires a strong consensus to move it away from that name. To sum up: 1) no strong arguments either way, and numbers were in favor of the move back to the "NLL", and 2) the burden was on you to show that your move had consensus, since you'd moved it away from a stable name; since it clearly did not have consensus, it got moved back to the stable title. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fast Folk artist

Hi Aervanath, Regarding Category:Fast Folk artists, would it be possible for the bot who removed all of the articles from this category to reverse those edits? If so, is that something that needs to be formally requested? Thanks for your help. -MrFizyx (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am also not clear on this, actually. I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Re-populating_categories so that editors more knowledgeable than I can educate us. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess this is an unusual case for which there is no standard procedure. I've posted a request on Cyde's talk page. We'll see what transpires. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have certified it.--Aervanath (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Black rock musicians

The CFD was closed as delete, so why isn't it deleted yet? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted about an hour after you posted your message. :) Categories aren't deleted until they're depopulated by a bot (usually User:Cydebot, although there may be others of which I'm not aware), which then deletes them once they are depopulated. The closer of the CFD posts the categories to be deleted/merged/renamed to the CFD working page, which acts as the task list for the bot. The admin doesn't actually delete the article directly. That's why there's a lag between closure and actual deletion. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kohuept

No consensus? Can you elaborate? Consensus isn't just an up-and-down vote. The "most commonly used name in sources = article name" argument wasn't as strong as it seemed, given that the sources are demonstratably wrong. And hell, there is a six-three split for the Russian title (as in, one oppose !voter explicitly supported the Russian title, shifting the balance in terms of raw numbers). Sceptre (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that these discussions are not a vote; sorry I didn't expand more at the time, here's an actual rationale:
Basically it came down to arguments vs. numbers. As you point out, it was 6 to 3 in favor of using the Cyrillic lettering, but none of the arguments for using the lettering overcame the multiple reliable sources provided by the opposition. And yes, I can certainly see the point of view that the currently most common lettering is "wrong"; but our concepts of "right" and "wrong" are notoriously subjective, and as an encyclopedia we must strive to be as objective as possible. So I found the minority arguments much more convincing and policy-based in that respect. However, the majority still had a point, so I didn't feel comfortable closing it entirely against the numbers. Thus, a finding of no consensus. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And there's perfectly good reasons why those sources use Latin letters: it's not that they think the title is actually "Kohuept"; it's that that was the easiest way they could render it. Cyrillic support in any OS before Vista and OS X 10.5 was dodgy, and, for a store, it's easier for them to list the product in Latin look-a-like letters, e.g. [7] compared to [8]. But we are not an online store. We're an encyclopedia capable of redirects and capable of Cyrillic support. We should strive for accuracy, not blindly following the example of those capable of neither. Sceptre (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, neither you nor I can actually read the minds of those who made the decision to render it in Latin and not Cyrillic. To do so would amount to original research. It was clearly demonstrated that reliable English sources use "Kohuept", Yes, some of the sources provided are online stores, but the majority were not.--Aervanath (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, it wouldn't be quite as ridiculous if there hadn't been first a move in the opposite direction without consensus, and now "no consensus" is cited as a reason to keep it. Well, thanks for pissing me off from WP (see my comments on the article's talk page)! 88.65.123.101 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you are choosing to give up on Wikipedia because of one outcome you do not agree with. If I had done that, I would have left long ago.--Aervanath (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Not only the outcome, also the arbitrary way that those in power choose to apply the (actual or fictional) rules. Why is "no consensus" a reason for one move, but not for the other? I've still seen no explanation for that. BTW: "Unfortunately, neither you nor I can actually read the minds of those who made the decision to render it in Latin and not Cyrillic." It was rendered in CYRILLIC, NOT in LATIN on the ORIGINAL CD COVER! Have you actually seen it? (There's a picture on the article page, though with bad contrast.) Or since when are magazines and other SECONDARY sources more realiable than the ORIGINAL? Contributions/88.65.126.209 (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we've made a practice of relying on secondary sources over primary sources; see Wikipedia:OR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources for the full policy. Also see WP:Official names, which, while not policy itself, is a very good description of current practice with regard to what we call an article. English is full of corrupted versions of foreign words: I doubt you would object to my use of the word "Nazi" instead of the full version "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", would you? We don't always call something by its original name, or its official name. As for your question about no consensus being a reason for one move, but not another, I'm not sure what other move you're referring to.--Aervanath (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll ignore the Nazi shit. Apart from that, if the official WP policy is really like that, well then thanks again for warning me! You know, I've actually been so foolish to look at WP in search of correct answers in the past. Now I know that's not the goal, well, I can just do a Google search to find out which is the most popular (as opposed to correct) answer. Good we have that cleared. But you ask what other move??? Well, the first "Requested move" (to Kohuept, which was successful) right there on the same talk page. Did you actually look at the context? Also, I don't really except you can tell me why "Снова в СССР" (which was mentioned in the discussion) is allowed to stand under this name and "CHOBA B CCCP" is only a redirect, even though this would be, like, correct. Contributions/88.65.126.209 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to impolitely dismiss my points as "shit", then please stay off my talk page. Any more posts here by you will be removed. Goodbye.--Aervanath (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It does, however, make the album an outlier. In fact, apart from untitled/eponymous albums (which normally take the form "Untitled X album" or "X (album)", where X is the artist) or soundtracks (which sometimes take the form of "X (soundtrack)", to which X is the work the soundtrack is used in), the style guidelines for albums actually say that we should always go with the title on the cover, or an acceptable transliteration if it's not in the Latin alphabet. Sceptre (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Sorry, I've re-read that section of the WikiProject Albums page twice now and I don't see where it says that. Also, I note that the section ends by referring users to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which starts out with "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources." It certainly seems that "Kohuept" is the most commonly used English version, regardless of what the album cover says.--Aervanath (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
"If the album title uses the Latin alphabet, the article name should be at that title. Translations of titles in languages other than English should not be used as titles unless such a translation is commonly used as a title for the album in the English-speaking world." and "If the album title does not use the Latin alphabet, the article name should be the transliterated form of the title using Latin characters.". "Kohuept" is not a translation; it's a corruption. Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but corruptions are extremely common in English, and most of our words come from corruptions of other languages. Practically the entire language is a corruption. Also, I should not that none of the quotes you cite above refer to the title on the album cover, so nothing I've seen so far overrides WP:COMMONNAME.--Aervanath (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that the album's title is written in Cyrillic. Thus, per the album naming guidelines, which supersede COMMONNAME because COMMONNAME only applies when other naming conventions don't, it should be either left as it is or transliterated. Sceptre (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't say specifically that the album's title is definitely what's actually written on the album. The album's title is whatever most people think it is, which in this case is clearly the corruption.--Aervanath (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No, that's just wrong. If I got everyone to believe that the new Jonas Brothers album is called "Tits and Ass", even though it isn't, it still wouldn't be the album's title. Sceptre (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I would argue that it would be. I've posted to WP:AN to get some other eyes here.--Aervanath (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. Crossposted onto Talk:Kohuept to centralise discussion. Sceptre (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aervanath/Archive_11&oldid=1138993850"