Jump to content

User talk:Aervanath/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

FYI

FYI. –xenotalk 18:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Nomination for deletion of Template:Conote

Template:Conote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Tu página de discusión esta bloqueada

¿esta bien si te hago las preguntas acá?. En caso de no ser así en que sección puedo escribirte. 190.51.148.21 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

my page is missing

~new msg~

hi, basically a random person decided to tag my page (most likely out of the goodness of this person's heart) after all this time when nobody else did. so i just need my resource page that was on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rm2dance -- it doesn't seem to be on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Rm2dance and i don't know if it's supposed to? basically i just need my page, i guess you can just post it back on my page and then i can move it out of wikipedia. thanks~


~original msg -- (just forget everything -- too much trouble)~

my page is missing out of nowhere and there's nothing in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Rm2dance and i can't check the history of my page? is that how it's supposed to be?

hmm.. so my page is missing randomly just today with no problems after all this time. then a random person decides to tag it because the person felt like it? is there like mediation or something for something like this?

but basically if it's too complicated or too much trouble, just nevermind, im just wondering if they have mediation

also, was there any way to protect my page? just wondering

hmm.. it says "If all else fails, try another wiki" so i'll just do that -- where is my resource page? the history for it that is. so the page took years to build up so im glad a random person decided to tag it... it's fine. i'll just put it on wikia for the time being. wikia doesn't have any problems and wikipedia also... but it depends on the random people.. well.... rm2dance (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Resolved
Looks like it's been taken care of by User:RHaworth.--Aervanath (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Shefa-'Amr#Requested move

You closed this discussion under "no consensus". A simple count of !votes shows 7 in favor (myself, Geewhiz, Biosketch, Nableezy (who said he supports a move based on news sources after originally saying he opposes), Brewcrewer, Ynhockey, and Plot Spoiler) and 3 opposing (Zero, Tiamut and Huldra). If you count only those who explained their reasoning (no "per user X"), you still have 5:2 supporting the move.

Could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be glad to explain my reasoning. On pure numerical grounds, I counted it as 7-3 in favor of moving the page. However, due to the number of transliterations under discussion, I felt that there wasn't a consensus on exactly what to move it to. Among those supporting the move, there wasn't a consensus on which spelling the article should use. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, there was only one editor who supported the move in general but objected to the new name in the proposal. Anyway, could you either reopen the discussion so we can discuss what the new name should be or change your closing comment to make it clear that there's a consensus to move but not exactly what to move to so I can open an RfC on that? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that's no problem. :)--Aervanath (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Much obliged. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

King's Cross move

Hey there,

In your RM close on this page, you said "no consensus" and closed as a "no" - however, excepting editors from 2002 the only people commenting were myself (as nominator) and QuentinUK, who said "both are correct" (which I'd interpret as neutral). Though I'm mindful of not wanting to step on your toes as closing reviwer, I've been away from enwiki since my nomination; hope you don't mind if I ask some of my fellow old-guard whose opinions you evaluated if their thoughts have changed in the past nine years before we put the matter to bed? :-)

James F. (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you are of course welcome to start a new discussion and move request. I suppose a more accurate closing statement should have been "case for move not met". If both possible titles are approximately equal in common usage, then we stick with the status quo absent some other applicable policy. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & DC Meetup 26!

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really.
FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Kodak

Hi, Aervanath. You closed the discussion at Talk:Kodak as "no consensus". Per Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept." The long-standing article title is Eastman Kodak, the title it held from creation in 2002 until two months ago. As such, I would request that you return the article to the long-standing title pending such time as a consensus is found to move it. Powers T 19:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Genesis/Mega Drive Sub Articles move closure

Thank you for your attention to the move request regarding these sub articles. I was wondering, though, why you thought that there was a consensus to move the list of Mega Drive Games but not the list of Mega CD games. Both had 6 editors for it, 3 opposed, and two neutral. I would argue (and in fact did) that the Mega CD article also had consensus to move as the editors broke down exactly as the two above, except one editor had an oppose vote rather than a neutral one.

Regardless of your response, thank you again for your attention to the matter.

(BTW, if this is improper to ask here on your talk page, feel free to move this to the list of games talk page where the other conversations are located.)LedRush (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! You were absolutely correct in asking me first. (This is standard practice when questioning an admin or other editor's actions.) After reviewing my decision and the discussion, I realized that my decision was inconsistent, as you (quite nicely) pointed out. This means I wasn't careful in evaluating consensus, so I probably should let another admin who watches WP:RM close it instead. Also, I realized that there was some discussion still ongoing, so it would be inappropriate to close at this time. I have instead relisted it, so in a week or so another admin will come along and evaluate consensus (hopefully better than I did).
Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to help us achieve consensus so this doesn't stay in limbo?? 6 to 3 isn't like a 50/50 stalemate or anything. Plus if it's really the arguments that matter, our arguments are IMHO stronger than "it's fine where it is now". Which I know is a 100% valid argument. I can post Google Books result links if it helps.--SexyKick 04:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Edit: It's 7 to 3, don't forget Born2Cycle's vote.--SexyKick 04:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation, but I think I've successfully shown that I have an insufficient grasp on this discussion to be of help.--Aervanath (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't help that I've got a massive flu going on at the moment. Definitely killing my clarity of thought.--Aervanath (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Lambano Blosko

I need help with creation page about Cynthia Basinet, page over Creation protection, so help me please to unlock this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambano Blosko (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken care of already.--Aervanath (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Quemoy --> Kinmen

does local consensus trump community consensus

I'm perplexed by your "no consensus" decision. Perhaps there was an oversight here? Can you please re-evaluate, or maybe get someone else to take a look? Or am I missing something?

Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts)#Close_challenged

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replied there.--Aervanath (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Based on the replies there, would you consider reversing your decision, explaining it better, or at least reverting it and letting someone else close it? Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Having read the three separate discussions started since then, I don't think reversing my decision or reverting it will change the outcome; I think other admins would also find no consensus. However, I will try to explain it in more detail on Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts). If you still disagree with my reasoning, try posting to WP:AN to get other admins to weigh in. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In your addendum to your closing comments at Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts) you wrote: Others claim that there is ambiguity, since there are enough other schools with similar names that disambiguation is necessary. Simply saying "there are enough other schools with similar names that disambiguation is necessary" does not mean "there are enough other schools with similar names that disambiguation is necessary". It's not even an argument, unless those alleged names are produced and listed, preferably on a dab page.

Let me put it this way, if it were true that were other schools sufficiently notable to be in WP with similar enough names to make disambiguation necessary, I personally would create the dab page, and support the disambiguation of this title. There is no such dab page because there are no such schools. That's the point you keep missing! In fact, a good faith effort was recently made to create such a page[1], but was quickly reverted[2], for good reason.

You also say, "If there is an overriding Wikipedia policy which supports either side in unequivocal terms, I am not aware of it". Really? Perhaps you have not read the lead of WP:D, which states:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles.

Since the single term "Catholic Memorial School" refers to only one topic covered in WP articles (it has not been shown to refer to any other topics covered by WP articles), it is not ambiguous, by definition. Since it's not ambiguous, there is no conflict, much less one to be resolved by disambiguating this title. That is clear support for no need for disambiguation in unequivocal terms.

Saying that this term is ambiguous and requires disambiguation, in the face of no dab page and a long-standing redirect from this term to this article, makes no sense, as others have noted at Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts). Please address these serious fundamental problems with your explanation that multiple people have noted, or reverse the decision. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Several schools with names of varying similarity were mentioned in the discussion. I'm not going to list them here, because Noetica already did. I realize that you and other editors don't regard these as similar enough to create ambiguity, but other editors who participated in the discussion do. I personally have no opinion on how similar the names have to be to create ambiguity. This is what I don't think there is consensus on, at the moment. If I saw consensus that "Catholic Memorial School" couldn't refer to any of the schools listed, then I would have moved the page and closed the discussion accordingly. But I saw disagreement with that, and I don't think the disambiguation guideline can be read so clearly in this case as to override that disagreement. As you quoted above, ambiguous means "when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles". There is disagreement about whether the term in question is ambiguous under this definition. I do not see "clear support for no need for disambiguation". I do not see "clear support for" a need for disambiguation. Thus, I do not see consensus. Please note that I have not said, myself, that the term is ambiguous or unambiguous; I am merely taking the arguments I have found in the discussion. A finding of "no consensus" is not a finding for or against ambiguity here. Should a future consensus find that "Catholic Memorial School" unambiguously refers to this school, then it will be moved to that title. Should a future consensus find that "Catholic Memorial School" could refer to multiple articles in this encyclopedia, then that page should be a disambiguation page. Since there is no current consensus on this fact, the status quo ante remains: Catholic Memorial School redirects to Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts).
If you still find "serious fundamental problems" with my analysis of the discussion, this is your prerogative. I am certainly capable of making mistakes, but I don't see the problems with my analysis. If you were to invite wider review of my logic at WP:ANI, that would be fine.--Aervanath (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
"I realize that you and other editors don't regard these as similar enough to create ambiguity, but other editors who participated in the discussion do." Unless you're relying on WP:IAR (if so, what would be the good reason to do that here?), this is not a matter for debate. WP:DPAGES spells out the criteria for what constitutes ambiguous names quite clearly, and none of those names that Noetica listed qualify. That's what is so frustrating about your decision. You give equal weight to a pure WP:JDLI argument based entirely on personal preference as you do to one solidly steeped in policy, guidelines and convention. I mean, this should have been 10:0 decision (based on strength of arguments), and you called it 5:5. It wouldn't matter that much, except for the bad precedent aspect, which I just explained in the discussion at the article talk page so I won't repeat here.

"But I saw disagreement with that, and I don't think the disambiguation guideline can be read so clearly in this case as to override that disagreement." Seeing disagreement in a discussion like that is, at best, lack of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Clearly there was a lack of local consensus on this, but "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.". So, as a closer, you have to give more weight to consensus of the community, as expressed in guidelines like WP:D, and, in particular for this case, in the WP:DPAGES section, which I suggest you review. If you can find a way to justify any of the names on Noetica's list (only those that are actually articles, of course) as being ambiguous with Catholic Memorial School, please let me know.

By the way, if you're making your decisions solely on LOCALCONSENSUS interpretations of policy and guidelines, that explains much. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A WP:AN mention

You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; Wikipedia:AN#Should_editors_be_discouraged_from_asking_admins_to_justify_their_actions.3F --Born2cycle (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Protected status

Aervanath, at this Editrequest, I forgot to include the protected status of this redirect. It can be added easily by piping it to the end of the others, like this: 

#REDIRECT [[London#Climate]]
(PLEASE LEAVE THIS LINE BLANK)
{{This is a redirect|to section|unprintworthy|protected}}

I realize you're not very active on Wikipedia, so if I haven't heard from you in a day or two, I'll reopen the Editrequest to add in the protected status. Thank you for all your help, and best of everything to you! – PIE ( CLIMAX )  18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You are so kind, Aervanath, thank you! – PIE ( CLIMAX )  20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. :)--Aervanath (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aervanath/Archive_15&oldid=1142834559"