This is an archive of past discussions with User:Aervanath. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
He uses it as precedent insofar as he does not agree with your behavior relating to the decision. He at no point states that it is precedent for a later move of the page.--Aervanath (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
He is also using it as a precedent to show that the view that titles should only be as precise as necessary is merely "Born2cycle's preferred way" or opinion, not general consensus. Doing that in an ARBCOM case seems more concerning to me than in another RM case, which would be bad enough. No? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
No, that's not how I read what he wrote. If he did mean that, Arbcom would ignore it anyway. They are not going to be ruling on how precise titles should be, they're going to be ruling on the behavior of participants in the dispute.--Aervanath (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussants are aware of the complexities of the move. There's no fix to be done.
Could you perform the further → further2 move, leaving a redirect in place?
I'll then file for a bot task to mass-replace further → further2.
After that's completed, the further redirect can be deleted and the second see → further move can be done without any issues. --Cybercobra(talk)19:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC) [Please reply on or ping my talkpage.]
Thank you. I will now flex my wiki-muscles. :) I note we have cleared out the requested move backlog. That hasn't happened in a long time.--Aervanath (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
lol go-go-gadget wiki-muscles : )
And anytime there is a backlog there and I don't notice, please feel free to drop me a note. - jc3701:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
RM
Ok, I give up, how the heck do you add a note to an RM without the bot removing it? I've tried two different ways now. - jc3701:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This is what I was talking about. Dunno if it still applies due to your close, but wanted to put it on your radar nonetheless. - jc3722:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I did see that, but then got distracted by real life after I'd made the close. I'll attend to the histories soon.--Aervanath (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Although, looking at it, I don't think a history merger would actually help in this case. I've made a note of that over there.--Aervanath (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Aervanath,
I went in to add the references and citations from several sources to an article draft: Dominican Sisters of Springfield, Illinois and found that the article had been deleted.
The Dominican Sisters of Springfield, Illinois were present at the dedication of Abraham Lincoln's tomb and have documented significance not only in Springfield, but in Chicago, Jackson, Mississippi (St. Dominic's Hospital) and their four Catholic schools located throughout the state of Illinois.
I am writing to ask why the article was deleted when other congregations (some of which have only a 1 sentence entry) are allowed to stand. See Dominican Sisters of San Rafael, California.
Other Dominican Congregations with pages: Dominican Sisters of...Blauvelt, St. Cecilia, Hawthorne, Saint Catherine, etc.
Was the issue a matter of not having the references uploaded yet? If so, now that I have the references ready to enter, may I re-issue the page?
Second question - A lot of work went into creating that page content, and I did not save a copy because I did not think I had to. Is the content of the deleted page retrievable, because many hours went into creating it?
Everything on Wikipedia is reversible. I have restored the article content to User:Springfield OP/Dominican Sisters of Springfield, Illinois, where it will not be subject to deletion and you can work on it at your leisure. As for why it was deleted when other pages were not, I can only say that while we strive for consistency, every situation is a little different, so sometimes those parallels are valid, sometimes they are not. There is an entire essay devoted to whether or not "we have article X, therefore we should also have article Y" is a valid argument to keep or delete an article: WP:Other stuff exists. Anyway, I have left a few links on your talk page that might help you tailor your article for inclusion. I hope they help. Good luck and all the best, --Aervanath (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing (In Perfect Harmony)
Hi, Powers. I've looked at that again, and I still feel I made the right call. While, strictly based on numbers of editors, the move would not have passed, most of the "oppose" arguments were based on MOS, which currently contradicts itself. This being so, I didn't feel that I could rightly count those arguments. Once the situation at MOS is clarified, I will gladly revisit that decision. Best, --Aervanath (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Having a basis in contradictory policy is a reason to close as 'no consensus', but the "support" arguments weren't based on policy or guidelines at all. I hardly see why those should be given more weight. PowersT19:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, they were basing their arguments on WP:COMMONNAME, from my reading. Either way, I think the discussion over at MOS:CT is likely to make it a moot point.--Aervanath (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
None of them even mentioned COMMONNAME; the only person who did was me, and that was a tangent. COMMONNAME, in fact, doesn't even apply here because the question is one of how to render the title, not what the title should be. For questions of capitalization, we consult the MOS, which as you note is contradictory. Thus, there should have been no consensus to move. PowersT13:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that they didn't refer to the COMMONNAME guideline specifically doesn't mean that their comments weren't backed by it. And where our own style guidelines conflict on how to render a title, I see nothing wrong with consulting outside sources. However, since the consensus over at MOSCAPS seems to be coming down in favor of the lowercase "i" in this case, I have undone the move.--Aervanath (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Interview
Hello, my name is Rob and I am a student at Michigan State University working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. I have been given your username as one of the people I am expected to interview. The interview is for a class that Jonathon Obar is teaching and who is the principal investigator for the project. If we could setup the email nterview for this week that would be great. How would you like to exchange email addresses? As a reminder none of the questions or responses will be posted on Wikipedia. Thank you and I look forward to the interaction. Murph146 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I have acted to undo 114.229.253.171's disruptive edits that were made shortly before the move request discussion was closed. Besides, I have taken an unrelated section out from the closed area. Please refer to Talk:ROC for more details. Thanks. Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! It seems that some editors on the Taiwan discuss page are deliberately deleting the support votes in favor of making it look like the Oppose group has more votes, they're trying to close the talk page after deleting the support votes and then trying to get administrators in their favor to arbitrate over their altered version of the talk page vote. The majority consensus was clearing and unilaterally in favor of supporting the move 49 SUPPORT vs 44 OPPOSE
And yet, some of those editors are trying to suppress this majority consensus in order to prevent the move from taking place. Is their anything you can do?
PanuwatNantanichapatu (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your archiving. But some of the external links became deadlinks in the process.[1] Further the #Naming convention link section isn't related to the move request. It may perhaps be archived to /Archive 19 or /Archive 21, or be restored to the current talk page. Could you help fix them? Thanks. (202.189.98.136) (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the "naming convention link" section to Archive 21. Broken external links can be dealt with individually as we find them.--Aervanath (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't found any broken links. The diff you provided above didn't help me find any. Do you mean links from other pages to that discussion?Aervanath (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Luckily, none of those are relevant to our decision. You can go through and fix those once we unprotect the page, if you like.--Aervanath (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Aervanath, just a quick comment in response to your concerns about CONTENTFORK. My understanding is that the article distribution is intended to mimic that commonly used for other countries such as Australia/Australia (continent)/Geography of Australia or Malta/Malta Island/Geography of Malta. Naturally if there's not enough material to justify a standalone article, I'd expect Taiwan (island) to redirect to Geography of Taiwan in the same way Madagascar (island) redirects to Geography of Madagascar. The main thrust of the move request was the structural change surrounding ROC->Taiwan, and I think the relative minutiae of content volume is something we can assess fully afterwards. The sandbox articles were I think intended as a proof of concept or rough sketch of how information would be separated rather than a concrete 'this is how it will be forever' kind of thing. – NULL‹talk› ‹edits›22:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I did see that, just wanted to give my perspective. It was discussed in passing somewhere in the dregs of the supporting discussion for the move but given how difficult that whole thing is to read, it would be easy to miss. I agree that it's not an insurmountable problem, I just think it's not particularly a problem at all. Things like that get fixed through normal editing processes. – NULL‹talk› ‹edits›00:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Seconding this. That move request was one giant indecypherable mess for various reasons, but the three of you managed to sift through it all to come to a conclusion. Great job. – NULL‹talk› ‹edits›20:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Health system merge
Hi you recently closed a discussion re: merging health care system to health system. In this case, I am thinking of replacing most of the content of 'health system' with 'health care system', so would like to retain the history (and talk page) of 'health care system' in the renamed article. Can you suggest the best way to go about this? Should I rename 'health system' to be something else, then rename 'health care system' as 'health system'? I'm a bit confused as to the best way to move forward. thanks! --Karl.brown (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, what I just did was switch the two articles and their histories, so things should mostly be where they ought to be now. Once you've completed the merger, you can turn Health care system into a redirect to Health system. However, once you do that, you should leave a note at Talk:Health care system to the effect that the redirect shouldn't be deleted because its history needs to be preserved for attribution purposes.--Aervanath (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I had intended to give this to you both once the RM was closed. From my perspective, what supplementary text I had tried to write offline paled in comparison, in my humble opinion : ) - jc3722:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! You and Graeme were great to work with, especially considering the amount of stuff we had to process. Cheers, Aervanath (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello there. I'm a current administrator on the norwegian wikipedia, and I came to notice that you deleted an article about EWOS (norwegian version). Since I cannot watch what the article contained here, I can't argue against your speedy deletion but, I do wonder - is it possible that the company do have relevance to Wikipedia if written in a good way? Kristian Vangen (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the deleted article, but it had only one reference, which was the company website. Just the fact of a website is not proof of notability. Anybody can make a website. When I looked around the Web, I couldn't find "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", which is the standard we use. I'll look at the references in the Norwegian article to see if they qualify as "reliable, independent" sources. Aervanath (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello again. The article about EWOS has been created again. Not by me, but a fellow norwegian wikipedian. I believe it is an article worthy of keeping, but I thought I might ask you for your opinion. If it's something wrong with it, please take it on the discussion page, so I can get to understand why it may have to be deleted. Thank you! :) Kristian Vangen (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to put this on your radar. I'm considering closing it, but would welcome your thoughts. - jc3703:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I looked at it, but I don't think I have anything to add; I haven't frequented CfD in a while, and I think the naming criteria are going to apply differently.--Aervanath (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks. To a point, I agree (due to not being able to use pipe trick for one thing).
Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP
Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
A page I created for Mirus Futures LLC. was marked for speedy deletion on the basis that it was not reviewed by a 3rd party and it appeared to be too much like advertising.
I am new to Wikipedia so I was not aware that a page created for a company needed to be reviewed by an admin or someone that is a 3rd party to make sure it is not too much like advertising.
Can you possibly place this article back as a draft and I would be happy to have other users review it and make changes to it before making it live again? We are willing to make changes to the article to make it compliant.
Hi Slosh, I have restored the article to User:Slosh3719/Mirus Futures, LLC for you. While there is generally no requirement that articles be reviewed before being published, this article is clearly promotional in its present form and will probably be deleted again unless significant changes are made. That being so, asking another experienced Wikipedia editor to help you conform to our policy of WP:Neutrality is a must in this case. Happy editing, --Aervanath (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this. I will be sure to work with an editor to make sure that the article is more neutral and conforms to site policies.
Slosh3719 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe it took five years to correct what should have been clear in 2007.
Aervanth, would you also move the talk page over? I could copy the contents but that's not the way we're s'posed to do it. An IP can't do the move.
Again, thanks for correcting the principal name for the article. 70.109.176.173 (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Just following consensus. :) Thanks for pointing out to me that the talk page hadn't moved. Usually it moves automatically, but because of the history it didn't work this time and I didn't notice. I've fixed it now. Cheers, Aervanath (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It was a thin "consensus". I dunno that it was even a majority. But I also know it was the correct thing to do. It's too bad that this couldn't have been resolved by the knowledgeable scholars back in 2007, but instead it was mostly influenced by User:Nixer whose reasoning was that "more hits on Google for Gravitomagnetism than hits for Gravitoelectromagnetism, therefore the principle title for the article should be the former." Thanks. 70.109.176.173 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you deleted the article "The Inkredibles" not too long ago. I had a talk with another editor, who expressed concern that the production credit "The Inkredibles" was being linked solely to one of the duo's producers, Lee Major (the other is Maurice Carpenter), such as in Teflon Don (album). While there are few sources available for an article on the duo (this one was the only one I could find that seemed reliable), the few sources that are in the articles on the members has not led to their deletion. Can a disambiguation page at least be created, where the link for "The Inkredibles" in another article leads to it, showing perhaps "The Inkredibles were a ..." or "The Inkredibles may refer to...", followed by a bulleted list of Major and Carpenter linked? Dan56 (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to the creation of a short stub article about the duo, although that wouldn't technically be a disambiguation page. The reason I deleted it was that the article contained nothing to indicate what "The Inkredibles" even was. Not only weren't there any sources, there wasn't any actual text. Make sure when you create the article that it includes some claims to notability (awards won, etc.) so that someone else doesn't delete it. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Achaea (Roman province)
Hi Aervanath, I made an edit to Achaea/Achaia during your move back, and I think it stopped what you were doing as the Talk page has moved but the article hasn't. Sorry! davidiad.:14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me. I doubt it was because of anything you did, though: it is more likely that I just moved the wrong page. :)--Aervanath (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Azerbaijan People's Government
Hey, I still think that I have shown enough evidence for move, Can you help me to know what I should do? --sicaspi (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Aervanath, I see that you have closed the discussion on the move request of Tenedos. Being the admin you have the power to do that. But being an editor in the discussıon I have the right to ask the reason, especially after seing the majority-support. The island is named Bozcaada for the last 500 years or so. It is an unimportant island notable only because it is a district of Turkey. Tenedos on the other hand is a mythological name and it has nothing to do with the present island district. Well, the opposers put forward the principle of more-English sources. But they are wrong, most of the Tenedos sources are about the mythology and not about the present Bozcaada. Moreover in WP as I have shown in the discussion, more-English source principle is no more applied rigorously. (Mumbai and Beijing for example) I suggest you review your decision about closing the discussion. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't close anything. The discussion had already been closed previously. I simply removed the "requested move" tag from the closed discussion, which was purely a technical detail. There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2012_September_13#Tenedos on whether the actual close was proper or not: you may want to take part in that discussion. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well I am not an expert on Wikipedia discussions. But as you can see in my talk page the discussion is not over and the contributers are waiting for further opinions. Closing the discussion is equivalent to opposing the move. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I will repeat: I did not close the discussion, I merely made a minor technical correction to remove an incorrectly-placed template. I am not involved in the discussion itself.--Aervanath (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
