User talk:Aervanath/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit protected page?

Hi, re the proposed change at WT:Naming conventions (categories)#Back on point. There seems to be only one lone voice against it - do you think there's enough consensus at this point to make the change? --Kotniski (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made the consensus change to the lede. As I said there, further changes will need further consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

Hi, this move was never implemented; Talk:History_of_the_Assyrian/Syriac_people#Requested_move Iraqi (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was, but then User:Dbachmann reverted it. I have moved it back to the consensus version. Thanks for the notice.--Aervanath (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
He did it again. This user is very partisan on this issue and has been known for this kind of behavor. Just take a look at the reason he gave this time with the move - "no discussion." In reality, he was the one that originally moved the page with absolutly no discussion. The discussion has been made and done with. Iraqi (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 13:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Youth United

Hi, I request you to please see to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_1 for Youth United, I have made some contribution to this discussion. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion has already been closed.--Aervanath (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Prionomyrmex vs. Nothomyrmecia. Inventing and ignoring published information

This is to call your attention to the ‘Nothomyrmecia/Prionomyrmex stub, a stub that already needed your intervention. I previously gave the correct name for this ant and for the relative stub, i.e. Prionomyrmex, a name currently appearing in Wikipedia as being ‘now officially rejected’ without source of the pretended rejection. Another editor repeatedly and arbitrarily changed the name Prionomyrmex to Nothomyrmecia and justified his action by a long reference list claimed to support his attitude ‘until proof of the contrary’. No one of the papers given by this editor as disagreeing with my previous citations of Baroni Urbani’s (2005, 2008) arguments to use Prionomyrmex discusses his reasons or refers to them. The 2005 paper is mentioned but not discussed in one reference only and the 2008 paper, particularly significant in this context, is never cited. I assume that you have been cheated by the impressive but false list of opposing papers. Until a true, factual criticism to Baroni Urbani will be published, I’d be grateful for your help to rehabilitate Prionomyrmex on Wikipedia in name of scientific objectivity and academic freedom.

References Baroni Urbani C. 2005. Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Prionomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ann. Mus. civ. St. Nat. ‘G. Doria’, Genoa 96: 581-595. Baroni Urbani C. 2008. Orthotaxonomy and parataxonomy of true and presumed bulldog ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Doriana 8, N. 358: 1-10.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirolo (talkcontribs)

Hi, Sirolo, I personally have no opinion on which of the two names is more appropriate; I will leave that to editors more familiar with the topic. If you'd like to request that the article be retitled, the proper procedure to follow can be found at WP:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves.--Aervanath (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes, like so: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and timestamp to the end of your post. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aervanath! Sorry for contradicting your prudential but unexplained attitude in the Requested Move section and thank you for putting it at the proper place. I changed the name Nothomyrmecia into Prionomyrmex for two basic, important reasons. 1. Nothomyrmecia is an uncontested junior synonym Archimyrmex and use of the former name is prohibited by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 2. I don’t expect former users of Nothomyrmecia to publicly apologize for using this name but I regard their lack of reaction to my Requeted Move as a consensus for Prionomyrmex as defined by Wikipedia Sirolo (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sirolo, in an effort to facilitate consensus, I've left a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arthropods#Nothomyrmecia_macrops inviting other editors with expertise in the matter to comment on the talk page of the article. Hopefully this will facilitate consensus one way or the other. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Aervanath for your efforts. My last version of the Prionomyrmex/Nothomyrmecia stub, a version supported by literature references, is now cancelled even from page history and replaced by an earlier version without references justifying the reversal and ignoring, among others, the Code of Nomenclature and the Hymenoptera Name Server [ http://osuc.biosci.ohio-state.edu/hymDB/nomenclator.name_entry?text_entry=prionomyrmex&Submit=Submit ]. I take it as a demonstration that supporters of Nothomyrmecia belong to an active and powerful lobby with broad personal support but without scientific support. Please accept my apologies if the current version can be regarded as correct and I misunderstand Wikipedia’s ethics. Sirolo (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm reluctant to get directly involved here, since I have zero expertise in entomology; my specialty on Wikipedia is evaluating the consensus of discussions among editors. That's why I invited more editors to join the discussion. I'm not sure why you say "cancelled even from page history"; a look at the history of the Nothomyrmecia_macrops title, the Prionomyrmex_macrops title, and your list of contributions show that all of your edits are still present in the past history of the page, and can be restored if editor consensus supports it. (As an administrator, I can also see that none of your contributions have ever been deleted, and looking at the deletion logs for Nothomyrmecia macrops and Prionomyrmex macrops I can see that neither of them have ever been deleted. Also, regarding your latest edit to the Prionomyrmex_macrops article, I would have had to revert that edit as well under Wikipedia policies, since it's apparent that you just copied the text from Nothomyrmecia_macrops, which is not allowed under the legal copyrights that Wikipedia operates under. Please see Help:Move#Page_histories for why that wasn't a good idea. You can also see WP:Copyrights for more information on that. Beyond telling you this, I can't do more for you unless you can bring more editors around to your point of view. Might I recommend posting to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arthropods yourself? Please take care to present your case in a neutral manner (see WP:Canvassing), but if what you say has merit, I don't doubt that the article will be changed to reflect the mainstream scientific view. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

AE Request

Can you work on the DreamGuy Arbitration Enforcement case? His block log is so long that previously uninvolved admins capable of dealing with his style are getting scarce.

If so, please investigate User:DreamGuy for violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#DreamGuy restricted:

"DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. ...¶... Passed 4-0 at 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)"

DreamGuy wrote statements during a dialog at WP talk: External links in which:
1. I use a verb form new to him ("consense"), Milo 09:38, 3 July 2009
2. he questions whether I made it up, DreamGuy 14:00, 3 July 2009
3. I explain it with a reference to Wiktionary, Milo 20:20, 3 July 2009
4. he spins my pleasant explanation into an assumption of bad faith ("you did use it to pretend to have a consensus"), then piles on with a personal attack ("Thanks for educating us about your deceptive practices here."). DreamGuy 17:58/17:59, 4 July 2009

Above wasn't the first time. DreamGuy had previously misrepresented that I had made two claims and a demand that I didn't make: DreamGuy 16:53, 22 June 2009, violating Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior that is unacceptable: "Do not misrepresent other people". Then he made two ill-considered accusations based on the misrepresentations ("becoming disruptive" and "major WP:POINT violation"), being personal attacks per Wikipedia:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Worse still, he posted the first one into an edit summary.

I carefully detailed what he had done wrong, requested a strike and retraction remedy, and warned him that if he did not, "I'll feel free to go looking for an admin to investigate your statements for possible violation of your Arbcom behavioral editing restriction." Milo 05:34, 23 June 2009

I think that my initial forbearance was not helpful, because 11 days after being warned, he has behaved worse. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 04:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it, although just because an admin has blocked him in the past doesn't automatically make them "involved". For example, if I block him now, I wouldn't think I was precluded from blocking him in the future, since my interaction prior to this has been slim to none.--Aervanath (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've only had time to look into it for a few minutes, and I'm not ready to take action until I've thought it through thoroughly. Some of his comments do rise to at least borderline incivility, but I need to evaluate them more in context than I've had time for. One thing I did find, though, is that wikt:consense seems to imply that it can only be used in the plural; multiple people can consense, but one person can't. So your saying "I consense" is technically incorrect. <joke> This is a blockable offense, but I will only WP:TROUT you for it. :)</joke> So he was almost right about one thing, although probably wrong on most of the others. I'll take a longer look when I can log back on later. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
"borderline incivility" Had DG merely been incivil, a report would not be my inclination, nor probably worth my time. There is an internally famous WP editor who some believe has an incivility license. Having read the tepid noticeboard response to questions of DG's civility, I and other puzzled editors may wonder if he is another licensee.
DG's multiple accusations based on his fabrication of things I didn't say, and concluding with a personal attack on my veracity, travel well beyond the border of incivility.
DG's concluding attack is a frank defamation of character. Just think about how you would react to being falsely accused of "deceptive practices". If anyone were to believe it, they would not trust you. And, editors anonymous for now do get outed later, when such a remark would potentially become libelous. Best to strongly discourage planting of such land mines in this permanent database.
"technically incorrect." See the second quotation under the noun form at Wiktionary "consense":

1999, M. Banzi et al., "An Experience in Configuration Management in SODALIA," in System Configuration Management, Jacky Estublier ed. ... ¶ "Special thanks to Michele Marini for his revision and his consense to the effort necessary in the writing of the paper."[1]

Per Banzi, Mr. Marini did consense in the singular, as I did pre-Wiktionary by rhetorical intuition. Milo 10:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, apparently you can use it in the singular. I will block myself as punishment. :) Anyway, after reading the discussion, I don't read the comment as particularly uncivil. Annoying? Yes. Snarky? Yes. Uncalled for? Yes. Blockable? No. My advice is to ignore him.--Aervanath (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

RM procces anarchy on Talk:Henman Hill

Aervanath, as I see you closing more RMs than any other admin, I thought I'd bring this to you. I recently moved Aorangi Terrace to Henman Hill. A wee bit later, another user came along and proposed via RM to move it to Aorangi Terrace. The poll was showing unanimous opposition to the move back to Aorangi Terrace, but another user came and moved it back anyway. Fair enough if there was no poll, and this is really what the poller ought to have done. However, you can see the problem it creates for the closer. Some neutral admin -- one likely to close-- needs to go to the talk page, change all the opposes to supports, or else move it back and remember to put the burden of favour on Aorangi Terrace, or else provide instructions that will allow the remaining course of the poll to unfold without confusing new contributors. Would you be able to step in here? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion, moved it to the consensus title, and provided a note there to explain how WP:RM works in cases like that one. Pages shouldn't normally be moved during a discussion. Thanks for giving me an opportunity help out. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BN

Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw it, thanks. :)--Aervanath (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia War name

I must strongly object to your decision. I suggest you should have looked at the previous discussion. Many editors responded in that discussion and it was overwhelmingly in support of a change. The one after it didn't get nearly as many responses. Regardless, the current title is unacceptable under Wikipedia naming conventions because it is not descriptive enough. It took place in Abkhazia as well as large parts of Georgia's undisputed territory including much of its coastline. 2008 Russian-Georgian War is sufficiently descriptive given Abkhazia and South Ossetia were being backed by Russia. The more descriptive nature of the title is reason enough to switch and the only reason given against it which could override that is neutrality, but the argument on neutrality pertains specifically to the order of the countries which is not a valid objection under Wikipedia naming conventions which is clear that a change in the order of words is treated as the same name. Even if Russia-Georgia war wasn't the most used name, even if it did not receive the overwhelming support of editors, even if Russian state-owned news media didn't use the term frequently, it would still be the best name given its descriptive nature and NPOV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussions on the page fairly clearly established that our WP:NPOV policy was satisfied by either title, and that both names were fairly common. As for how well the title actually describes where the title took place, the arguments concerning this were not compelling enough to override the lack of consensus present. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said the change was overwhelming supported in the previous discussion and there wasn't nearly as much participation in the one you closed. South Ossetia War is also not commonly used. Like I argued countless times, people citing these large number of hits were not putting it in quotations which meant any instance of south, ossetia, and war in a site would produce a result. When put in quotations the number of results is much smaller for South Ossetia War. Russia-Georgia is overwhelmingly more common in any search.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
While Google hits are one way to gauge how much usage a certain title gets, it is not always perfect, no matter how well you try to narrow the search results. I simply did not see consensus on the page. I recommend that it be revisited in another few months, when worldwide usage will probably have stabilized out and made it much clearer what the common usage is. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The difference is overwhelming no matter whether you do a basic web search, a news search, or a scholar search and what matters also is that the present title does not sufficiently describe the scope of the subject. Need I keep pointing out that there was overwhelming consensus in the previous discussion as well? Historic is incredibly outspoken but also incredibly biased. Nearly every other editor objecting to a change is the same. Wikipedia should not be hostage to such users.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You are correct that the prior requested move had a majority in favor of the move, but I don't really see consensus there, either: consensus is not a majority vote, and most of the support comments are just that: votes, not contributions to a discussion. From what I can tell, looking through the archives, there have been at least 16 separate discussions on how to name the article, none of which have resulted in moving the article to Russian-Georgian war, and consensus seems to have fluctuated wildly between several different names. The war happened less than a year ago; give it time.--Aervanath (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Except I have been giving it time and every single time I or someone else starts a discussion on changing the name the page gets flooded with pro-Russian editors. Then when it's decided there isn't a consensus the same thing is said, wait a while for a common name to emerge. However, there is only one name used more often than Russia-Georgia war and that's War in Georgia which has some clearer neutrality issue. What is clear though is that August war, Five-Day War, are also more commonly used than South Ossetia War. South Ossetia War is the least commonly used name and is also the least descriptive. By no measure should it be used as the current title. You also aren't fairly evaluating the previous discussion. Many of the people supporting a change cited arguments by other editors. In fact, I do not see a single support vote that is just a vote. I see a few oppose votes that are just votes though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have requested that other regular WP:RM editors and administrators evaluate the situation. If they agree with you that I made an incorrect evaluation of consensus, then I will reverse it. The notices are here and here.--Aervanath (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have closed this much the same way. There was a lot of salient points on both sides of the discussion but I can't really see that a consensus was reached one way or another - I support Aervanath's closure 100%. It's an unfortunate situation in that no matter how it is closed someone is going to be upset .. so really, a wait-and-see approach is still the best way to go. Certainly there is no harm being done by leaving the article at the current title. It may or may not be better than the proposed target, but that is for the community to decide and I cannot see where that consensus was reached. Shereth 16:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with the no consensus close. How anyone can complain about closing with no consensus when not one vote was cast, for/against, or indifferent is beyond my comprehension. Much of the discussion focuses on noting that there is no established name for the conflict. From what little I have heard in the news about it (you can tell how much attention I pay to the news) I would have thought of it as a Russian - Georgia war, but then only for a portion of Georgia, as I don't recall anyone saying that Russia wanted to take over all of Georgia. As to looking "at the previous discussion", I would never expect a close decision to be based on a previous move discussion. Had they wanted you to do that, they could have added Support. See #Previous move request. But that is a pretty lame way to vote. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal

As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX  04:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have commented there, and I have it watchlisted.--Aervanath (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertizing on Wikipedia allowed?

Hello Aervanath,

I was reading the Asphalt_plant article, and found out that a user edited a large part of the page and added his name, company title and web site address inside the article (in bold above the "Types of plant" paragraph). I am not sure whether it fits the guideline of Wikipedia or not, especially the NOTADVERTIZING part.

Thank you for your help.

djee —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

(just passing through) The material in question was copied directly from an external website; I've reverted this and left a note with the user who originally added it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
As usual, Chris has it exactly correct.--Aervanath (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Berne

I am surprised to see you moved Berne to Bern; when I left it, there was no consensus either way, and I see none in the discussion which followed. Please restore what should never have been moved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That close is over a month old, so I've gone back and re-read the discussion. Then I read it again, just to make sure. From what I can see, there was clear consensus for the move. This was not an issue of British vs. American English, as it was clearly shown that British English had no clear preference, so it came down to prevalent English language usage, which was clearly Bern. You will note that two editors withdrew their opposition to the move based on the evidence introduced on this point. Thus I see no reason to reverse this move.--Aervanath (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I read in the move discussion "Bern is the German, Berne the French, spelling, of the city." And I read in the article "The official language of Bern is German." As such it seems more logical to use Bern for the article name. How it is used in English, though would be the deciding factor. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see it, but will take another look. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see them; but it's a long page. Whom did you have in mind? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're asking who withdrew their opposition. Look at Talk:Bern#Requested_move, and scroll down for the two !votes which were struck. The editors were Jafeluv and Ed Fitzgerald.--Aervanath (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, two who went neutral; thank you. But that does not, and did not, make consensus. Please restore the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You are right that that alone does not make consensus. However, there were other factors, as I indicated above, and those combined to form a consensus. I will ask for outside input.--Aervanath (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I have placed notices at WT:RM and WP:RM asking for outside input here.--Aervanath (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Aside from stricken comments and a vocal minority, the majority consensus meets up with policy. If the move was over a month ago, and you're still quite upset, request a move back. There does not appear to be anything in that discussion that really justifies the previous title, so the move was not out-of-line. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Bern is the English name, the end. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If there were only one English name, the discussion would never have arisen; the article would have been created at, or immediately moved to, that name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Agreed. The question should be "if the article were created today, which title would it have?". There appears to be obvious consensus that "Bern" would be the answer. That the article happened to have lived at a different title does not mean that any move request must carry with it some arbitrary burden of evidence, which is essentially the opposition argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Also, Wikipedia content of any kind (which would mean article titles which have come before, no matter how long these were carried), can't be cited to support Wikipedia content. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If Gwen Gale really believes that WP:ENGVAR (which is, at bottom, a stylistic and behavioral standard) is incompatible with verifiability, the place to make that case is WT:MOS. Until then, it is as binding as any other guideline backed by consensus, and I have no confidence in any of her decisions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not participate in any of the Bern/Berne discussions. I just read the latest discussion closed by Aervanath. As noted, two of the oppose arguments were changed to neutral. Another oppose cited one of those oppose arguments that later was changed to neutral. That leaves one or two, at most, who even believe that this is U.S. vs. British issue. The almost overwhelming consensus is that it is not, and that among all English speaking varieties clearly Bern is neutral or preferred to Berne. Aervanath made the right decision and deserves a cookie. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
As if I wasn't fat enough already. :) Thanks!--Aervanath (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Virtual cookies are zero calories!
By the way, the same argument -- that, among English varieties, usage between the two terms in questions is either neutral or leaning heavily towards one of the two -- was made at Talk:Yoghurt#Requested_move, but the closing admin there apparently did not have the wisdom you displayed here to recognize it. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Because Born2Cycle thinks the yoghurt decision of five year ago should be overturned, Aervanath should stick with his ungrounded decision of a few weeks ago. Well, I've seen worse nonsense, in this very section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
By the "yoghurt decision of five years ago" I take it you mean the unilateral decision of one person to move the article from its orginal location at yogurt to yoghurt. Yes, I think that decision should be overturned, because it was ungrounded, was not based on any kind of consensus at all, and because all varieties of English except one either favor "yogurt" or are basically neutral about it.

In contrast, Aervanath's decision of a month ago clearly reflected consensus of a significant number of people, consensus that all varieties of English either favor "Bern" or are neutral about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath's reading of consensus was correct; I would likely have closed it the same way. These types of discussions, honestly, give me something of a headache and are rather silly; what is more, in six/ten/twelve months down the road you can expect someone is going to request a move back to Berne. It is somewhat lamentable that this move request even came up. In cases where there is no clear preferred title, it is probably safest for our collective sanity to just let it be. Neither Berne nor Bern are more correct than the other, and there was no pressing reason to ask for the change. All it has done is stir up the pot and gotten several people worked up over nothing. Still, for better or worse the consensus in the discussion was to move and Aervanath made the right call in closing it as such. Shereth 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about the move request being lamentable. As Wikipedia becomes more and more important, it becomes more and more important for Wikipedia to accurately reflect the dominant spelling within the English world. Now, for cases where there is no dominant spelling, I agree (e.g., airplane/aeroplane). But here, the whole point was that in every variety of English one spelling, Bern, was dominant, or the variety was neutral about which spelling was used, but there is no variety of English, not even one, in which Berne is dominant. Wikipedia has improved because of this move. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This is, no matter what qualifications are put on it, effectively a declaration that we should use American, which is, purely for reasons of population, the majority usage in the English-speaking world. Thank you for clarifying why this move is a disaster.
Aervanath, what means of dispute resolution would you prefer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. This is bordering on deliberate misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'll try again.

In cases where each of the two spellings in question is dominant in some of the varieties of English, there should be no preference. But when a particular spelling is not dominant in any variety of English, but another spelling is dominant in at least some varieties, then the latter should be used.

Threatening to take this to dispute resolution, without having even one other person agreeing with you, is arguably disruptive. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • As a matter of fact, Berne is still clearly predominant British usage; I am surprised to find that American has shifted (as it seems).
  • Born2cycle's doctrine of unthinking following of majorities will lead, as it has in his own claims, to unthinking adoption of American. We decided long ago not to do that.
  • "Only person" is a falsehood, as the survey will show. I may be the only one who still cares; then again, I haven't canvassed the opposes.
  • I threaten nothing; I offer dispute resolution to the only person in a position to undo this unfortunate error - not to B2C. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It's Bern in English y'all, end of the tale ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd tend to write Berne in English, because I think of the Berne Convention -- one of the things the city is best known for (at least to anyone who has had to dabble in copyrights and intellectual property), though surprisingly unmentioned in the city's article. The treaty language of the 19th century was French, hence the spelling. The Berne Convention may have less resonance for Americans, as the U.S.A. never signed up for it. Jheald (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
@Pmanderson, re dispute resolution: I normally prefer exactly what I've done: ask for other editors to comment on my closure. In this case, if you are not satisfied with the first step of dispute resolution as I have initiated it, I am open to your suggestion on where you want to take this discussion next. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
PMAnderson, "Born2cycle's doctrine of unthinking following of majorities" is a personal attack (and a baseless one at that) and I don't appreciate it. I'm quite wary of the "tyranny of the majority" in any political context, including Wikipedia, thank you very much.

However, in this case the question is whether there was clear consensus on the point that ENGVAR did not apply here because even in British usage the Berne spelling does not dominate. As explained in my first comment here, to which you did not respond, I think consensus on that point was clear, and so Aervanath's call was correct. No one here but you disagrees on this point, which is what I meant by you being the only one. There may be one or two from the original discussion who agree with you on the original point, but I'm talking about whether there was consensus on the point on which Aervanath made a decision, which is what we're supposed to be discussing here. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Serge, I didn't respond to an evident falsehood. There is evidence that both spellings are used in Britain (as they are in the United States); there is no evidence that Bern is a majority there, and considerable evidence that it is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
No argument here nor in the original discussion is based on the premise that "Bern" has majority use in Britain. No one is even arguing that "Berne" does not have majority use. So if that's what you're arguing with, that explains much. The argument, as I understand it, is that the use of "Berne" over "Bern" is not significant enough to suggest that "Berne" is preferred in Britain, and, so WP:ENGVAR is irrelevant here. At least half a dozen people here have explained this, in at least as many ways, and you still don't seem to get it (as suggested by your apparent belief that pointing out "Bern" does not have majority use in Britain is somehow relevant here). We don't have to agree, but it's impossible to have a coherent discussion with someone who does not even comprehend, much less appreciate, what the other side is saying. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Although I must admit, I am also a little disappointed in the above discussion; I was hoping for uninvolved input on whether my reading of consensus was reasonable or not; some of this has occurred, but several of the comments above seem to be essentially votes based on what the editors think the article should be titled, and not evaluations of how I interpreted consensus. I actually have no personal preference on the matter of "Berne" vs. "Bern": my job, as I see it, is to evaluate the consensus that I find. If I have a strong personal opinion, then I join the discussion, not close it. In this case, I still think I evaluated consensus correctly. --Aervanath (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing up the "by the way" comparison with the yogurt/yoghurt discussion. That took us on a tangent, and it went downhill from there. But at least my first comment was solely about your reading of consensus, and I stand by that. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The default criterion to use in WP:RM is predominant usage in English, only defaulting to WP:ENGVAR if there is a usage split between varieties. In this case there was little evidence and no consensus that such a US/UK split exists, so there was no reason to use WP:ENGVAR and the request was correctly closed simply on the basis of predominant usage.

To open a new discussion or re-close this one on grounds of WP:ENGVAR, it needs to be demonstrated first that WP:ENGVAR is even relevant to this case by demonstrating a US/UK split. Knepflerle (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And the baseless assertion above that "Berne is still clearly predominant British usage" does not demonstrate that WP:ENGVAR is relevant here, much less that consensus on that point did not agree that WP:ENGVAR was not relevant there, which is what is at issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Baseless is a lie; much of the discussion concerned British usage, of which most was Berne. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, whether most (more than half) of British usage is Berne is not disputed; but that's a far cry from establishing that it is "clearly predominant British usage". Predominant implies significantly more than merely most. This is crucial, because if there was consensus that the usage of Berne in Britain was predominant, then WP:ENGVAR would be relevant. But that is assertion is baseless. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"whether most (more than half) of British usage is Berne is not disputed" - really?
Some evidence presented in the request:
"I fail to see the clear US/UK divide. If anything it seems like US usage strongly favors Bern, and UK usage is a bit more mixed. It's hard to tell from a random selection of articles from few newspapers a clear preference. Some Google searching of "pages in the UK" shows some preference for dropping the e with ~200k for Bern and ~72k for Berne ... Not a lot of news about Bern at the moment, but there are 28 hits for Bern and 14 for Berne from UK news sources. Canadian sources are 25 to 3 for Bern. --skew-t (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)"
The evidence for majority usage of Berne in the UK was neither unanimous nor conclusive. Knepflerle (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that. But that just strengthens my point that the assertion that "Berne is still clearly predominant British usage" is baseless. My saying that the assertion is baseless is certainly not a lie, as was uncivilly claimed above. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop discussing the name move. We were asked to comment on the closure because of a dispute. Was it closed properly? I think that exact issue has been pretty well cleared up. If the user in question wants to move it back, or if someone else doesn't agree with the points raised, they can open another discussion about that on the article's talk page. This is not the appropriate place to have this discussion, it is a user talk page. Every comment here is a message to Aervanath. This is like hosting a poker game and then finding out that all the fellas brought luggage. We did our part, the discussion was closed appropriately, so move on. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the consideration, Johnny. And yes, I would really appreciate it if my talk page was used for conversations with me, not with each other. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW it looked like a valid reading of consensus to me. The consensus seemed to be that WP:ENGVAR was more relevant than, say, using the locally preferred name, but there was no consensus that Berne is the preferred variant in England, and some evidence to the contrary, neutralizing any ENGVAR-based argument for keeping Berne. With that out of the way, the majority of the participants favored Bern. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

The vote was to delete Basa Press → Moldova what you deleted was the already corrected redirect to Telecommunications in Moldova where the media outlet is covered. I have added it back. Only a single vote was cast after the redirect was corrected. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The vote was to delete the redirect of Dublin Penny Journal → Dublin, what you deleted was the corrected Dublin Penny Journal → List of newspapers in Ireland where the media outlet is covered. No votes were cast on the corrected redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Moldova article you redirected to has exactly one sentence in it about the press, and the Ireland article has no information about it, just a link. The logic behind the votes before you changed the target still applies to the votes after you changed it. If you look up and down the RFD log page, you will see the same conclusion over and over: redlinks help the encyclopedia grow more than redirects to articles with minimal information.--Aervanath (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming that there is enough information for an article and there isn't. If there was I would have created the article. If someday there is enough notability for a stand alone article it can be created. As of now there is just a few sentences to meet verifiability in a larger article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, every redlink should be turned into a redirect.--Aervanath (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummmmm, no. Your not following at all, I am not sure who's logic you are following. Only when the information is contained in a Wikipedia article should a link be directed to that article, as was properly done here. You missed the part "where the media outlet is covered" in my argument above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think, dropping in uninvited, that you both have a point. RAN is correct in thinking that a redirect targeted specifically to some info within an article is useful (eg it can be categorised, see WP:Categorising redirects, in particular sub-topics), and A is correct in thinking that the info on these 2 particular redirects does not really amount to a subtopic. There are plenty of mentions of the Dublin Penny Journal, red- or un-linked, so perhaps the bare mention of it in the list could be expanded and the redirect would then be more solidly justified. (I don't buy the argument (by assertion) that 'red-links encourage article creation'. 'Red-links encourage delinking' would be easier to establish, see eg the very recent history of List of newspapers in Ireland.) Occuli (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
If the information in the articles were to be expanded beyond the one-sentence-or-less that is currently there, I would have no issue with the redirect.--Aervanath (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw them, but three of these RfD closures are at WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 23. Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't see them.--Aervanath (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

Would you please have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), and the last edit of WAS there. I, frankly speaking, don't believe my eyes. Would you please tell me if this is what I think it is? I'll be watching here. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry to keep bugging you about this page, but you seem to be taking an interest in it and know what's going on. How much longer do we have to put up with this sort of thing? I don't know what the changes are about (he seems to be unilaterally undoing a lot of changes no-one else had any problems with, without discussion, which seems less than constructive to me), but the offensive edit summary - which you must know by now is by no means an isolated incident - is surely unacceptable. I've tried talking nicely to this editor, assuring him that we just want to cooperate on making these pages better, but the invecitve just seems to keep coming. Enough is surely enough. Please can some action be taken to prevail on him to start acting civilly?--Kotniski (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit, and have the page watchlisted. I will also leave a note on his talk page reminding him that I unprotected the page on condition that changes be made according to consensus on the talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for keeping a watchfull eye. In the case of this editor though, I feel he needs some real attitude change. If that is possible. And if not, well... Did you see this? It's getting pathetic. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions (categories)

I raised the point about the not ambiguous wording early in 2009, there were no objections so I added this to the convention. To my knowledge there have been zero issues with that change, so I'm not sure that removing it was the best action. Can you un revert that two word addition back in? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as this was something previously raised on the talk page, feel free to re-add it.--Aervanath (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

NB

I came across this, a work in progress. Occuli (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's already been withdrawn, but thanks for notifying me, it's appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ten case backlog "waiting clerk approval"

There are 10 cases that have been waiting for over a day to get clerk approval/denial for a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 20:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been involuntarily offline for a week or so, but I'll try to get on it when I have time. Thanks! --Aervanath (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

False nomenclature or false information?

I address directly to you with the prayer to intervene authoritatively on the Nothomyrmecia vs. Prionomyrmex case. Your involvement is needed for reasons already expressed but ignored in the relative Discussion. These are as follows: 1.The stub in its present shape would fit only an ant called Prionomyrmex macrops. Using this name would also justify the vernacular name “Dinosaur Ant”. 2. On the contrary, there are no known fossil Nothomyrmecia as pretended in the present draft.

Either one changes the name of the stub or one removes all references to fossils in the text as I did yesterday.

I already raised this problem three times in the Discussion without receiving an answer.

Editor Kevmin, after claiming wrong facts supported by incomplete use of true references and by calling external interventions out of place (e.g. an ICZN Commissioner), re-changed the text that I corrected earlier yesterday. If the above is true, this is intentional misinformation and I’m asking you to prevent Editor Kevmin to exercise further Vandalism on this stub. However, if somebody can produce a single printed reference about fossil Nothomyrmecia as pretended in this version of the stub, I’ll apologize with Editor Kevmin publicly and will send him a beer box privately. Thank you. Wolfbla (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As this is a content disute in which I have no expertise, I really can't say what is the proper course here. Sorry. The only advice I can offer is to continue the dialogue on the talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)