User talk:BenAveling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If you have "(talk)" in your sig, I will reply at your talk page. Otherwise, I will reply here. Cheers, Ben Aveling

Picture of the day
James Webb Space Telescope

NASA engineer Ernie Wright looks on as the first six flight-ready primary mirror segments for the James Webb Space Telescope are prepped to begin final cryogenic testing at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Intended to serve as a replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope and the Spitzer Space Telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope is currently under construction and scheduled to launch in October 2018. It is expected to enable a broad range of investigations across the fields of astronomy and cosmology.

Photograph: NASA/MSFC/David Higginbotham
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

Changing username[edit]

Today, I've received a request from you on my talk page to change my username. I have made hundreds of edits to various pages since January; Werdna has been editing since before me. No-one has ever before mentioned any problem with my username. Is there really any confusion between me and him? If so, why has that only just become apparent? There are a huge number of Wikipedians; inevitably many have similar usernames to others, including many that are more similar than mine is to Werdna's. Do I have to change my username? Does Werdna want me to?Werdnawerdna (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you probably don't have to. You're right, Werdna is prepare to let it slide, and that's the most important thing. I personally do find it confusing, but if no-one else does, then it's completely up to you. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
IMHO I think the name is okay but it would probably be a good idea to put a disambig on the userpage saying that this user is not the administrator Werdna whose user page may be found here - or rather, "over there"! Sarah 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Benjamin, Benjamin, Benjamin...nice to see your name pop up on my watchlist again! I haven't seen you around for yonks, though I've been on a wikibreak for the last month or so, so that may have something to do with it! So how are things with you? Have you heard that Wikimedia Australia is now an official Wikimedia chapter and has just recently been granted "incorporation" status in the wonderful State of Victoria? It only took us three years! :) Anyway, noice to see your name around, mate. ;) Hope all is well with you. Sarah 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been crazy busy. Sold a house, still trying to find one to buy, more than the usual level of chaos at my work, and at my wife's work, a council election to help out on, a few other things. And I have a cold, so I expect to splatter your watchlist for another day - it's a playground out there. How you keeping? Ben Aveling 21:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?[edit]

I have no disagreement with NedScott. I just reverted his erasure of other's comments. I thought that was not proper unless it was a personal attack. I was wrong, I guess. Sorry.

PS - I only reverted him once, and it's serious enough for a visit to my talk page to "stop it"? Wow. That was the first warning I've ever received here. :( Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No I would have done no repeated reverts. I'm a wimp; just a growl from an established user in my direction and I'm done. I was wrong, I thought that was straightforward. And of course he reverted. He won. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Interesting. In that case, can you make sure it's damn well sourced in the article? It's not a sort of claim we should be making without it being covered in the article, and covered with solid cites. Rebecca (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Dear (manga)[edit]

Could you give me some time to translate the Japanese article and look for refs? I've been meaning to do so for a long time, but haven't had much time lately. Thanks! --Eruhildo (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hustler Movie on Palin Page[edit]

Ben. I'm confused. Why should we leave the Hustler movie announcement on the Talk page? Isn't it a violation of #4 of this policy? WP:NOT#FORUM?--Paul (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


It was a pleasure to get your ping. Here's hoping you're well. :) DurovaCharge! 20:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


With this edit - [1] - did you have an edit conflict and then copied and pasted? Because in my experience that often causes odd diffs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I must have. Thanks for giving me time to undo it myself - I'd hate people to think that happened deliberately. Cheers, Ben Aveling 23:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a horrendous case of it a while ago on AN or ANI - looked like someone was blanking whole sections, when in fact the poor sap was just following the edit-conflict instructions. A kind soul gave me a barnstar for sorting it out, so I try to be a little more patient than I usually am when I see really odd diffs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Nod, nod. BTW, regarding your comment:
There's a reason for sure you brought it here - you couldn't see any other way of getting your own way. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right in what you say - but it's possible to be right and yet still be unhelpful. It would have been better to have discussed your concerns on Friday's talk page. Also, it would have been better to have signed the run to mummy comment, or not to have made it at all. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
My previous interactions with Friday make me reluctant to have any discussion with him except in places with a lot of viewers. You're right though that I should have signed when I provided that diff - in mitigation (not excuse) I plead in a hurry and angry! I'll go back and add an {{unsigned}} to it. Thanks for pointing it out. DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to leave this here. Oh dear. But why am I surprised? Later, Ben Aveling 00:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The message by Jimbo on Duncan Hill's talkpage[edit]

I think it would be Duncan's prerogative to display that message or not - the comment was directed at me (indeed, was intended to be on my talkpage - where it duly arrived), and DH does not need to be further mired in this matter. I would suggest that you reverse your good faith edit and perhaps ask Duncan if he wishes it to be displayed - my preference is that it is not, because it is a matter between me and Jimbo, but I do not care to speak for others in what they believe is appropriate in their own space... providing it otherwise complies with policy, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Duncan has stated that he prefers messages to be struck, rather than deleted. And without that bit, the conversation with Jimbo doesn't make sense. It took me a while to work out what happened, so I restored it, with some trepidation, to save others the effort. I won't take any offence if Duncan removes it, or indeed if you remove it. I've been trying to compose a message to Duncan, but I still have to get my head around the whole thing first. Thanks for you comment, Ben Aveling 22:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
As Ben says, I do generally much prefer striking to blanking. I have no great preference either way on this one - if LHvU wants to blank it he can and I won't revert, just as I won't revert Ben's unblanking of it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Not my userspace, Duncan. If you wish to keep it, then it stays. I try to act to keep the volunteers (certainly those who do the article building work) happy and content in their efforts - and thus I do not wish to involve anyone else when shit starts flying around from the consequences of my actions.
Ben (I presume, it would be perverse if it wasn't - but that is cool, too), I stand corrected in that you know DH's preferences better than I so - as is bloody obvious, I should think - my comments are redacted, although I am content to allow them to stand unaltered for "prosperity". LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I do have a thingy right at the top of my talk page about blanking contra striking. DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi Ben, I hope all is well with you. I just added rollback to your account. You haven't been editing a lot recently but I thought you might find it handy to have anyway. You can read about rollback at WP:ROLLBACK but the main rule is that it's only to be used for reverting clear vandalism and not for content disputes and such. I hope you find it useful! Take care Ben, Sarah 01:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Rabbit and The Tale of Peter Rabbit[edit]

Hi! I've returned the "Merchandising" section to the primary article The Tale of Peter Rabbit as "Peter Rabbit" is nearly a duplicate of that article. There is not much in the "Peter Rabbit" article that merits a stand alone article. Most of the "Peter Rabbit" article is unsourced and whatever is sourced can effectively be merged into the primary article with little ado. As it is, the "Peter Rabbit" stand alone article is up for administrative merge or delete. Please leave the "Merchandising" section in the primary article until an administrative decision is reached. Thanks! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi BenAveling

I reviewed the edit history for User:DGG and the spurious link to the same page (along with an odd date) was there dating back before the section heading. Given that, and the format (the "DGG" after the pipe), it seems to me very likely that it was an incompletely removed signature automatically generated by ~~~~. See this revision, for example

You removed the </br> that I had inserted—I assume that was an oversight, and added it back.

If you disagree, feel free to change back. I won't revert again.

Regards, Bongomatic 13:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

No, I think you're right. Apart from anything else, DGG has been online and he's left the page alone. Thanks for all that. Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks OK, thanks to both of you. I've been experimenting with the new interface, and my error rate has temporarily doubled. (What I was trying to do is to divide one section, and also add another.) DGG (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


As seemingly aware person, is there any truth to this article? --Firefly322 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at WT:AN[edit]

has been removed by me, for the reasons in that edit-summary. If however, you have changed your mind and would still like your comment to remain, please feel free to revert. :) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI for Free Hans[edit]

Where you endorsing the checkuser? If you where then something didn't work when you did it. Sorry if I'm bugging you, Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

All I meant to say was that I endorse the comments of the editor above mine - bad choice of words on my part. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh...okay, I see. Not that it's important, but you forgot to sign your comment.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh I was having a good run. I've retrospectively signed it now. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Ben Aveling 11:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome comment[edit]

To me, this comment, although true, seems problematic. While reprimanding, it nevertheless somehow seems to give a wink and a nod to pointy behavior (not that I am an angel who hasn't and doesn't fall into this trap). In general, I find being followed around and routinely insulted somehow pointy. Here are some other recent examples.

The second one is clearly a pointy edit and yet this editor seems in total denial of the fact. Since WP:Notability remains a very complex characteristic, placing such tags on articles should be done with great care. Crusio's response is probably how many respectable and truly notable people react to the placement of one of Hrafn's probably-done-for-the-wrong-reason (even if possibly acceptable) notability tags. Crusio's response. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Go on. I'm listening. Ben Aveling 12:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Gwen Gale had said for Hrafn not to try to lawyer one's way out of this. Yet, this is exactly what seems to have occurred: Collection of comments. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Other problematic examples. On August 3rd (a few days ago), I started reading up on Tal Brooke and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, citing an interesting article that is available on-line. The next day after I add that citation, this individual tags the two articles I had wiki-linked.
Revision history of Tal Brooke
Revision history of Spiritual Counterfeits Project --Firefly322 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Enough examples. Pick one example, one specific moment, and tell me what you would have liked to have happened instead. Ben Aveling 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on RfC/NL[edit]

A few points if I may:

  1. In this case, the difference between ending in "M" and "N", actually Mem (ם) and Nun (ן) is whether or not the Hebrew or Aramaic form is being used. The words, and meanings, are identical, and Newman is creating some difference out of thin air.
They are not the same thing. Shidduch is match-making. Shiddukhin is finding a marriage partner. These two things are not identical. Just because your denomination historically used match-making to find a marriage partner does not mean that they all do; matchmaking is only a subset of finding a marriage partner, it is not the same thing. garderobe and wardrobe have the same origin, the first letters only differ depending on whether they come into English via central or northern France, but they are definitely not identical - one is something that guards your clothes, the other is a place you need to guard your clothes from. Regardless, if you thought these two were identical, the correct process is to take the second to AfD; it is NOT to blank it, and especially NOT to blank the talk page.Newman Luke (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. If a properly sourced article on biblical marriage can be created that discusses various religions' takes on marriages in the Bible, that world be great. Newman's article was an end-around way to post his malformed article on Juewish marriages.
It is a properly sourced article on biblical marriage. It isn't about later Jewish marriage. Really, go and read assume good faith for a change. Newman Luke (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. Forum shopping is no crime, but is indicative of someone who refuses to accept consensus, which is one of the primary complaints causing this RfC.
In order to "refuse to accept consensus" there has to be consensus in the first place. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence that there was any such thing. The article talk pages don't show that there was ever consensus to avoid including anything I added, or making any of the changes I made; they don't even show advance discussion of such material. If anyone is forum shopping, Avraham, it is you. Newman Luke (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to contribute! -- Avi (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Theaters of operation for the War on Terrorism[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Theaters of operation for the War on Terrorism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theaters of operation for the War on Terrorism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't silently re-write headers[edit]

I'm sure you had the best of intention, but please don't silently rewrite headers [2]. If you must do this, leave a note explaining that you've done so; otherwise you are effectively re-writing my talkpage comments, which is bad William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


This template, {{URLlinks}}, seems to be basically unused and now redundant to {{linksearch}}. Do you have any objections to deleting it? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:URLlinks[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:URLlinks 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety talk 06:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Australian Industry Group[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Australian Industry Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NSW Administrative Committee[edit]

The article NSW Administrative Committee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails all of the criteria at WP:Notability While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

NSW Administrative Committee[edit]

Userfied at your request to User:Ben Aveling/NSW Administrative Committee. Have a great weekend! --joe deckertalk to me 04:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi. You are now listed as missing. Should you ever return or choose not to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not missing. Just busy. Ben Aveling 04:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)