| Revision as of 07:21, 29 July 2009 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,615 edits →Topic ban: reduced← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,208 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2024/December) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(2d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Sandstein/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | |archive = User talk:Sandstein/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} |
{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | ||
| ==Deletion closure of ]== | |||
| == Kitten == | |||
| Hello {{u|Sandstein}}! In your closure of ] as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine '']'' on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the claims: "''Slayage'' (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. ''All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors.''" Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! ] (]) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "" and "". Therefore, ''prima facie'', we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than ''Buffy'' episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| ::Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be and . The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages and .) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on ''Slayage'' before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the ''content'', I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! ] (]) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) has given you a ]! Kittens promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. <br /> | |||
| :::Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep. | |||
| Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{tls|Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! | |||
| *Your evaluation of ''Slayage'' is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in ], but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in ]. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that ''Slayage'' was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong. | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| *None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to ] do not satisfy ] number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per ], part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred. | |||
| </div><!-- Template:Kitten --> | |||
| :Further, making a ''de facto'' conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of ] on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article. | |||
| Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. ] (]) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Im not affiliated with mr. Salisbury == | |||
| ::My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button. | |||
| ::I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--''Slayage'' was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? ] (]) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now at ]. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —] 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. ] (]) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| You had asked if Im affiliated with Brett Salisbury. NO, I bought his book and read his story. He has changed my life and my families by the diet he recommends. Every source I gave was seperate from his own. Not sure what you need to prove he is the real deal. You can hear live radio interviews, read book reviews, and read his bio from sources not related to his website. Does he need to make the NY Times bestseller list to convince wikipedia he is noteworthy? | |||
| He is changing lives, thats all I know... | |||
| Thank you | |||
| Mr.Dunbar | |||
| 2129 Rickler Ave | |||
| Seattle Washington | |||
| Certified Dietician | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation == | |||
| :It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since the ArbCom decision encouraged mediation I would like to participate in this .] (]) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Smoothstack == | |||
| :Okay, and why are you telling me this? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because some ArbCom judgements and Request for arbitration enforcement decisions are made at the whim of the decision maker with no reference to facts or Wiki policy.] (]) 21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I didn't have a chance to weigh in on ], which you closed a couple days ago. Would you object to redirecting this to ]? It already mentions Smoothstack and says pretty much what the article already says, so the ] stub seems redundant. If more information can be fleshed out, then the article can be split off as standalone again. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, what would you like me to do? What is the problem? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since I cannot rely on decisions to be based on fact or logic, I thought I should check that you will not infinitely ban me if I agree to the mediation.] (]) 22:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::(sigh) Why do you think I would ban you? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Based on your response to my complaint about Will Beback anything is possible. But you've answered my question so I'll go ahead in good faith. Thanks.] (]) 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:In my capacity as AfD closer, I don't have any objections to anything anyone does with the article - my role was limited to closing the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well at least you've proved my point, twice. Firstly, since you banned me "from initiating or otherwise participating in any discussions related to Prem Rawat in all Misplaced Pages discussion pages and other fora, including article and user talk pages, WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:ANI and their talk pages", I thought I'd better check if I could "participate in this mediation" , you replied "OK". That's an affirmation. And now you're asking me to provide a link I've already provided.] (]) 22:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| :::OK, you see, I forgot that I issued such a ban. All right, the ban is suspended exclusively with respects to edits made in official mediation fora. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. Perhaps you can explain to me why my complaint about Will Beback is "frivolous" and warrants an eight month ban when you took no action about these two fraudulent complaints by Francis Schonken.] (]) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please provide a link to this complaint about Will Beback. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's the link but please read every word and follow every diff. Thanks.] (]) 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have already explained the reasons for the action I took in the relevant AE thread. I have nothing to add. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi @]. Hoped you might be able to assist in feedback and/or approval for my first draft submission? ] It's been two months waiting in review, I've tagged multiple groups. Saw you were recently active in the Private Equity group and thought you could help. I'm relatively new, hope this is a good path. Thank you in advance: | |||
| == Halimi == | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I believe that the technical meaning of the presumption of innocence refer to the burden of proof being on the prosecutor. For this reason, the principle does not apply to the media, the police or, for that matter, wikipedia. There was no need for anyone outside of judiciary to presume the innocence and people is free to presume guilty on the basis of available information. Moreover, I would appreciate if you can enlighten this but procedural basis of the burden of proof on the civil law doesn't quite work in the way of common law. I believe Inquisitive system could request the defence to prove certain aspect of claim for example. ] (]) | |||
| :It appear that "presumption of innocence" has very specific legal meaning in the common law while in the civil law, it is more a matter of principle. It appear that I was correct in deleting that part but not for the correct reason. | |||
| :Sorry, I'm not active in AFC and have no knowledge of or interest in the topic, so I'll have to decline. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ''Another'' Thank You == | |||
| ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsatisfactory discussion == | |||
| Sir, I justed wanted to express my appreciation for your willingness to hear me out in addressing the issues raised against me. I also am thankful for the thoughtful consideration of fellow admins ], ], ] and ]. Thanks! ] (]) 06:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hai, hope you're doing good. I share your opinion on one of the AfDs three months back. The AfD was an unsatisfactory discussion, and I think the article needs a new discussion focused on the sources. What would be the appropriate way to start a new discussion to get more opinions? Should I use DRV or AFD? Thanks in advance. ] (]) 11:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Momento == | |||
| :Since the outcome of the AfD was no consensus, you can start a new AfD at any time. DRV is only used if you disagree with the closure of the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Recently, you left on Momento's talkpage, he has now suddenly added himself to the Prem Rawat mediation, . Would the ban imposed on him not automatically dis-allow this? -- ] <small>]</sup></small> 15:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Please see a few sections further up. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == A bold proposal == | |||
| In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: ] ] | ] 00:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] AfD close == | |||
| Good close and good job explaining why you saw it that way. Cheers, ] (]) 14:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Seconded. This is exactly how it should be done. One of the top two closures I've ever seen. ] (]) 14:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I just tried to edit ], only to be confounded by the "View Source" link instead; turns out you protected the page over BLP concerns - but forgot to add a "Protected" tag to the article; can you just slap one on, it's there for a reason...very helpful in instantly informing me there's an ongoing spat, rather than "That's odd...this article can't be edited..." ] <sup>(]) </sup> 15:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Done, thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring at Utgard Loki page == | |||
| Hi Sandstein. Over at the arbitration noticeboard talk page, you mentioned the edit warring at the Utgard Loki page. I noticed that as well, over the past couple of days. I've commented . Would you be able to follow that up, or ask someone else to look into that slow-motion edit warring and the editors involved? ] (]) 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Will do. I believe no action is needed now that the warring has stopped, and the only person reverting more than once was Bishonen, who as admin needs no warning. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I think you may have misread the timeline though. The edit warring took place before any announcemnt. ] (]) 23:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian violence == | |||
| Hi, thanks for posting such a clear explanation about the nc decision. Regards, ] (]) 17:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == No disrespect == | |||
| ...is intended in the current discussion at AN/I. I bow to your superior abilities as regards knowledge and interpretation of policy. I am striving to avoid any tone of hostility or sarcasm and express my honest doubts about the situation as I see it. Thanks again for the time and consideration you have given this issue. In the real world I am working (at an honest job!) right now and my responses to discussion may be delayed. Sincerely, ] <font color ="green">]</font > 18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No disrespect was assumed. Whether my interpretation of the applicable rules is found to be correct will remain to be seen... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks very much for all your time and effort regarding the various aspects of the ] article, its subject, and the editors involved. While I have no idea what the outcome(s) might be, I'm thoroughly satisfied that it is now getting the attention it needs. I'm interested in the issue of BLPs in general, and this has certainly been a learning experience. Thanks again for all your help, ] <font color ="green">]</font > 18:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Recognition == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid #999999; background-color: #FFFFFF}; width:100%;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#9D741A; font-family:Comic Sans MS, Arial, Helvetica;" | '''The Socratic Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In recognition of your exceptional insight and firm even-handedness in resolving complex issues. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| I admire your tenacity, dedication, and impartiality. I also wonder how many aspirin you needed to take by the time you finished wading through that? | |||
| ] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate them, because approval by anybody is rare in arbitration enforcement. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, and no aspirin. I'm doing this as a hobby, and will stop as soon as it gives me a headache... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi Sandstin. The source used in the article describes flight from police as a "variant on the 'contempt of cop' theme." So presenting it as an example isn't quite accurate. Also, it's probably best to be cautious about making sweeping assertions based on a single source. I have already posted to on the talk page noting my concern that the article offers a particular point of view that borders on legal advice without fairly representing other points of view and interpretations of the law. ] (]) 23:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sandstein you seem to be playing it very fast and loose with the way statements in the article reflect the sources. A source stating that fleeing the police is a variant of contempt of cop, does not mean it is an example of contempt of cop. This kind of thing can lead to misunderstandings. Also, a source stating that: given the relationship of some young black men to the police, it may be more likely that they are involved in these situations does not mean that a blanket statement about young black people is appropriate. Opinions should be attributed and unless something is well established in sources it shouldn't be stated as fact. I haven't seen it stated anywhere that an arrest for yelling or cursing out cops is inappropriate let alone police misconduct. That may be your point of view, but we're an encyclopedia, so we have to go with what the laws and the history, and the sources say. ] (]) 21:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I'm seeing this post only now. Could we continue this on the article talk apge, please? I'd be interested to hear what others think. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Bluemarine unblocked == | |||
| Hello! Please be advised that I have reviewed the unblock request for ] and that I have agreed to unblock that account. I have spelled out my reason for the unblock on Mr. Sanchez's talk page. However, I have also requested that Mr. Sanchez consult with his mentor, Durova, prior to any further editing until his murky status is resolved. Thank you. ] (]) 01:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Take action or close == | |||
| Just to note that ] has been recently very active. The argument is that the Arb final decision was that both Scuro and Jmh649 were restricted, with the wording (with my emphasis) "Scuro is limited to one revert per page per week and '''''is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page'''''. Should Scuro exceed this limit '''''or fail to discuss a content reversion''''', Scuro may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below". The argument that seems carry some water is that during the edit war Scuro had reverted "generally" from the article without discussion. Could you please look over the recent submissions and either take action or close the thread as it's turning into another sling match, just as the other thread calling for a restriction on Jmh649 had done. Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup> 09:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello Sandstein. I am puzzled by your recent removal of the page at ], and wonder if you may have fallen into a trap. | |||
| The page has been in existence for some four years, linked from ], without any problems. That is, until ], on 31 May 2009, whilst sulking over the move of ] from ''Berne'', noted it as ''historic''. His argument on ] was that the page had not been amended in that time and was therefore ''redundant''. The usual way of seeing this on Misplaced Pages would be that it was ''stable'' and had gained ''consensus''. | |||
| The current notation that ''"This page has been superseded by ], which applies to all Misplaced Pages articles on places."'' could equally replace any of the conventions on individual countries. However, as with the other sub-pages, this convention covered much more that the name of ], and was largely about how to disambiguate Swiss geographic articles, something which is not adequately covered at ]. | |||
| If ] took such objection to the page being cited as a reason to move ], then the correct thing to have done would have been to seek to change the policy set out on the page or, as he did, to discuss at ], but also to have added a notation to the page that a discussion was ongoing at ]. | |||
| His addition of the ''historic'' tag should be seen in the same vein as his placing of a ''neutrality'' tag on the ] article. He has failed to gain any support for his arguments on that page and has failed to win any support for his campaign against the administrator who closed the discussion. Indeed, he appears to have alienated more editors by his actions. | |||
| In view of this, can I ask that you reconsider your action in deleting the page's contents. ] (]) 03:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi. As you may know, I disagree with Pmanderson about the Berne/Bern naming issue. But my move was not triggered by this and I believe that it should be considered independently from his strange actions with regard to "Berne". I believe that a naming guideline that directly contradicts the main guideline should have broader project-wide consensus, and I can't see this here. The main guideline tells us to use the most common form in English, while Docu's guideline would have us use the local official form. That's a rather big difference (in theory; in practice they generally match), and though a Swiss myself I am unconvinced that our geographic names warrant any special treatment. That said, if you believe there might be consensus for such special treatment, I am not opposed to you undoing my actions if you start a discussion in an appropriate forum about whether these rules are sustained by consensus. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> | |||
| ::Thanks for your speedy reply. Can I suggest you read what you deleted again. It did not ''"have us use the local official form"'' instead of the most common form in English. | |||
| ::The opening paragraph, titled ''Naming of articles'', stated ''"The article is placed at the title with municipality's official name in the local language, '''if there is no other article with the same name and if there is no usual English name'''"'' ] (]) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::True. But in that case, what need is there for a special guideline for Switzerland? I'm not in principle opposed to one if there's both such a need and consensus behind it. So far I see neither, just one page written in one edit in 2005 (when I presume there was no clear general naming guideline) and never changed since. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Topic ban== | |||
| Dear Sandstein, I have constantly noted my willingness to abide by my 1RR restrictions and to discuss any and all edits and I ''honestly'' didn't believe that removing that tag constituted a revert when I introduced the sources to backup its conclusion. Administrator Nishkid, who immediately made an edit after mine, had no qualms in it and simply corrected my own grammatical error. My response on the AE page may have sounded like I was attacking other editors but I have no interest in doing so and was simply explaining the chronology of how and what happened. I ask you to please reconsider your decision as this was a very simple confusion on my part of what constituted as a revert at that moment and I had no desire to make edits that would have violated my parole. Regards, --] (]) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Why and how exactly were you confused that is a revert of made half an hour earlier? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't know that by removing that tag and simultaneously pointing to him the sources to support the wording would have constituted a revert; I felt that it would simply count as a new edit, since the dubious tag is no longer be need when the multiple authors cited on the talk page make mention of the wording. Nishkid's follow up edit only served to confirm what I felt, as he did not add the tag back but merely corrected a grammar mistake I made. It was only a little later that it dawned to me that my edit might be construed as revert, and I was going to immediately follow up my edit by citing the four or five sources listed on the talk page to support the phrasing had not time considerations prevented me from doing so. There was a lapse of reasoning on my part in all this, absolutely, but I didn't expect that someone would say I was committing a revert by removing a tag that was no longer needed. Thank you for hearing me out.--] (]) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I will ask Nishkid64 and YellowMonkey, who have experience with your conduct, to comment. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi Sandstein, just let you know that the DiamondApex was not exactly a sockpuppery case and that once he leaves California he will request an unblocking. Consult Nishkid64 for further info. Also, I find the rationale of a topic ban for the only user who wrote FAs (from scratch) on those heated topics pretty weak. I can understand a topic ban against Brand since he mostly reverted in those articles, but a topic ban against the only user who has several FA's under his wing and also happens to be the most proliferant article creator in Armenian subjects is a little too harsh. May I suggest reducing the scope of the topic ban to the article in question where most of his recent activity was concentrated? After all his second revert was essentially a result of the user incorrectly assuming that a removal of the tag wont count as a revert.--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small></font> 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Whose this user with multiple FAs? Also in addition, I know some guys with FA credits who are extreme racial POV-pushers but since none of the people from the "opposite" race exist on wikipedia and neutrals either don't know or can't be stuffed spending 3 hours a day on something they don't have a natural interest in, they can do what they want :( ''']''' ('']'') ] 01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| First of all, I don't think that an experienced user such as MarshallBagramyan would not know that removing the tags added by another user would constitute a revert. He has been involved in this controversial topic area for years, and been a party to 2 arbitration cases. And the tags were added for a good reason, discussed on talk in much detail. As for the article in question, MarshallBagramyan has been extremely disruptive there, edit warring and preventing other editors from adding any info to the article. He was blocked twice before for edit warring on that article, first because of 1RR violation, second time for sock/meatpuppetry. I was even forced to file an arbitration request, naming MarshallBagramyan as a party, but arbitrators decided that the DR opportunities were not exhausted yet. However considering the behavior of MarshallBagramyan on this article, DR is unlikely to give any result, since he refuses from any mediation. Note that the editors he opposes to in this article (except for me) are not even regular contributors to AA topics, they are third party people who have nothing to do with either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Yet they are unable to edit the article, as every edit they make and which contradicts the POV popular in Armenia gets instantly reverted. I don't think that such approach to editing the controversial topics is acceptable, and MarshallBagramyan has been given enough chances. Also, I don't think that Nishkid64's edit fixing a typo could be construed in any way as an endorsement of MarshallBagramyan's actions. ]] 05:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Topic ban reduced=== | |||
| Because of the possibility that the 1RR violation might have been a honest mistake, and acting on the advice of other administrators, I reduce the duration of the topic ban from indefinite to one month, to run concurrently with the 1RR restriction, which (like any other applicable sanctions) remains in effect unchanged. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
- Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
Deletion closure of Principal Snyder
Hello Sandstein! In your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine Slayage on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the its homepage claims: "Slayage (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors." Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! Daranios (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High". Therefore, prima facie, we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than Buffy episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. Sandstein 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! Sandstein 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder
A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.
- Your evaluation of Slayage is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in Buffy studies, but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in DOAJ. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that Slayage was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong.
- None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to WP:NOT#PLOT do not satisfy WP:DEL#REASON number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per WP:ATD, part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred.
- Further, making a de facto conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of WP:NEXIST on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article.
Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. Jclemens (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. Sandstein 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.
- I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--Slayage was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione
Is there a reason why Louis Mangione was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. Sandstein 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Smoothstack
I didn't have a chance to weigh in on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Smoothstack, which you closed a couple days ago. Would you object to redirecting this to Employment bond#Training Repayment Agreement Provisions? It already mentions Smoothstack and says pretty much what the article already says, so the Smoothstack stub seems redundant. If more information can be fleshed out, then the article can be split off as standalone again. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my capacity as AfD closer, I don't have any objections to anything anyone does with the article - my role was limited to closing the AfD. Sandstein 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project
Hi @Sandstein. Hoped you might be able to assist in feedback and/or approval for my first draft submission? Draft:Gerry Cardinale It's been two months waiting in review, I've tagged multiple groups. Saw you were recently active in the Private Equity group and thought you could help. I'm relatively new, hope this is a good path. Thank you in advance:
~~~~ Yachtahead (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not active in AFC and have no knowledge of or interest in the topic, so I'll have to decline. Sandstein 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok thank you. Yachtahead (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Unsatisfactory discussion
Hai, hope you're doing good. I share your opinion on one of the AfDs you closed three months back. The AfD was an unsatisfactory discussion, and I think the article needs a new discussion focused on the sources. What would be the appropriate way to start a new discussion to get more opinions? Should I use DRV or AFD? Thanks in advance. TheWikiholic (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the outcome of the AfD was no consensus, you can start a new AfD at any time. DRV is only used if you disagree with the closure of the AfD. Sandstein 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)