| Revision as of 19:04, 1 July 2013 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 2d) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/June.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,484 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2024/December) (bot | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | ||
| ==Deletion closure of ]== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I have removed this statement, "''It seems that Turks claim themselves as the authors of everything except what they are actually responsible for, such as the ].]''. I felt it was inappropriate, insulting, anachronistic, and had absolutely nothing to do with ] or the ]. I did not know if this was enough for Admin intervention/warning, but felt I should make you aware of this. Thanks. --] (]) 22:22, 23 June 2013 (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 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) | |||
| ⚫ | :::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. | |||
| == Racial epithets! == | |||
| *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. | |||
| *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. | |||
| :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) | ||
| Hi, Sandstein. Following your close of ] as "merge", there's been a slow edit war on the merge target's page as editors wishing to implement the consensus clash with editors who insist on a source for every entry. Please could you review the talk page of the list, my talk page, and the edit history and provide us with a third opinion when you've done so? Thanks very much and all the best—] <small>]/]</small> 21:18, 26 June 2013 (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? ] (]) 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 == | |||
| == Concern == | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello Sandstein, | |||
| :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) | |||
| A ] under WP:ARBAA2 has . He has broken his ban a few times already...see his/her ] please. Thank you. ] (]) 22:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::"Armenian–Azerbaijani conflicts" relates to anything Armenian-Turkish as well. Just ask ]. --] (]) 23:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I have far better things to be doing at the moment, but I think this merits a response. From ]: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, <u>or related ethnic conflicts</u>, broadly interpreted." One doesn't need to be a member of Mensa to know that Armenian-Turkish conflicts are related ethnic disputes. If you don't like this interpretation, your time would be better spent making a request for clarification at ] rather than taking swipes at me on other admin's talk page - I will respect whatever ruling the committee makes on the issue. ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]</small> 22:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Smoothstack == | |||
| TheShadowCrow, after looking at the case page, I note that you are subject to an "from all articles and discussions covered under ARBAA2". above violates that ban, in addition to being ], as does , and I am blocking you in enforcement of the ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:36, 29 June 2013 (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) | |||
| == Another concern == | |||
| :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) | |||
| I also wanted to inform you of another person topic banned from AA. NovaSkola has been editing ] continuously. Though you permitted normal non-controversial Azeri football editing, this one in particular is about a club that is named after and from the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and anything about that area is considered an AA topic. He has direcly edited parts about the clubs namesake and history, as can be seen and . --] (]) 23:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| == request for assistance == | |||
| 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: | |||
| To editor Sandstein, I am contacting you as your views seemed to prevail in recent Arbitration Clarification and Amendment Request (). Within that discussion, there were one or two or more parties who noted problems with Dudemanfellabra's behavior, and it was discussed that Dudemanfellabra perhaps should be warned about incivility. Yesterday and today, there is continuing incident going on, involving Orlady, Dudemanfellabra, Nyttend and myself. I would like to request that Dudemanfellabra be formally warned or sanctioned in some way, about . The wp:CIVIL page specifically prohibits calls to others to "grow up", as obviously insulting; the douche mention is obviously vulgar and it does offend me. I have to go look it up to understand, that it means thoroughly contemptible, and that is what I am being called. However, although I have browsed the civility guidelines and the past arbitrations, I am not clear what I am allowed and not allowed to do at this point. I am exhorted not to comment on other editors, but the distinctions between commenting on editors' behavior vs. editors themselves seem rather unclear in the guidelines and policies and arbitration statements. I consider it possible that others could call for me to be blocked from Misplaced Pages for asking, here, about whether I am allowed to respond to their behavior, because obviously i must be referring to editors or their behavior. Taken to an extreme, this catch-22-ness is impossible to deal with. I need some help, and I believe I should not be blocked for seeking to deal with troublesome behavior that is perhaps taking advantage of past arbitration, etc. So: | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 1. Hypothetically, if and when parties collude in a tag-team way and repeatedly follow and express contempt and disrespect, what recourse do I have? In particular, am I allowed to open ANI incident reports or RFC/U's or not, which by their nature are to comment on other editors behavior. | |||
| :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) | |||
| 2. Could you take a look at ] right now (), and perhaps comment or take some action in a stabilizing way. | |||
| ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsatisfactory discussion == | |||
| sincerely, --]]] 15:27, 29 June 2013 (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) | |||
| :Subsequently editor Nyttend to give me a "final warning" notice at my Talk page, calling a "personal attack", and he has restored my initial comment in the NRHP discussion thread but not my later comment. I don't see mine as a personal attack, but had already removed it anyhow (towards trying to let the discussion there die), and decided to ask for advice here, which I did before receiving Nyttend's warning. Again, if you could comment or take some stabilizing action, I would appreciate it. I note that Nyttend, an administrator taking notice of my offense at the "douchiest" insult, chooses not to warn anyone about that, but rather to find fault with my complaint. I find this profoundly unfair and unpleasant. --]]] 15:56, 29 June 2013 (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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::I hoped you would accept a brief statement and direction to wt:NRHP without extensive diffs. Okay, I have revised above to include a link to the recent Arbitration Clarification and Amendment Request] (let me refer to this as "ACAR"), and I expand somewhat here (more than I hoped to have to do). Within that ACAR, the one or two or more parties who find some degree of issue with Dudemanfellabra's behavior include you, The Devil's Advocate, and Kumioko. , you evaluated words of Dudemanfellabra (which you quoted) with statement: "While I agree that such comments are uncollegial and confrontative and ought to be avoided, they do focus on a reasonably specific perceived content problem, rather than on Doncram as a person, which is why I would argue they fall short of being sanctionable, at least under our current (regrettably loose, in my view) civility standards." That seems to be setting forth a certain standard on what is acceptable, that limitedness of scope, that specificity, somehow matters. I would tend to agree with the principle you suggest in general, but what if the objectionable behavior is one incident in a series of arguably unnecessary complaints/comments, and if that series continues? I didn't come here for the purpose of arguing at all with you, but consider the same editor, who read your comments, going on soon after to pick out and describe my behavior in ; is that acceptable? I hope not. Also within the closed ACAR, in , Dudemanfellabra states "... if he just put a little more time and effort into everything he does to make it more presentable and less quick-fix-y, the number of complaints/attacks about/on him would drop off drastically". That seemed to me to be an assertion that complaints/attacks are okay to pursue, while I believe there must be some limits, and I was and am concerned that idea of continuing to attack/complain was not repudiated. Editor The Devils Advocate comments "@Sandstein, did you see the comment Dudeman made? While one could argue that uncivil remarks such as "your trademark quick-fix, let-someone-else-clean-up-my-mess style" are better off ignored, it is quite obscene to suggest that objecting to such remarks is worthy of sanction. I would think the purpose of the probation is to keep Doncram from over-reacting or attacking without prior provocation, not to give anyone he might be in a dispute with a chance to get their licks in with impunity". I won't quote from Kumioko's comments. This should support adequately my assertion that "there were one or two or more parties who noted problems", okay? | |||
| :::Also I note that you stated "Doncram is warned not to approach discussions confrontatively, not to exhibit signs of ownership, not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith. '''The editors who are in disputes with Doncram are reminded that these expectations apply to them also.''' Sandstein 07:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (emphasis added), in of an Administrative Enforcement action. | |||
| :::Although I am obviously selective in what I quoted above, I don't dispute the result of the ACAR (which was technically to deny the request by Nyttend), nor do I dismiss the comments and concerns of others such as yourself and AGK and Mathsci and EdJohnston and Thryduulf and NuclearWarfare within the ACAR. Rather, I am seeking advice. | |||
| :::To clarify perhaps, by my original statement above that I "would like to request that Dudemanfellabra be formally warned or sanctioned in some way", I mean mostly that I would like to ask for advice on what forum and how I can request that. E.g., is it your view that I am prohibited from asking that, in every forum? | |||
| :::I am not now notifying all these parties mentioned here, as would clearly be necessary for an ANI or other more formal proceeding, because my point of coming here was to ask you personally for some comment or action. Your views seemed to prevail, were most cited, in the ACAR. I seek your advice about whether, or under what circumstances, and how you feel that I am allowed to comment on the behavior of others, if and when they might engage with incivility against me, for example, contrary to your own advice to them (in the emphasized text above). Please note, I was/am not seeking out confrontation, I am seeking to avoid it, but I don't want to be driven from the project in order to avoid it. And in general, although I disagree with some specifics within , I accept its outcome and I am striving to abide by it. I am, however, beset with some questions of how to deal with cases of following- and negative-type behaviors. I would appreciate a discussion of cases, perhaps phrased as hypothetical cases, and guidance. For example, what if an editor terms an edit of mine as a "personal attack", when I do not agree, where/how am I allowed to dispute that, and perhaps to call the accusation a personal attack itself. I hate this. But anyhow, if you are willing to discuss, online or offline, or you have a suggestion on how I could get guidance from others, please do advise me of that. --]]] 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::All right... Without having read all of the above due to its length, it appears that you find the conduct of others with which you are in disputes objectionable. You may or may not be right about this, but because the ] contains only remedies concerning you (and another editor not at issue here), but not concerning the editors you are now in a dispute with, I don't see how this dispute can be addressed in the context of ], other than to discuss any misconduct by you. You will therefore need to use the standard process, ], and the fora described therein, to resolve this dispute. I hope this helps, but I don't think that I can give more specific advice. Because the specifics of the dispute do not interest me, I ask that you and the people you disagree with do not use my talk page to discuss this further, but rather use each other's talk pages for that purpose. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:21, 29 June 2013 (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)