| Revision as of 09:41, 1 June 2015 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,570 edits →Unclear about a topic ban: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,306,673 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) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ::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) | |||
| No big deal since a new AfD is active but there was a previous AfD which would have been obvious if you looked at the talk page. ] was a bit short but did exist.] (]) 22:03, 9 May 2015 (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) | ||
| === ] === | |||
| ::Fair enough - I see the point. Cheers.] (]) 07:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep. | |||
| =="Peter Licavoli" article== | |||
| *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) | ||
| Greetings. I'm writing to you in your capacity as an administrator. If you read the stub ] you'll see that he was a US ]. A few days ago, I removed a sentence or two which praised his work after he ostensibly left the Mafia, describing it as "peacock language." The article had not been edited in 8 months. My edit was quickly reverted. I removed the reversion. Then the same editor re-reverted, '''ordering''' me not to removed his edit and calling me a "prick." This set off alarm bells in my mind--his 'assumption of command' and vulgarity are characteristic Mafia-like behavior, and his attachment to the memory of Mr. Licavoli was plainly personal. I created a talk page for the editor's IP address, and asked him to assure me that he wasn't making a threat. This is the page:https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:67.1.202.115 You can see what follows at that page and the history page of ]. Similar edits have been made to the Licavoli article from 2 additional IP addresses--it's clearly the same editor at 'work,' using multiple addresses for edit-warring. | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| It may be somewhat overdramatic, but I feel slightly threatened because of this editors 'stance' towards me. Imagine how you'd feel (and think) if dealing with an enthusiastic partisan of a high-ranking Waffen SS Offizier. I didn't post this to ] on account of this complication. Can you please help me with this, or suggest a way to proceed? Thank you for your attention. ] (]) 04:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Smoothstack == | |||
| ⚫ | :: |
||
| 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) | |||
| Tell us why you won't allow a non-vulgar, non-theatening edit to be posted? Do you have a personel vendetta for this person or are you just using your power of edit? Other than that you are blocking free speech just like communist counties. | |||
| Please explain to us??????? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : |
: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) | ||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| == Inappropriate messages == | |||
| 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: | |||
| Sandstein, please stop disrupting my talk page with . You are accusing of edit warring and laughably threatening Arbitration when what editors have done (and you've only targeted me) is remove an addition of info that YOU agree with but is clearly '''under discussion and opposed by a majority of editors at the ]'''. {{u|Gaijin42}} has , as {{u|Dwpaul}} - and they have ''supported'' the addition. But you have not bothered them. If you keep disrupting my page with this, you'd be ]. Your competence as an admin has already been questioned by another editor ({{u|Govindaharihari}}), plus the fact that most disagree with your view at the noticeboard; I ask and suggest you stop disrupting my page with nonsense threats. Thanks. ] (]) 11:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, I'm not threatening you with anything. If you read ], you will see that these alerts are intended to notify (without presumption of misconduct) users who are editing in certain topic areas, including ] articles, that special rules apply to these areas. This also covers edit-warring with respect to disputed content, such as the content about whose inclusion in ] we disagree. I'm looking forward to the conclusion of the discussion about this at ], but in the meantime I advise you to refrain from edit-warring. Regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the clarification. Given the templates and circumstances, one can interpret it as threats, and if done again, mere harassment. I've not edit warred; I, like other editors, only removed the controversial info on the BLP ''because'' it's under discussion (and also being largely opposed) at the BLP noticeboard. It's expected that other editors (mostly IPs) unaware of the discussions would be adding the info. The controversial info can't stay on the BLP while it's being considered ambiguous and against BLP policy or Undue. Whatever the consensus is at the noticeboard, that's what we would should abide by here. Cheers. ] (]) 11:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::::If others keep adding it would you suggest temporary page protection, or pending changes? ] (]) 12:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My view is that the fact that people keep adding the content is an indicator that our readership is interested in this topic, which informs the discussion about it, and therefore I would oppose any protection measure. Ultimately, we must abide by consensus, and if this is added by different people repeatedly, it should become apparent that consensus is in favor of its inclusion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Now that the whole "Cate Blanchett is a lesbian" thing has been shown to be a creation of journalistic sensationalism, I think you have some apologies to offer. As an administrator, isn't it more important for you to defend our cautious and conservative BLP policy than to argue that "our readship is interested" in splashy rumor mongering? ] ] 18:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't think so. The statement was attributed to Blanchett in a (normally) reliable source, and I think the responsible thing to do, based on that information, was to reproduce this statement and attribute it to the source so that readers can decide for themselves what to make of it. That still is the responsible thing to do now, in my view, but now of course together with Blanchett's correction. As important as it is to write biographies conservatively, we are not in the business of second-guessing reliable sources because that would be original research. Let the actually involved people do that, and let's cover any new developments as they happen. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Unclear about a topic ban == | |||
| ⚫ | :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) | ||
| Hi, I am confused about my topic ban on Bulgaria. I abstaimed from editing for abot two years, not because I was blocked for so much time I was just for three months, so I am began again before two days and I wonder which bans are cutrently still in force. Is the topic ban expired or still in force, enforced before two years? It is written "idefinetely" banned but at the same time I am able to edit topic pages on topic, it doesnt show me "view aource", does this mean that the block had expired? If no, I would like to appeal, I am interested in this topic. It's been two years already I promise I wont break 3rr, I deserve a second chance if not u can reblock me at any time. Thank you for the atention.--] (]) 18:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| == Unsatisfactory discussion == | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ceco31#At_AE_again --] (]) 21:20, 31 May 2015 (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) | |||
| Excuse ne for the wrong link this is the decision imposing the ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=556281728#Ceco31 | |||
| : |
: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) | ||
| ==DYK for Steven Universe: Attack the Light!== | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| |type = notice | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| |text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that the ''']''' was promoted with the release of a ''']'''?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Steven Universe: Attack the Light!|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Steven Universe: Attack the Light!|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ]. | |||
| }}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:47, 31 May 2015 (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)