| Revision as of 12:46, 21 September 2009 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,284 edits →Misplaced Pages is not for feuding: tea?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,098 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 ]== | |||
| == Nareg510 == | |||
| 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 unblocked {{Userlinks|Nareg510}}. He says he's through editwarring, and I'd like to give him a chance to try again. ] ] 00:08, 19 September 2009 (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) | |||
| :Er, ok, but you are aware that this is {{vandal|Ararat arev}}, a banned sockpuppeteer? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask {{user|Glen}}, the admin who banned the sockmaster account, and unblock that account? And possibly ask for community consensus first, because this is a longtime disruption issue? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:19, 19 September 2009 (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) | |||
| ::Frankly, I think such discussions would be futile. Clearly a puppet-master with over 200 socks should NEVER be unblocked. However, provided I monitor his editing, I see little prospect for harm, other than to my reputation, to give him a brief trial. ] ] 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep. | |||
| ::I don't normally jump into discussions like this, but this caught my eye, and I noticed that Glen's block was in January 2007 and Glen has made 10 edits in 2009. Last edit on 7 August 2009. Surely that should be taken into account when advising someone to "contact the blocking admin"? ] (]) 23:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *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) | ||
| ::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 == | |||
| :See ] --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 11:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:AE == | |||
| :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) | |||
| Hi. Could you please have a look at this report at AE: I don't think that ethnic attacks like this should be tolerated in wiki: Thanks. ]] 07:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Smoothstack == | |||
| == On the subject of the topic bans == | |||
| 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 am still shocked that this is seriously considered, but could you considered commenting on ]? Thank you, --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 06:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not really in a position to comment on this, because I am not privy to the evidence on which the proposed topic ban is based. If the Committee does adopt such a wide topic ban, I expect them to have good reasons for it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:57, 19 September 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) | |||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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: | |||
| Hi! Yes, it does seem a bit strange at first that he has his left hand up - the usual portrayal is with the right hand to his right ear. Anyway, I had a look through my old photos tonight and all the other ones that I can check from that roll seem to be correctly orientated, so I assume this one is too. My wife says she remembers remarking on the unusual portrayal at the time - but this was many yearsa ago now and I must admit I cannot remember. | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have also been looking through numerous other portrayals of Milarepa in my library and on the internet tonight and have so far only found two others portraying him with his left hand up. They may be rare, but at least they do seem to exist. These two images may be accessed at: http://www.kagyu-asia.com/lineage/milarepa_life/milarepa_m1_2.jpg and http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tengyeling.ca/images/milarepa.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.tengyeling.ca/links.htm&usg=__reCXBXc9bn3vvhLoQb4ZOUc-z8U=&h=133&w=131&sz=7&hl=en&start=441&sig2=cUKZpCowZwfiKcA67dlyFQ&um=1&tbnid=eGRZ2TLUXsdMrM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmilarepa%2Bimages%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D432%26um%3D1&ei=e7-0SpT9FIqKtAP2t_HRDA | |||
| :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) | |||
| I think it is a bit much to suggest it is an insult to show him with his hand up to his left ear (it certainly was not deliberate on my part and I doubt, from what I have read of Milarepa, that he would have been offended) and, aside from returning to Gyantse to check, I don't really know what to do. If I can contact a friend of mine who is a very well-known Tibetan painter, I will ask him his opinion about the iconographic implications (if any). Hope this is of some help. Sincerely, ] (]) 11:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsatisfactory discussion == | |||
| == Nickhh == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Sandstein, I object to your close on this as I would like to see another checkuser confirm with certainty that this was Nickhh. It is not clear why this check was run in the first place, and considering that Nickhh denies it was him, as well as that the ip also shows random vandalism, there should be more evaluation than from just one person. The discussion should be reopened for another checkuser to review, at least. ] (]) 17:13, 19 September 2009 (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) | ||
| ::Thank you, you may have seen I just commented to Brandon asking if he would clarify. ] (]) 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just reviewed this again, and appreciate your leaving it open while I was away. Seeing Brandon's explanation and Deskana's confirmation, that's good enough for me. Regards, ] (]) 06:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Child of Midnight == | |||
| I'm inclined to honor his unblock request. Our current President is going to be mentioned in hundreds of articles. When one editor decides to add his name to an article, it does not automatically make it Obama-related. Should ] be off limits as well because the President referred to him as a 'jackass?' Where are you going to draw the line here? Besides, the length of the block seems vindictive. ]<sub> ] ]</sub> 03:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with the above sentiment. I think however you were acting in good faith as well. I do not know if you have a prior history with COM however this raises a few issues that need to be cleared up to avoid a repeat of the preceding. Would an Obama block extend to all politics? For example Obama is heavily involved with health care. Arbcom and whoever should confer to the limits of the restrictions. ] (]) 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I strongly disagree with both your assertion, Law, and with your out of process unblock (and Obama is not my president; I'm European). The topic ban covers "Obama-related articles ... <u>broadly construed</u>", my emphasis, and this organization seems to relate to Obama in a politically significant way. I also do not know what you mean by "vindictive", as I do not know what I am supposed to be vengeful about against ChildofMidnight. (Hell in a Bucket, I am not aware of any prior history with ChildofMidnight, though it is possible - I didn't check - that I sanctioned him previously for something or other.) | |||
| ::Law, I ask you to please reinstate the block of ChildofMidnight (at the maximum permitted length of a week, as correctly pointed out by Evil Saltine), or I will request arbitration with respect to your interference with the enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm going to have to respectfully ask for arbitration. I stand by my action, and will be fully accountable for it. There are about seven different paths you could have taken. You could have gone to CoM directly, and discussed the merits of him editing his article. You could have called in a third opinion. You could have gone to the committee which set the topic ban, and discussed whether or not ACORN was an Obama-related article. If so, you could have simply asked CoM to stop. Instead your actions indicate that there was a dire need to give him a template and a thirty-day vacation. I believe you applied this block as arbitrarily as you did the block length. If it is so important to you that CoM spend a week thinking about his behavior, you will simply have to make good on your promise to take me to ArbCom for interference. I'm an adult and I won't take it personally. ]<sub> ] ]</sub> 06:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Law, what you say makes some sense, but it needs to be put in the context of Arbitration enforcement. It is a difficult area to begin with, and generally speaking these enforcement doctrines are created because of extensive and long reaching problems. This is ''designed'' to lower the threshold and tolerances given to users. At the very least, it is best if you announce these intentions on the relevant arbitration enforcement threads.--] (]) 06:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Would it not have been nice to announce the intention to block, rather than my intention to unblock? At least that way it wouldn't have resulted in a block that exceeds what is policy. ]<sub> ] ]</sub> 06:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Arbitration enforcement blocks, more so than blocks in general, do not normally require prior consensus or discussion, because the merits of the case have already been through arbitration. As to the block length error, I'm sorry about that and would of course have corrected it had I been given the opportunity. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But I don't see the problem with discussion. In fact, I think only AC can decide if this is truly a breach of the ban. We clearly disagree with how it is applied, which often happens with a 'broad' interpretation. I know the history of ACORN (we are having serious problems here in California), and it was created nearly 40 years before Obama was in office. While that is not the greatest rationale, it does explain why I think that the US President will be involved in many aspects, such as the Kanye incident, but that doesn't necessarily mean the ban was meant to prevent CoM from editing all articles, even if they are tangents. ]<sub> ] ]</sub> 06:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, it is incumbent upon administrators enforce arbitral decisions, which means that they have to decide whether an edit constitutes a violation or not, and as I said, in an arbitration enforcement context the time for discussion is usually long over. Whether or not my block was correct, though, you have no excuse for unilaterally undoing what was clearly labeled as an arbitration enforcement action. Please reinstate the block at once and seek community consensus at AE or ANI about whether or not it was correct; if consensus does not support a block of one week, I will of course lift it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sigh. Law, I think the evidence will show that Sandstein has been nothing but tireless in working AE to the best of his ability and fairness. Any criticism of him, however fair or unfair should be within that context. Likewise, Sandstein, we get very little out of insisting anything out of our fellow volunteer admins to do, or undo anything, and focusing on procedure at this point is impractical. | |||
| :::::::::In the case on point, procedurally, Sandstein is absolutely correct. It is the nature of arbitration enforcement that administrators are left to figure out for themselves what arbcom meant, the thresholds are low, and the decisions can be very quick. However, I think there is a legitimate argument that ACORN, while obviously in the same political football field, is not sufficiently within the logical reach of Obama related articles to have constituted fair warning for CoM. Is there somewhere we can come to an agreement?--] (]) 07:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I cannot block an editor when there is no certainty that he did anything wrong. It sends a poor message to him. And I do have an excuse - I used my tools to honor an unblock request. This idea that he should be blocked until a decision is made is foreign to me. It is the presumption of guilt, as well as prevention from allowing him to participate in an obviously impending ANI request. ]<sub> ] ]</sub> 07:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::CoM has had plenty of poor behavior, as you yourself have noted, so this isn't an issue of has CoM done something wrong. Editing a political football like ACORN by including a White House statement, and then posting a lengthy screed instead of a simple common sense defense when called out on it, all the while under a topic ban after an ugly arbitration case is quite frankly, self destructive. I am far more interested, and hope the two of you are equally interested, in practical questions of effectiveness, and general questions of fairness. | |||
| :::::::::::Again, all of these discussions can take place, and should have taken place, on AE. Aside from the basic fairness and politeness involved to your fellow administrators, it is way more useful to have the discussion where many eyes are likley watching. Furthermore, unblocking without discussing at some length the blocking admin tends to lead to drama, especially when arbitration enforcement is involved. Of course, the administrator so affronted shouldn't really get all that worked up about it either - its just a damned website, and its just a block. | |||
| :::::::::::Is there anyway I can get people to agree in principle that discussing such blocks amicably on AE would have been better?--] (]) 07:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I agree with all of the above, especially that any discussion about the propriety of my action should have taken place at AE. Because it has not, though, I have now requested arbitration at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (undent)I just fixed my rather stupid error above, so let me reiterate more clearly, ''lets not get worked up over something this trivial.''--] (]) 07:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not feel particularly worked up, but I would like to find out whether it is worth spending any more of my time at AE. That would not be the case if the ArbCom agrees that administrative actions taken in the enforcement of its decisions can be undone on a whim. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::They obviously ''can'' be. Whether they should is an entirely different discussion, and whether someone should go through arbitration to find out is still another separate gigantic can of worms. Regardless of whether you feel worked up or not, arbitration is the Misplaced Pages bench mark for making a big deal out of something. Let me make it easier on you, please. Stop responding to AE. Let others take care of it - or maybe they won't. Either way, it isn't your job.--] (]) 07:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is clearly no reason that anyone should get worked up about this. We obviously have two editors, who happen to be administrators, differing over what the topic ban may or may not include. I am all for letting AC set this right, as I do not feel that I am the best candidate to interpret their ban in the first place. While I am clearly not enthusiastic about going in front of ARBCOM, it was the right thing to do because only they can elaborate on this broad topic ban. There are no hard feelings on my part, and no getting worked up. ]<sub> ] ]</sub> 08:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::to clarify my part......Sr. Sandstein I wasn't alleging you have a past with Child of Midnite, just to acknowledge if you did I was unfamiliar with it. I think that this subject should go to ARBCOM. As stated earlier to Edit anything obama related is a stretch right now. I urge you to go to the AZrbcom and ask for a clarificaiton as to the limits. I can see your points but Law has great points too. The only way Acorn and Obama are connected is from the accusation from last years presidential race. But to extend an Obama block to everything political would be a tad too extreme, everyone of our laws will be signed by our president......doesn't mean the article is about him.....] (]) 14:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Reword and RFAR == | |||
| Does Reword ? (Scroll down.) Looks like a simple mistake, but wanted to let you know in case it was the script. ] (]) 12:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :That was certainly the script. I'll report the bug and re-add the statement; thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI notice == | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:Unban of user Ararat arev (talk · contribs)|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == My mediation == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=314696358 | |||
| Would you be so kind to answer?] (]) 10:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I . <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry I have missed your answer. | |||
| ::In another words, you Xx236 are guilty, because you are weak. Thank you for this explanation of Misplaced Pages ethics.] (]) 11:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::That makes no sense to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To me either. You have done twice what S. had wanted. He rewrites articles, removes POV tags and I have no right to oppose. This Misplaced Pages is more and more an anti-Polish forum. I'm sorry to be so ignorant, but where can I protest agaisnt discriminations if Cabala is a wrong place? ] (]) 11:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages is not for feuding == | |||
| Sandstein, makes me feel concerned that you are engaged in a feud with KillerChihuahua and Giano (who are known to be friends). Please back away from this situation and stop lobbying for blocks of your political opponents. This will be best for all concerned. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Join me for ]. Misplaced Pages will still be here when you get back. You've now twice erased others' comments while trying to fix edit conflicts. That's a good indication that's it's time for tea and cookies. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:46, 21 September 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)