| Revision as of 14:16, 17 October 2010 editBadanagram (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users596 edits →Admin behaviour← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,903 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) | |||
| Odd that I am saying this being the goober who originally but good call. Also a good example of why we should be careful when quoting "pseudo-policy" like ] in AFDs. (see ] and ]) --] (]) 13:09, 15 October 2010 (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. | |||
| == ] for ] == | |||
| *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) | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| ::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. | |||
| |tyle = notice | |||
| ::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) | |||
| |small = | |||
| :::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) | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| |text = On 15 October 2010, ''']''' was updated with a news item that involved the article ''''']''''', which you recently nominated ''and'' substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
| }}<!--Template:UpdatedITN--> --Nice work, thanks. ] | ] 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione == | |||
| Actually, the tunnel just completed today. | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_switzerland_world_s_longest_tunnel <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : |
: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) | ||
| == Single Use account blanking info == | |||
| == Smoothstack == | |||
| {{hat|1=Edit war seems to be over. Please use ] if it recommences. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] is edit-warring by blanking referenced info. Please see . Thanks!] (]) 22:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I gave him a warning here: . I am continuing to add info to the article despite the disruption.. So, I am not reverting, although he is.] (]) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not going to simply revert now, but he has now reverted 5 times. ] (]) 22:41, 15 October 2010 (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) | |||
| Information which Faustin is trying to publish in the article is not correct, it is a defamation of the Carmelites, the claim that they removed the dome because "it disrupted Przmysl's Polish skyline" is pure defamation. They are church people not nationalist. Also Poles have not occuppied church, it simply passed to Poland when borders changed. (Same as 300 or 400 Polish churches went to Ukrainians after the war. Nobody is saying that Ukrainians have occupied churches, same should be for Poles). Faustian keep trying to publish that in the article that's why I remove it. Also the claim that the "Polish nationalists became determined to erase traces of the church's Ukrainian history" is lame, his source is "http://www.jimmie.tv". He has also accused me of being a "Polish nationalist" which is a bad attack. ] (]) 22:49, 15 October 2010 (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) | |||
| :Are you a sockpuppet? At any rate, all info is from reliable legitimate sources. ""http://www.jimmie.tv"" is just the website that put up that academic journal. The article is . The sentence about destruction is from a book by ] of Yale, in a book published by Yale. He uses the word "destroy." I even included the link to the book. Ultimately the problem here is not a content dispute, however, but ] by a user which is either single-account or, more likely, someone's sockpuppet. Judging by the comments above and from the edit summary, he is some sort of Polish nationalist or something. Please do something about him so I can restore all the info he removed. ] (]) 22:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| Please stop yours attacks. I removed your information because it is wrong, Carmelits did not remove the dome because "it disturbs Polish skyline". Carmelits are religious people not Nazis. ] (]) 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not my claim, it's that of ]. Sheesh.] (]) 23:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hi @]. Hoped you might be able to assist in feedback and/or approval for my first draft submission? ] It's been two months waiting in review, I've tagged multiple groups. Saw you were recently active in the Private Equity group and thought you could help. I'm relatively new, hope this is a good path. Thank you in advance: | |||
| He can make this claim, it does not mean it is true. Please consult Polish sources on this. ] (]) 23:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I trust a Yale specialist over Polish websites. At any rate, this isn't about content but about behavior. You are blanking very legitimate, referenced information simply because you personally find it objectionable. You have made reverts even after being warned - 5 total so far. (I have restored the previous version 3 times - but when adding more to the article I have gone back to the pre-blanked version and added to that, instead of to the blanked version). I also strongly suspect you are a sockpuppet. ] (]) 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| No, just because Snyder claims something it is not commonly accepted, not close, check Polish sources (and I don't mean "Polish websites" but publishing books.) And why do you keep attack me that i am nationalist, socks etc.etc.?? I can make same attack on you. You seem angry I found your weak source "www.jimmie.tv" ] (]) 23:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You haven't listed Polish books by reliable sources expressing the contrary. If you find such a book (no nationalist publishers please, but academic institutes or universities) then by all means include that, too. Or open an RFC on Snyder's work. Just refrain from blanking, please. Erasing people's work is not a nice thing to do.] (]) 23:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsatisfactory discussion == | |||
| How does[REDACTED] work? I think when you accuse the Carmelites of removing the dome from the church because it "disrupted Przmysl's Polish skyline" you must prove this with certainly not that I must prove it is not. I don't want to erase your work I only removed information because it is not sure (based only on 1 source?!?). what is a RFC? ] (]) 23:28, 15 October 2010 (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) | |||
| :It looks like the situation has, hopefully, calmed down?] (]) 02:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| With prevailing conditions in place, in your professional opinion, am I permitted to edit the following article: ]? Thanks.--] (]) 01:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :What conditions? Sorry, I don't remember the exact situation of all people I've ever interacted with. If you are subject to any sanctions, please link to them. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thisa one, --] (]) 18:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::This seems to involve a territory (]) close to Armenia and which was involved in Armenia-related conflicts, so, if you want to be on the safe side, don't edit it. But the final decision is up to the admin who decides whether or not to enforce the topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Gotcha.--] (]) 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Racism == | |||
| Hello. I made a request at ]. I think comments made by ] violate not only civility but also Arbitration enforcements about AA conflict. Here is the translation of his (to be objective I made it by Google translate without any change)<br/> | |||
| ''"I am sorry for you. I feel like a doctor who watches over the dying lab rat who wants to vybratsya of the cage. And this, of course, applies not only to you personally. You (the Azeris) bigot, bigotry, lies very deep in your blood. You can not make a decision, you can not watch over a part. Why? That's why you igrirmidord sarydzhaly and that's why you Tatar you - a backward periphery of the Muslim East. Your (Azerbaijan) uches - to blow up himself, or be shot by civilization. You are a thief, you're fine kormanschik, your national and civilizational status is extremely low. You are cannon fodder to "heroes" of the same level. You are a nomad, and it is your personal history of the tribe. But the most beautiful thing that you'll never understand, because the gene is an integral part of your mind all the above-mentioned circuit."'' --] (]) 16:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :OK. This should be examined at ], not here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Taron Saharyan=== | |||
| Please see translation of more extremist and racist remarks by one editor here . <small><span style="border:2px solid black;padding:2px;">]</span></small> 01:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :You'll have to ask the admin who blocked (only) for a week, not me. I'm not going to override another admin's block for stuff that happened before the block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin behaviour == | |||
| ] | |||
| I note your comments and I offer the following: | |||
| I believe This Misplaced Pages admin ] is violating ] (by following the rules to their advantage when they feel like it) and ] (by personally involving themselves e.g. making AFD's out of spite (as already suggested) and blocking me because I disagreed with their behaviour) and ] by Wikihounding - which is an unusual step for an admin to take. For example, despite it being very early in the morning, this administrator made a knee-jerk reaction when I posted something on my userspace User Talk:Badanagram disagreeing with his tactics. The fact that this admin did this within minutes of my response shows that this admin was actively toting for a reason to block me whilst giving the impression to others that this was passive. | |||
| Although according you yourself I did not address the reason for the block - I would like someone to review the Admins recent decisions made and also make the admin community aware of his over-the-top behaviour in relation to an isolated incident that only required a deletion of the comment in this instance. Instead this admin decided that I had sockpuppets, I had created my IP address to be abusive to him (I made one comment, also creating an IP address as a sockpuppet makes no sense, the IP address is static in this case) and making AFD listings on one of my articles, blocking my IP, making boxes linking ALL my identities DESPITE my change of name request being accepted for very good reason then changing his reasons for the block when he realised it was too weak - to add insult to injury the admin bullied me in to accepting some kind of deal on my userpage as if he was some kind of LAPD cop! | |||
| This admin was completely over the top in exercising his admin tools and I do not beleive he is fit to hold these tools if he continues to abuse them in this manner. Behaviour like this will make most casual editors like myself believe that Misplaced Pages is nothing more than a meritocracy Badanagram (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :This is not very useful since it does not contain any diff as evidence of the alleged misconduct by Toddst1. It is also rather confusing. I'll ask Toddst1 to comment on this. It would be interesting to know why your apparent IP, 86.11.254.79, was blocked for a month and your user account was not. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes it would be very interesting - the reason being is that this would expose the Admin for his apparent ability to apparently behave himself impecabbly whilst blocking the IP but then following wiki conventions when it comes to my userpage.. I don't know how to list diffs as evidence. However that should not be a hinderance to me reporting wrongdoing by an admin. Unless you're all like this...... <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::(e/c) Sure. I had asked Badanagram to take this to ANI, but s/he is apparently ] admins. Here's the nutshell: | |||
| ::*Badanagram had logged out to make some snarky/] type comments is probably the most relevant. | |||
| ::*A little looking around turned up | |||
| ::*I issued both an NPA and sock warning to both the IP and Badanagram, posted a confirmed sock tag on both the IP and Badanagram with the above link as evidence. No blocks were issued. I also Badanagram's old named acount to his new one. | |||
| ::*Several weeks later, showed up and I blocked the IP, not Badanagram. | |||
| ::*Then Badanagram removed the confirmed sock tag on his user page and I told him, per ] that is one of the few things he couldn't remove. He mentioned there were circumstances around his name change, which I researched and it turns out his employer found out about his old username and was the reason for his change. | |||
| ::*Since was the main evidence for proving the sock tag, I was reluctant to remove it but told the editor if he made a an edit claimed the IP, I would replace the evidence he objected to with the new diff (removing his old account Pigeonshouse from the evidence). He did and I changed the sock evidence. I also removed the redirect from his old account, Pigeonshouse. I thought I was helping the guy out. | |||
| ::*Apparently he's a bit upset after the fact. | |||
| ::] <small>(])</small> 20:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The only thing I am upset about is the fact that you have used bullying behaviour and suggested I am a sockpuppet and put several boxes around my account over an isolated incident. ] (]) 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I really don't like the fact that my lack of WP knowledge is being used by you to single me out as a target for online bullying ] (]) 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: And the only reason I've not used ANI or whatever it's called and appealed directly to other admins is because from what I have looked at, you yourself patrol that noticeboard and have posted comments in order to dissuade editors from taking things up properly on there - this means I do not feel confident that I could post there and the fact that you offered it as an avenue makes me feel like you have a group of admins on there ready to take your side no matter what - I just want all this stupid stuff caused by one incident taken off my userpage ] (]) 20:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Badanagram, stop throwing accusations of ] around, it does not help you one bit. Toddst1, is there anything that makes you believe that Badanagram's failure to log in was an intentional attempt at sockpuppetry rather than simply an oversight? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Good question: It seemed like obvious obfuscation when he didn't sign his post but on further review he did sign this next one, . You may have a point there that it could have been inadvertant edits without logging in. I did about not logging in but was also from the IP which led to me blocking it. ] <small>(])</small> 23:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks! Do you think that we could ] and write off this whole issue as a misunderstanding due also to, er, less than optimal communication skills on the part of Badanagram? This would allow us to remove the blocks and sockpuppet tags and deescalate the drama. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Right, I'll try and write this down as reasonably as I can without panicking like I was yesterday and include a timeline from my POV: | |||
| :::::::: If you look at my contribution history, you will see that I very rarely make edits to WP. In fact the IP address had only previously been used to blank my old userpage (legitimately) before I made the less than helpful remarks that Toddts1 is referring to - and was an isolated incident, I dunno maybe I was drunk or just p£"$^ed off that day. | |||
| :::::::: I have been asked to not assume bad faith - when after the event: | |||
| :::::::: <ul> | |||
| :::::::: <li> A warning comment akin to "You thought you could get away with it didn't you, well I'm watching you...." was thrown at me . | |||
| :::::::: <li> He then obviously saw that I'd written an article that he could passive-aggressively do an AFD request on | |||
| :::::::: <li>An attempt to 'out' my online presence on the page that holds the IP address - for people other than just myself, although I doubt the others would have any inclination to edit WP - was made | |||
| :::::::: <li> When I asked him (on that IP) to stop using his admin tools in such a manner as to hound me at 6:38am yesterday , a response was given almost immediately at 6:49 by blocking that IP (I can't see any other justification for it than pure spite on the part of the admin, disagreeing with an admins attitude isn't a reason for blocking as far as I'm aware). | |||
| </ul> | |||
| :::::::: The admin then went back in to passive mode from aggressive mode and started picking holes in any other edits that I made and defending his use of admin powers to , when he realised he was being unreasonable, he dangled a carrot re: the other identify if I admitted to wrong doing but still keeping his other impose sanctions on the page . The fact of the matter is, it wasn't the fact that I logged out, it was more that I neglected to log in, as it were. I'm sorry if my comment that started this all apparently upset Toddst1 but since then, the fact that he is an admin and his actions (requiring a high level of knowledge and experience of the site and sometimes the use of admin tools) to apparently carry out some online campaign against me since then have made me feel very uncomfortable about using the site any more - as is made clear on my ] and I do not think it is fair that other admins feel able to treat this less seriously because I am not an experienced Misplaced Pages editor. ] (]) 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Actually I tell a lie, I've just had a look that IP address was used to make minor edits to other pages, I added Interact and Rotaract to the list of Youth organisations and I substituted Farnham for Fareham (people get confused between the two, despite them being 40 miles apart) - how that can be considered an abusive 'sockpuppet' of myself is beyond me. The block itself doesn't concern me as I'm moving out of this place soon, it is more the unprincipled and sinister behaviour of the admin since then ] (]) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Badanagram, I'm trying to help you resolve your situation here, but you're absolutely not helping. It is very unlikely that you will get the resolution you want without the agreement of Toddst1, and your constantly assuming sinister motives on his part will not help bring that about. Admins can make errors of judgment just like everybody else, but as community-trusted veteran contributors to this project they are very unlikely to actively ''want'' to make somebody else's life miserable just for the sake of it. Any further comment you might make in this situation should be very firmly grounded in that assumption. And if you really just want to leave Misplaced Pages then please just do so, stop commenting here and let me spend my own time more usefully. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, I don't really know what else to say - I can't help how I feel as the whole experience really did unnerve me when I went to Misplaced Pages to find something (on that IP which I hadn't used for a couple of weeks) and found all of this stuff had happened - apparently over course of a Sunday evening in October - over a comment I left 3 months ago and had forgotten about - and from there, because I was already upset, it just got worse! I'm just trying to 'clear my name' as it were. Which is why I offered my POV. Maybe Toddst1 didn't ''mean'' for it to be like that but it does feel to me as if my 'Education' and the lengths the admin went to over one comment went OTT and the assumption made by that admin that I am a habitual offender of the WP Guidelines around personal attacks and sockpuppeting, which is what unnerved me as I know that not to be true. Maybe I ''should'' just forget about it but what if I get more free time later on in life and try and start editing articles properly like I used to? I feel as if anything I put on there from now on will not be 'trusted' because of the boxes all over my page which I can't remove so it's sort of hanging over me ] (]) 09:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent){{tps}} After about 15 minutes of reading, I'd suggest that the reason the editor did not take it to ] is ] - I tried to AGF until the ends of the earth on this one, but the actions, attitude and behaviour doesn't permit it for long. Badanagram is fortunate to not find himself blocked for ], so that appears to be the biggest ] right now. Kudos to Toddst1 for that level of AGF. There's no way - and no reason - to "clear your name" unless you intend to act poorly or ] in the future. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 10:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK I think I'm just going to leave this alone as I'm getting nowhere. I raised a genuine concern over this and I don't intend to act poorly. I'm not sure how on one hand it's not ok for me to make assumptions but admins are then free to make their own. If that's how admins react to genuine concerns then that is how it works I guess - but I have acknowledged that I made a mistake. I was sort of hoping that the admin may come to the same conclusion in the fact that he unnerved me with his decision making. It seems I have two choices here 1. Carry on using Badanagram with the block notice up there until the project finishes in whatever decade that happens to be in the future or 2. If I want to make contributions say when I'm 40 or 50 but without being associated with this username and the block notice - I don't think I'd be doing things properly under ]. I think I've spoent enough time on this now and will have to forget it and deal with any issues re: editing Misplaced Pages in the future and live with the fact that this one mistake can cause so much trouble ] (]) 11:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Actually one more thing. Up until now I've been happy to contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation (in small amounts each year), however I have decided not to continue to do this in the future due to the reasons listed on my ] - not that any of you probably care. It appears from reading ] and the contribution history of some of the admins that have contributed to this discussion so far - that you are so disconnected from reality that you have turned Misplaced Pages in to a 'computer game' where you 'win' against real people and somehow you think you can 'play' with people in this fantasy RPG game forever. Well have arbitrary fun on your 'World of Misplaced Pages' - be warned, you will receive a '''huge''' reality check when this community funded project eventually becomes unsustainable and your barnstars and 1,000,000 edits and league/status tables of users blocked etc become nothing more than a part of the faded history of the internet at the beginning of the 21st century like IRC and newsgroups did at the end of the last century. I say this as a former teenage geek who realised there are better things to spend my time on than people with aspirations to become the 'ultimate sysop' ] (]) 14:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Ayyubid dynasty == | |||
| User:Karimoglu has changed referenced information concerning the Ayyubid dynasty. Changing Kurdish to Turkish despite two requests to use the talk page and ignoring evidence I posted on User:Karimoglu's talk page. Can you inform this individual how to edit properly? Thanks. --] (]) 22:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I've issued an edit warring warning. Shouls the other user continue to revert, you can use ]. I recommend to request a ] or find some other way to get third party input about the content issue, as you too should not continue reverting. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:28, 16 October 2010 (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)