Revision as of 01:07, 26 January 2015 editLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove messageTag: WikiLove← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,938 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) | |||
==Happy New Year!== | |||
::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) | |||
<div style="background:orange; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid yellow; border-left: 3px solid yellow; border-right: 3px solid yellow; border-bottom: 3px solid yellow 8px; font-size: 110%; font-family:Tahoma; text-align: center;"> | |||
:::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) | |||
] | |||
=== ] === | |||
Dear {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br> <span style="color:red">'''HAPPY NEW YEAR'''</span> Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!<br> From a fellow editor,<br> --] (]) | |||
A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep. | |||
<small>This message promotes ]. Originally created by ] (see "invisible note"). <!--To use this template, leave <nowiki>{{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}}</nowiki> on someone else's talk page.--></small> | |||
*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. | |||
</div> | |||
*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) | |||
== Out of town == | |||
::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 == | |||
I am out of town with no pc access until monday. Which is why this group chose this time to ambush me. I will respond then. But will say this. I never compared any editor to a child rapist. The accusers took that among other things i said out of context and misreported them. Same with the shovel comment its a figure of speech from the military, another reason for their enmity. The discussion was about source material. As in published authors on the subject and the subject was the technical aspect of firearms. Read that entire conversation before passing judgement as well as the other diffs they cherry picked. Sorry to put you folks through this, glad they didnt bring up the time i broke that lamp in 1973, respectfully -- mike searson (no tildes on my phone) | |||
:I've copied this to ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Request permission for outcome of DRV == | |||
: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) | |||
I was a bit curious and didn't quite have time to address this issue, but what was the reason behind ]'s DRV closure as disallow recreation? Upon reviewing the debate, the outcome was 6 - 8 in favor of disallow, however, I can't find a policy based rational for disallowing recreation. I was wondering if you could take a look at this ] and let me know if you see any reason why this does not pass WP:N. If not I was hoping for permission to recreate with immediate nomination for AfD I feel it will pass. ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I didn't say "disallow", I said "There is no consensus to allow the recreation of the article". Which is what was the case. The "delete" outcome therefore continues to control the fate of the article. As to the draft, that depends on whether it contains substantial new sources not available in previous discussions. If that is the case, I recommend that you ask the previous AfD closer's opinion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:23, 24 January 2015 (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) | |||
Friendly note for you, Sandstein. The book actually mentions 7 and I confirmed and cited all inline. However, Boston Society of Film Critics did not award Sarandon in 1988, it awarded Melanie Griffith instead. Minor note - White Palace was not a co-win according to Hollywood Reporter. However, the numerous errors and frankly improper Razzies directed at Cage are more concerning. I have not gone through and weeded out all the errors yet. ] (]) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks, amended accordingly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Please also see about dubious nature of that particular book source, itself, and questioning whether it actually satisfies ]. — ''']''' (]) 17:27, 24 January 2015 (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) | |||
== Remainig the reference after ... == | |||
my repply . <br> | |||
Hi Sandstein, <br> | |||
I am not going to discuss why, but I'd ask you to add the to Nishidani's reference: "User:Igorp lj protested its lack of NPOV from the start".<br> | |||
Thanks in advance, --] (]) 00:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
:I don't really understand what you are asking, but that discussion is closed, it's over. There's no point in amending it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:07, 25 January 2015 (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: | |||
:: Again: it's not about the Case as a whole. It's only about Nishidani's claim in my address what is remained as a fact after you erased my reply to it. --] (]) 22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't understand what you mean. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:13, 25 January 2015 (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) | |||
== Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel == | |||
::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Unsatisfactory discussion == | |||
FYI, about ], the IMDb section about the awards is NOT user-generated (nor user-updateable, or user-fixable). It is directly managed by the IMDb staff. Just for record. --] 12:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Interesting, but it appears that the text at issue didn't even match what was in IMDb. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:09, 25 January 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) | |||
: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 == | |||
I have a question related to three sources Cwobeel had added to an article. The first and two more and . The trivial one-sentence or less mentions, without supporting evidence or analysis was used as evidence of Islamophobia now "fomenting Islamophobia" which does not match either. The claim is defamatory and it is being discussed, but Cwobeel and Coffeepusher asserted that because the source exists - it can be used in the lead and on the biography. Most interesting is the first source, which is essentially "Islamophobes Steven Emerson" and immediately states (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh). The problem with the latter (sourced to Think Progress by the book) is that it is irrelvant, not in context or accurate. Though that's all the entire book states - never returning to Emerson at all. This was the source used to confirm and accuse Emerson of being a bigot. | |||
{{ping|Atsme}} has taken a bit of too far of stance on legitimate criticism, but made the first push to remove it. I consider it a BLP issue and a clear problem to call anyone or state they have been labeled a bigot in such a fashion. I dislike subjective conjecture or attacks about a person's beliefs as a "matter of fact", especially contentious ones. Pundits and political commentary or labels are the bane of BLPs and Misplaced Pages for this reason. Two POV pushers might balance an article to more or less neutral, but it will be a wall of "crap people said". Though the article has others which exist like : {{tq|In response to these comments, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that he "choked on his porridge" when he heard them and observed that Emerson was "clearly a complete idiot".}} Is the sort of reactionary comments that are not appropriate for a biography, is not the same as accusing of being a bigot. I do not know how best to respond to these sourced, but improper usage of sources for controversy and reception surrounding a person. That being said, the "praise" is equally problematic and I rather be done with the "reception" section as a whole. ] (]) 18:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Okay ... in which capacity do you think I can help here? As an editor, I'm not familiar with the topic area and unlikely to produce great insights. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: Eh - a valid point. I was looking for your interpretation of whether or not the trivial assertion of bigotry from the material was sufficient weight and reliable for inclusion. Sort of how Birther conspiracies on ] are not included or given any attention and inside reside in ]. Anyways, I don't like BLPs because this political bickering is always non-neutral, just was seeing if calling someone a bigot or "fomenting bigotry" (bigot replaced by Islamophobe) is a valid BLP issue. But it is not the end of the world. It is technically "sourced" even if it is not in the claimed trivial source. ] (]) 19:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Link == | |||
I have indicated that the evidence of the stalking I spoke of is in the page to which I first linked. I regret that you did not review the entirety of the page, which I would have thought would have been expected under the circumstances. Also note how your rush to judgment regarding who a comment was "clearly" directed at is itself very likely wrong, or at least a rush to judgment regarding my motivations which is of course completely different from what I was thinking at the time. Perhaps you might take the time to review the entirety of pages linked to before casting rather poorly founded judgments. ] (]) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Discussions related to the block of Eric Corbett== | |||
=== Good block === | |||
I agree with your rationale. --] (] · ] · ]) 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
*. Tell me, how long have you been waiting with fingertips poised on that one? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*What makes you think I would be? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::*A knee-jerk block such as yours speaks volumes. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to detect motives. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I think you should ask Lightbreather to stop posting on Eric's talk page, now that he's blocked. He's removed these so far, and I hope she gets the message not to continue posting there. ] (]) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*I agree that users shouldn't leave talk page messages that are clearly unwelcome. But I'm active in this context in an arbitration enforcement capacity, and would prefer to remain active in this capacity only, to prevent concerns of personal involvement in any of the conflicts that may be behind all this. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*EChastain, when you write "He's removed ''these'' so far..." you make it sound like I've posted at Eric Corbett's talk page multiple times. The fact is, I posted to Eric's talk page ''ONE'' time since notifying him yesterday of the enforcement request. The ''ONE'' comment was within the enforcement request notification discussion, after another editor compared me to a witch, and Eric replied, "The only females who've complained about me are those I've never come across..." | |||
::I can't speak for the other women, but I had ''never heard'' of Eric before this exchange at WT:AN in July 2014: | |||
:::Lightbreather: ''Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make a unique noticeboard area''? | |||
:::Eric Corbett: ''the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one''. | |||
::A reminder of this exchange was what I posted in response to his "The only females" remark. Of course, he deleted that reminder because he prefers the narrative that I swooped down on him from outta nowhere and complained of incivility for no reason. ] (]) 00:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Considering that I tried - twice - to just get his comments removed per ], but had to go to AE to get action, I think a 48-hour block was very kind. Short of ignoring the breach completely, the only kinder block would have been 24 hours. ] (]) 00:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Consensus === | |||
I am pretty sure that arbitration enforcement is not mandatory and the arbcom never meant for us to not be able to consider each situation individually. You action in regards to the complaint against Eric goes directly against the consensus that was forming there. You took it upon yourself to ignore the opinions of others, cast a supervote and act unilaterally and then close the discussion. I think you know how Eric will react to this and I think this action was not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I am not going to fight this action however I felt like voicing my opinion. ] 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for your feedback - I mean this seriously, even if we do not agree in this case. I did consider the individual circumstances of the situation and saw no reason not to enforce the remedy as in any other case of a topic ban violation. Because AE actions are individual admin actions, they are not based on, and do not require, consensus - in this sense, every AE admin has a supervote. Unlike – apparently – others, I do not know Eric Corbett and am not involved in any social circles he may be a part of. How he will react is therefore no concern of mine. Either he complies with the topic ban, in which case the block will have served its purpose, or he does not, in which case he will get blocked for increasing periods of time. What else he may or may not do is his own business. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Just because an action does not require consensus to perform does not mean you can still perform it when a consensus not to do it exists. If you had done this on your own when there was no discussion opposing it then I would not be here. It is the disregard for consensus that concerns me. This is a subtle point but a very important one. The whole point of the AE page is to discuss enforcement, clearly consensus is not banished from the room. ] 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Also I do know Eric and his level of disruption has gone from a 9 out of 10 down to a 2 out of 10 since those sanctions. This coupled with his prodigious article contributions has caused me to go from wanting him banned to wanting him to stay. I also knows he reacts in a self destructive manner when he feels he has been treated unfair. Regardless I think the damage is done. ] 22:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, evidently I ''can'' do it, because I did, and I also ''may'' do it, because the arbitrators who wrote the relevant procedures quite purposefully left out any references to prior discussion or consensus. AE is supposed to be a fast-track enforcement venue, not just another drama board in the vein of AN(I). I'd also argue that the point of AE isn't to discuss, but to request enforcement (it's called requests for enforcement, not discussions about enforcement), and that there wasn't a consensus ''not'' to take action. But that is a somewhat academic issue, because there ''is'' a place for consensus-finding in the AE process. It's just that it isn't at the enforcement stage but rather at the appeals stage. If and when an appeal is made, then the consensus of other editors or admins becomes relevant, but not before. – As to Eric Corbett, I'm of the view that sanctions, and rules generally, should be applied in an equal and predictable manner no matter who they apply to, or what contributions these people have made, or else they are meaningless. If you think that these sanctions have helped to curb disruption by Eric Corbett, then they can only continue to do so if they are actually enforced. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Please see the ] regarding editing on the GGTF project. This ds alert regarding discretionary standards appears to apply only to behavior on the GGTF project pages. Is this right? ] (]) 22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Discretionary sanctions apply to whole topic areas, in this case, "pages relating to the Gender gap task force" - that is, not only the project pages as such. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::p.s. To me it seems like its not a topic ban, it's a project ban, per the wording of the "alert" I gave a link to above. So you are saying that this means that everywhere on wikipedia, on talk pages of editors and other projects and edit summaries, if GGTF is mentioned by an editor, that mention is subject to discretionary standards? ] (]) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, see generally ] and ] for how the scope of such sanctions is generally described. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{edit conflict}} So at a wikiproject like ], editors are not free to mention anything regarding GGTF without worrying? There is no where that this can be discussed without worry? ] (]) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::If you are not engaging in any misconduct such as edit-warring, personal attacks or similar, then there is no reason to worry. But, yes, misconduct related to the GGTF can be addressed through discretionary sanctions on every page of Misplaced Pages. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Just my opinion but this really doesn't and shouldn't need to be another circus, lets all go back to editing the encyclopedia. If people have their concerns there are other places they can take it to - ] (]) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
You are a disgrace to Misplaced Pages. If there was a way to desysop you, I would wholeheartedly pursue it. A proverbial admin on a power trip that cannot see further from the nose. Not that its founder is much better. ] (]) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I agree. Although stand by, your comments maybe removed like mine were as we only hear of sycophantic backslapping comments here. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I don't and think you should stop harassing here. - ] (]) 22:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Fortunatly, I couldn't care what you think. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Can somebody explain to me what the deal with Eric Corbett is that an ordinary block for an ordinary topic ban violation creates this much excitement? I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into one of Misplaced Pages's complicated social networks to which special rules apply, or whose participants think that this is so. Not that I care about these matters, but it seems really peculiar that this one user attracts that much attention. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*I recommend a block for no such user for throwing out personal attacks here. Sandstein is I were you id archive these discussions and just move on there are other places these people can go. - ] (]) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::*Well, no, editors should be able to criticize admin actions on an admin's talk page, although I would wish that they'd be a bit more specific about why they object to an action rather than just making very general allegations of bad faith and the like. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Its up to you, Eric has people on his side though, you may not have known it but you opened up something here, otherwise, as I think you said this would be more of a routine block. - ] (]) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::And where would that be KnowledgeKid? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::The talk on Eric's talk-page should speak for its-self shouldn't it? With all the things said about Sandstein its becoming a dog pile. - ] (]) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::As Sandstein has said "editors should be able to criticize admin actions on an admin's talk page", which is what I'm doing. And if you don't like it Knowledgekid then you know where you can go don't you? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 23:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Nice ] with that loaded question. - ] (]) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::*{{ec}}So I ''will'' be more specific: I've been around quite a while, as well as you are. You have a worrying tendency to apply bureaucratic, mindless reading of any rule around, and apply it in the harshest manner possible. In fact, I think you chose AE as your favorite field of operation, because there you can hide behind (never explicitly passed to you, AFAIK), authority of ARBCOM, so that your rush decisions cannot be reversed or easily taken into question. In this particular thread, there was a consensus between admins that the infraction was mild and/or provoked, yet you took it upon yourself to block, knowing that (being AE) it's an irreversible action. What you don't know, or realize, or care, is that this block can only further increase the amount of bad blood and drama on this site. The sooner your bullying actions are removed from the equation, or at least you are desysopped or banned from the AE, the sooner this will be a more pleasant place. Now you can block me, I don't give a fuck. ] (]) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:''Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year''. ] Eric Corbett got off pretty light with a 48-hour block. ] (]) 00:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== A barnstar for you == | |||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}} | |||
|rowspan="2" | | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Integrity''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | People can have faith and confidence only because of guys like you. ] (]) 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
Thanks. I appreciate that. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:lol. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== A barnstar for you! == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you. ] (]) 01:07, 26 January 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)