| Revision as of 01:01, 15 January 2019 editBradv (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators37,877 edits →Notice: new section← 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 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Bots|deny=RonBot}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |algo = old(2d) | |algo = old(2d) | ||
| Line 6: | 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) | |||
| Hi Sandstein, | |||
| ::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. | |||
| A little over a week ago I received a notice about ] being nominated for deletion. While I regret not putting much effort into figuring out what that means, I now notice that the page was simply purged a week later. | |||
| *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. | |||
| Note that while I only made minor changes recently, I was planning to improve the page. I'm disappointed that the page is no longer accessible and worried that I don't have the means to restore it myself. | |||
| *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) | |||
| Can you please restore the page (preferably including history) and/or explain what I should do to restore it? | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| Thanks, ] (]) 10:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, discussion (such as it was) at ] was that the topic failed our notability guideline, ]. Are you aware of any reliable sources that would indicate the contrary? If no such sources exist, the article isn't going to be restored. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@Sandstein - ok that sounds fair, although I'm presuming that you're concerned with "significant coverage" rather than reliability of the sources. That is, there might have been a link or two to press releases or the like, but I don't believe there was any ''contested'' info. I would also like to point out that[REDACTED] list several competing products (both open and proprietary) like ], ], ], etc. The information we want to add regards for instance pointers and descriptions to streaming video ingest, an ietf ] spec under development headed by this company. While in principle this information is all open to the public, it's scattered all over the internet<ref>https://github.com/unifiedstreaming/fmp4-ingest/</ref><ref>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mekuria-mmediaingest-01</ref><ref>https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/media-services/previous/media-services-fmp4-live-ingest-overview</ref><ref>https://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/120</ref>, frequently incomplete or outdated and generally hard to make put into perspective. We're in a position to bundle this in a paragraph which IMO would help the general public make sense of it. Similar paragraphs could be added on other subjects. Additionally, a word or two would be added about the history of company, its products and technologies. | |||
| :The problem is that in the current situation, I have no means of changing or improving the article - not even in a sandbox - because it's purged and we don't have a back up. ] (]) 08:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Tijnboon}} You talk of "we". Are you affiliated with Unified Streaming? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes indeed I am. I've known the founders for +10 years and I was involved with creation of the initial Wiki page. Does that complicate matters or make it easier? ] (]) 07:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::It complicates matters. Per our guideline ], you should not be editing articles you are personally involved with. You should wait until an editor without a conflict of interest recreates the article. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:20, 14 January 2019 (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) | |||
| Hello! Despite the delete closure at ] the article was not deleted. Regards, ] (]) 10:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Done now, thanks. Probably a script error. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:14, 10 January 2019 (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) | |||
| == Appealing my tban == | |||
| {{hat|Wall of text collapsed}} | |||
| Hello Sandstain, I hope you had nice hollydays. I took the chance to spend more time with my family and friends. However, I am very sad because of what happened. I am one of those passionate editors which have no aspirations of becoming admins, but I take my role here very seriously. As only child, I grew-up reading encyclopedias, so Misplaced Pages became a passion of mine immediatelly. Its interactive, you can complete info, correct, and, of course, debate. Misplaced Pages launched the seed of a potential biggest and most complete encyclopedia ever to have been built by human kind. | |||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| My case is this one, ], which resulted from . As a personal remarc (after all, we are humans), I was dealing with sensitive situation in my personal life and it reflected in Misplaced Pages with me having much less patience than usually. What is really the problem? It is that all this nations have a minor groups of editors that work in synth in order to get the ideas they want to get trough the articles. However, this often means entering into conflict with other groups, or otherwise we wouldn´t have articulated the stories between the diverse articles. Another major problem is that fact that by cherry-picking sources one can write two totally opposite versions of one same event. That is when alliances between two against another are formed, I guess that this must sound comic for anyone normal, but it has been the norm in Misplaced Pages ever since. Editors are not here to find the truth but are here to impose their truth. The dispute resolution mechanisms often fail to deliver a quick and effective response, so POV-pushers know this, and when they cant have their own in the article, they will make endless discussions at talk-pages. If the opposing editor is persistent and seems to have a valid case, the next step is to try to eliminate that editor almost allways. | |||
| 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: | |||
| So what happened with me? I am one of a very few active Serbian editors. We are probably the nation with less active editors compared to country size. That is not a coincidence. That happened because many Serbian editors were constantly attacked and accused of nationalism for any minor thing. If a Serbian editor gatheres sources and stays strong, he would probably face an avalanche of attacks from editors from the neighbouring countries. Then we have also quite a lot of international editors which, remembering the 1990s, care many missconceptions and still apply the "Serbs are guilty" mentality. I am not saying they are wrong, each one is free to believe as he wants, but I just want to stress out that for us Serbs working on Misplaced Pages is much harder than the usual. | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In this case what happened comes from about a month or two earlier. A series of Albanian (or Albanian origin) editors have been heavily rewriting all major articles related to Albania. That wouldn´t be a problem per se, however, the changes they are making is like making the articles look like a touristic brochure. I called the attention for it at ]. There was added ] everywhere, everything became the best, greatest, newest, oldest, biggest, etc. For me it all started when I saw a pic of the Tirana airport saying it was one of the bussiest in the Balkans. Since aviation is an area I work a lot, and I contributed substantially to the ], I obviously knew how wrong was saying that when the airport was 10th. Then I tryied to which were promptly reverted. I was always carefull to use only English-language reliable sources. I cant see how the year Ottomans came first time to Albanian coast is irrelevant, or how is that Kosovo is always used as Albanian ethnic space whenever the context for them is favourable, but they disallowed me to add that at the Battle of Kosovo Albanian contingent fought along Serbian side against Ottomans (a fact quite interesting and well documented). | |||
| :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 guess it is not hard to understand that Albanian history was very much linked to its neighbours, Serbia, Greece and Italy. By time they rewrote the entire article, Serbia/Serbs mention was left on only two occasions, and both negative! To see how biased this is, we can just see (from countrystudies.us) and see that just for the period between Antiquity to late Middle Ages, Serbs/Serbia are cited 6 times, and beware this is a concise version. What is happening is that editors broke ] and are writting the articles from their nowadays perspective. This is creating a highly unenciclopedic article where the best features are described and the rest hidden. For instance, the economy section speaks impressive numbers... but the fact that for a century Albania was known as the poorest country in Europe, is totally ommited. Just by googling thousands of results appear. Things need to be placed in context and reality must be shown. I wan´t feel good by Albania having been the poorest country, but I also don´t feel good with this propagandistic reinvention in which they also remove Serbian history and influence in the area. | |||
| ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsatisfactory discussion == | |||
| Now, I understand everyone wants to present its country the best way, but giving green light to one group while eliminating the ones questioning certain issues, will not lead us to neutrality and objectivity. What we need is responsable editors from different places working all together trying to reach balanced articles. | |||
| 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) | |||
| The reason I was banned is because I brought a duzen of sources claiming Skanderebeg Serbian origin, and I was carefull not to bring any Serbian ones. I wasn´t trying to say Skanderbeg was Serbian, I just intended that the information about the number of sources backing Serbian origin claim to be added properly at the article. The area was by then ruled by Serbia, his grandfather fought at Czar Stefan Dushan army and receved property for his archivements. Those are important facts. We should discuss them and see a solution. I am not willing to accept that because of nowadays hateriot of Albanians against Serbs, this information is inconvenient, thus lets better punish the guy insisting on it. ] had a perfect approach at the report. Calmed us all down and started looking for ways to solve this situation. I was alone, and the opposing editors found at my sandbox a text I translated from another author which I believe brings some interesting insigts about the fact that Serbian-Albanian conflict is a very recent event. I obviously don´t support all she says, neither am I racist, Islamophobist, or any of that. I grew up in a multicultural society, I love multicultralism. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ] was so kind that she considered me an awesome Wikipedian. And now I am topic banned for having brought 10 sources to raise a question and when ignored I asked for help at ANI and FuturePerfectSunrise (a admin I had many conflicts in past) sugests boomerang, and I am eliminated just like that? Sorry, but whoever sees the report can see how colaborative I am in trying to solve the issue, I even accepted my guilt that I have may been precipitated. And I receve a pure punishment, preciselly what should NOT happened, because[REDACTED] shoould block or ban preventivelly, not as punishment. | |||
| Sandstein, I believe you were too harsh on me, I honestly don´t even know exactly why I was topic banned? For taking a content dispite to ANI? For having a text in my sandbox which I never ever used anywhere at articles? I was never a vandal, I am an productive editor at many fields, but yes, they do all deal with the region I was born (I live in Portugal already 30 years) so that is how I kill my nostalgia. Would you please allow me to resume my normal editing? I promise I will obviously be extremelly carefull, and avoid disputes, btw, I have many football articles I have to update now. ] (]) 00:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Further in my defense, you can see how I help other editors, for instance, {{Userlinks|User:Bakir123}}, a new Bosnian football editor, you can see ] how I have great cooperation with Albanian football editor Sadsadas, then ] you can see the great collaboration we all have all from different countries, and you can even see BiHVolim, a stounch Bosnian nationalist, thanking me... All this editors see that I love my country, but that I am not a nationalist, and often count on me for helping them if they have doubts. Even my barnstars you can see I have from different nationalities, exemple, a funny one from a Croatian editor that says that even us disagreing and holding opposite views, we deserve half-stars for working things out. I cannot understand what view of me you got, but seems very wrong. I may have a bad day, but I am a staunch follower and defender of wiki rules and I usually try to do the best in each situation. This punishment has been very hard for me. ] (]) 01:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| FkpCascais, I have not read this excessively long appeal. I have already told you in response to your several previous appeals that I will only consider lifting your topic ban after you have a substantial record of productive editing in other topic areas. I have not changed my opinion about this. I will not respond to further appeals. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| So where can I complain against this ban? I am just asking you to allow me to edit football. ] (]) 14:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. You have already used the first two steps. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::<nowiki>{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}</nowiki> | |||
| == Reasons for deleting The House of Fine Art page == | |||
| Hi. | |||
| I noticed that you deleted/removed the page ]. | |||
| Can you kindly state some of your reasons for doing so? | |||
| Thanks | |||
| ] (]) 10:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Because there was consensus to delete the article in the discussion at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I see that over one third of the people in the discussion wanted to keep the article, which doesn't sound at like a consensus. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *{{tps}} Please see ] – consensus is reached by the strength of the arguments, not by the !vote count. - ] (]) 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Nom AfD Withdrawal == | |||
| Hi there, | |||
| I was hoping for a more experienced opinion - mostly as an area of interest rather than need, but it could be a rule issue (not that any harm has been done) | |||
| In ], there was a nom, then an immediate Delete !vote "per nom". | |||
| After a bunch of Keeps, the nom decided to withdraw. Normally this can't be done if anyone else has registered a delete !vote first. | |||
| Does the fact that the !voter's "argument" is just "per nom" mean they have agreed to follow where the other has led, or is it as if they have written out the other's argument (in which case a change in the former doesn't change the latter)? ] (]) 18:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :In my view, {{u|Anachronist}} should not have closed their own nomination, because a good-faith "delete" opinion normally means that a nomination cannot be withdrawn. At least, they should have let another admin make the call. You can can ask them to undo their closure. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::The 'keep' arguments answered the question about notability in my mind. Had I let it run its course, I expect it would have been closed as 'keep' anyway, or at best 'no consensus'. ~] <small>(])</small> 14:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Why was the Misplaced Pages page for Tom MacDonald deleted? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Because there was consensus to delete the article in the discussion at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice == | |||
| You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the ] may be of use. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>] 01:01, 15 January 2019 (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)