Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:41, 4 January 2018

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.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carl Bergmanson

Were there policies other than WP:DEL8 and WP:ATD that you considered in this closing?  If not, how is it that you didn't conclude that ATD prevails over DEL8 in this case?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

What I considered was that consensus was that coverage of this person in reliable sources was insufficient for notability. Sandstein 14:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to work with that, as a failure of WP:N notability doesn't explain why an ATD merge doesn't prevail over a DEL8 delete.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Although, if your response literally means that that is what you considered, it means that you haven't considered whether or not ATD prevails over DEL8.  To that end please review WP:IGNORINGATD, which is no longer an essay but "an explanatory supplement to Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy":

The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since "merger" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT or WP:BLP, in particular. ...Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in WP:R...See further WP:ATD.

Citations WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions&oldid=818272377

and Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:

...valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements...When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be...redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending..."Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why.

Citations Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=793705748

Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that non-notability should not be a reason for deletion. Constant practice at AfD is to the contrary. The pages you cite are not policies or guidelines (very explicitly so in the case of WP:ATA) and are therefore not relevant for closing discussions. They contain advice to those who participate in discussions, and it is therefore them you need to convince, and not me, by making arguments in favor of this view in the individual AfDs. Because your idiosyncratic views are frequently in a minority of one in AfD discussions, however, I don't think that continuing this discussion is worth the while. Sandstein 18:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Nonce_(slang)

You closed it as delete but it did not get deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sock

Hello Sandstein, I believe User:Dank Chicken is a sock for the following reasons: He registered on 17 November, his very first edits shows that he is a veteran editor who has probably spent years at Misplaced Pages:, he registered his account at Commons only 4 days after and immediately started creating several advanced maps:

He has spent his time at Misplaced Pages/Commons almost exclusively editing Arab-Israel conflict articles, including pushing a strong pov that occupied territories "are part of Israel":

I asked him at his talkpage and he admitted that he has had a previous account, he has then refused to give me a real answer to what his previous account name was:, anyone with half a brain can easily see that he has spent several years at wikipedia/commons, how is it possible he doesn't remember his old account? does that make any sense?

Considering the large amount of editors who where sanctioned/blocked/banned several years ago (2009-2012) its basically impossible to locate the sock master, so a SPI wouldn't help here. I think you should just block him per being someones obvious sock. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, what's a "sock"? Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean you have to accuse me of things. I did NOT spend SEVERAL YEARS at Misplaced Pages before, I probably spent a few months.

Secondly, I never claimed that the occupied West Bank is part of Israel. You are under the false belief that the annexed east Jerusalem and Golan are occupied. If you scroll though the Israel talk page, you'll find that almost everyone agrees with me, and I'm always listing reliable sources and Misplaced Pages precedents to back up my proposals.

Thirdly, I'm not editing Arab-Israeli conflict images on Wikimedia commons, I'm creating one map. And I've never included it in a Misplaced Pages article yet because all the shit last month made me pretty aware to not edit such articles yet... Dank Chicken (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: Without an indication of who Dank Chicken might be a sock of I have no grounds for action. If you think you have more substantial evidence, please submit it to WP:SPI where the experts on such issues are. Sandstein 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed sock: , my gut feeling is never wrong. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Indelicates

Hi there. Not sure how two editors with a combined 13 edits managed to get this article deleted but I think I can attribute that to the Xmas season and low participation. Judging that it took me literally five seconds to find this, I don't think you will mind when I restore this article to work on it, do you? Regards SoWhy 14:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No, if you can rewrite the article such that the reason for deletion no longer applies, the AfD is superseded. Sandstein 14:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you called this AfD correctly. There were two !votes that paraphrased WP:JNN and a week's relisting with nothing. That's a "no consensus" in my book. While it's good for the project to expand the article (possibly using the many news sources available), it's not mandatory to do so and I would support quietly putting it back into mainspace (unless you really want to take this to DRV?) Ritchie333 14:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It was an uncontested 2-week AfD with people making, on their face, valid policy-based deletion rationales. The "delete" arguments were more than "just not notable", but addressed the quality of the article's sources at a level of detail that is quite common at AfD. So, procedurally, this is a clear delete. But as indicated above, I've no problem with SoWhy restoring the article with additional sources that clearly establish notability. Sandstein 15:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

How to make sure I stay within policy guidelines

I am glad from special:diff/818249345 to learn I didn't step out of bounds. I want to make sure I do not end up doing so in the future. If I understand things right, I am able to make 1 revert every 25 hours?

I'm trying to figure out if "contentious" further modifies this. From what I can tell from WIKT:contentious:

• Marked by heated arguments or controversy.
• Given to struggling with others out of jealousy or discord.

So if I understand right, even if I have reliably sourced information, if people struggle to censor that information and argue heatedly against including it for whatever reason, that prevents this information from being added? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

My comment reflected only that I think that your conduct as reported does not quite meet the requirements for arbitration enforcement sanctions. Other admins may see this differently. My comment is not to be construed as agreeing with your editing or as affirming that your editing meets all expectations as regards user conduct. Ultimately, it is only consensus that determines what is included in articles and what not. I strongly recommend that you listen to other editors and do not repeatedly attempt to include content that, even if sourced, consensus considers inappropriate for inclusion; see in that regard WP:GETOVERIT. Sandstein 20:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet VolunteerMarek yet again calling a comment by DHeyward a "lie" is not a personal attack

My comment on the AE board regarding DHeyward was not meant to be a personal attack, but was a frustrated and angry retort to what I see as an obvious effort by certain editors to use whatever meager means they can muster to eliminate any opposition to their POV they can. I see this as insidious and wrong and to the great detriment to this website overall. That it was said with less eloquence than usual should be no surprise...we see VolunteerMarek and MrX and others at AE almost every week complaining about someone. It has gotten to the point of ridiculous. That is all I havet o say on the matter, here or elsewhere, Sandstein.--MONGO 19:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)