User talk:Sandstein - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 9 July 2012 (→What Purpose is Misplaced Pages serving?: {{unsigned|Free pretender‎}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:54, 9 July 2012 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→What Purpose is Misplaced Pages serving?: {{unsigned|Free pretender‎}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Start a new talk topic

Verifiability RfC

Hello Sandstein, and thank you very much for volunteering to be one of the closers of the verifiability RfC! I think I speak for all of the participants at the MedCab mediation in saying that we are grateful for you agreeing to put the time and effort into closing the discussion. I've set a mini-deadline for the mediation participants of 10am on Thursday 28th (UTC) to agree on the final tweaks to the RfC wording, which should mean that the RfC will finish on July 28th. There's nothing you really need to do until then, but if you are interested the mediation participants are currently having a discussion about whether we should outline anything about the closing process in the RfC instructions. I think the participants would value your input, but there's no need to comment if you don't want to. And also, if you have any questions about how the mediation process has gone, etc., just drop me a line. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 04:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for seting all this up. I think I will not involve myself in the RfC until it concludes, to avoid forming an own opinion about the issue, which would limit my ability to neutrally assess the outcome. Sandstein 06:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I agree that it's probably better that way. Also, now that the RfC has started, the particular point we were discussing is moot anyway. Thanks again for taking on the close - I really appreciate it. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"food choice" page

I am new at editing and finally figured out how to add two sentences to the Food Choice Misplaced Pages page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Food_choice) referencing two research articles to support the statements. I also included a link to a webpage with more information on the topic. These were all deleted as "apparent self promotion." The Cornell food choice research group has done extensive research on this topic and can add to this Misplaced Pages page but I am unsure how I should go about editing without it seeming to be self-promotion. Your feedback is welcome. MegJastran (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Per WP:NPOV, our articles should reflect a neutral point of view. I undid your additions because text like "The Food Choice Process Model was inductively developed to portray the multifaceted, interacting, and dynamic factors involved in making food choices" sounds more like something out of an advertising brochure than something one would read in an encyclopedia: it is full of positive-sounding buzzwords that do not convey any substantive meaning that I can understand. If you copied this verbiage from somewhere, it is is also a copyright violation; you must write articles in your own words rather than regurgitating promotional material. Sandstein 11:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You deleted page "Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms

05:45, 28 June 2012 Sandstein (talk | contribs) deleted page Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms)

Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms contains the list of assassinations plots of a novel named Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and I guess you, Sandstein have never read it. If you did not read this novel, you DEFINTELY do not have right to delete that page. The main reason is this; there is tousand and millions readers of this novel, and they did not determin to delete that page, yet. I now think that you, who have never read it, determineed to delete it.(Gauge00 (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)) I first dare ask you to answer to ask whether or not You really have read it.

Hi. Under our deletion policy, whether I or others have read the novel does not matter. What matters is that the deletion discussion concluded with a consensus to delete the article. Sandstein 11:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you definately DID NOT read that novel. Then you german, how dare you delete a page related to chinese history. It is same thing 5 age old deleted a page related to Goethe. Please do not act like childish. You are not the only one to coount the number the DELETE advocates. Furthermore you definitely DID NOT read the (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms). You seem only counted DELETE one, DELETE TWO, DELETE THREE. (Gauge00 (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)) What a shit!!! I really want to know whether or not you read (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms). And Please concentrate on pages of related to the German history. There are lots of chinese or oriental users in wicki. They are 1000 times smaerter than you to decide to delete something whihc is related to the chinese history.

Sorry, I do not respond to requests made in that tone. Sandstein 12:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I can understand you. YOU DEFINITELY did not read the (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms). Haha.. Did you ever visist Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms, the target of AfD? Did you ever understand what the 曹操 is? I once again say to you that THEY ARE LOTS of people who are fond of The Three Kindgoms. Books, Movies,TV series, and manga and games of it. You DEFINIELY are not one of them!! It is a disgrace to Three Kingdoms that someone like you deleted that page. Like a pig shitted on the book of Goethe. (Gauge00 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

Sandstein, we have been hoping for an admin to look at Gauge00 for a while now; please take a look here:Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance#Gauge00. I've even mentioned this exchange of abuse; Gauge00 has gone far enough, and somebody needs to deal with him. While I'm not at all happy that he's taken to abusing you, I am at least glad that this has come to an admin's attention. Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is problematic conduct, but as the admin whose deletion he disagrees with, I cannot take administrative action as I would be considered involved. If the warnings he has received so far are not effective, I can only recommend that you ask for another admin's assistance at WP:ANI. Sandstein 05:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Venaculas wiki page

Why was this page deleted?

There is information feom that page that i would like have, as I am one of the band members. Is there anyway i can get the information from that page?

You can email me the info at may17@cox.net

Thank you

-Eric Whitney 24.252.39.46 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Venaculas wiki page deletion

I am a member of the band Venaculas. I noticed that our page has been deleted. I was wondering if you could email me the info that was on the page. Nobody in the band has this info and i would like to have it for my records.

If there is anyway to retrieve this, could you please email it to me at may17@cox.net

Thank you,

- Eric Whitney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.39.46 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My Little Pony terminology

My Little Pony terminology was moved to World of My Little Pony, and you only deleted the redirect. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now completed. Sandstein 06:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Closure of RfC at Israel-Palestine Collaboration

Hello Sandstein. In your closure statement you said that "My interpretation of this outcome is that it allows a case-by-case discussion as to how or whether the matter that is the subject of the sentence should be addressed in each article." That this mean that WP:Legality of Israeli settlements is now revoked? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that page, its history or its authority (if any). My closure is limited to assessing the consensus (or lack thereof) in the discussion before me. I read the page as asserting that a certain wording about the status of Israeli settlements has obtained consensus. Whether or not that is true I do not know, but it is not the same question as the one presented in the discussion I closed, namely, whether that wording should be systematically included in each article lead. Sandstein 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I don't understand your actions here. You have closed the discussion as "No consensus", but you appear to have endorsed the request to reverse the prior consensus, which was to include this text in all relevant articles. That would appear also to be the Frederico's assessment ~~of the editor of the unsigned comment~~ above. This creates a very messy, and potentially highly contentious and explosive, situation. Please clarify, explicitly and urgently, what you understand the current position to be. RolandR (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure in what respect my closure requires clarification. I said that I see no consensus to either systematically remove or systematically add/retain the text to all affected articles, and that I interpret this to mean that it is now a case-by-case issue. How is that unclear? Sandstein 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The original request was to reverse a consensus to include this text. You examined the arguments, and closed the discussion as "No consensus". Most editors would take that to mean that there is no consensus to reverse the existing consensus, and thus the existing consensus (to include this text in all articles) remaiuns. However, you then state that this should be decided on a "case-by-case" basis, thus accepting the argument (for which you found no consensus) that the existing consensus be reversed. This certainly leaves the situation unclear, and I believe that this will lead to heightened edit-warring, which the existing consensus had largely prevented. RolandR (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, this presupposes that there was an existing consensus for the systematic inclusion of the sentence to begin with. I do not know whether that is so - it was certainly among the issues that were contested in the discussion. But I did not address that because I consider it largely irrelevant for the purpose of closing the present discussion: I do not need to decide whether or not a previous consensus existed to systematically include that text, because what matters (in my view) is that no such consensus exists now - at least in my reading of the discussion. Sandstein 19:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So, to be quite clear, are you reversing Less vanU's ruling here? RolandR (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not "reversing" LessHeard van U's findings of November 2010 in the sense of declaring them wrong (I have no opinion about that), but I do find, as a result of the discussion which I closed, that the consensus which LessHeard van U considered to exist then - "there is consensus for it to be included in all relevant articles" - does not, or no longer, exist now. Sandstein 20:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I consider your summary to be at best misleading. There was a consensus, an editor requested that it be reversed, there was a very long and complex discussion, you assessed this as reaching no consensus, and then ruled in favour of reversing the consensus. At the very least, you need to make an explicit statement, which as yet you have not, about the use of this previously-agreed text in articles relating to illegal Israeli settlements in the 1967-occupied territories. Failure or refusal to do so will leave the siutuation unclear, and open the way to ongoing edit wars. RolandR (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that I have been clear enough what I meant: There is no consensus for (or against) the systematic use of this text, which means (IMHO) that this calls for case-by-case discussion or a new RfC. Whether or not there was previously a consensus about this matter is not, in my view, important. You are certainly free to disagree with this assessment, but I cannot establish any clear-cut rule about the use of this text in a situation where there is precisely no consensus about that use. Should there be edit warring, then that is exclusively the responsibility of those who engage in the edit wars, and they should be sanctioned appropriately. Sandstein 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You said you're not familiar with WP:Legality of Israeli settlements. But the second sentence in the opening of the RfC states that "The basis for inserting this boilerplate language is this so called consensus." where the link goes to WP:Legality of Israeli settlements. Have you not read the whole RfC proposal?--Frederico1234 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have, but the content and authority of that page (to the extent it has any - it is not labeled as a guideline) did not strike me as particularly relevant for the purpose of closing the discussion, for the reasons given in my reply of 18:47 above. Sandstein 19:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein, FYI, the previous consensus was established after discussion here. An administrator reviewed the case here. His conclusion was that "I am of the opinion that the wording per Proposal 2; "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." has consensus, and secondly that there is consensus for it to be included in all relevant articles". --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed this in my reply of 20:08 above. Sandstein 20:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein, in addition to the concerns in the comment by Frederico above, I have some questions about the RFC itself. WP:RFC lays out the requirements for an RFC, among them being that it nclude a brief, neutral statement of the issue. Is it your opinion that the opening statement was either brief or neutral? And if not, does the lack of such a neutral tone to the very opening of the discussion in any way affect your decision? The next question is one of having been properly advertised. No notice was placed at any of the relevant Wikiprojects, which makes some of the comments made seem surprising in that accounts that had never been notified, on-wiki, of the page or who had never edited the page somehow found their way to this obscure project page within a day of the "discussion" being opened. The last is what "no consensus" means. WP:CONSENSUS says In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. That would mean that the past consensus, as determined in the RFC linked to by Frederico, would still hold, wouldn't it? Finally, if I might be bold enough to assume you may be open to some constructive criticism; the two RFC's that I remember you closing in the topic area, this and one on the most common term for Israeli settlements, both ended with no consensus. In your closing statement here, you acknowledge the likelihood that such a determination will not lead to a "satisfactory conclusion". Might it not be wiser to have as the result a directive to create a new RFC, properly set up and monitored by uninvolved admins, closed in a similar fashion as, for example, the Muhammad images discussion? Just booting it back to the people who have been edit-warring over this for years (ie us) cant end well. nableezy - 20:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is at least questionable whether the discussion I closed meets the requirements of a formal RfC. The opening statement was certainly not neutral, and I could not verify whether the other requirements were met. That's why I refer to the discussion as a discussion rather than a RfC. However, I consider that the discussion, which took place on the relevant project talk page, was long and broad enough for me to determine whether a consensus exists among interested editors about the question presented as outlined in my closing statement, so I am not sure that the distinction is of material importance.

As to the relevance of the "no consensus" outcome, the proposal under discussion can be read to (at least implicitly) ask for an editorial alteration, i.e., the systematic removal of the text at issue. I found that there was no consensus for such a systematic removal, and as a result of this, in accordance with the policy you cited, my closing statement did not call for any change to any article. I also found that there was no consensus for the systematic retention (or inclusion) of the text, and this finding also does not require any changes to articles - but it does open the way, in my view, to subsequent case-by-case discussion. In other words, a "no consensus" outcome means no consensus for changes to articles, but it does imply a change from any pre-existing consensus... in the sense that there is no longer one.

I agree (and did suggest) that a new, properly set up RfC might be more helpful than case-by-case discussion, but I have no authority to prescribe such an RfC. As an administrator, the most I can do is determine whether or not consensus exists for any particular proposal, and since a new RfC was not really the subject of the discussion I closed, I couldn't make any authoritative statement about that. However, all are free to set one up (I think this might have even been proposed here). To help make a new RfC more acceptable, I suggest that it should be set up jointly by two persons, each of whom is associated with one of the opposing viewpoints, and widely advertised. Sandstein 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the suggestion, but I thought it would be better if it were more forcefully suggested. But thank you for the response. nableezy - 21:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Brown

Re this edit, Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident has appeared on Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/July 8 every year since 2007. I'm not saying that by dint of this reason alone, it should be allowed to stay, but this was not just a salacious incident, like that female astronaut who drove across the country to confront her lover; it was a major international kerfluffle at the time so I would say that your assessment that "it is not of 'of moderate to great historical significance'" is incorrect. Furthermore, BLP doesn't say we can only say nice things about people; it says that negative statements about living people must be properly cited. This article being an FA, I believe we have passed that bar. Lastly, I would like to point out that July 8 has very few eligible articles (5, after you removed this) so we are kind of in dire need of alternates. Regards, —howcheng {chat} 19:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Main Page#Kneejerk removal? (this actually deals with a DYK item, but it's a similar case). Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 19:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I'm very familiar with the practices of that part of the main page, but my view of the "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist" part of WP:BLP is that Misplaced Pages should not focus on negative aspects of a BLP just to fill our headline requirements, so to speak. Also, from what I read in the article, it's just a criminal case that received big-time coverage in Japan, but there are hundreds of such cases for any given country; it's nothing of any readily apparent lasting (or international) significance: according to the article it didn't even have substantial effects on the US-Japan relationship. I think that the Main Page can survive with only five entries in that box for one day. Sandstein 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What Purpose is Misplaced Pages serving?

My pages were deleted for the reason that Misplaced Pages is not Autralia Immigration department site, while there are a lot of Visa pages doing rounds on wikipedia, besides I wanted to ask a question. IS[REDACTED] a Terror Mouthpiece for carrying pages like Babbar Khalsa and tribute to terror head like Bhindranwale. Operation Bluestar has been represented with terror outfit's viewpoint while the right information is always truncated from these Pages. If Misplaced Pages is not a Immigration website, then it must a terrorist organization supporting platform. EXPLAIN..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free pretender‎ (talk • contribs)

It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction. Sandstein 05:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)