Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:55, 23 January 2009

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.

Subversion attempt re-write

Hi, thanks for your response here. While I am not the person who brought the issue to the noticeboard, I am involved as the editor who probably started what appears to me to be an edit war. Without revisiting the details of the dispute, can you suggest ways, including use of the noticeboard, to resolve this dispute in such a way that the article will end up better than it started? I have never been involved in any Wiki administrative actions, so I would appreciate advice. cojoco (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of advice at WP:DR. Have you tried this?  Sandstein  21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read the advice there before I hassle you again. cojoco (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please reopen AfD for Jock Sanders

Hello! I noticed you were the closing admin for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jock Sanders. I'd like to ask you to re-open that topic for further discussion on the following grounds:

1. The discussion was not posted on the college football project page, and our members were not aware of its status
2. It is very common for prominent players in college football to be the topic of good, quality articles
3. One of the reasons that you gave was discounting user:Iamawesome800's comment as not a pertinient argument--but being named to the "All Big East" team is a pertinent argument. Granted, one that you are free to disagree with (and heck even I might disagree with!) but it is pertinent.
4. A quick google search of +"Jock Sanders" +"west virginia" yeilded 17,600 pages, including articles on ESPN.com, NBC.com, Sports Illustrated/CNN, USA Today, MSN Sports, and New York Daily News. There's something there worth looking at.

Please re-open the AfD for additional discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. To address your points in order:

1. Notifying any projects is not required as part of the WP:AFD process. Moreover, the AfD was listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football, which should suffice. It was also on AfD for 13 days, long enough for you to take note of it.
2. See WP:WAX. The existence or quality of any other article about this type of subject does not influence the outcome of AfDs; at any rate, this is not a reason why the AfD was incorrectly closed.
3. "All-Big East=NOTABLE" is a random string of characters to me, not an argument. I have no idea what "All-Big East" is, but it is not mentioned in our notability guideline. See also WP:ITSNOTABLE.
4. See WP:GHITS. Also, arguments concerning the notability of the subject should have been raised in the AfD itself; they are not reasons why the AfD was incorrectly closed and should be reopened.

Accordingly, I'll not reopen the AfD. If you think the subject is notable, you should write a well-sourced stub at User:Paulmcdonald/Jock Sanders and ask for its restoration at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If "All Big East" means nothing to you, you probably should have left it well enough alone and stuck to topics you have an understanding on. Mind you, I'm not saying that I think the subject is notable, I'd just like to see the article and make a call-at least someone from the college footbal project should have some input on a college football article. Heck, I might come to the same conclusion once I see it. I'll be asking for a Deletion Review on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not intend to stick to topics I understand on AfD. Our deletion policies involve rules such as verifiability, notability and no original research, all of which require the referencing of reliable sources, whose evaluation requires no particular expertise. It's up to you to provide good arguments and references in AfDs if you want articles to be kept.  Sandstein  15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps next time rather than just dismissing an argument you don't understand, you could instead ask the editor for clarification. Just because you don't understand an argumentative position does not make it incorrect.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, AfD closers assess whether there is consensus based on the strength of the existing arguments. They don't engage in discussion. Anyway, "he's notable because he's X" is a generally invalid argument no matter what X means, because (with limited exceptions as described in WP:ATHLETE) notability requires substantial coverage in reliable sources.  Sandstein  16:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You admitted to not understanding the arguments, so you dismissed them. If you don't understand the argument, you cannot fairly judge the strength of the argument. That is not a fair assessment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that the argument was of the sort "he's a X, so he's notable." As I noted above, that's a weak argument.  Sandstein  22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. I think you missed this one. (p.s. don't take it personal, I miss a lot myself).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

my block

I disagree with your reasoning for not reverting my block back to 48hr because I never did edit with anonymous IP's, I always said who I was and even signed with my user signature! I would like somebody else to take another look. --intraining

You are editing as an IP and evading your block right now], 219.90.179.47 (talk · contribs). I have changed your block duration to indefinite.  Sandstein  08:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

my block

Um no need for that I want to vanish but I need help because I don't know how to do it.--115.166.3.113 (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just stop editing (and evading your block) and that is all you need to do to vanish.  Sandstein  08:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, can you delete my talk page as well? Cheers.(sorry but I had to change my IP again.intraining --122.49.140.153 (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, talk pages are not deleted.  Sandstein  10:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No you are absolutely wrong talk pages are deleted here is Wikimedia's stance on the matter User and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted.. When you are an administrator you have responsibilities that includes upholding Wikimedia's legal policy's. I have asked for 'ALL' of my user space to be deleted and that includes my talk page. I WILL be taking legal action personally against you if not fulfilled and believe me this is not a threat it is an absolute promise, look you don't know me one bit my Dad bought me a house when I was 21 I now have three cars and a boat and an interstate apartment and enough money and time on my hands to defend my privacy which I will. Ecoleetage's page was deleted, and I have seen it done many times before. Don't try and be the tough guy here you will NOT succeed outside Misplaced Pages.org. So I leave it up to you. I advise you not to be stupid here. Believe me I am more than happy to go ahead with my threats just fucking try me you piece of shit. I have already started the ball rolling by contacting and paying for lawyers before writing this. Now you may be thinking "oh it's a courtesy thing we don't have to do it" now that wording does not stand up in court the fact is Wikimedia offer this courtesy and I am asking for it you are nobody to go against Wikimedia's legal policys. Now I've reached my level of dealing with Wikimedia. I warn you one last time do it or your fucked.intraining --122.49.151.145 (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And I want all edits on your Wikimedia page (this one) done by me to be deleted also.intraining --122.49.151.145 (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last time I am personally contacting you if you ask me any questions it will not be me who you hear from next.--122.49.151.145 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was told I need to give you 30 days to fulfill my request. I want it done immediately though --122.49.151.145 (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not respond to threats. We are done here.  Sandstein  13:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

He's gone and pouted at User talk:Jimbo Wales#this admin needs someone to talk some sence into him, but that IP address has been blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am done with Misplaced Pages for good I am going, maybe someone will eventually delete my talk page, I just do not care anymore I have bigger fish to fry. I am formally letting you know I have withdrawn all legal action. It was never anything personnal, good luck with whatever you decide to do in 09.--219.90.147.189 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NAC

Hi, thanks for your message. WP:NAC, whilst being based on WP:DPR, is still an essay, and whilst it is one that I certainly take heed of and adhere to to some extent I do not take it as the word of God. WP:SNOW is based on the future, and the inevitability of a certain closure pre-empting the need for further discussion. By that point there were four solid keeps with good rationales, and a fifth which suggested snowball keep, which I agreed with. WP:NAC suggests over six votes and over one day's listing. I would have voted keep for what it was worth as well, so that makes six, and it was one day and one hour old. The statistics are irrelevant to me - it was clear that the consensus would have been to keep the article. There was no reason why I shouldn't just help in clearing up potential backlogs by closing it early. If you are disputing my close on other grounds, please explain why you believe it to be "ill-advised" and I will comment further. Thanks, and have a nice day. :) — neuro 08:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article would have very likely been kept anyway, except that we now have to jump through procedural hoops to get a result that is perceived as legitimate by the nominator and maybe others. WP:SNOW is seldom effectively applied to ideologically charged AfDs, especially by non-admins, whose closures tend to be questioned more often regardless of their merits. Besides, WP:NAC as an essay has no authority. WP:DPR#NAC has, and it advises non-admins to leave "controversial decisions" to an administrator. Please do so, or stand for administrator.  Sandstein  19:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

At no point did I consider the discussion to be a "controversial decision", as evidenced by the five keep !votes. Whilst I do wish to ease the situation, I do not see how I am liable simply because someone wants a review of the situation - that could happen with any and every AfD I close. I do not understand your point. — neuro 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it had a "no consensus" AfD already. That's quite enough to make the issue controversial. Also, I'd consider a deletion discussion of an article about a torture method named after a WP:BLP (and head of government of a sovereign state) prima facie controversial and deserving of a full five-day discussion, except if WP:BLP itself were to call for a speedy deletion. (It's on WP:DRV now, where many seem to agree.)  Sandstein  20:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I thought you were saying the discussion was controversial, not the article, or did I miss something? — neuro 20:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is controversial on account of its subject. The issue of its deletion is controversial for that reason as well, and also because of the prior AfD.  Sandstein  20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. — neuro 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just saw this, seems like it is relevant. — neuro 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like that may be happening here a bit, although to be frank, your approach would at least have saved us the pain of megabytes of Eastern European-themed drama on AfD #4, DRV #2, ANI and RfAr that may now ensue :-) Thanks,  Sandstein  22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Was that a joke? I didn't get it. :| — neuro 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant to sarcastically phrase my opinion that, while your SNOW closure was inappropriate from a procedural point of view, I'm not sure that the continued discussion about this issue (which is likely to be well-frequented by people either strongly supporting or strongly opposing contemporary Russia) will be an altogether pleasant experience or indeed a benefit to Misplaced Pages. Oh well, such is life.  Sandstein  22:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sauce boat

Dear sandstein,

I had edited that sauce boat is used for feeding babies in India, But you had reverted it. It is well known that such kind of kitchen ware is used for feeding liquid and colloidal foods for babies in India.

waiting for your reply

sriram.aeropsn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram.aeropsn (talk • contribs) 08:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Do you have a reference to a reliable source for that information? If you do not, we cannot include it, because of our verifiability policy.  Sandstein  09:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you protected your user page…

		The Swiss Barnstar of National Merit
		For your many outstanding contributions to articles about the beautiful country named Switzerland. I can't believe you don't have a bunch already! Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Sandstein by Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) on 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it here!

Thank you very much!  Sandstein  21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Winged Fist and Greater Astoria

Dear Sandestein, Thank you for unblocking my account. Can you tell me how I can resolve this apparent conflict of interest, as a member of the Greater Astoria Historical Society, I created an article with this name and a similar login (Greater Astoria). I attempted to keep the article completely neutral, and in line with other historical society articles. Do i need to cease from using this account?Winged Fist (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should not use Greater Astoria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has now been blocked anyway, because it seems to be a role account. Use your own account and keep the conflict of interests policy in mind.  Sandstein  23:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fangz and DegenFarang

Fangz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DegenFarang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not saying these two are connected, but their IDs are vaguely similar, and their interest in the Roberts article is parallel. Baseball Bugs 08:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Thank you for looking a little deeper into this issue. And following your advice since you're here, could you please remove the links that Nik Wright2 added without discussion before you banned him and . Thanks.Momento (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Already done by others. Thanks.Momento (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, spoke too soon. Link has been added again Momento (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I think you were correct to ban Nikwright2, but you should have also banned the other parties to the edit warring. WP3RR was clearly violated in a case under ArbCom probation.   Will Beback  talk  15:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In my judgment, Momento's editwarring is mitigated by his aim to bring the article into compliance with the WP:EL section relating to WP:BLPs. That's why I chose to only warn him. You may, of course, provide him with a topic ban under your own authority as an uninvolved administrator pursuant to the arbitration remedy.  Sandstein  16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't beleive that the situation is sufficiently clear to allow an exemption to the 3RR, especially in an ArbCom-probation topic. WP:EL iis just a guideline, and addig the link does not itself violate WP:BLP. I would not make any enforcement of my own because I am an involved admin.   Will Beback  talk  16:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While I do not endorse Momento's editwarring in any way, I do not believe - for the aforementioned reasons - that a block or topicban is needed at this point, in particular because he seems to have heeded my warning so far (see above). I'll not object if another admin comes to another conclusion.  Sandstein  16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may comment, BLP violations are exempt from 3RR, even though we do suggest in WP:3RR that editors may want to use BLP/N if there is any doubt about whether material is compliant with BLP or not. In this case, the site in question is nowhere near complying with the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. Many parts of it, notably the forum, are full of the most rampant vituperation, calling the subject a f*ckhead etc. Please. Momento deserves a medal. Jayen466 19:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is never a good thing. He handled the situation incorrectly. He has been here long enough to know how to properly handle a situation, and clearly violated the ArbCom order to avoid edit warring.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, please don't forget to update the log of bans in the ArbCom case. I suggest that you also include your warnings in the log.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me invading your space Sandstein but if I don't keep an eye on WillBeBack, I'll be blocked before I know it. As an involved admin WillBeBack shouldn't you have removed the link and warned the 3 anon editors and Nik Wright2 before joining in Nik Wright2's dishonest complaint? And when an independent editor comes to the only possible conclusion why would you push to have it overturned? And still not warn the 3 anon editors and Nik Wright2. It appears to me you have a personal issue with me and you'll use any means at your disposal to try and have me blocked irrespective of the actual merits of my actions. All I did was remove an inappropriate link instead of asking an admin to do it.Momento (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento and Jayen466, please continue this discussion elsewhere. Will, I've logged the actual sanction - the ban - in the ArbCom case .  Sandstein  06:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 200

Good closing rationale. I'm glad it was detailed. far too few are closed with too much brevity. I suspect you will catch flack from it because your username implies ethnicity or religion which may or may not be the case in reality. I doubt you will be intimidated or upset by it, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have named myself after de:Sandstein (sandstone). I've yet to hear of stones with a religion or ethnicity :-)  Sandstein  07:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It'll be like the old family, the Icebergs, who obviously conspired to sink the RMS Titanic. And, of course, there were the Rolling Stones, who are English. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You wrote that one of your reasons to delete was WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. It says:

Memorials. Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability requirements.

I think you extended the meaning of the guideline far beyond what it actually says. Your interpretation was "which we tend to understand also as prohibiting the excessively detailed reporting of incidents resulting in very numerous deaths (such as large-scale accidents, massacres or wars), whether or not the people who have died are actually named."

And "excessively detailed" is a matter of opinion. Even so, the article should not be completely deleted. The editors could agree to limit the number of details as was done at Talk:List of Qassam rocket attacks. But I don't think a single admin should make that decision. It is an article along the lines of Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. It begins the day the war began. There is much history to this war.

Timeline of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

• Israel-Gaza conflict
• Timeline up to 2006 Gaza crisis
• 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict
• 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict
• 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties timeline
• 2007–2008 Israel-Gaza conflict
• 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict

You also wrote: "much too inadequately sourced". I am not sure you noticed in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 that I had written this: "B'Tselem is the source for all the entries according to Trachys in a previous comment. It is a very reliable source." The exact source listed in the article, and on the AfD page (Nudve listed it) was to:

• http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties_Full_Data.asp?Category=1&region=GAZA

I also pointed out on the AfD page: "B'Tselem is the source for casualties in the infobox of Second Intifada. See: http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp It is considered to be a reliable source."

I can understand why you may not consider this to be adequate sourcing if you did not know what else it has been used for, and its nature as a trusted source among editors in this topic area. That Second Intifada article has been through some very contested editing, but overall all sides consider B'Tselem to be a reliable source.

Also, I believe Fiddle Faddle is incorrect about names not being allowed in such an article. I think both of you are making incorrect interpretations of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Names are necessary for finding more references. These events preceding the war led to a war that killed 1300 people and wounded 5300 out of a population of 1.5 million in the Gaza Strip. The names of the people killed in November 2008 when the truce was broken by both sides are especially important to finding articles relevant to the war history.

For all these reasons I think you should undelete the article and relist the AfD, and let another admin have a look after another week of discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed comments. To address the issues you raise in turn:

1. "Memorial": What I described was not the WP:NOT#MEMORIAL rule as written, but rather its practical application by the community in this and other AfDs, mostly about lists of victims of massacres and the like; an application of WP:NOT#NEWS and more generally WP:NOT#IINFO if you want to put it in terms of formal policy.
2. Unsourced: The complaints raised with regard to sourcing generally focused on the lack of adequate (i.e., inline) sourcing; such complaints do not appear to be prima facie invalid. The reliability of the B'Tselem source wasn't questioned much.
3. "It is an article along the lines of ...": see WP:WAX.
4. "... the article should not be completely deleted": The discussion determined otherwise. "I don't think a single admin should make that decision": I didn't, the editors participating in the discussion did, and closing such discussions is my job as admin.

The reasons you provide do not cause me to believe that I misinterpreted consensus, and accordingly, I'll not change my closure. Relisting, after this amount of discussion, would at any rate be ill-advised.  Sandstein  23:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply so soon. As someone with many edits of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png I see this list as a very necessary timeline of events before the war, and not a memorial list from a single massacre. Therefore I don't see that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:NOT#IINFO apply.

At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 you wrote in your closing decision "much too inadequately sourced." So you agree that sourcing is adequate now? Inline sourcing is not always necessary for a list article that states that the data comes from a particular source at the beginning of the article. It is a trivial matter to add inline sourcing, and so it is not a reason to delete the article.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does matter when the other articles are also timelines and not memorials of single massacres.

"The discussion determined otherwise." There were many varying opinions. Many keep, and many delete, and many comments. The reasons you provide do not cause me to believe that I misinterpreted consensus. There was no consensus as far as I can tell. Rather than relisting maybe you would consider undeleting, (or undeleting the article history temporarily), and asking other admins to have a look at the existing AfD discussion, and this discussion here. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure no-one will raise an objection to a Deletion Review on this, Timeshifter. Well, obviously one cannot object to one, but I think you know what I mean.. I understand that you feel strongly over this. Please forgive me for seeming to hijack this discussion here on another editor's talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not do a deletion review if Sandstein and I can agree on WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and sourcing. I just don't see how either applies. As for the amount of detail, I think we should let the article editors edit the article. For example; Talk:List of Qassam rocket attacks where the editors worked this out. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it is necessary for us two to come to an agreement on these issues, because I, myself, don't have a strong opinion about the applicability of these policies to such lists. It's my job to note by closing the AfD, though, that the community does. If you think I have established consensus erroneously, you may raise the matter at DRV. Alternatively, I can userfy the content so that you can do whatever editing you think is necessary.  Sandstein  06:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)