Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:31, 29 May 2011

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.

Weight Training content quality

You recently removed my content re weight training, but you mentioned flixya.com/blog/2982663/Bodybuilding - that is an EXACT copy of my original words I wrote 2 days ago for weight training. Did you put them on flixya.com/blog/2982663/Bodybuilding (because I didn't)? If not, then someone copied my work and put it there before you deleted it. Btw, that content I wrote is not to be found anywhere on wiki and it deserves a place (flixya.com/blog/2982663/Bodybuilding seems to think it's worth having). Why does everything need a "reference"? What about these common terms that everybody who works out knows the meaning of - can't some things just simply be added by an "expert" (which I consider myself to be on weight training)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.124.99 (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, are you Cuneas (talk · contribs)? Please log in to your account, it facilitates communication. The blog post is dated "Published May 19th, 2011", whereas you added it to Misplaced Pages on May 22]. This makes it implausible that the blog copied from you rather than vice versa. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR for the reasons why all content on Misplaced Pages needs to be verifiable and therefore referenced.  Sandstein  16:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Apologies - yes I am Cuneas (logged in now). I tried adding exactly that content to Body Building before Weight Training, but it got rejected too. Perhaps the guy who rejected it saved it to flixya before deleting it. Those words are definitely absolutely all mine and were written for the article. The chances of an exact coincidence are zero, so someone/something (webcrawler?) put it there. How about my proposal for the content on Talk:Weight Training - sound OK? Cuneas (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think "reverted" is the correct term as opposed to "rejected" - and no I didn't save your material. Misplaced Pages keeps records of old versions of articles, so it would be a waste of time copying your material to an external source. Your material was removed from the Bodybuilding article for being off topic, and for the obvious lack of sources as I explained on my talk page; and for being mostly original research, and for being a slang, jargon or usage guide- I didn't even notice it was copied from somewhere else unless it was pointed out when reverted from the weight training article.

And why does everything need a reference? Okay, so say you post your little bodybuilding jargon guide on the weight training or bodybuilding article, and in a couple days, someone else who thinks they're a "reliable source" too because they've lifted weights a few times and read some Muscle & Fitness decides that your material is totally wrong and changes it? What then? Are you going to revert it back and start and edit war? What if a third self proclaimed reliable source has a different opinion and changes it again? That's why everything needs references. Otherwise, it's random people's opinion or their interpretations of fact. Find a source. If your material is worth adding to Misplaced Pages, there should be hundreds of sources for it, written by people who are truely experts and are seen as such. --Yankees76 18:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons

Would you mind deleting the following redirects to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons ?

• GAT-01A1 105 Dagger
• GAT-X102 Duel Gundam
• GAT-X103 Buster Gundam
• GAT-02L2 Dagger L
• GAT-04 Windam
• GAT-X370 Raider Gundam
• GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam
• GAT-X131 Calamity Gundam
• GAT-X207 Blitz Gundam
• GAT-X303 Aegis Gundam
• GFAS-X1 Destroy
• TS-MA4F Exass
• TS-MB1B Euclid
• TSX-MA717/ZD Pergrande
• YMAF-X6BD Zamza-Zah
• YMAG-X7F Gells-Ghe
• AMA-953 BABI
• AMF-101 DINN
• TFA-2 ZuOOT
• UMF-4A GOOhN
• UMF-5 ZnO
• UMF/SSO-3 ASH
• ZGMF-515 CGUE
• ZGMF-600 GuAIZ
• ZGMF-1017 GINN
• ZAFT Armed Keeper of Unity
• ZGMF-X11A Regenerate Gundam
• ZGMF-X12A Testament Gundam
• ZGMF-X13A Providence Gundam
• ZGMF-X23S Saviour Gundam
• ZGMF-X24S Chaos Gundam
• ZGMF-X31S Abyss Gundam
• ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam
• ZGMF-X56S Impulse Gundam
• ZGMF-X666S Legend Gundam
• ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam
• ZGMF-X2000 GOUF Ignited
• MVF-M11C Murasame
• ORB-01 Akatsuki
• ZGMF-XX09T DOM Trooper
• MAW-01 Mistral
• NMS-X07PO Gel Finieto
• GSF-YAM01 Δ Astray
• GSX-401FW Stargazer

Thanks, --Anthem of joy (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there no article they could be usefully be directed to?  Sandstein  20:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

They could be redirect them to List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam, but they're not mentioned on that list and are probably too obscure to be likely search terms. Anthem of joy (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  04:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Anthem of joy (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan notification

Dear Sandstein, I ask you to take a look at this issue regarding MarshallBagramyan. You indefinitely restricted him not to make any derogatory statements about authors based on their background. Yet he did it again. Given your experience in this matter, your insight would help in this issue. 17:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:SIGN your posts. Sorry, I'm not currently active in WP:AE matters; please ask an administrator who is active on that board or see WP:SEEKHELP.  Sandstein  22:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

I wanted to personally thank you for looking at and accepting my unblock request. This is a second chance that I will not mess up. :) --StrikerBack (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.  Sandstein  05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Keyser Sözetigho and Link1914

Hi Sandstein. I have to ask: Why aren't both blocked indefinitely? You'll find that User:Keyser Sözetigho's edits are only about NXIVM anyways. I'm a little worried that he will come back and be just as abusive, just as one-sided as before. In any event, thanks for your help.--JamesChambers666 (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Another admin has now reblocked for 3 months after another sock emerged, I'd have indeffed at this point.  Sandstein  05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well I suppose I have to confess I was wrong. Your pointless, pedantic and punitive block did more than just piss me off after all. It meant there were several vandal edits to pages on my watchlist that I couldn't revert, including some that stuck around for several hours, so you managed to piss me off and damage the project too. Please accept my hearty congratulations.

You made a block made without regard for timing, circumstance, or anything except a blind, jobsworth-like adherence to the letter of the rules.

The sarcastic applause you can hear in the background is coming from the ever-growing number of people who think WP administrators are largely a joke, and whom you have just helped prove correct. It's admins like you that give the whole WP admin team a bad name. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I shall choose to be the adult, and not be baited. Any other passing admin might fancy a wee visit there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, but I personally would not have blocked Rpeh for this comparatively moderate rant, even though they are evidently mistaken in believing that (a) edit-warring is ever justified and (b) anybody but themselves is to blame for their block.  Sandstein  21:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Flying Fische

Flying Fische (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked earlier this month for deleting article maintenence tags without rectifying the problems mentioned, is still at it – there also seems to be a very serious underlying competence/disruption issue: for instance, a notification that one of their articles has been nominated for deletion was met with a response of, "No. DO IT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS," ('SHOUTING CAPITALS' is something that I've cautioned them about before) followed by an accusation of vandalism, which is another pattern; for instance, they recently re-inserted unsourced content about a living person with an edit summary labelling it as vandalism.

Just a week ago they were warned for repeatedly deleting BLP PROD tags without adding the requisite reliable sources, and obviously more general disruption ensued.

I think that given this behaviour, with particular regard to their absolute refusal to adhere to the BLP policy, a further block is in order? ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 13:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indef for persistent disruption.  Sandstein  13:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 13:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Be nice if you checked for references before you removed material. Typing both names into google gives alot of joint pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)