User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:21, 12 June 2009 editSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,256 edits →mIRCStats userification: r← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:09, 27 December 2024 edit undoJclemens (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,434 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder: r
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|algo = old(7d)		\|algo = old(2d)
	\|archive = User talk:Sandstein/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s		\|archive = User talk:Sandstein/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
	}}		}}
	{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}		{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}

			== closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) ==
	== Kitten ==

			Thank you for closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) with a result of "delete." Draftify might indeed have been a better choice since there were many sources, but limited discussion on AFD compared to DRV. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve my contributions or avoid similar outcomes in the future, I’d really appreciate it. Specifically, I’m curious (AFD selection and DELETE result on DRV) about any weaknesses in the AFD process that may have influenced this result. Thanks again, and please feel free to skip this if it’s not necessary.] (]) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
	<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks">]
	] (]) has given you a ]! Kittens promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. <br />

			:Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
	Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{tls\|Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
			::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 ] (]) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
	{{clear}}
			::I am waiting for your response. ] (]) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
	</div><!-- Template:Kitten -->
			::Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." ] (]) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? ] (]) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	== User Smith2006 ==

	Hello Sandstein, sorry to bother you with this one since I'm not sure if this is o.k. or not. You have placed user Smith2006 on E.Europe topic ban for 6 months. He however, keeps making rude comments on the talk page of Jan Dzierzon such as:],],]. Is this acceptable?--] (]) 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

	:I already noticed due to his post to ], which I have watchlisted, and have blocked him for 48 hours for violating the topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	::Oh o.k. thank you, his comments were very rude also...--] (]) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	::: Hi Sandstein, just to let you know that he is active and back at it again right after his block expired.]] Regards.--] (]) 20:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::Thanks, blocked. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

	===Other issue===
	:::::Hello Sandstein, sorry to bother you again, but I was placed on a "black list" and my rollback rights (which I use to revert vandalism) have been removed from me by one of the administrators for rolling back Smith2006 edits while he was banned. Could you please look at it (of course if when you can)]. I think that this was not justified but maybe I am wrong, I don't know.Thank you--] (]) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::I just confirmed that I could use rollback to revert edits of banned users] and another edits were vandalism made by a anon user who never edited before] and removed a picture and tons of sourced material, changed names of Polish cities from Kresy in 1931 but according to the rules the names should be as they were then not now. I really think that this was a vandalism and not a good faith edits. Hope this was just a mistake of the admin. When you get a chance could you look at it.? Thanks a lot.--] (]) 22:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

	I need your opinion '''please'''. I'm being unjustly punished. Please look at this when you get a chance.] Thank you so much.--] (]) 01:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	:I'm not sure I understand. Could you please tell me what the "punishment" that you object to is, and what you want me to to do? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
	::An administrator who gave an example of my rollbacks of Smith’s edits while he was restricted (actually already banned by you) and another Anon who removed tons of information from the page as misuse and removed my rollbacks privileges. He later realized that he made a mistake as far as Smith, saying that I maybe had some room there but later went on and dogged out other examples of misuse I do not think were misuse. This is my opinion of course and I may be wrong. The problem is that in my opinion (I may be wrong again) he is now defending his decision, which was a mistake, and is looking for examples of misuse to justify it. This is how I feel. Unfortunately to get a big picture you would have to read all this] and get some background history on Administrator as well since he has a history of disagreements with Polish editors]] and I feel that his decision was a little tendentious as well. I am not sure if you have time or desire to do this but I thought that I might ask since you were the one who banned Smith in a first place. All I want is an opinion, true opinion. I feel very strongly about and I do not expect anything out of it. Just an honest opinion. If you could look at this it would be great, if not perhaps you could suggest something. Thanks Sandstein--] (]) 05:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	:I can't reply to you due to edit conflicts. Please use the preview feature (and edit summaries) and make only one edit to my talk page per message. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
	::Sorry about that. In adition to all of above please also take a look at this]
	I was placed on this list just below Smith you have banned for rolling back his edits etc. I think this is total injustice. I would appreciate any advice or opinion form you at your convenience of course, no rush. Thanks--] (]) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	:I agree with Jacurek that he has been treated unfairly here, and by an involved admin. As I can myself be seen as involved, I am not undoing what happened (wheel war = evil), but I think there was a gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of admin power here. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 08:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	::My opinion is that it is a proper use of rollback to undo edits made by topic-banned users in violation of their topic ban. (Because such rollbacks are easily mistaken for edit-warring, given that no edit summary is possible, it is probably prudent not to make them anyway.) But it seems that Deacon of Pndapetzim removed your rollback privileges also because of ''other'' rollbacks made by you, for instance and , which are not reverts of vandalism. I find that, in removing your rollback access for such edits, Deacon of Pndapetzim acted properly and explained himself adequately.
	::The Digwuren notification, on the other hand, was superfluous because the relevant remedy, ], is no longer in force. But it does no harm either. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::Thank you Sandstein. I will still file an appeal because (%100 honest) I did not have any bad intention even in the questionable rollbacks and if you compare %99 of my vandalism rollbacks to %1 in question you can find a proof right there. I know that a warning and a friendly advice would work for me. I always follow advices of more experienced editors. There was no need to treat me so harsh and placing me on a "black list" for example. P.S. Thanks again for your time and an opinion, I know that this is a minor issue for you but it is soooooo important to me. Last night I was even debating if I should quit editing altogether because of this. Thanks again.--] (]) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::The apeal has been filed already]. I know that your opinion as far as the use of my rollback rights is not in my favour but it is honest and I respect that very much. As per my comment above, I think that I was judged and punished by that administrator very quickly..too quickly. Thanks again for your time Sandstein.--] (]) 15:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	:::Three things to consider. First, should an involved, admin be the one to take such actions? Second, wouldn't a word of caution (warning) be better then removal of rollback - after all, isn't most of Jacurek's rollbacks helpful to the project? Third, the ] superceeded the General restriction and is very much in force (see the log of blocks and bans on this page - the one to which you contributed yourself very recently :)). --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Thanks ==

	For pointing out that copyvio; I was about to do so. For fun, check this Google search: The last one is my favourite :-) <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

	:Heh, total discomfiture indeed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Kiachi ==

	Why the monkey nuts did you delete the page I was making?!

	That is really unfair because it is not vandalism and blatant misinformation and what ever else it said in the deletion log!
	It is what I believe I was making that as a reference for others and I think this could be taken as racism(or religionism or something(I'm not sure what the real word is :P) by some. I don't, just. Give me some decent reason why I can't post that page. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Because you appear to have made that religion up. You are not allowed to submit content that others cannot verify in reliable sources, see ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

	=== carrying on from the above ===

	what about other Kiachen? They can verify it surely? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:See ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Regarding your ==

	Hi Sandstein,
	Obviously I feel that this was an unfortunate decision, I believe that I showed you 3 concurrent edit wars that never should have been. This does not constitute a simple content disagreement but a state of mind and an unfortunate strategy. I believe that you were in a position to facilitate an atmosphere more conducive to actual discussion and avoiding edit wars. I realize that you probably have better things to do, but I hope you will comment on the following:
	# Misplaced Pages uses labels dictated by the prevalence in sources, yes? no?

	# Ignoring discussion is disruptive, yes? no?

	Thanks in advance, ] (]) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

	:I do not think that it would be helpful to discuss these questions of editorial policy here. In general, please take into account that the administrators patrolling ] depend on the clarity and conciseness of your report to decide whether a situation is actionable. More complicated situations involving multiple editors are ill-suited to AE, but should be resolved through dispute resolution. AE administrators will generally only act if they are convinced, without undue effort on their part, that a situation is ripe for an enforcement action. That is not the case here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

	::What I am asking for here is advice. I think we both agree that in absolute terms the answer to both of my questions is yes. I can only understand your closing as an indication that I had not shown that those 2 premises were violated. Is that correct? Please understand that I am not asking you to revisit or modify your closing, I am simply trying to find out how I can avoid such misunderstandings in the future. Further, I would like to request that you accept me for mentorship so that I may learn the proper application of wikipedia policy. I hope that you will accept. Best Regards, ] (]) 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

	::::What you have not shown is clear and sanctionable misconduct. We do not generally sanction people for violating ''content'' policies, such as ] or ], as long as we believe that there may be a good faith disagreement about the application of such policies to the facts at issue. Disputes of that nature are generally referred to as "content disputes" and are expected to be resolved amicably through consensus as provided for in ]. Administrative sanctions are really only applicable to conduct issues such as edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry or really obvious and blatant violations of, say, ]. In either case, it is up to you to provide a persuasive report through the use of well-selected and well-explained diffs. If you provide dozens of unexplained diffs, and I click on a few of them and most appear unproblematic, I will not investigate further. Remember, admins will not usually comb through contributions and histories to find misconduct; it is up to you as a requesting user to explain the pertinent facts.
	::::Because I do not engage in mentorship programmes, I must unfortunately turn down that request also. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I agree that my initial post to ] could have been more clear. I deliberately wanted to avoid singling out other editors involved because I believed that my desired outcome would have cleared the air more efficiently. The problem I am facing now is that it is likely that when I involve other venues of DR I will be met with allegations forum shopping such as ice cold beer already did when I first brought it to AE. I am sorry to hear that you cannot be my mentor but thank you for your consideration. ] (]) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::I note that you appear to have made an edit after the closing. Perhaps you should consider removing it. ] (]) 17:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::It was an edit conflict, I had the editing window open while finding some sources. I have now moved the offending response outside the archived box, I trust that you are directing jehochman to do the same. ] (]) 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you. However, you were carrying on the dispute, Jehochman's edit was procedural, and in any case the closing Administrator replied to it and it seems obvious that therefore I shouldn't intervene. And in any case, someone else has moved these comments into a separate box making the issue moot. ] (]) 05:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Thank you for bringing it to our attention. ] (]) 06:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Reply ==

	Don't worry, I just was wondering lol xD, I know, thank you for your reply. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Deletion review for ] ==

	An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ -->--] (]) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

	== RfA thanks ==

	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 5px solid #0050b2; background-color: #2486ff;"
	\|align="left"\|]
	\|align="center"\|Thank you for participating in ], which succeeded with '''56 in support''', '''12 in opposition''' and '''3 neutral votes'''. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, ] (]) <!-- this thank-you created with Template:RfA-thanks -->
	\|}

	] (]) 23:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Questions regarding proper course of action. ==

	Hi Sandstein,		Hi Sandstein,
	While I do not wish to 'drag you' into this, I need some guidance as to a proper course of action.
	This is in regards to reversing the burden of evidence in the BRD process as well as contested claims of existing consensus.


	Please do have a read thru and inform me of what you believe would be a proper course of action. ] (]) 10:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
	: I would recommend continued, civil, ontopic discussion, perhaps posting to the ] with a neutral description, and if you aren't satisfied then starting an RFC. I wouldn't go straight to an RFC as it would look like trying to short circuit discussion. ] <small>]</small> 10:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
	:: Thank you for your suggestion, prior to reading this I had followed Tom Harrisons previous suggestion to open an RFC. I am not quite sure what FTN has to do with parsing a quote. It becomes difficult to carry on a proper discussion when a. it degrades in to "I'm right, you are wrong" and b. proper process is ignored and the contested material is kept in thru edit warring. I tried to explain how I came to my view on the quote and the points in my argument seemed to be ignored. I suggested to include the quote in full, but this too has been ignored. I did not 'abandon' the discussion, merely waiting for a response to my arguments. So quite frankly I am at a loss. ] (]) 10:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
	::: Posting to FTN with a quick outline "There is disagreement as to how this quote should be used in the article (quote) Please give your opinions and help establish consensus here (link to discussion, the first one maybe)." would bring more people and help establish consensus. I don't think proper process has been ignored (and I don't mean thzt edit warring is a normal process.... ;). ] <small>]</small> 10:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Proper process would have been to ask if parties agreed to the manner in which the contested material was presented in the article, the article history shows clear signs of edit warring, one which is continuing even now. Please address the arguments I present in the initial thread. ] (]) 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

	I am sorry that I do not have the time to familiarize myself fully with the situation, but on the face of it Verbal's suggestion looks reasonable. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	== If possible ==

	Hi,

	Thanks for your understanding in the situation, can you please have a word with Eugene Krabs as he is threatening me with a last warning for Vandalism when we have already resolved the issue regarding the Federer page and now he is having a go at me for editing my own message to yourself, help!] (]) 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

	Thanks for the assist! :) --] (]) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Replied. ==

	I've replied on my talk page. Sorry for the trouble. - ] (]) 17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Prem Rawat ==

	You seem confident that you understand the remedies in ], while I am not at all confident that I understand them. Here's a situation that I'm not sure about, so perhaps you can make a ruling beforehand. An editor added a long list of POV problems with ] at ]. Noting that the issues seemed to reflect a POV dispute, I added a POV tag to the article. Another editor reverted my addition of the tag. So now what? May I restore the tag now? Must I wait 8 days to restore the tag? Which is it?   <b>]  ]  </b> 04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	:Per ], "if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." Since you added the "POV" tag, and Pergamino reverted this, my interpretation of the restriction is that you may not re-add the tag until seven days after Pergamino's removal. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
	::Thanks. If I'm not mistaken, Pergamino would also be able to immediately revert my revert in seven days.   <b>]  ]  </b> 05:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::That depends on when the seven-day period begins. If it begins with the revert and not with the original edit, he too would have to wait seven days. Perhaps this might be the subject of a clarification request? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Thank you ==

	Thank you very much for your time at AE today.--] (]) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	== I beg your pardon, Sandstein... ==

	As you appear to be perceiving this as troublesome, please indicate if you don't mind it much exactly what was wrong with this: . ] (]) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

	:Er, vandalism? No way ] can in good faith be construed as an attack page as defined in ]. It even says outright that the term is a a pejorative neologism and a slur. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
	::"]" was deleted for similar reasons, despite similar protests from editors. That was a pejorative term used in a political context, too. The only difference then is BLP{{ndash}}that's important, of course, though I did not see that as much of an issue when I tagged the Putinjugend entry. I'm not sure why you think I was not acting in good faith there{{ndash}}I formally joined in April and am not an expert in picking out nuances exactly. Hence I let my instincts and sense of analogy direct me at certain points. I'm not sure Putinjugend is just a good faith sort of thing{{ndash}}do we really need a separate article for the one paragraph that can be placed in ]? ] (]) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::That is certainly something worth discussing (I have no real opinion on the subject), but the way to go about it is not to ''replace'' the article with a speedy deletion tag. Tags go at the top of the article. And ] does not attack anybody. It does not allege that the "Nashi" ''are'' a kind of Hitlerjugend (''that'' would be a deletable attack page). It reports that "Putinjugend" is a slur used against the "Nashi", which is not the same thing at all. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::"Fucking lunatic" did not allege that the person referenced was a fucking lunatic, only that he was controversially discussed as such. So the analogy seemed apt. Yet pages like ] and ] had their db-attack nominations rejected outright. I'm still digressing here, but I'd seen the G10 criterion applied thrice in my life here, and the first time was in a fashion similar to that in which I applied it to Putinjugend. What is "designed" to threaten or disparage someone seems like an ambiguity{{ndash}}a matter of interpretation as I looked at it, given the manner in which the db-attack template had been used.
	::::Thanks for the explanation. ] (]) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

	All right, sorry for assuming bad faith. With respect to your complaint at AN, such reports should be made directly at ] in proper form, where they will see faster action and less drama. You should also not make sweeping generalizations ("everything X does is an outrage") or emotional claims. That is not actionable. What helps are well-selected diffs documenting specific misconduct. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
	:Thanks, Sandstein. I'm still new in a very relative sort of way, really, but I certainly do try to stick to policies. ] (]) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Claudia MEyer (erased page by you) ==


	Hello,

	Would you please clarify why you would erase someone based on the fact that this person is not registered in in SIKART
	Please know that someone who is not registered in in SIKART as " A vaguely Notable visual artist" Can have very good reasons to NOT BE LISTED THERE...
	I find your comment and behavior unacceptable. Please search a bit deeper before erasing. There is such a thing as The World Wide web and galleries websites.

	Please read below.
	Mr Meyer, Agent and Partner

	Your quote:

	Delete. She is not included in SIKART, a database that includes all even vaguely notable Swiss visual artists. Also, the article is unsourced, causing her to fail WP:BIO. Sandstein 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
	Claudia Meyer (erased page by you)

	My Email to Farictramp

	Hello,
	Would you please let me know what makes you eligible to erase the Claudia Meyer page. Mrs Meyer is a Swiss contemporary exhibiting in numeral art galleries in Europe the USA and France. There was numerous website referenced on her wikepedia page which justified and attested of her existence. All you had to do is visit and contact the art galleries websites if you wanted to verified the accurency of the posted informations. Furthermore. A google search would have help you even more.
	Who are you? Can you please clarify. I am Mrs Meyer agent and partner in life you can contact me avia the official website or visit the Artist website at www.claudiameyer.com
	DO NOT erase her page again or I will contact Misplaced Pages for a formal complain.


	Thank You Mr Meyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.225.121.145 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
	While I do have the authority to delete pages that don't meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines (see WP:ADMIN), I did not erase the Claudia Meyer page nor did I make a single edit to the page. That page was deleted by Spartaz as the result of the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Claudia Meyer. I did not express any opinion in that discussion -- I simply listed it on two lists that track deletion discussions for those who are interested in following them.--Fabrictramp \| talk to me 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	I would appreciate hearing from you in regard to the page you wrongly erased.
	Please refer to previous post above for more information.

	Thank You

	Mr. Meyer
	Artist Agent and Partner <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by {{u\|Dclemens1971}} there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. ] ] 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Please provide a link to the page at issue as directed in the box at the top of this page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

			:I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	== mIRCStats userification ==
			::Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. ] (]) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after and were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. ] ] 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. ] (]) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::OK, I've relisted the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you! ] ] 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			==Deletion closure of ]==
	You may as well just move the ] article to my userspace for now then, I'm sure we'll be able to do more with it later. There was actually much more going on with the nomination of this article for AfD than what was apparent in the AfD itself. I did not feel I should bring it up there as I was trying to limit my contact with ]. I was discussing this with ] while trying to get a referral for an admin who could work on this and you can find a summary with links to most everything on A Nobody's talk page ]. ] (]) 06:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
			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)
	:Done, at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:21, 12 June 2009 (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 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.
	== Paul Pantone ==
			*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.
			*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)
	Hello Sandstein,
			::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 ==
	I see on the page ] that you have deleted the Paul Pantone's page. I would like to know the reasons why the article was deleted and if it was possible to access to the deleted version of the article. Also, if the old version is not suitable for wikipedia's standards, I would like to translate the French version of Paul Pantone's page. This would be a good start.

			Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	Thank you for your consideration,

			: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)
	] (]) 11:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:09, 27 December 2024

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

closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23)

Thank you for closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) with a result of "delete." Draftify might indeed have been a better choice since there were many sources, but limited discussion on AFD compared to DRV. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve my contributions or avoid similar outcomes in the future, I’d really appreciate it. Specifically, I’m curious (AFD selection and DELETE result on DRV) about any weaknesses in the AFD process that may have influenced this result. Thanks again, and please feel free to skip this if it’s not necessary.Endrabcwizart (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you please link to that DRV? Sandstein 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I am waiting for your response. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." Endrabcwizart (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Endrabcwizart, sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin Sandstein 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. Sandstein 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States

Hi Sandstein,

It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by Dclemens1971 there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. Sandstein 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. Sandstein 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Owen× ☎ 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)