| Revision as of 03:27, 18 March 2010 editNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits →Appeal by Matthead: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:09, 27 December 2024 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,438 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder: r | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | ||
| == closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) == | |||
| == Happy Purim! == | |||
| 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:white; font color:blue; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| :Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 ] (]) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am waiting for your response. ] (]) 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." ] (]) 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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] (]) is wishing you a Happy ]! This greeting promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Formatting error on AE? == | |||
| Hi Sandstein, | |||
| Hi Sandstein, could you please look at ] - below that users AE thread is a new thread for AE, but it does not seem to want to format properly. Could you please take a look at it for me. Cheers, --] <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not know if Russavia can file this AE request because of his editing restriction. The last thing I saw was this: . If needed, I am ready to answer. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :With regard to several articles he mentioned, all my edits were fully explained and discussed at the article talk pages. They were made to improve the content and according to our policies. And it least in one case, I struggled with a vandal. At least one of the users involved did almost nothing in this project except following my edits. | |||
| :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) | |||
| :With regard to the second claim by Russavia, I had an email exchange with another person (I do not even know his real name) who suggested to make a number of specific changes in several articles on the Chechen subjects ''I am well familiar with''. I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I never acted as "meatpuppet". All edits were made by me, I verified all sources (which does not prevent some occasional errors), and I am willing to discuss any changes as time allows. This is all consistent with ] and other policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Which exactly policy did I violate?] (]) 19:44, 15 March 2010 (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. ] (]) 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 ]== | |||
| ::Russavia, the formatting issue seems to be resolved now. Biophys, please make any statements with respect to Russavia's request in the ] thread, not here. If you believe Russavia's request violates the sanctions that apply to Russavia, as indeed it might, you may make a separate enforcement request on ] about that. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:09, 15 March 2010 (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) | |||
| :::Sorry, but I do not want filing any AE requests to avoid unnecessary confrontation.] (]) 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :] expired a week or so ago. The editing restriction mentioned by Biophys above was a partial lifting of the topic ban (which has now expired). Thanks also Sandstein, ] was kind enough to help with the formatting. Cheers, --] <sup>]</sup> 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I was just about to note that the ban has expired. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:44, 15 March 2010 (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) | |||
| == Swiss Embassy in Moscow == | |||
| ::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. | |||
| I am currently reformatting ] to add dates of establishment of embassies and other missions, and I am missing the date for the establishment of the Swiss embassy in Moscow. The website doesn't have the precise information that I need, but it does state that relations were restarted in 1946 - although relations resumed in that date, the date of establishment of the embassy may be different - e.g. USSR and UAE established diplomatic relations in 1971, but it wasn't until 1987 that the UAE opened an embassy in Moscow. As I believe you are Swiss, and because you definitely speak German, would you possibly be able to help with finding a definitive date (year) that the Swiss embassy in Moscow was established? Your help would be appreciated. Cheers, --] <sup>]</sup> 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *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) | ||
| ::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. | |||
| ::Thanks for that, a big help. Can I ask what your search term was for this? I have some other "german" related searches to find, and it may come in handy for when English and Russian searches don't yield the required results. Cheers, --] <sup>]</sup> 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::I looked for "schweiz botschaft moskau 1946" (''switzerland embassy moscow 1946''), operating under the assumption that the embassy was most likely established in 1946, and it turned out that it was. The French equivalent, "suisse ambassade moscou 1946", would . <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:26, 15 March 2010 (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 == | |||
| == Re: {{user|Jano rajmond}} == | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Haggar was, at the time, a prolific page move vandal, and to circumvent the restriction on new accounts (i.e non autoconfirmed) being able to move pages, he registered new accounts and would make 10 edits to their user page, before commencing page move vandalism. This was also done with sleeper accounts, those that had never been used and for a while, it was routine to keep an eye on accounts making a number of edits to their userpage in quick succession. | |||
| :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) | |||
| It may well be the case that this user has no involvement, but I'm suspicious that the account was registered in June 2007, no edits were made with the account until June 2008, and now the unblock request comes in March 2010. I don't believe the account would pose a serious risk to the encyclopedia now, with the new mechanisms in place to prevent page move vandalism etc, so I've no objection to the user being unblocked. ] (]) 12:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense, and the user fits that pattern. I'm declining unblock. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Request == | |||
| Hi. I am the person who possesed the account ] and I want to ask you a favor: | |||
| I understood my mistakes and the reasons for my block and I changed my behaviour. Since I started my new account, ], I started making only constructive edits, as you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ddaann2. Even if i made all my edits in good faith, the user ] reverts my edits, even if it's obvious that they are constructive, judging them by the author, not by their content. He claims that I am a banned user and I have no right to contribute on wikipedia (a fact which is theoretically true) | |||
| Can you please check my last contributions on the new account and unblock my old one if it is possible? I am not here to make disruptive edits. Thanks in advance (] (] (]) 14:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| :Indef-blocked for block evasion, advice left on user talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification == | |||
| As you have commented on the issue previously (as evidenced ]), this is to notify you that I've made a proposal ] to ''formally'' community ban Mythdon and restrict the number of appeals he is entitled to. ] (]) 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Something I noticed == | |||
| I am new in wikipedia and I have already been through many reports since people have the tendency to report me for almost anything they can think of and in each one I come "clean". Yesterday I found that really weird . This Greek user who was gone for so many days came back only to support another Greek user's report and to help another in an article. I don't know about you but that it would be naive to consider that something "common".--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 07:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :]. What do you want me to do? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : . Where should I go to make a similar report?--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 08:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you believe that another user's conduct warrants sanctions, you may make a report at ] as per the instructions there. But you should make such reports only in cases of severe or persistent misconduct, or the report is likely to be ignored. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Noone has ever reported you ZjarriRrethues (''...have the tendency to report me'').] (]) 09:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :If no one has ever reported me then what is this?or this . Sandstein I intend to examine closely past discussions and edits of users and then I'll decide how to proceed--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 10:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::ZjarriRrethues just initiated a major deletion barrage in Albanian nationalism ]. He also declared that he is revert-read without discussing and rejecting entire bibliographies in ], beeing aggresive from his very start of his wikilife.] (]) 11:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I explained thoroughly in the talkpage and I plan to rewrite the whole article. Please don't accuse of things I have never said .--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 11:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please read this: ] (''...Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it.''), massive deletions without having started a discussion can be easily considered higly disruptive.] (]) 11:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't it weird that IPs without previous edits are reverting me ?--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::You should ask for semi protection.] (]) 13:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::At ]. Please continue the discussion among yourselves elsewhere. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic banned? == | |||
| Sandstein, I addressed every single accusation. Please read what I said about your decision. I think you are hasting as I still had to finish my defense. How is giving barnstars to users who fight "against EXTREMIST editors" going to be a pattern of battleground? --] (]) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, you said that you are , so I consider your statement complete. We are not here to do any fighting whatsoever, be it against perceived extremists or others. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Correct, but after that ] made further accusations, and I had to address those as well. And I am very far from doing any fighting: I endorsed through a simple barnstar a user who fights against extremism without giving in and by being civil. That is the opposite of battleground. Please read all the accusations made and my response: I addressed every single one and I am convinced that you will reconsider. --] (]) 08:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Awarding barnstars to editors who battle against other editors, no matter their reason, is a violation of ], and given that he has already told you "no", I don't see how you can think he will reconsider.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 08:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|1=Behavior-related comment collapsed.}} | |||
| ::::Dear Daedalus, could you please let first Sandstein read my defense after ] made further accusations? I am convinced that Sandstein will reconsider: He is a long time admin and won't haste. He had not read my defense thoroughly, but now he may (unless someone else throws additional stuff in). Please feel free to make any considerations in the report. I cannot be topic banned because I awarded a barnstar to three good standing users (], ] and ], (all three of them in good standing), where I say '''I award you this barnstar because you fight extremist editors'''. This is a perfect example that I don't use Misplaced Pages as a ]. | |||
| ::::These three editors are the best Albanian editors that have ever participated in the English Misplaced Pages project and they have been key in creating from scratch many of the 1400+ articles that relate to the Albania TF. Topic banning me from the Albanian topics is equivalent to banning me from Misplaced Pages but I am very specifically rejecting the accusations. You may take your time to read my defense. I have read very calmly ] and there is really NOTHING in the accusations to support that I have made any breach of this wiki policy or ANY other policy for that matter. I am really trying to focus on the Albania TF which I intend to raise into a real project (see ]). It will take a little time and that project will bring much better articles that are related to Albania. I have already created 66 new articles that are Albania related (mostly in the last three months) and you can review my statistics through my user page. This is all I ask: to be left in peace to work in the Albania TF. --] (]) 12:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| I noticed that you left a template in my talk page. This edit is to clarify that my comment above is Behavior related, not Content related. As a result, you as an admin, might be interested in reading it. I had collapsed it earlier to make it easier for you to manage your talk page. --] (]) 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, sorry, I've struck my warning. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem! --] (]) 15:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::On a related note I wanted to remind you of this message that I once sent you (see --] (]) 15:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, well, you can certainly ''demand'' excuses, but nobody can be forced to ''make'' excuses, so if I were you I wouldn't bother. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Your attention needed == | |||
| Sandstein, I got this highly insulting message from ] on my talk page . Not only was my edit in good faith but it is also a completely correct one, "West Germany" simply does not exist anymore. If Matthead does not like the name "West Germany" he should nominate the article for a move or a deletion instead of claiming that "West Germany" still exists, it's a complete nonsense. Anyway even if my edit would have been wrong, the accusation of "stalking" and that i make "recommended" edits are very uncivil and so is the threat that I should retire. I request you enforce Digwuren sanctions (civility). ] 08:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I've requested Matthead's comment. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Loosmark is stalking me, trying to provoke me into responses that can be used for reports at ANI or an admin, pretending he was <s>insulted</s> ''highly insulted''. He has a habit of showing up at articles he has never edited before, to revert me, or for provocative talk. Here are some recent examples: | |||
| * 1 February 2010 ] | |||
| * 16 February 2010 ] | |||
| * 16 March 2010 ] | |||
| * 2 November 2009 West Germany (reverting my edit. He also edited the talk page, backing up Jacurek.) | |||
| In doing so, he follows the example of (among others) ] and ]. The latter, after having recently been blocked, is block-shopping . As for the EEML recommendations, see e.g. messages 20090713-1736 20090714-0207 20090807-1139 20090809-1626 in which they discuss ways to get me blocked or restricted. Speaking of the EEML, it is rather interesting what they thought of Loosmark when he showed up: | |||
| *Radeksz in 20090603-1033: "Loosemark's actually doing quite a good job of keeping the heat on", in 20090611-0841: "Loosemark's pattern looks a lot like Molobo and Poeticbent (as well as other Polish editors like Space Cadet and Witkacy)", and in 20090630-1500 "I emailed Loosmark and told him to be careful". | |||
| *Digwuren in 20090603-1245 "If I didn't know any better, I'd suspect Loosmark was Piotrus' sock." | |||
| *Jacurek in 20090630-1919 "I think Loosmark may be invited to join us soon" | |||
| *Tymek in 20090630-1941: "My hunch is that Loosmark is already here." | |||
| *In September, there were threads titled "LOOSMARK should be invited here", " Russavia and Loosmark", ""!!Loosmark needs support ", and also "Sandstein may need support". | |||
| In conclusion: Loosmark needs to be sanctioned for repeatedly violating ]. And, Sandstein, as also Loosmark and the EEML seems to believe you are somewhat sympathetic to them, one wonders what you will do in your capacity as administrator, only able to address conduct issues? I remember that you asymmetrically sanctioned me last year, but not my Polish opponent. -- ] ] 22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :BTW, as Jacurek points to on his talk: Loosmark is also ] and/or Skäpperöd, see the recent history of ]. -- ] ] 22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::This does not address your edit cited by Loosmark. "Stalking" is a serious allegation, and is not substantiated by this statement. For this battleground conduct I am now blocking you. The EEML case is over and I'm not dealing with it here. Loosmark's edits cited by you are not '']'' problematic; they appear to reflect content disputes which should be dealt with per ]. The nationalities of all involved, and the silly nationalist content disputes that all of you engage in, are of no interest to me. If there are further problems involving Loosmark they should be reported, with diffs, on the appropriate noticeboard. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Other stuff === | |||
| {{collapse top|1=Comment collapsed & new section opened.}}:::Just out of interest, would Digwuren sanctions (civility) apply to an editor who has already received a warning with regard to incivility and failure to AGF if said editor were to accuse another editor of bad faith editing (stating "your edit is nothing but a provocation." ) or to lie about another editor's statements (claiming "I guess the positive thing is at least that you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard" as you did the last time I have encountered you." , while the actual statement is at ) or to repeated accuse another editor of POV pushing (making statements such as "You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" and "as you try to POV push into article" )? If an editor who had already been told "Any subsequent violation of Misplaced Pages conduct norms in this topic area may result in sanctions being imposed without further warning." did all three of the above on a single discussion page, would sanctions be in order? And if that same editor who had done all three of those on a single discussion page were to then repeatedly accuse another editor of making racist comments ( and ) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?" , would sanctions be in order? <small>Please note that I am unable to notify the editor in question of my comments here because he has requested that I stay off his talk page </small> ] (]) 11:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| :::: Sandstein, Varsovian's rant has absolutely '''nothing''' to do with Matthead's incivility and my request above. I ask you delete it out, he is free to open a separate request to you and then I will reply to his allegations. I won't do it here because then the issue will degenerate into the usual mess. ] 12:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|1=Content-related comment collapsed.}} | |||
| :Sandstein, I hope you don't mind me posting here. Loosmark, I would be very careful about complaining to any admin over this, as I can not see any discussion on the article talk page, meaning that you could both very well be at fault, and in line for sanctions that you are obviously chasing against Matthead. As to the assertion that your edit was "a completely correct one"; actually it is totally incorrect. As the article states, West Germany was just the ''common English name'' for the ] from 1949 until German reunification. Upon German reunification, the ] (or East Germany in common usage) dissolved itself upon union with the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) - this state is now commonly known as ] (once more). At no stage did the FRG become ; the FRG has been a continuous State since 1949. If Germany was faced with a USSR-type scenario, whereby it ] and split into 15 independent states, than to say that the FRG was disestablished in 1990 would be correct. But it isn't. It is this very fact that one can say that the ] was established in 1972, rather than in 1990 when West+East unified into a single state, and rather than in 1968 when the GDR consulate was established in the city. Your scenario would be more correct in the case of ] and ] - upon ], the ] and the ] unified into a single state called the ] - both former states ceased to exist. This is, however, not the case with the Federal Republic of Germany. I would suggest taking this to the talk page of the article concerned and thrash it out there, and get consensus on the issue rather than all users simply reverting each other. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| ::Please don't have a discussion about the content dispute here; I am not in the least interested in that. In my capacity as administrator I am only able to address conduct issues, anyway. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == You attention also needed here == | |||
| With reference to the above section and Loosmark's statement therein, would Digwuren sanctions (civility) apply to an editor who has already received a warning with regard to incivility and failure to AGF if said editor were to accuse another editor of bad faith editing (stating "your edit is nothing but a provocation." ) or to lie about another editor's statements (claiming "I guess the positive thing is at least that you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard" as you did the last time I have encountered you." , while the actual statement is at ) or to repeated accuse another editor of POV pushing (making statements such as "You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" and "as you try to POV push into article" )? <br /> | |||
| If an editor who had already been told "Any subsequent violation of Misplaced Pages conduct norms in this topic area may result in sanctions being imposed without further warning." did all three of the above on a single discussion page, would sanctions be in order?<br /> | |||
| And if that same editor who had done all three of those on a single discussion page were to then repeatedly accuse another editor of making racist comments ( and ) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?" , would sanctions be in order? <br /> | |||
| One additional point, is describing a post by another editor as a "rant" considered civil? ] (]) 12:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Too long, too many questions. If you believe there is anything warranting sanctions you may make a report to the appropriate noticeboard. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll make it shorter and ask just one question: | |||
| ::* Loosmark has been warned about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL . | |||
| ::* Loosmark accused me of bad faith editing ("your edit is nothing but a provocation." ). | |||
| ::* Loosmark repeatedly accused me of POV pushing ("You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" and "as you try to POV push into article" ). | |||
| ::* Loosmark lied about my posts ("you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard"" , my statement is at ). | |||
| ::* Loosmark repeatedly accuse another editor of making racist comments ( and ) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?" | |||
| ::Is any of this acceptable under WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL? ] (]) 15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am sorry, but I do not have the time to investigate what appears to be mainly a conflict about content. Please refer to ]. Certainly accusing others of racism is bad conduct, though. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for the advice. You're right in that Loosmark and I are in dispute over content; however, my concern regards the way in which he conducts himself in this dispute & how he conducts himself in other discussion. I'll take a couple of days to consider whether to report to the appropriate noticeboard. Would Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement be the right place given that Loosmark has already been warned about WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL? ] (]) 16:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Appeal by Matthead == | |||
| You might want to check out . '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:27, 18 March 2010 (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.
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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)