Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:46, 2 February 2013

Italic text

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.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1 gigametre

I re-closed that AfD, as I think the original close was correct, but mislabeled. It should not have been a keep, but rather a procedural close with a pointer to the larger discussion about the entire set of articles at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1 metre. I apologize if I have misinterpreted procedures for a situation like this. Cheers. —Torchiest _edits 16:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Del Rev

A deletion you have made Da-Wen Sun (now blue=linked because I temp-restored it for deletion review) has been appealed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 29. I have made some comments there. I have great respect for your work in general, but this was a mistake on several grounds. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh, wasting editors' time on account of a vanityspam piece... not the best use of your time, if I may say so.  Sandstein  20:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly meets WP:PROF, and I know how to fix it. Dealing with this sort of bio is so very easy, for it mainly take some quick cutting, that I'll even do that for just slightly over borderline in my fields of interest. I know this means the notable & vain get articles ahead of the notable & modest, but that's the way of the world in & out of WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jami Floyd

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jami Floyd. 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. Schmidt, 21:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Richter vs Frassanito

Some time ago, I added a second sentence to the single-sentence paragraph which announces John Richter's proposed identification of Lincoln upon a horse at Gettysburg on Consecration Day, November 19, 1863. Possessing no photographic expertise of my own, I am compelled to rely upon the opinions of those who actually possess this expertise and are also recognized authorities.

Until I received the letter shown as a thumbnail at right, I was content to accept Richter's assertions. Today, searching for published works by John Richter at Amazon, I find none. The author of the letter shows seven publications on Amazon with 4 of them on the subject of photography at Gettysburg.

Weighing the quality of the website which announces Richter's finding versus the quality of the website which posts Frassanito's refutation is a difficult matter. When I entered the second sentence, I held the authority of Frassanito, as compared to Richter, as an overarching consideration. Might I add, I am not a personal friend of Frassanito and have never met him face-to-face.

Faced with a a single sentence and a assertion which, unless it is challenged, stands as uncontroverted fact, are we not obliged to present responsible opposing opinions? Is the intent implied by the Wikipedian rules governing 'source quality' to crown kings whose greatest claim-to-fame is a single sensational flash-in-the-pan? It is certain that Frassanito's refutation, removing the sensation and restoring the status quo, is doomed to media indifference.

The tortoise and the hare have taken altogether different routes to fame. Frassanito is not sufficiently threatened by Richter's assertion to re-issue one of his prior works with an appendix on Richter, but he could. Similarly, I am not personally bothered enough by your removal of my insertion to do more than type out my thoughts here.--Donaldecoho (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi - what article does this relate to and what do you want me to do? See also WP:GRA.  Sandstein  12:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address You removed a sentence, and I'm asking you to reconsider it's value and efficacy. That's all.--Donaldecoho (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your decision on Articles for deletion/Garadaghly Massacre (2nd nomination)

Hi, you have decided that a principal argument for deletion of the Garadaghly Massacre article was the national origin of the sources. Unfortunately your statement is not true and this was not the principal argument. The principal argument was, that the sources (no matter what national origin) used for the article are non-independent, governmental or pro-governmental sources and dead links. Thus the article's content severely fails the verifiability and neutral point of view policies. I therefore kindly ask you to revise your "result keep".--Markus2685 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, these concerns were also voiced, but there was no consensus that the article should be deleted for these reasons. And assessing the reliability of sources is an editorial decision based on consensus. Accordingly, I can't change my conclusion.  Sandstein  12:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As you said, the result was "no consensus" and not "keep" (which you have declared as a result).--Markus2685 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the result was no consensus about the specific argument you mention, but a "keep" overall after discounting the weak other argument about the national origin of sources. At any rate, the outcome is the same.  Sandstein  13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the reliability of sources I would like to hint to this section on information about Azerbaijani news agencies. These facts have completely been ignored in the discussion. It is provably false to treat Azerbaijan as any other Western Country when it comes to "national origin of sources".--Markus2685 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I would appreciate it if I wasn't blocked. It was an honest mistake, which I admitted to, and I promised that it wouldn't happen again. I even tried to undo my edit there, only to find that someone else already did so. For the record, nobody told me to revert myself at Beersheba. All they said was to not violate the topic ban any further.Evildoer187 (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hindu Taliban (2nd nomination)

I noticed that you closed the above discussion as No Consensus by discounting a couple of !votes. Though I have voted "delete" there and hence my opinions may be construted as biased, I respect your closure as an admin. I would like you to clarify why you chose to discredit the "delete" !votes of a couple of editors (who evidently didn't put forth policy based rationale) while not other "keep" !votes. Mar4d referenced a previous afd in their !vote and their further comments were rebutted IMO and Lyk4's opinions were convincingly rebutted without a reply from them to clarify. I've seen many an afd which were relisted multiple times since policy based opinions were few and far between. I cannot understand why you chose to close this instead of relisting. With so few participants, and the surge of participants after the previous relisting, I was expecting another relisting instead of a closure. I would highly appreciate if you could explain your rationale for this closure. Suraj T 13:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Per WP:RELIST, "relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended", and in this case I felt that there had been sufficient participation to establish a no consensus outcome. As concerns the "keep" opinions, I normally discount "keep" opinions only if they completely fail to address salient "delete" arguments. In this case, both "keep" opinions did address the relevant issue, i.e. sourcing, therefore I couldn't discount them. Whether these arguments were rebutted or not is not for me as closer to judge.  Sandstein  13:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of the AE issues and consequent bogus warning

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. You failed to address most of the substantive points I rasied, and only made it even clearer that you are missing most of the salient facts, and simply reacted in a knee-jerk fashion without doing any background research into the dispute. The fact that you did not even know about the AN that led up to the AE is why your warning makes no sense and is grossly inappropriate. Every accusation you have made about my post to AE

Update: Please note that User:Neotarf has now resigned editing because of your unfounded threat/warning. Note further that User:Noetica, another recipient, has already indicated, before your pointless boot dropped, intent to resign as well if sanctioned by AE for ultimately doing the right thing. I regret having criticized Noetica for taking such a stance, since I now find myself considering it, too. The "you can now be blocked without further notice by anyone with a hare up their butt" warning we received was based on errors and misinterpretations, unjust and invalid, and I'm not going to stand for being treated like a wikicriminal this way. I've devoted unbelievable amounts of time and effort to this project and I'll be damned if I'll be lynched for it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 13:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to your message on your talk page. I of course regret the resignation of any productive editor, but how and where they want to spend their time is ultimately their choice. I don't think that I'll be able to say much in this regard that I haven't said already on your talk page, so please do not consider it impolite if I choose not to reply to any continued messages concerning the warning I issued.  Sandstein  13:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Appalled and dismayed at your destructiveness

I tried to head this off. Now you've shown just how ham-fisted admins can be. How many excellent, valuable, talented editors have resigned over your needless "warnings".

I'm disgusted in your actions. Tony (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you say that, but I believe (and the other uninvolved administrator in the AE thread agreed) that I was acting within the remit of the Arbitration Committee's decision by warning them of the Committee's reminder not to personalize MOS disputes. While each decision by an editor to leave the project is regrettable, that decision is something I have no influence about. Fortunately, our experience indicates that not all such decisions are final.  Sandstein  13:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)