Revision as of 16:42, 1 May 2018 editSheriffIsInTown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,137 edits →Clarification requestedTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:53, 1 May 2018 edit undoSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,256 edits Undid revision 839154745 by SheriffIsInTown (talk), read, no action takenTag: UndoNext edit → | ||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
I have thrown out the last three articles that I had on my watchlist that were part of the "forbidden fields". But I like a tiny bit clarification to prevent accidents. I do not know what companies are active in the "forbidden fields" beyond three of them. Is it a violation when I come across navigation templates with links to disambiguation pages and I fix those links? (of course not when a template is clearly a forbidden field, then I stay away all together). <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 08:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | I have thrown out the last three articles that I had on my watchlist that were part of the "forbidden fields". But I like a tiny bit clarification to prevent accidents. I do not know what companies are active in the "forbidden fields" beyond three of them. Is it a violation when I come across navigation templates with links to disambiguation pages and I fix those links? (of course not when a template is clearly a forbidden field, then I stay away all together). <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 08:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | ||
:I can't really say much more than: in case of doubt, do not make the edit. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | :I can't really say much more than: in case of doubt, do not make the edit. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | ||
==You've got mail== | |||
{{You've got mail}} ] | ] | 16:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:53, 1 May 2018
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.
Deletion Review 2018 April 17
How on earth did you come to the conclusion that Gunter Bechly article should remain deleted? I provided several sources on top of those provided in the earlier review, and none of those who endorsed the deletion provided any valid arguments founded on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Most of them didn't even bother to provide any arguments at all. Please don't make me seek more formal arbitration. Snoopydaniels (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I myself do not have an opinion on the matter. I only determined that at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 17 there was consensus among other editors to endorse the previous DRV outcome. Sandstein 06:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what a consensus is, according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. From WP:Consensus:
"Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines."
- Simply adding Endorse to a DRV is nothing more than voting. The advocates of deletion did not present any legitimate concerns based on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. You are in no way obligated to take their votes or personal objections into account, nor should you.Snoopydaniels (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I note that you disagree with the opinions for deletion, but whether the deletion as such was correct is not the issue here. What I had to determine was whether the DRV discussion established consensus for overturning the previous DRV decision and the deletion decision. That is clearly not the case. Sandstein 16:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- You are still confusing "majority opinion" with "consensus." The opponents of the DRV did not present any legitimate concerns based upon Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. That means that their objections were completely irrelevant to establishing a consensus as defined by WP:Consensus.Snoopydaniels (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- We'll have to disagree about that. Sandstein 20:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's a cop out. If you can't justify your decision, then you need to reverse it and open the DRV back up (if such a thing is possible.)Snoopydaniels (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- We'll have to disagree about that. Sandstein 20:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- You are still confusing "majority opinion" with "consensus." The opponents of the DRV did not present any legitimate concerns based upon Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. That means that their objections were completely irrelevant to establishing a consensus as defined by WP:Consensus.Snoopydaniels (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I note that you disagree with the opinions for deletion, but whether the deletion as such was correct is not the issue here. What I had to determine was whether the DRV discussion established consensus for overturning the previous DRV decision and the deletion decision. That is clearly not the case. Sandstein 16:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Simply adding Endorse to a DRV is nothing more than voting. The advocates of deletion did not present any legitimate concerns based on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. You are in no way obligated to take their votes or personal objections into account, nor should you.Snoopydaniels (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Notifying
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Günter Bechly. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- (by talk reader) @Robert McClenon: Your discussion is at AN, not ANI. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Alterra Mountain Company deletion
Hello,
I respectfully request review or re-opening of the deletion decision of Alterra_Mountain_Company. See Talk page for further discussion. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- The article is currently not deleted. I don't see what more could be done. Sandstein 18:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies for being a bit new to the deletion portion of wikipedia, but the deletion policy page says WP:XFD "To implement a 'delete' outcome: close the deletion discussion as 'delete'; delete the page, and link to the deletion discussion in the deletion summary...". It appears you closed the discussion as delete but didn't delete the page. I'd like for the page to remain, at least pending further discussion on the Talk page. If you're not planning to implement the delete, that's fine but I suppose any editor could implement the deletion at this point and point to the AFD result to justify doing so. Any idea how to prevent that? Can closing editors re-open an AFD discussion? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Somebody recreated the article after I deleted it per the AfD. The new version is substantially different from the deleted one, so it will not be deleted via WP:G4 unless somebody renominates it for deletion. Maybe the original nominator, DGG (talk · contribs), has an opinion about this. Sandstein 18:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. That explains things. Nothing more for you to do here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Article Joseph Steinberg
Please restore the article Joseph Steinberg and allow for discussion in the AFD. You deleted and salted the article without enough input on the discussion and without proper WP:BEFORE. I am the creator and just saw your message today. I created that article a few years ago after discussing with the Administrator who deleted the prior version that Joseph Steinberg had become notable since the last version was deleted. That Administrator agreed and I created the article. He meets the notability requirements of WP:AUTHOR for all of the reasons listed there. He is clearly “widely cited by peers or successors”. He is clearly "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". You can check his Google Scholar Page or the thousands or millions of times he has been quoted by his peers in the media and his field in the last few years. The reason for salting is also wrong and shows that WP:BEFORE was not done as the prior articles were deleted a decade and 1/2 decade ago when he was not notable but a lot can change in a decade or 1/2 decade which is why the previous Administrator and I recreated the article. Take a look at the number and dates of citations in Google Scholar and quotations in the media. There appear to be over 12,000 results when searching for how many times he was quoted about Heartbleed and that is from only one article of his and he has written probably a thousand articles. He is quoted about his field by BBC, Reuters, USA Today, Forbes, Fox, and many other WP:RS. Add all of his articles up and search for quotations and it surely will become many millions of times. The Misplaced Pages article may need work and I am not an expert to make it its best but a review will show that it should definitely be included in Misplaced Pages. Please restore it and let the AFD discussion happen. Thetechgirl (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Declined. There have been four AfDs, all of which resulted in deletion. That is more than enough opportunity for discussion. Sandstein 19:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- That is a bad argument. All of the previous AFDs were before he was notable. Two were over a decade ago. I recreated the article after the Administrator who did the third delete agreed to restore it because he had become notable. The discussion about if a living person is notable is supposed to be based on if that person is notable, not if that person was notable a decade ago. Please restore it and let a discussion take place. Thetechgirl (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Again, declined. The last AfD ran for two weeks, more than enough time, and you do not submit any compelling sources here, only search results and the like. Sandstein 19:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- How many sources do you want me to list for you so that you will restore it and let it go to AFD? Thetechgirl (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Up to three of the best sources that have not previously been discussed at AfD. Sandstein 19:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I’m not sure what the best means but there are probably millions of quotations from his articles online. But here are a few I found in obvious WP:RS. The Google Scholar page also shows about 200 citations by other people of him in journals and patents in the last few years after the last AFD. There is no way that he is not notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Here's a few with quotations that describe him as an expert Here’s a few with his name in the headline All are after the last AFD deletion. You can find thousands more articles with him mentioned as an expert if you search. Thetechgirl (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the first three articles, they merely cite Steinberg as a source, but they do not say anything about him that could be used as the basis of an article. Substantial coverage, rather than mentions, is required per WP:GNG. I will take no action and will not respond further. Sandstein 19:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I’m not sure what the best means but there are probably millions of quotations from his articles online. But here are a few I found in obvious WP:RS. The Google Scholar page also shows about 200 citations by other people of him in journals and patents in the last few years after the last AFD. There is no way that he is not notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Here's a few with quotations that describe him as an expert Here’s a few with his name in the headline All are after the last AFD deletion. You can find thousands more articles with him mentioned as an expert if you search. Thetechgirl (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Up to three of the best sources that have not previously been discussed at AfD. Sandstein 19:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- How many sources do you want me to list for you so that you will restore it and let it go to AFD? Thetechgirl (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Again, declined. The last AfD ran for two weeks, more than enough time, and you do not submit any compelling sources here, only search results and the like. Sandstein 19:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- That is a bad argument. All of the previous AFDs were before he was notable. Two were over a decade ago. I recreated the article after the Administrator who did the third delete agreed to restore it because he had become notable. The discussion about if a living person is notable is supposed to be based on if that person is notable, not if that person was notable a decade ago. Please restore it and let a discussion take place. Thetechgirl (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Clarification requested
I have thrown out the last three articles that I had on my watchlist that were part of the "forbidden fields". But I like a tiny bit clarification to prevent accidents. I do not know what companies are active in the "forbidden fields" beyond three of them. Is it a violation when I come across navigation templates with links to disambiguation pages and I fix those links? (of course not when a template is clearly a forbidden field, then I stay away all together). The Banner talk 08:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I can't really say much more than: in case of doubt, do not make the edit. Sorry. Sandstein 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)