Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:17, 11 October 2011

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Removal of RFC & Section

Hi there,

Clarification sought on the removal of the RFC and corresponding sectionh

"Consensus is that the words "The Catastrophe" and "al-Nakba" should not be boldfaced because they are not alternate appellations for the subject of the article, but refer to a separate (albeit related) topic, the 1948 Palestinian exodus"

1. Twelve (of some 30) secondary sources were provided to show additional names/alternate appellations. They were not discussed or addressed in any manner whatsoever

2. 'refer to' but are not 'the name of' a separate (albeit related) topic, which is 1948 Palestinian exodus

3. "known to ... as" is already synonymous with "... refer to as"

4. Although I asked several times, no one could point to a ruling in WP:MOS whereby a proper noun/name should not be afforded boldface because it refers to, but is not the name of, a separate article

Consensus was not reached in a manner that conformed to any actual WP guideline, nor were the provided secondary sources addressed ... talknic (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that these arguments did not sway consensus in your favor. On Misplaced Pages, we have to abide by a consensus outcome even if we do not agree with it.  Sandstein  07:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely the basis on which consensus is reached is critical

"Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Misplaced Pages's principles"

"editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense."

"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. " ... talknic (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

YOu gave a notice to a disruptive IP regarding specific article, however it is renewed his "cleaning" operations again, which in my opinion constitutes definition of vandalism. Wouldn't you are? M.K. (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's nationalist POV-pushing, which is not the same thing as vandalism. That's an AE matter and can be addressed at WP:AE; I've stopped being active in that though.  Sandstein  12:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the IP's edits, which are all related to nationalist POV-pushing, I've blocked it for 6 months.  Sandstein  12:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Need your opinion here as an uninvolved member

Hi Sandstein, Can you look into point 7 here as an uinvolved party Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Ed and I have no interest in that, sorry.  Sandstein  13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I thought you might (if you feel) give feedback on the ineffectivenes of the current mechanism. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Kittybrewster.com

I (gently) resent it being labelled as an unreliable external link. I agree it is not a WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant, because it is self-published. Sorry for any offense. Nonetheless WP:BLP is clear: "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Self-published sources should not be included in the 'External links' sections".  Sandstein  13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)