Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 27 January 2013 (→Question: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

WP:AN/I

Hello.

This message is to inform you that you are being mentioned ... no, just kidding.

But pls see my concern at WP:AN/I#Gossip may need revdel about the possible need for revdel'ing the user's talkpage.

Cheers

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here are some history versions needing revdel in my opinion:

Cheers

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

inre waaaay old news

Thirty-five months ago you brought a poorly sourced article on Jami Floyd to AFD. While I am in full agreement that the deleted version contained only one deadlink as a source and her awards were not explained, expanded, nor themselves sourced... I felt back then that issues were addressable under WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Sorry to say, but still feeling the issues were addressable, it took me until now to actually get to improving it (with help). I'd much appreciate your looking at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Jami Floyd to see if your concerns from 3 years ago have finally been addressed to the point where we have something to serve the project and its readers. Thanks, Schmidt, 22:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it certainly looks much better and, er, notabler now, so I have no inclination to renominate it for deletion if you restore it. Although I find the lead sentence – "Jami Floyd is a Multiracial American attorney" – rather irritating; our biographies normally don't begin with a racial label as though the color of a person's skin were the most important thing about them.  Sandstein  09:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Point well made. Schmidt, 19:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

AE

Wasn't that a bit quick on the close, I just plowed through most of the thread just now, and everyone seemed to be divided on the matter. Just out of curiosity.—cyberpower _Offline 04:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The editors commenting were certainly divided, but that's to be expected in the enforcement of a case that's apparently been very divisive (though I'm unfamiliar with the background). Normally, both sides of arbitrated disputes tend to show up at AE threads to support their respective side or friends. That's why I don't take the views of commentators into account very much, and that's why arbitration and its enforcement process aren't based on community consensus. Rather, uninvolved enforcing administrators are authorized to use their own discretion to determine whether an enforceable breach of sanctions has occurred. Consequently, what I principally look to are the views of other uninvolved administrators, which were rather less divided. At any rate, there are venues of appeal, either to the Arbitration Committee or conceivably to the community, in which the opinion of other people becomes important again.  Sandstein  09:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a truly disappointing statement Sandstein considering you allowed a deeply involved editor/admin to submit the AE. I would also note that Arbcom rarely support appeals and historically it has been judged that the Arbcom cannot be overruled by the community. Kumioko (talk)

I would've let the discussion go on for a little longer if only to see if consensus would've cleared up a bit. Oh well. Perhaps it's time to fine tune Rich's automation restrictions to make it a bright clear line instead of a dull vague one.—cyberpower _Online 03:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I posted a note as such on Rich's talk page. Although some in the community would try to argue otherwise I am less concerned about the sanction than in how it was created, how it was written and what its vaguely written verbage and openess to interpretation represents to the 5 pillars and our general editing policy.Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirect into a stand-alone list

Hi there. You closed this Afd, and redirected the article title to a stand-alone list. Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style Guideline for Stand-alone lists explicitly discourages redirects into Stand-alone lists: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Misplaced Pages". Could you please explain why you added a redirect into a stand-alone list even though Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style Guideline explicitly forbids it? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:CSC ("common selection criteria") is only an illustrative list of possible selection criteria; its subordination to the more general provisions at WP:LSC makes it clear that the criterion you cite is not the only possible selection criterion. What criteria to choose is up to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  15:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bechdel test

Hi, the reasons for the edit were given on the talk page, straight after I edited the main article. I'll restore my changes for the time being, and if you wish to discuss it further on the talk page, I'm happy to do so. Thanks for contacting me. Saint91 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

I have been working on this in preparing a comprehensive article for return to mainspace. An issue is the person's age. Many reliable sources have the birthyear as 1961, and the subject wishes that this be corrected... hopefully here, and eventually elsewhere. In communication with the subject I was sent copies of her birth certficate showing the birthdate to actually be September 10, 1964. As no media source can be cited for this information, how do I go about citing it to the birth cert copy, as I hate seeing a "" tag in a BLP. Schmidt, 20:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is this: if there is no reliable published source for the date of birth, it should be omitted altogether. If there are such sources saying 1961, these should be used. It is up to the subject to have them corrected if necessary, or they can publish their correct date of birth on their website, in which case we can note the discrepancy. Per WP:V, under no circumstances can we in any way rely on unpublished material such as e-mails or privately communicated birth certificates.  Sandstein  20:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)