Ryan Vesey (talk | contribs) →Consensus for edit request: new section |
I win again yes i do (talk | contribs) →I am NOT a banned user: new section |
||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
Dear Sandstein, the entire discussion for the edit request at {{t|Wikify}} took place in the sections above the request. The beginning of the idea is at [[Template talk:Wikify#Edit request on 13 May 2012]]. Various ideas were tried out and discussed at [[Template talk:Wikify#Possible alternatives]]. Finally editors explicitly stated their support at [[Template talk:Wikify#Support for an edit request]].<tt> </tt>[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']] [[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Vesey|<small>Review me!</small>]] 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
Dear Sandstein, the entire discussion for the edit request at {{t|Wikify}} took place in the sections above the request. The beginning of the idea is at [[Template talk:Wikify#Edit request on 13 May 2012]]. Various ideas were tried out and discussed at [[Template talk:Wikify#Possible alternatives]]. Finally editors explicitly stated their support at [[Template talk:Wikify#Support for an edit request]].<tt> </tt>[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']] [[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Vesey|<small>Review me!</small>]] 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
== I am NOT a banned user == |
|||
I am [[User:Throwaway666]] whom you blocked after just one edit and no warning. You alleged that I am a banned user. This is NOT TRUE. I am not a banned user. I fucking '''DARE YOU''' to block this account too as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Fuck, I dare you to '''checkuser me'''. I am not banned and I will celebrate that fact until the community fucking bans me for real. Now go eat some excrement. [[User:I win again yes i do|I win again yes i do]] ([[User talk:I win again yes i do|talk]]) 17:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:40, 17 May 2012
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or 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: [[example article]].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
ASMR page
Please restore the ASMR page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Sensory_Meridian_Response ). This is a real sensation that many people experience. I never knew what it was called until very recently and since learning about it I've been able to trigger it nearly on demand. I hope other people can learn about this sensation so that they will also be able to enjoy it more and the wiki page is one possible vector for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylon (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, the community discussed this and decided otherwise, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response. Sandstein 15:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I count 8 votes to keep among maybe 20. For something that returns over 9000 results on Youtube alone I think there's something noteworthy to be said, even if the name lends it a very pseudo-scientific air that could be misleading. The link I included in this comment suggests a topic's inclusion into Wikipedia seem very inconsistent.--Mylon (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. Can you please reconsider the deletion of the ASMR page? There are several communities dedicated to inducing this phenomena. There are devices manufactured and sold to induce it. There groups dedicated to finding research on the topic. As the above commenter mentions there are over nine thousand videos on Youtube which appear when you search for "ASMR". There is no doubt that this topic is notable, and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Our deletion process is not a vote; the strength of argument is taken into account. Here as there, the number of search results is not relevant; rather, coverage by reliable sources is, as explained at WP:GNG. Random websites, blogs and videos are not reliable sources because they have no editorial oversight. Sandstein 18:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously, not enough research was done before the arguments were made. There is a radio station dedicated to the phenomena - yet this seems to be held to a higher standard than insignificant genres of music. There is an ASMR day, which is every bit as legitimate as other made up days. There are news articles in major (editorialised) publications. This certainly needs the guidelines for notability for a phenomena of this kind. Please do not sideline this community without good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.76.153 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your disagreement is noted, but it does not change my assessment. The only thing approaching a reliable source you cite is the Huffington Post article, which per WP:MEDRS#Popular press is not appropriate as a (main) source in an article about a medical topic. If you still think my closure was inappropriate, you can appeal it at WP:DRV. Sandstein 12:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a medical topic. It will never appear in a medical journal for the same reason a genre of music won't. It is a sensation produced by a certain stimulus, and should be judged as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.76.153 (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- The IP has listed this at DRV here. Hut 8.5 15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. Sandstein 16:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I submitted a deletion review as suggested. Despite providing dozens more sources, someone who didn't even contribute to the discussion shut it down. Apparently this has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments, or the notability of the subject, but is purely because of some wikipedia-technicality. Isn't this something you should have know about before sending me to the WP:DRV page? I spent a week finding interesting articles from a wide variety of sources, and got insulted and treated like shit by deletionists, and all for nothing. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your disappointment is noted, but on Wikipedia as elsewhere you are not guaranteed to be successful at everything that you attempt. You should accept that Wikipedia has inclusion standards that your chosen topic does not comply with at this time, and move on. Sandstein 19:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing me that I may experience disappoint on Wikipedia as elsewhere. Now, given that this is a subject of much greater notability than most Wikipedia articles, and that there are dozens of citations to show that, how do I create an article on the subject? I'd appreciate it if this time you did not waste my time. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Then, to avoid further disappointment and time-wasting on your part, I won't respond. Please feel free to avail yourself of the WP:Helpdesk if you are in need of further assistance. Sandstein 20:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is this how you usually treat people who are trying to add informed articles to Wikipedia? Why did you respond at all, if only to be rude? It seems that if your time was valuable, you would not responded, and if you had the time you would respond with a serious answer? I don't see the point of going to the helppage if my hardwork will be deleted by you. Can you please be civil this time? 62.254.76.153 (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Then, to avoid further disappointment and time-wasting on your part, I won't respond. Please feel free to avail yourself of the WP:Helpdesk if you are in need of further assistance. Sandstein 20:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing me that I may experience disappoint on Wikipedia as elsewhere. Now, given that this is a subject of much greater notability than most Wikipedia articles, and that there are dozens of citations to show that, how do I create an article on the subject? I'd appreciate it if this time you did not waste my time. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your disappointment is noted, but on Wikipedia as elsewhere you are not guaranteed to be successful at everything that you attempt. You should accept that Wikipedia has inclusion standards that your chosen topic does not comply with at this time, and move on. Sandstein 19:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I submitted a deletion review as suggested. Despite providing dozens more sources, someone who didn't even contribute to the discussion shut it down. Apparently this has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments, or the notability of the subject, but is purely because of some wikipedia-technicality. Isn't this something you should have know about before sending me to the WP:DRV page? I spent a week finding interesting articles from a wide variety of sources, and got insulted and treated like shit by deletionists, and all for nothing. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. Sandstein 16:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- The IP has listed this at DRV here. Hut 8.5 15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a medical topic. It will never appear in a medical journal for the same reason a genre of music won't. It is a sensation produced by a certain stimulus, and should be judged as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.76.153 (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your disagreement is noted, but it does not change my assessment. The only thing approaching a reliable source you cite is the Huffington Post article, which per WP:MEDRS#Popular press is not appropriate as a (main) source in an article about a medical topic. If you still think my closure was inappropriate, you can appeal it at WP:DRV. Sandstein 12:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously, not enough research was done before the arguments were made. There is a radio station dedicated to the phenomena - yet this seems to be held to a higher standard than insignificant genres of music. There is an ASMR day, which is every bit as legitimate as other made up days. There are news articles in major (editorialised) publications. This certainly needs the guidelines for notability for a phenomena of this kind. Please do not sideline this community without good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.76.153 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Our deletion process is not a vote; the strength of argument is taken into account. Here as there, the number of search results is not relevant; rather, coverage by reliable sources is, as explained at WP:GNG. Random websites, blogs and videos are not reliable sources because they have no editorial oversight. Sandstein 18:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters
Greetings! I would like to discuss the recent closure of the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters article. You elected to delete the article on the basis that Moonriddengirl's argument demonstrated that copyright violation had occurred. However, Moonriddengirl stated that she agreed with my assessment that the article constituted fair use, the only real argument for deletion was that we should be more conservative that fair use guidelines per US law. The only question remains is how much more conservative. As there is no clear guideline here, is it really appropriate to delete the article without consensus? - Sangrolu (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am preparing a DRV and hope to have it ready within an hour. BOZ (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Since you indicated in your rational that this may go to DRV, I am proceeding on that venue. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. 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.
DRV on UFC 27
Now the DRV has been closed what is the procedure to clear up after the history restore at the article ? Mtking (edits) 05:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Survived an AfD, but some who sought deletion are now [1] and [2] trying the old "deletion by removal of all the content" maneuver -- well, over 95% of the content <g>. Including an insertion of a tag that it now only uses one source! Cheers - I find this sort of "stealth deletion" (used in the past by one of the same editors, by the way) to be abhorrent. Collect (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- After RfC was started, TFD repeated his bold removal of essentially the entire article. I asked him to self-revert, but it looks like he feels that he can "win" by simply deleting everything over and over without even seeking a consensus. Sigh! Collect (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds like a content dispute that I'm not really interested in, sorry. Sandstein 19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is, in fact, a behaviour issue. A "content dispute" would be maybe a few hundred words or so -- 95+% is well beyond "content dispute." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- The question whether the concept as previously described in the article is OR or not sounds like a bona fide content dispute to me. In view of the "no consensus" outcome in the AfD, it's also hard to say that this goes against any pre-existing consensus (that I know of). At any rate, I suppose you know what you can do per WP:DR: get more people involved via WP:3O or WP:RfC. Sandstein 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- An RfC was opened. I commented (so far, I'm the only one!). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- The question whether the concept as previously described in the article is OR or not sounds like a bona fide content dispute to me. In view of the "no consensus" outcome in the AfD, it's also hard to say that this goes against any pre-existing consensus (that I know of). At any rate, I suppose you know what you can do per WP:DR: get more people involved via WP:3O or WP:RfC. Sandstein 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is, in fact, a behaviour issue. A "content dispute" would be maybe a few hundred words or so -- 95+% is well beyond "content dispute." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds like a content dispute that I'm not really interested in, sorry. Sandstein 19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!
Helpful Hero! | |
Hello, my mentor used your signature as a basis for mine, and I wanted to say thank you. If you are not OK with me using the same color scheme, please let me know so I can change it! :) Ax1om77 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
- Er, thanks. You can use what you want for a sig, but I suggest a slight color change so that your sig is not easily mistaken for mine. For example, Ax1om77 Sandstein 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Ax1om77 20:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Consensus for edit request
Dear Sandstein, the entire discussion for the edit request at {{Wikify}} took place in the sections above the request. The beginning of the idea is at Template talk:Wikify#Edit request on 13 May 2012. Various ideas were tried out and discussed at Template talk:Wikify#Possible alternatives. Finally editors explicitly stated their support at Template talk:Wikify#Support for an edit request. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I am NOT a banned user
I am User:Throwaway666 whom you blocked after just one edit and no warning. You alleged that I am a banned user. This is NOT TRUE. I am not a banned user. I fucking DARE YOU to block this account too as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Fuck, I dare you to checkuser me. I am not banned and I will celebrate that fact until the community fucking bans me for real. Now go eat some excrement. I win again yes i do (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)