Writegeist (talk | contribs) |
AzureCitizen (talk | contribs) Added note |
||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
:"Retirement" has for all practical purposes no meaning on Wikipedia. Yes, the user is very angry and does not seem to behave constructively overall, but... what do you want me to do? I'm not sure that the situation is sufficiently clear to warrant administrative action. Have you tried any formal [[WP:DR]]? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC) |
:"Retirement" has for all practical purposes no meaning on Wikipedia. Yes, the user is very angry and does not seem to behave constructively overall, but... what do you want me to do? I'm not sure that the situation is sufficiently clear to warrant administrative action. Have you tried any formal [[WP:DR]]? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
::No I just meant if he genuninely intended to retire in the permanent sense then the behaviour's downward spiral would be of no concern. As the retirement will almost certainly prove temporary, the apparent unwillingness to rein in the temper and abandon the egregious personal insults will lead to a block, sooner or later, to protect against further instances. Whereas a word of friendly advice from an independent, non-aggressive admin about collegial discussion (or at least about the undesirability of repeatedly calling co-editors on article talk pages assholes or fucking hypocrites or whatever) might help prevent the drama. I realize your mileage may vary. Anyway, thanks for your time. [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 21:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC) |
::No I just meant if he genuninely intended to retire in the permanent sense then the behaviour's downward spiral would be of no concern. As the retirement will almost certainly prove temporary, the apparent unwillingness to rein in the temper and abandon the egregious personal insults will lead to a block, sooner or later, to protect against further instances. Whereas a word of friendly advice from an independent, non-aggressive admin about collegial discussion (or at least about the undesirability of repeatedly calling co-editors on article talk pages assholes or fucking hypocrites or whatever) might help prevent the drama. I realize your mileage may vary. Anyway, thanks for your time. [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 21:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
==Problematic editor== |
|||
Hello, Sandstein. I noticed you declined the unblock request from [[Special:Contributions/Yeoberry|User:Yeoberry]]. I think this editor is problematic in more ways than one and would like to point something out separate and apart from the edit warring. Take a look at this article: [[Covenant Reformed Baptist Church]]. Check the history, 99% of it was recently created by the editor (take note he also deleted the notability tag [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covenant_Reformed_Baptist_Church&diff=534506256&oldid=534500946 here]). In it, a Mr. John B. Carpenter figures prominently who "earned a Ph.D. in church history". Compare that information to the edit summaries seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Council_of_Nicaea&diff=prev&oldid=505847961 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_Hieria&diff=prev&oldid=506106912 here], as well as the fact that the editor reverted and re-inserted something he wrote from a theological journal he wrote in 2001, back into another article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Great_Awakening&diff=538224054&oldid=538223594 here]. Regards, [[User:AzureCitizen|AzureCitizen]] ([[User talk:AzureCitizen|talk]]) 22:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:16, 8 March 2013
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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Taliban (2nd nomination)
You closed this as a no consensus, I began a merger discussion here during which I found an academic source which says "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" India: A Global Studies Handbook p126. Am I correct then in assuming that the Hindu Taliban article is nothing more than a POV fork of hindutva? I was thinking of nominating it for deletion based on this but as the previous AFD was so recent I am unsure. Can you offer any advice? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know whether you are correct then in assuming that; I have no knowledge about the topic. In principle, you should renominate articles for deletion only if there is substantial new information that could lead to a different outcome, or if our inclusion standards have since substantially changed. Sandstein 18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Checking on an old page
Hi Sandstein, Hope you are doing well.
I just want to check how can I edit this page (which was deleted earlier) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DinCloud,_Inc.
I work at this company, and I agree that 1 year ago we were just a start-up with very limited coverage by media and analysts. 2012 was a very successful year for us, and we gained a lot of (natural) attention by media and research analysts/firms. Now I would like to request you guys, if you can allow me to draft this page, to feature my company info.
Would appreciate your response.
Many thanks.
202.125.141.50 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. The article DinCloud, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DinCloud, Inc.. Can you please provide links to such media coverage as would allow the company to pass the inclusion guideline WP:GNG now? Sandstein 11:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. Please see below few articles from well-known sources (i.e. CIO.com, Microsoft, TechTarget, etc.)
by TechTarget (an authority in IT and cloud computing niche): http://searchstoragechannel.techtarget.com/news/2240170642/DinCloud-partners-with-NetApp-for-new-cloud-backup-DR-service
451 Research - A leading research company in IT and Cloud computing space: https://451research.com/report-short?entityId=75792
by CIO.com (they ranked us in top 10 hot cloud startups - see #6) http://www.cio.com.au/article/455545/10_hot_cloud_startups_watch/
by Microsoft - The did a case-study on our cloud-based solution: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=710000001352
By PC World, Network World, and CIO.com (ranked in top 5 cloud hosted desktop providers) http://www.pcworld.com/article/255906/consider_desktops_in_the_cloud_for_byod.html?page=3 http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2012/052112-desktop-as-a-service-test-259090.html?page=3 http://www.cio.com/article/706752/Consider_Desktops_in_the_Cloud_for_BYOD?page=3&taxonomyId=3024
by TMCnet - a global, integrated media company (on our 500% growth in 2012) http://it.tmcnet.com/topics/it/articles/2012/12/12/319521-dincloud-continues-record-growth-focuses-cloud-storage.htm
by SMBnation (on our release of NetApp-based second-site replication service) http://www.smbnation.com/index.php/content/news/entry/dincloud-releases-second-site-replication-service
By CRN - the top news source for solution providers and the IT channel.
On winning the 2013 Channel Chief Award: http://www.crn.com/channel-chiefs/cc2013-details.htm?c=214
Our CTO and company: http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/channel-programs/240149855/30-notable-it-executive-moves-february-2013.htm?pgno=31
Please do let me know, if you need any more reference.
202.125.141.50 (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- That does sound as though the company is now notable enough. However, since you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI), you should not recreate the article yourself. You may use the processes Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia:Articles for creation to ask others to recreate it, though. Sandstein 17:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Is it possible that you can restore the article to my user space? Maybe I can help the IP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly. It's at User:A Quest For Knowledge/DinCloud. Sandstein 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Is it possible that you can restore the article to my user space? Maybe I can help the IP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Thanks!
- @202.125.141.50: If you want, you can work on the article in my user space. Just remember you're not writing a promotional piece. Try to keep the language fair and neutral. I made some minor changes to tone the language down.[1] Feel free to ask any questions you have on my talk page. We also have a Wikipedia:Help desk where you can ask questions. When you feel the article's ready, I can move it to main article space for you. Good luck. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Query re: blocked IP
Hello Sandstein, I wondered if you could assist me. I was doing some research after realising my IP was blocked. I only found out yesterday and it expired total. I was blocked as my IP was linked to an account called Havengore. On the admin notice board I have noticed you had blocked this person indef. now , I am in no way linked to him or know any of the people he has been editing yet there are claims I am. How can I rectify this and should I be concerned that Havengore appears to have the same IP as me? Thank you for your advice. (86.130.197.194 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
- Hi. If you are not Havengore, I recommend creating a user account, as this will hide your IP, and also prevent you from being affected from most IP or IP range blocks. It is not uncommon for users to share IP ranges, so you need not be particularly concerned. Sandstein 17:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. I am engaged in some discussions about COI editing and wanted to get your opinion specifically about the state of policy regarding corporate representatives, pr professionals, and paid freelance article writers. Those editors would all be paid, of course. Do you believe that these editors are inherently advocates by the nature of their external relationships with clients/employers, or rather that whether they are doing "paid advocacy" depends on their behavior and edits. My current reading of WP:NOPAY suggests that these editors are not prohibited from participating here, but that they are very strongly discouraged from editing directly, unless the edits are clearly uncontroversial. I'd appreciate your feedback, since I want to make sure I'm not unclear about the guideline as currently written. Best, Ocaasi t | c 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's a difficult and largely unresolved wikiphilosopical dispute, and I'm not sure where the balance of opinion is at the moment. I tend to believe that in theory paid editing should be disallowed because paid editors are inherently non-neutral, but that in practice tolerating paid editing with the expectation that it is completely transparent and subject to review is the better option, because otherwise paid editors are just incentivized to cover their tracks well, and at any rate there are other causes of non-neutral editing, such as ideology or faith, which would be much more problematic to sanction. Kind of like the war on drugs, where in theory prohibiting drugs is a good idea, but in practice it tends not to work. I think that your current reading of the guideline is correct, and that paid editors are in practice only tolerated to the extent they behave exceptionally well and attract no community attention of any kind. Sandstein 19:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your considered response. I am drafting some comment questions in an attempt to further clarify our approach in this area. Would you take a look and see if you think the scope and presentation of those questions could be fair, useful, and effective in doing so? Link: User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 22:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- These sound like reasonable questions to me, but I haven't followed the issue closely enough to be certain how they may be received. Sandstein 07:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your considered response. I am drafting some comment questions in an attempt to further clarify our approach in this area. Would you take a look and see if you think the scope and presentation of those questions could be fair, useful, and effective in doing so? Link: User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 22:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration amendment regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Hi Sandstein, this is a message to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has past a motion regarding a request clarification you submitted on the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. The full text of the amendment can be seen here, and the full discussion here. Feel free to discuss this on the Arbitration Committee's Noticeboard talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thanks to the arbitrators for addressing this ambiguity. Sandstein 06:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
User in difficulties
A particular editor's comments at the Fascism talk page [2] [3] and at the UTP of one of his co-editors [4] may need some attention. Although he announced his latest retirement on Feb 26, he has continued posting in this increasingly vituperative vein while the retirement banner has been on his user page; he removed it at last today, with an edit summary saying it "will be restored in a day, after I say my mind on that asshole user at Talk:Fascism, then I'm gone." This will be his third or fourth "retirement". Please would you take a look? Writegeist (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Retirement" has for all practical purposes no meaning on Wikipedia. Yes, the user is very angry and does not seem to behave constructively overall, but... what do you want me to do? I'm not sure that the situation is sufficiently clear to warrant administrative action. Have you tried any formal WP:DR? Sandstein 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- No I just meant if he genuninely intended to retire in the permanent sense then the behaviour's downward spiral would be of no concern. As the retirement will almost certainly prove temporary, the apparent unwillingness to rein in the temper and abandon the egregious personal insults will lead to a block, sooner or later, to protect against further instances. Whereas a word of friendly advice from an independent, non-aggressive admin about collegial discussion (or at least about the undesirability of repeatedly calling co-editors on article talk pages assholes or fucking hypocrites or whatever) might help prevent the drama. I realize your mileage may vary. Anyway, thanks for your time. Writegeist (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Problematic editor
Hello, Sandstein. I noticed you declined the unblock request from User:Yeoberry. I think this editor is problematic in more ways than one and would like to point something out separate and apart from the edit warring. Take a look at this article: Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. Check the history, 99% of it was recently created by the editor (take note he also deleted the notability tag here). In it, a Mr. John B. Carpenter figures prominently who "earned a Ph.D. in church history". Compare that information to the edit summaries seen here and here, as well as the fact that the editor reverted and re-inserted something he wrote from a theological journal he wrote in 2001, back into another article here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)