→Refernce for the PC-7 Team: new section |
Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) →RfC on Oathkeeper regarding expert SPS criteria: new section |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
Thank you |
Thank you |
||
[[User:FFA P-16|FFA P-16]] ([[User talk:FFA P-16|talk]]) 23:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
[[User:FFA P-16|FFA P-16]] ([[User talk:FFA P-16|talk]]) 23:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
== RfC on Oathkeeper regarding expert SPS criteria == |
|||
You are being contacted because you have made substantial edits to the article [[Oathkeeper]]. |
|||
There is an RfC at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC:_Is_Westeros.org_a_suitable_source_for_this_content.3F Oathkeeper] regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." Participation is welcome. 00:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:06, 3 September 2014
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.
GIADA
Dear Sandstein, I am writing to you as you deleted our article "GIADA". Our intention in creating the article GIADA was not really to be promotional, we would really appreciate to be part of your project but we are quite new on Wikipedia and our errors might be due to that. We think that our presence on Wikipedia would be worth both for us and for you. Our sources are notable as are the major newspapers and magazines in Italy. We would really appreciate if you could help us in improving our article so that it can stay on Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your support. Silvia.gasparri (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. GIADA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIADA. That discussion resulted in consensus to delete the article. But the discussion was sparsely attended, so I can reopen it if you can cite specific sources that show that GIADA meets the requirements for an article described at WP:GNG. Sandstein 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for your precious feedback. I'm providing here some references showing that GIADA meets the requirements for an article described at WP:GNG. Many of them are in Italian, of course we are willing and available to provide translation if necessary, and, if you give us an email, we can send you the scan of paper sources. All of these sources are Italian famous magazines, some are major national press release or dossiers. There is more publication that we can provide upon request. We would be really grateful if you could reopen the discussion.
- Catalano, Sofia. "Torna a casa il marchio italiano che ha fatto fortuna in Cina", Corriere della Sera, 7 September 2013, p. 41
- Sacchi, Annachiara. "Monte Napoleone, un business da 3 miliardi", Corriere della Sera Milano, Milano, 15 September 2013
- Ferré, Giusi. "Giada. Così la Cina entra nel salotto del lusso", Corriere economia, 9 September 2013, p. 10.
- “Giada: la campagna pubblicitaria”, d.repubblica.it, 6 September 2013.
- Pacella, Giulia. "Il luxury brand Giada arriva a Milano", elle.it, 5 September 2013.
- “Giada svela il nuovo concept store di via Montenapoleone", fashionmagazine.it’’, 5 September 2013.
- Verratti, Gabriele. "Giada: Flagship store a Milano", grazia.it’’, 6 September 2013.
- Boisi, Antonella. "Maison Giada", Interni Magazine, November 2013 Italian issue, p. 32-37.
- Boisi, Antonella. "Maison Giada", Interni Magazine, November 2013 English issue, p. 102.
- Boisi, Antonella. "Maison Giada", ‘’Internimagazine.it’’, 24 December 2013.
- Asnaghi, Laura. "Aprono negozi e hotel, il lusso sfida la crisi", [La Repubblica Milano], 6 September 2013, p. 6.
- “Giada alza il velo sul negozio in Montenapo”, pambianconews.com, 5 September 2013.
- "Aperture di lusso in Montenapo, inaugura anche Giada", pambianconews.com, 23 September 2013.
- Sortino, Max. "Giada apre a Milano", ‘’Vogue.it’’, 6 September 2013.
- Giusi, Ferrè. “GIADA, HIGH LUXURY-ITALOCINESE”, iodonna.it, 15 September 2013.
Silvia.gasparri (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've reopened the deletion discussion. Sandstein 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks so much. Do you think that it might be useful to rewrite the article in order to make it more objective and encyclopedic? In case, can we proceed to rewriting now, even though the article is under discussion? We would really appreciate any comments and/or suggestions from you. Thanks so much again.
(Silvia.gasparri (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC))
- Yes, you may in principle edit the article while its deletion is being discussed. This may influence the opinion of those participating in the deletion discussion. See generally WP:GACR for ways how to improve an article's quality. But if you are associated with GIADA, you should also follow the advice at WP:COI. Sandstein 11:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. At User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/August#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup, I asked you to restore 2011 Match World Cup, 2012 Match World Cup, and 2013 Match World Cup and redirect them to Matchworld Cup.
You said in response to me and Nickst (talk · contribs) that you wanted to wait until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchworld Cup concluded. The AfD has now been closed as keep. Would you restore and redirect those articles? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- After looking at this again, I don't think that any of the previous discussions resulted in consensus that the notability of the event in general implies the notability of the individual, annual events. These articles would therefore need to undergo deletion review also, or maybe you can discuss this with the original AfD closer. Sandstein 06:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have followed your advice and have taken these event articles to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 28#Match World Cup annual event articles for a community review to restore and redirect them to Matchworld Cup. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Novelization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London After Midnight. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
a welcome picture
Hi, there's really too much bureaucracy for me to handle but I think you are a right person to ask for clarifications (I hope). My question was raised here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Painting_a_welcome_picture. I'd be happy to move this elsewhere but, from the little I've seen, I'd be weary of political assassination. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Several months ago you deleted this article after closing its AfD. I have since discovered significant new information which I think might justify undeleting the article. I have discovered two new sources which appear to say that Andrews was awarded the Order of the Crown of Romania in the rank of Commander. I think it is likely that this award satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The two sources are:
- Bates Student, vol 57 (1929 - 1930), 10 May 1929, p 2, col 3 Internet Archive
- The New Pioneer (1945 or 1946) vol 4 (published by the Cultural Association for Americans of Romanian Descent) Google Books: [1] [2]
This information was not included in the deleted article or mentioned at the AfD. I think it is reasonable to assume that none of the participants was aware of it. I certainly wasn't, and I was the one looking hardest for sources.
Do I need to go to deletion review to have this article reinstated? James500 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you need to. Awards such as this only make a person "likely to be notable", and "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", according to WP:BIO. I think that such awards are merely an indication that sources probably exist about a person that can be used as the basis of a biography about them, but if you've already looked for those, it's not going to help much. Sandstein 05:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't know. That's up to the people at DRV to decide, I suppose. Sandstein 10:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Depopulating a category tree
Hello — About a month ago you closed this RFC with the result of no consensus to make a change in the group-page text. The user who opened the RFC has interpreted your closure as a personal assignment to him to depopulate Category:Anti-Semitism and all related categories. Please check his recent edit list, and note that he is systematically removing categories from literally hundreds of articles, and in his edit summaries citing this RFC as the reason.
A number of editors, including myself, have objected, noting that there was no conclusion that anything should be changed; that there seems to have been no assignment made, to him or to anyone; and that his bulk deletions are frequently contradictory to the content and cited sources of the affected articles.
As the closing administrator, may I ask if mass deletion of categories from articles was your intent or expectation?
Thank you for your time in checking on this.
Unician ∇ 07:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. As I told that user then, I only established whether there was consensus to change the text on the category page and determined that there was not. I did not find consensus to systematically remove pages from the category; that was not discussed in the RfC. Sandstein 08:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your very quick response. I believe that the editor in question is doing damage to the encyclopedia as WP:DISRUPTPOINT, and I believe that, should this be noticed by external media, it has potential to bring disrepute to the project. Other editors have noticed this disruption. Which of the various channels of problem resolution would be most appropriate for bringing this ongoing damage to a prompt and enduring halt? Unician ∇ 11:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know, as I haven't followed this situation closely. A well-attended community discussion about whether there is consensus for such removals would seem appropriate to me, off the cuff. Sandstein 11:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also, because these edits relate (often) to living persons, the topic area is covered by WP:AC/DS. If it becomes clear that such removals are disruptive, about which I don't have an opinion at the moment, they might be grounds for a request for discretionary sanctions at WP:AE. Sandstein 11:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think the root cause of the problem has been the ignore-not-challenge approach to the original CFDs, not helped by at least one user taking an attitude that they can personally overturn it by shouting "WP:BURO" or "there is no consensus because I do not consent", and refusing to accept the validity of the location and the outcome of that discussion so doesn't try to get it reviewed or launch a new one but instead edit-wars then launches awkwardly focused discussions. Some users have followed the instructions on this and other categories and removed individuals & groups accordingly. Others have not hence and this has led to them piling up in the category, not helped by edit wars on both the articles and the categories.
- It's my interpretation that that RFC effectively was about content inclusion but it really wasn't worded well at all, and you get people arguing about different status quos.
- I suspect the only long term solution is to hold a new broad discussion on the whole question of what bias categories should and shouldn't include and exactly how to draw the line - one thing that seems clear above all else is that there's broad consensus they should be treated the same, though people disagree on whether an individual category should change now or wait for others, and narrow discussions based on one category or one area of discrimination are getting nowhere. (It would probably also help to ban from the discussion using the Nazis as an example of anything as they're not a remotely typical example where the sources may be divided or the accusations are partisan attacks that are ignored rather than countered.) Timrollpickering (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
TBAN?
Hello Sandstein,
I was on my holidays just returned couple of days ago and I found out I was TBANed again. I couldn't even take part in AE discussion and how did you ban me again without even knowing my position? Per Georgian scripts and Mesrop Mashtots I haven't edit warred as promised you when you lifted that ban from me, I haven't violated 3RR and I kept constructive and cooperative attitude towards an Armenian users. None of that presented links filed against me at AE proved anything that I was engaged into an unconstructive, aggressive or uncivil behaviour. I've done much for those articles to be free of bias from all sides whether Georgian or Armenian. You can see the talk pages of those articles to closely see how it all went. Also I've left you a message before all this happened as these are the articles the admins should closely look at every edit that's done because these two articles are being vandalised from both Georgian or Armenian sides 24/7. Jaqeli 15:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you had ample time to respond to the request for enforcement. That you chose not to, for whichever reason, is your own business. Your other concerns are too unspecific for me to be able to usefully respond to them. Sandstein 15:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I said I was on my holidays and I could not answer as I was not online and you've banned me without knowing my position. I haven't edit war and I haven't violated 3RR. Have you seen the histories and talk pages of those 2 articles? Jaqeli 16:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care that you were on your holidays. Wikipedia does not revolve around your personal schedule. What matters is that you had several days to respond. Again, your appeal is too unspecific to respond to it, because it does not address the edits at issue in the enforcement request. The appeal is denied. You can appeal in other venues as you have been instructed. Sandstein 16:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- What is unspecific? See this. None of those links say anything as I've violated nothing. That user just literally copied all the links of the talk page and the history and have you even checked them? None of them show my edit warring, violation of 3RR etc. On what basis then you've put that ban on me again? My concern is very specific and I am asking you to closely check the history and the talk page conversations of the Georgian scripts and Mesrop Mashtots articles. Jaqeli 16:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care that you were on your holidays. Wikipedia does not revolve around your personal schedule. What matters is that you had several days to respond. Again, your appeal is too unspecific to respond to it, because it does not address the edits at issue in the enforcement request. The appeal is denied. You can appeal in other venues as you have been instructed. Sandstein 16:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I said I was on my holidays and I could not answer as I was not online and you've banned me without knowing my position. I haven't edit war and I haven't violated 3RR. Have you seen the histories and talk pages of those 2 articles? Jaqeli 16:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Appeal
I'm following the procedures to appeal an AE action and discussing with you first. My comment was a direct response to not one but two separate invasions of my section violating both the rule "involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections" and misconstruing my comments to mean something they didn't. Considering your quoted the most offensive part of my comment, I don't see how it can be all that offensive. The dispute - editing my section - had nothing to do with the topic area of Manning naming or gender identity and a log in that case is inappropriate. I request that you withdraw your log here and we settle for a verbal reprimand on my talk page.--v/r - TP 17:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the two editors should not have edited your section, but that does not justify calling them, or others, "morons" - nothing does, really. The log entry is topically appropriate because your incivil comment occurred in the context of a discussion about conduct with regard to transgender topics, and is therefore within the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorized for that topic. I originally intended to block you directly, but then decided on a warning. The log entry of the warning is needed because, if such conduct reoccurs, the enforcing administrator(s) may want to consider your previous conduct in this topic area. For these reasons, I decline to remove the log entry. However, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Discretionary sanctions applicable, which provides that "any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one", I am transferring the log entry to the log of that case. Sandstein 17:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- The offending comment wasn't in the Manning topic area. It was in an AE comment not even about the Manning case. Regardless, are you open to further discussion or does this mean I should move on to the next step?--v/r - TP 17:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Discretionary sanctions applicable, the sanctions authorized in the Sexology case also "apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning". This was the exact subject matter of the AE thread in which you commented, namely, a dispute surrounding conduct about pronoun usage on Talk:Chelsea Manning. The discretionary sanctions therefore apply. Additionally, irrespective of subject matter, WP:AC/DS#Decorum, which also authorizes sanctions, applies to all AE discussions. Considering your comments on your talk page, where you appear to be of the mistaken view that your conduct was appropriate, I remain of the view that the warning is necessary. You are free, insofar as I am concerned, to pursue any further appeal you may desire. Sandstein 17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- The offending comment wasn't in the Manning topic area. It was in an AE comment not even about the Manning case. Regardless, are you open to further discussion or does this mean I should move on to the next step?--v/r - TP 17:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Refernce for the PC-7 Team
Hello Cane you have a look at the PC-7 Team Page? Because the References I made are declared as "unreliable source". I don't agree with this, because one is the official Swiss Air Force Homepage [3] and the other the official PC-7 Team Homepage (if you scroll down you see:© 2014 | SWISS AIR FORCE PC-7 TEAM | MILITÄRFLUGPLATZ PAYERNE | CH-1530 PAYERNE [4]. Thank you FFA P-16 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC on Oathkeeper regarding expert SPS criteria
You are being contacted because you have made substantial edits to the article Oathkeeper.
There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." Participation is welcome. 00:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)