→AE case: r |
|||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
Regards.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC) |
Regards.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
:Right, I've cut down on the volume of the request too. Generally, my advice to AE participants is, say your piece, and stop talking. My interest in reading what participants write drops exponentially after the 20th or so minor addition or wording change. I don't usually read much besides the initial party statements anyway, the rest is generally pointless drama. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:27, 22 June 2018
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.
AfD close argument for Mikie Sherrill
Can you please explain your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikie Sherrill as "no consensus", based on the argument that "Disagreement about whether to redirect or to keep. Both sides have valid arguments."? While the arguments on both sides did include mentions of Wikipedia policy, it was only the keeps which addressed specific sources demonstrating that WP:GNG was met (in addition to sheer numeric superiority). The nomination and the first vote are typical of the weakness of the delete / redirect argument, in simply insisting that the article should be redirected, without in any way, shape or form addressing the existence, quality or in-depth nature of the sources provided. Mubogshu tried to push back unsuccessfully, only to be rebutted strongly by E.M. Gregory and by me, referencing specific strong references about the subject in reliable and verifiable sources that go far beyond her candidacy. There appears to be no reasonable rationale to interpret the results here as "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, my view is that if I agreed with you here, I'd be basically casting a supervote by substituting my appreciation of the sources for those of the editors participating in the AfD. I try not to do that in matters where editors can in good faith disagree, such as how to weigh sources. So I'll not be changing this closure. Anyway, the the article is kept in either case. Sandstein 20:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?
You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48
Article deletion review
Hi Sandstein, Can you please review again Muhammad Khan article? Muhammad Khan, A Bangladeshi journalist got National Information and Communication Technology Awards, 2017 by the Government of Bangladesh. This is the highest ICT award in Bangladesh. As a national awardee, I think he is notable. NC Hasive • talk • 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, this argument was addressed and discounted in the AfD, which is now over. You should have made it during in the discussion while it was ongoing. Sandstein 09:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Sandstein, is there any objection from you if I took the list you redirected and restored it under the name List of national capitals, and merge in List of national capitals by latitude and List of national capitals by population? That seems to be where the discussion was moving before you closed it, and am curious to see if you would be amenable to that. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have any particular objection; my view as expressed in the closure is that it is now for editors to decide what to do with this content, as long as no additional lists are created ... Sandstein 14:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
List of national capitals
Hi, I reverted your close of AFD about list of national capitals, with this edit, and I would like to ask that you allow the reversion to stand. I explain myself there. I grant that you could insist that it be closed as is and go to appeal, but I think that should not be necessary. Sometimes I think your AFD closures go a bit contrary to the sentiment of discussion, but here I think it was just wrong. I'll watch here and there. --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, no, that's not how it works. AfD closures are not to be reverted, but they can be appealed, at WP:DRV. Or here, if you tell me why you think the closure was wrong. Sandstein 20:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:REFUND request
Could you please restore the version of Celeris that existed at the close of the AfD, to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Celeris? The only reason that was AfDed (barely) is because of lack of paper sourcing; the vast majority of material on old videogame companies is offline, in paper gaming-related magazines of the era. It definitely does have possibilities. If probably 1–2 more sources had been present and had not been Virtual Pool-specific, the article would have been kept. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not interested unless you can provide sources indicating it has at least a chance of being kept if restored. Sandstein 17:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
AE case
Hi, I see you removed a part of my post that exceeded 500 words. Whereas I see no problem with that (it was not essential, and I myself marked it as "auxiliary"), I need some clarification: MVBW continues to post his accusations (and I am not sure when he will stop), and, although I am not sure I am going to respond, I am wondering if my prospective response will be deleted due to the 500 words limitation. I am also wondering if 500 words limit is applied only to me, or other users, including MVBW, must obey it too.
In addition, I have to say that I like your attitude towards the "throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks" approach, and my question is: to avoid wasting of my and arbitrators's time, can they just point my attention at those accusations that, in their opinion, should be addressed, so I will be able to focus just on them? Another option is as follows: if the arbitrators show me what MVBW's diffs deserve a response, I may delete some of my text and focus on few important things. That may save everybody's time and efforts.
Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Right, I've cut down on the volume of the request too. Generally, my advice to AE participants is, say your piece, and stop talking. My interest in reading what participants write drops exponentially after the 20th or so minor addition or wording change. I don't usually read much besides the initial party statements anyway, the rest is generally pointless drama. Sandstein 17:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)