Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:28, 11 July 2009 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 7 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/July.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:25, 8 January 2025 edit undoYachtahead (talk | contribs)268 edits →Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(2d)
|archive = User talk:Sandstein/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |archive = User talk:Sandstein/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}} }}
{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}


== closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) ==
== Kitten ==


Thank you for closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) with a result of "delete." Draftify might indeed have been a better choice since there were many sources, but limited discussion on AFD compared to DRV. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve my contributions or avoid similar outcomes in the future, I’d really appreciate it. Specifically, I’m curious (AFD selection and DELETE result on DRV) about any weaknesses in the AFD process that may have influenced this result. Thanks again, and please feel free to skip this if it’s not necessary.] (]) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks">]
] (]) has given you a ]! Kittens promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. <br />


:Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{tls|Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 ] (]) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
{{clear}}
::I am waiting for your response. ] (]) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
</div><!-- Template:Kitten -->
::Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." ] (]) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? ] (]) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Im not affiliated with mr. Salisbury ==


Hi,
You had asked if Im affiliated with Brett Salisbury. NO, I bought his book and read his story. He has changed my life and my families by the diet he recommends. Every source I gave was seperate from his own. Not sure what you need to prove he is the real deal. You can hear live radio interviews, read book reviews, and read his bio from sources not related to his website. Does he need to make the NY Times bestseller list to convince wikipedia he is noteworthy?
He is changing lives, thats all I know...
Thank you
Mr.Dunbar
2129 Rickler Ave
Seattle Washington
Certified Dietician

== Question relating to a topic ban ==

Hi Sandstein! You recently ] from ''all'' pages related to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran, and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area (all broadly construed) for 6 months. I'm not sure if you're aware of . My question: isn't that a way to circumvent the topic ban? ] (]) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

:Technically, no, because the ''page'' ] is not related to the area of conflict. Should problems arise, I may extend the topic ban to all discussions related to the topic. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

== Russavia's 1RR ==

Since we now seem to be following ArbCom's ruling to the letter, could you (or anyone) please point out where exactly did Russavia receive a formal warning about the Digwuren sactions, as this was cited by Thatcher as the reason why Russavia's restriction was left in place but others' was removed. ] (]) 21:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Russavia was indeed never placed on notice prior to his 1RR restriction in June. He has no blocks related to ] either... ] (]) 23:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:He was previously blocked for two weeks under ] which was . --] (]) 23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

::If Russavia disagrees with sanctions imposed against him, he can take it up with Thatcher or appeal the sanction as provided for in the discretionary sanctions remedy. I see no reason to concern myself with the situation prior to such an appeal. Also, Offliner, the next time you want me to look at something, I would be glad if you would provide links to whatever you are talking about. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

== Firearms and Wikiprojects ==

I appreciate your input at ]. As you might have noticed I have approached various firearms articles with the intent of adding a few subsections to better organize extremely long sections, and I have faced significant difficulties with a few members of the ] who disagree with my intentions, forcing me to escalate to proposing project-wide structure guideline changes. I am wondering whether my not being a member of the project invalidates my opinions. Are there any policies that say that Wikiprojects or their members have certain authoritative rights, or that outside editors may not make certain changes that fall under the scope of the project? Any guidelines, policies, or advice regarding any of this in either direction would be appreciated. ] (]) 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
:It appears you posted at the MILHIST discussion while I was writing this. ] (]) 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
::Well, to my knowledge all editors are equal with respect to content contributions, barring special rules such as ]. Certainly no WikiProject has any special privileges regarding the articles it covers. I am not sure whether there's a policy page saying so explicitly, though. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
:::All right, thanks. ] (]) 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

While your comments at my appeal weren't exactly supportive, I still wanted to thank you for the time you took to look at it and for your participation, as well as the help with the formatting. Please keep up the good work.] (]) 13:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

== If I didn't already know... ==

...] would make it completely obvious that you are an attorney! ]] 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:'']'', I'm afraid. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

== Smith2006 ==

I would just like to say that I support your block of Smith2006. I have had unpleasant interactions with this individual before. Please read this odious edit summary . He is also openly pro-Hitler . There're more edits in the same vein. Prior to the expiry of his block, I will ask for it to be made permanent, but thank you for the relief you have provided. ] (]) 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

== Nukes4Tots ==

What do we do about this ridiculous behavior? . His attempts to avoid all discussion that isn't him criticizing someone are a serious problem. He continues to revert other users' work ''while refusing to discuss it'' (obviously not while he's blocked but you get the idea). He seems to believe that no one else's opinions are valuable and that any attempt to discuss his reversions is harassment and vandalism. These behaviors are immature and a massive difficulty that many editors are faced with. ] (]) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:Yes, well, while the attitude exhibited in these messages does give one pause, as an administrator I can't do much about it unless it exhibits itself in outright disruption, which these edits do not constitute. On the other hand, if he continues to insult people or otherwise clearly disrupts our project as soon as the block expires (note: disagreeing with you ≠ disruption), he'll have to be blocked again. If several editors share similar concerns about another editor, it may be useful to hold a ] about it so as to establish consensus for any corrective action that may be required. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
::I know you can't do anything directly, but other than that I don't know how to approach the situation since he refuses to discuss anything. I'm mostly looking for advice. I know disagreeing with me is not disruption (I did not file an ANI for his disagreeing with me or even reverting my edits, I tried to leave that out of the equation entirely and said so in the ANI), but when the disagreement expands to blanket reversions that strikes me as disruptive. Is reverting someone's edits and removing that editor's attempts at discussion disruptive? I know that edit warring is considered disruptive. When his block expires, would you mind if I approach you for questions or advice if I feel his behavior continues to be disruptive? How many times can I use the word disruptive in one paragraph? :P ] (]) 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Sure, if there continue to be problems after the block expires, I'll try and help. Removing your comments on his user talk page is not disruptive per se - users are allowed to delete these messages and it shows that they've read them - but reverting without discussion is edit warring. Though, of course, it usually takes two to edit war. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Refusing to discuss a situation is trying to win by default - either the other editor gives up entirely or continues to edit due to lack of discussion and gets accused of edit warring. If one user is continually reverting good faith edits and will absolutely not discuss his reversions, this is a one-sided edit war. That's my opinion, anyway. ] (]) 07:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

== Swiss Cuisine ==

Congratulations on your status as an Administrator. This means that you must have lots of skills and experience in establishing articles up to Misplaced Pages high standards.

I am not as experienced as you and just trying to do my best.

Looking at the above mentioned messy article - with the request for a clean up - I have tried and did my best to revise it for the better.

You have flatly "undid" my version with the remarks: "lots of spelling mistakes and other problems".

I would like to kindly challenge your wisdom is this instance, for the following reasons:

1. spelling mistakes have never been a ground to cancel any text (and in any case, I challenge you having made many spelling mistakes in English)
2. my proposed version is down to facts, easier and clearer to read and understand and IMHO more WIKI-like than
3. the old version, which you have returned to, unamended, and still having the request for a cleaning up!

Please believe me, I am far beyond putting any personal ego into the matter and tend to believe that I am being met with the same attitude and wikipedia criterias.

Kindly take up the challenge and let's try and find a common solution in the best Misplaced Pages interests

Kind regards

] (]) 06:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:Hi, Claude. Thank you for your message. You see, the reason why I reverted your edit is because it contained some rather glaring errors, such as "Some of regional dishes", "cream souce". Also, I believe your edit made the language rather ''too'' simple, as when you replaced:
::''Swiss grandmothers used to use stale bread to make fotzel slices, which made it an ideal recipe for homemakers accustomed to the rule: "Never throw any bread away."''
:with this, which wrongly suggests that we - Misplaced Pages - advise people not to throw bread away.
::'']: using up the stale bread, as one is not supposed to throw bread away."''
:But of course you are right that the article needs cleaning up, and I thank you for trying to help out with it. Should we try it together? We could for instance work on a draft at ] until we're both happy with the result. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, Hi Sandstein,


It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by {{u|Dclemens1971}} there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. ] ] 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Tks for your explanation.. I appreciate your offered cooperation and shall soon have a go at it with some draft!


:I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
So long.
::Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. ] (]) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after and were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. ] ] 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. ] (]) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::OK, I've relisted the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you! ] ] 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


==Deletion closure of ]==
] (]) 06:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello {{u|Sandstein}}! In your closure of ] as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine '']'' on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the claims: "''Slayage'' (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. ''All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors.''" Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! ] (]) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


:Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "" and "". Therefore, ''prima facie'', we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than ''Buffy'' episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be and . The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages and .) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on ''Slayage'' before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the ''content'', I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! ] (]) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===


A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.
== Errors of judgement ==
*Your evaluation of ''Slayage'' is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in ], but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in ]. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that ''Slayage'' was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong.
*None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to ] do not satisfy ] number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per ], part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred.
:Further, making a ''de facto'' conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of ] on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article.
Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. ] (]) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps Sandstein, you would like to add your apology here as you were one of the editors upholding a wrongful block. I suggest that you examine you strongly held attitudes before even more editors are blocked as the result of such intransigent and harmful views as yours. ] (]) 13:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
::My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.
::I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--''Slayage'' was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? ] (]) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Now at ]. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —] 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. ] (]) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione ==
:No, thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
::No, I rather thought that would be your response. You are arrogant and totally unsuited to be an Admin. I strongly advise you to wise ap and loosen up a little. ] (]) 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== Roger Federer ==

Is it possible to make the page semi-protected, as I am getting a little concerned about the amount of edits that have occurred recently. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:A link, please. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Federer - sorry about not signing earlier, brain of a goldfish. ] (]) 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:What is the problem? There's no obvious and frequent vandalism. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by TennisGrandSlam seem to be frequent and he appears to be getting quite animated, just wanted a second opinion ] (]) 21:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:Frequent edits as such are not grounds for protection under ]. If only one editor disrupts a page, we usually block him and do not protect the page. Which specific edits do you consider problematic? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

== question ==

I just can help but wonder about this - was my appeal the first one at AE, or the first one for Digwuren, or have there been others? I ask you because you seem to have been around these parts longer than I have. Thanks.] (]) 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:I'm not sure. I'm only watchlisting AE for a few months now, and in that time yours was only one of two appeals that I remember. The other was a complaint made by a user immediately after the imposition of a restriction on him. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

== HELP ==

God, we were actually having a civil discussion about changing the policy and it's spiraled out of control into disaster-territory again. ] has gone off on a tirade against me; you noticed his repeated attacks against me at the MILHIST discussion and his insistence that my opinion was invalid. He continues to misrepresent my words in a manner that seems like baiting to me, presenting twisted versions of my suggestions in All Caps As If They Were Mandates. He has been going to Nukes and Koalorka's talk pages to rally up support against me, and now they're all talking about what a terrible person I am, how I am clearly a vandal with only bad faith, and Zulu got both of them complaining they are being prevented from involvement in the discussion they had already chosen not to take part in. I hope you recognize how hypocritical this behavior is considering how much they criticized me for attempting to get feedback through multiple venues and accused me of things such as "forum shopping".

To make matters ''significantly worse'', ], an administrator, is nagging me on my talk page claiming there is a clear consensus against me and a large number of editors looking down on me and generally disagreeing with my ideas and behavior. He has repeatedly ignored and then denied my requests for him to back up these claims. He is also going around, to the ANI, and to Nukes and Koaolorka's talk page, accusing me of baiting, and rallying more support against me. His words will only serve to incite Koalorka, Zulu, and Nukes further, making them even more convinced they are right and giving them new ideas about ways to criticize me.

All of these things are contributing to making me extremely angry, whether or not this is the intention, and when I am extremely angry it impairs my ability to act civilly. I am continuing to try to act civilly at this point but as you might imagine I don't like being extremely angry. I just want to have the damned structure proposal over with and get back to adding subsections to the firearms articles. I don't want to fight anyone.

I don't know what to do. Please help. I am going to post this message identically at another user's talk page since he has also tried to help me act calmly and resolve conflict. ] (]) 01:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:I appreciate your response to George at the ANI about Kaolorka socking, but he is continuing in his behavior. His comments towards me are not in the least bit helpful - they are extremely aggravating and have persisted to the point of harassment. He's trying to make me play games and hunt down the supposed heavy consensus against my behavior and all of the instances in which I have supposedly baited users into being blocked. What happens if I waste my time looking for these supposed things that he refuses to provide edit diffs for? Will he accuse me of being too stupid to understand and block me indefinitely? He is using my refusal to continue discussion with him as "evidence" that I have a communication disorder and is going around trying to discredit me, while he continues to threaten to block me indefinitely. There seems to be no substance to his complaints; he is "trying to help me understand" that other people have complained about me. I am aware of everything that everyone has said to me directly and responded to most or all of it. His behavior is extremely inappropriate. I have told him that if he has concerns of any merit about my current behavior, I request that he forward these complaints to an uninvolved administrator who can address these complaints appropriately but he has not responded to this directly.

:I have asked ] for advice at his talk page but he has not been online since then. Notice that George carried over his harassment and his game to Toddst1's talk page as well. I am not asking you to do anything specific at this time, as I am still awaiting for Toddst1 to respond. Sorry for all the trouble :/ . ] (]) 01:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started an ANI discussion on Some guy: ] You may want to comment there. Thank you. ] (]) 05:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
::It is my opinion that the ANI has been filed in pursuit of harassing me. This is all terribly convenient how he's set this up, so anything I say can be used as "evidence" that I have a "communication disorder". Anyway, that's enough from me. ] (]) 05:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

== blocking ==

Explain how that wasn't a flagrant COI, and I completely agree with Giano's comment that you are arrogant and unsuited as an admin. I was very mildly uncivil, and it seems to me you were watching closely for any mistakes I made. There's *no* way you would have done that if I agreed with you on the RfC, is there? ] 08:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:And don't call my decorations "junk." My comments were no more uncivil than that. Pzrmd 08:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::How ''what'' wasn't a flagrant COI? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Blocking me. Pzrmd 08:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Which interests do you believe conflicted in that case? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::Your participation in Docu's RfC where you have endorsed like every summary opposite of my view, and you know how heavily I have participated in that. ] 08:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::I was not aware of your participation or indeed of any of your edits prior to the incivility for which I blocked you. Even if I were, this would not constitute a conflict of interests. Just because I disagree with you on some point of policy does not prevent me from enforcing our (other) policies with respect to you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::We have both participated a lot in that RfC, and have strong opinions either way. It was a completely weird reason to block. I called you arrogant above, and that is worse than what I said at the RfC. Did you read my statement there? then you know how strong my opinion is. You endorsed like every view opposite of me and made your comments. I am convinced that if I were on your side you would not block me. Power-hunger…. ] (]) 18:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::No, I did not read your statement, and your conviction is wrong. As to for your attacks on me, would you like to be blocked for these too? I don't normally sanction editors for disruption aimed at me personally, but I can make an exception for you if you ask nicely. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::You did the same thing to my talkpage only you didn't revert it. ] (]) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

== MY RfB ==

Hi. So as not to clutter up the main RfB page, I'm going to try to explain my position a little better. Indeed I have read the relevant policies, and I understand that in most cases AfDs should remain open for the full seven days. However, ] is also a policy; in my opinion it's detrimental to the project to "process-wonk", for lack of a better phrase (or for lack of sleep and I just can't think of a better phrase!). I'm not in any rush to be the first to close AfDs, and I don't view it as a race, but there are some rules that can be ignored when the situation demands it. I'll explain further if necessary. Cheers. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

:Well, yes, ] ''can'' at times be invoked for closing discussions early, but only in the rare cases when the project clearly benefits from ignoring the 7 day rule, e.g. in cases of excessively conflict-laden AfDs whose outcome is clear. In most cases, however, closing discussions early is no benefit, because there is no harm in waiting the full period. Moreover, the deletion policy is clear that AfDs ''must'', not "should in most cases", remain open for seven days. I believe that you misunderstand both our deletion policy and ], which is why I am sorry to say that my opposition stands. (In addition, I see process wonkery as a desirable trait in bureaucrats.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::Well, fair enough, but in theory IAR supersedes all other policies. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 15:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::It does, but it must be correctly applied, otherwise it's just an excuse for doing whatever one wants to. IAR reads: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." This means that, in order to ignore a rule under IAR, you must demonstrate that ''following'' the rule would prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages. Because waiting a few hours until the seven-day period expires does not prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, you cannot properly invoke it to close AfDs early as a matter of routine. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

:I hate to butt in because of the history between Sandstein, but I wanted to bring to everyone's attention the nature of Snow closes at both AfD and RfA which are not in either of the policies but connected to a mere article. Crats and admin have allowed even non-crats and non-admin to close based on Snow. This shows that there is community wide acceptance (if not consensus) that there are nuances to AfD and RfA which are not blatantly stated. These have also happened for longer than a year. So, if there is "wonkery", it is negated by the mass acceptance of these closures. ] (]) 16:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

::I do not object to the occasional ] closure. Such closures can be necessary sometimes. I object to ''systematic'' closures a few days or hours early with no compelling reason, ] or otherwise. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::If consensus is not changing then why allow an extra hour? What about AfDs that go over extra hours because there is constant changings? This has applied to RfA also, especially in the classic question about DHMO's RfA in which Crats seem to unanimously agree that it should have been extended in order to appropriately measure how consensus was changing. WP:CONSENSUS is our primary policy in the matter and should be upheld before RfA or AfD standards are upheld. If it can be shown that consensus would have directly benefited from the extra time (such as people trying to edit it or complain about it) then you would have a point but I have not seen such yet. Now, if you look at RfA, my RfA went over by quite a bit before it was closed. There were many Crats watching, but no one bothered to end it immediately. In the actuality, very few people close things on the dot, and it would be a little strange to demand such particularality. ] (]) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::We do not expect AfDs to be closed ''exactly'' after seven days. Policy states that there must be ''at least'' seven days of discussion. That's a difference. There is no problem if an AfD takes a bit longer than seven days to be closed. We have instituted this delay for a reason - to ensure sufficient discussion. We have even recently increased it from five to seven days. That is a good reason to observe it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::WP:CONSENSUS states that consensus can change. Since there is mass reliance on SNOW closures, the Deletion policy does not accurately reflect the consensus on the matter. Thus, your adherence to the letter of policy is to adhere to something that goes against one of our strongest policies, consensus. Furthermore, Crats discuss closing of RfA, so any discussion about closing of AfDs as reflecting RfAs has no direct connection. ] (]) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::If consensus with respect to AfD closure has changed, which I do not believe (and note that I am not talking about SNOW closures, just non-SNOW early closures), written policy should reflect it. You can try to propose such a change on the policy talk page. As to relevance, Juliancolton's adherence (or not) to deletion process is relevant to whether he is likely to observe RfA process if promoted, in my opinion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, it is a valid concern, but if it helps I assure you I would not close RfAs against process or consensus. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::And as a side note, if you ever take issue with any of my AfD closes, please leave a note on my talk page so I can learn from my mistakes. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I will. I had not previously noticed that you were one of the administrators closing AfDs too early. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually, it turns out that I did contact you about this once, see . <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, you state that Consensus has not changed. If so, why are there snow closures at all? According to the letter of the policy which you claim should be adhered to, there is no mention of snow being acceptable in any kind of form. Thus, the policy is very outdated, as Snow has been around for over a year and should be reflected as acceptable. You can have one or the other in this situation - a strict adherence to what is stated, which would defy reality, or an admittance that the policy as written does not reflect the consensus of closures as a whole. It would be hypocritical to ignore the large amount of Snow closures as they are part of the not closing at 7 days mentality. ] (]) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

:Not so. Since ] applies to every process, it is just not reasonably possible to mention it explicitly on every policy page to which it may conceivably apply. And I say again, I do not object to ] closures. I object to normal closures made too early. Actually, even ] closures should be made only if the outcome is very clear after a short time (such as 20 keep, 0 delete after a few hours), but not a few hours prior to the expiration of the delay. That's because the very point of SNOW is not to waste effort on process if it is patently not needed - but it takes very little effort to wait a few more hours. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::Sandstein, Snow isn't a guideline or a policy. It is an essay. It doesn't apply anywhere, unless you are willing to say that consensus has changed on those other processes and allowed it to apply. If so, then your argument above has no bearing. ] (]) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::I trust you will excuse me if I stop replying at this point, so as to avoid repeating myself. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::I think it is obvious that your original position has no merit. You claimed that the policy had to be followed strictly. I proved that the policy does not adequately reflect the totality of the situation, therefore, is flawed and cannot be followed strictly. Now, you are dodging the argument. If you don't want to reply, fine, but it is obvious that your oppose on these grounds lacks any merit and you are unwilling to acknowledge the reality of how Misplaced Pages operates when it comes to closing. ] (]) 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::If people were having a problem with the closures they would be taking them to DRV. I don't see this, so I would assume all of these closures are warranted and uncontroversial.--]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 20:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::There was a longish discussion at ] about this, see ] and ]. I did take a bunch of early closures to DRV once, at ] although there was no consensus to reopen them solely because of this procedural error. (Reviewing that DRV page again, I see that it was indeed Juliancolton who was the admin who had closed them early. I had forgotten that it was him.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

← Pardon me for posting to this thread, rather than starting a new one, but I had a question/observation that might be relevant in a "side-note" sort of way. I noticed that the RfA pages clearly state the closing time to be: "Scheduled to end nn:nn, dd Month 2009 (UTC)" Perhaps if we got someone to code that type of thing up for XfD items as well, it would help encourage a more standard procedure. Just a thought. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:Good idea. I'm not much of a coder, unfortunately, or I'd do it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
:I'd definitely support such a thing, if it would help to prevent mistakes or misunderstandings. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 05:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
::I'll follow-up on it then. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 13:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

*posted at: — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

== How far goes Original Research? ==

Hi Sandstein,


:It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I have some problems in ] and hope to get some advice from you.


== Smoothstack ==
I try to make it short. There is a Treaty, officially titled "defensive treaty" and are a lot of references saying the treaty is defensive. But there are (far few) references that say, it was a menace for Chile.


I didn't have a chance to weigh in on ], which you closed a couple days ago. Would you object to redirecting this to ]? It already mentions Smoothstack and says pretty much what the article already says, so the ] stub seems redundant. If more information can be fleshed out, then the article can be split off as standalone again. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, a treaty, like a knife, is not intrinsically good or bad, defensive or offensive. That are properties given by the observer and stakeholder of the situation and that has to be said explicit to the reader.


:In my capacity as AfD closer, I don't have any objections to anything anyone does with the article - my role was limited to closing the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
My opinion is that Misplaced Pages can not state "the treaty ''was'' defensive" but "the treaty ''was interpreted'' as defensive by XX and YY and offensive or as a threath by ZZ".


== Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project ==
What do you think about? Is that the first discussion in Misplaced Pages about the issue?


Hi @]. Hoped you might be able to assist in feedback and/or approval for my first draft submission? ] It's been two months waiting in review, I've tagged multiple groups. Saw you were recently active in the Private Equity group and thought you could help. I'm relatively new, hope this is a good path. Thank you in advance:
I hope you have time to answer this question before I throw my PC through the window.


Im voraus vielen Dank, --] (]) 12:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC) <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I'm sorry I can't help you with the specific question because I know nothing about the historic period at issue. In general, per ], we must reflect the preponderance of academic opinion. But significant minority views should be given due weight per ]. You may want to gather opinions on ] or through ] about this. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC) :Sorry, I'm not active in AFC and have no knowledge of or interest in the topic, so I'll have to decline. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:25, 8 January 2025

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.
  • 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.


Start a new talk topic


closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23)

Thank you for closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) with a result of "delete." Draftify might indeed have been a better choice since there were many sources, but limited discussion on AFD compared to DRV. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve my contributions or avoid similar outcomes in the future, I’d really appreciate it. Specifically, I’m curious (AFD selection and DELETE result on DRV) about any weaknesses in the AFD process that may have influenced this result. Thanks again, and please feel free to skip this if it’s not necessary.Endrabcwizart (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you please link to that DRV? Sandstein 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I am waiting for your response. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." Endrabcwizart (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
@Endrabcwizart, sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin Sandstein 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. Sandstein 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States

Hi Sandstein,

It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by Dclemens1971 there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. Sandstein 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. Sandstein 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Owen× ☎ 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion closure of Principal Snyder

Hello Sandstein! In your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine Slayage on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the its homepage claims: "Slayage (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors." Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! Daranios (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High". Therefore, prima facie, we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than Buffy episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. Sandstein 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! Sandstein 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder

A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.

  • Your evaluation of Slayage is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in Buffy studies, but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in DOAJ. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that Slayage was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong.
  • None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to WP:NOT#PLOT do not satisfy WP:DEL#REASON number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per WP:ATD, part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred.
Further, making a de facto conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of WP:NEXIST on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article.

Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. Jclemens (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. Sandstein 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.
I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--Slayage was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione

Is there a reason why Louis Mangione was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. Sandstein 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Smoothstack

I didn't have a chance to weigh in on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Smoothstack, which you closed a couple days ago. Would you object to redirecting this to Employment bond#Training Repayment Agreement Provisions? It already mentions Smoothstack and says pretty much what the article already says, so the Smoothstack stub seems redundant. If more information can be fleshed out, then the article can be split off as standalone again. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

In my capacity as AfD closer, I don't have any objections to anything anyone does with the article - my role was limited to closing the AfD. Sandstein 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project

Hi @Sandstein. Hoped you might be able to assist in feedback and/or approval for my first draft submission? Draft:Gerry Cardinale It's been two months waiting in review, I've tagged multiple groups. Saw you were recently active in the Private Equity group and thought you could help. I'm relatively new, hope this is a good path. Thank you in advance:

~~~~ Yachtahead (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not active in AFC and have no knowledge of or interest in the topic, so I'll have to decline. Sandstein 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok thank you. Yachtahead (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)