Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:44, 27 July 2016 editBolter21 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,123 edits Just a note← Previous edit Revision as of 18:06, 27 July 2016 edit undoKamel Tebaast (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,614 edits Just a note: getting clarity on statementsNext edit →
Line 55: Line 55:


The closure re Hallel Yaffa Ariel just made observed, generally correctly, that sadly judgments fell out along partisan lines, as far as you could observe from prior knowledge of editors. I would just like to note here that the promoter of the deletion, ] is a promising young editor from Israel who generally does not make reflex votes along partisan lines, but decides case by case, quite independently. He's new to the area, and is a net gain to the I/P area. Regards.] (]) 17:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC) The closure re Hallel Yaffa Ariel just made observed, generally correctly, that sadly judgments fell out along partisan lines, as far as you could observe from prior knowledge of editors. I would just like to note here that the promoter of the deletion, ] is a promising young editor from Israel who generally does not make reflex votes along partisan lines, but decides case by case, quite independently. He's new to the area, and is a net gain to the I/P area. Regards.] (]) 17:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
::*{{u|Nishidani}}, regarding your statements about ], where are your verifiable sources that Bolter21 is young, male, and from Israel, other than his self-promotional userpage? ]] <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">]]</span> 18:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
:You know, we have an article for ], and article for ] and an article for the ] the incident is part of. That will possibly be four articles concerning the same topic, that generally has no major significance on the human race or the humans (questionable) in Israel-Palestine.--] <small>''(])''</small> 17:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC) :You know, we have an article for ], and article for ] and an article for the ] the incident is part of. That will possibly be four articles concerning the same topic, that generally has no major significance on the human race or the humans (questionable) in Israel-Palestine.--] <small>''(])''</small> 17:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:06, 27 July 2016

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


Stump game page

Please bring back Stump game page. 75.234.45.123 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me why, and link to the article or discussion.  Sandstein  05:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Italiaonline

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Italiaonline. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to create[REDACTED] page of Aniyan Midhun

I need to Create Misplaced Pages Article of Athelt Aniyan Midhun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.249.169.204 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Very good, but that does not concern me.  Sandstein  12:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico

Sandstein, I am writing to request that you restore Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico on the grounds that significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. Major new attention is being given to this "poster child" for anti-offshoring sentiment because Mike Pence is now Trump's running mate. Here:.

And at the top of the editorial page in yesterday's hard copy of the New York Times, there was this: , lede (ex cathedra) editorial:"That’s more than can be said for Mr. Pence. Take the Carrier heating equipment factory in Mr. Pence’s own state. When it announced this year that it would move to Mexico and cut 1,400 Indiana jobs, Mr. Trump predicted that if he were president, Carrier would call “within 24 hours,” to say, “‘Sir, we’ve decided to stay in the United States.’” What was Mr. Pence doing while workers in his state were worrying about their futures? He and the State Legislature were busy waging battle against same-sex marriage and passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act..."

In this: search of the New York Times, you can see that coverage of this move has been ongoing since the announcement. Similarly with this very simple News google search: . More to the point, some of this coverage has been in-depth: , and by no means pro-Trump .

I will, of course, undertake to expand the article if it is restored. Thanks for reviewing this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why can't this be expanded as part of Carrier Corporation? Seems that was the gist of the AfD.  Sandstein  17:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Because the closing of the plant is is a business decision, but most of the press coverage is focused on its use as a campaign issue - at first by Sanders and Trump, then on an ongoing basis by Trump. As a campaign issue it has drawn substantive and ongoing media attention different from that drawn by a routine offshoring, and adding that sort of coverage to Carrier seems to me to violate WP:UNDUE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Then why can't it be covered as part of the campaign articles? Asking the other AfD participants: @Neutrality, CrayonCreations, and AusLondonder: what is your view?  Sandstein  20:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For the same reason that has a couple of dozen sub topic articles, one of which Stop Trump has another 6 all by itself. This has been an, er..., unusual campaign. And to put all of that material into the main article would overstuff the main article, creating a WP:UNDUE problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Might I suggest, as an alternative, expanding the article economy of Indiana, or creating a new article, manufacturing in Indiana? Neutrality 20:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
That would be a fine article, but the topic here is the use of an otherwise routine decision ot move a manufacturing plant offshore as political issue. I think it is better addressed as a discrete article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, on the basis of this discussion, I decline restoration. The AfD determined that this political controversy - one of very many generated in any election campaign - should be covered in existing articles. That it continues to generate media coverage, as almost everything does in US presidential politics, is not a sufficient reason to overturn the AfD, especially in view of WP:NOTNEWS. Otherwise we'd have hundreds of articles on such topics as Donald Trump's genitals, his wife's convention speech, etc.  Sandstein  12:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Ramadan attacks

Sandstein, you deleted 2016 Ramadan attacks a few days ago. I am formulating an Arbitration Enforcement action against an editor who edited that article, and I need to supply some diffs from it. Could you restore that and its talk page? I am happy for it to redirect to List of terrorist incidents, 2016. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that is in my view not a sufficient reason for restoring content the community wants deleted.  Sandstein  20:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if this would be do-able, but I do wonder whether it would be possible for you to give AnotherNewAccount access to the diffs he wants in some other way. Assuming that User:AnotherNewAccount demonstrate a need for them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This is now addressed, see WP:AE#Result concerning Sepsis II.  Sandstein  15:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED at Railpage Australia

As the nominator of AfD 2, diff, you also used admin tools in AfD 2, diff, diff.  Now you have speedily closed a Railpage DRV, diff.  The text of the close included the words "ill-considered" and "unanimous", but these two words have unclear antecedents.  The nature of the DRV request was that the AfD was unfair because it had no delete !votes.  SmokeyJoe challenged those opposed to the "keep" result to "briefly summarise all of the previous AfDs and explain why they were all wrong."  But, no one engaged in the issue of the consensus supporting the close.  The speedy DRV close prevented me from participating.  After I discovered that you were WP:INVOLVED, I made a proposal to you on the talk page of the AfD, but you told me improperly to !vote a 2nd time.  Why did you treat me dismissively?  Why do you refuse to take responsibility to support WP:INVOLVED?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Issues of involvedness arise where a person is first involved in an editorial capacity (voicing an opinion, engaging in a dispute) and then acts as an administrator. In this case, all my actions (limited to closing the DRV and relisting the AfD in consequence thereof) have been administrative in nature. I see no problem and no need for any further action.  Sandstein  08:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I see that Unscintillating has a point, but the opinion expressed was 6-7 years ago, I am sure he had forgotten, and the administrative decisions recently were not contentious. The DRV close and relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (9th nomination) is more or less what had to happen (a fresh AfD#10 would amount to a very minor difference). The current AfD has good participation and I think everyone should be looking forward from here. The page is going to be deleted unless some pretty good new arguments are posted soon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The DRV close could have simply added WP:NPASR to the NAC close, nor was there any purpose to a speedy close.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I see now. I did in fact forget that I was the AfD nominator in 2007; I had no recollection of that article or the AfD. I'll comment further in the recent AfD.  Sandstein  09:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
My previous post stated, "As the nominator of AfD 2, diff, you also used admin tools in AfD 2, diff, diff.  Now you have speedily closed a Railpage DRV, diff.  The text of the close included the words 'ill-considered' and 'unanimous', but these two words have unclear antecedents."  Your response was, "I see no problem". 

It now appears that you didn't see a problem partly because you didn't click on the links.  Since your claim now is that you forgot that you were the AfD nominator in AfD 2, this also means that when you closed the DRV, you did not check your facts by reviewing the AfDs about which you issued the ruling. 

After stating in the AfD that you would make no further comments or administrative actions, and after I thought this issue was closed, you have decided to try to cover up your improper prior involvement at the DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a note

The closure re Hallel Yaffa Ariel just made observed, generally correctly, that sadly judgments fell out along partisan lines, as far as you could observe from prior knowledge of editors. I would just like to note here that the promoter of the deletion, User:Bolter21 is a promising young editor from Israel who generally does not make reflex votes along partisan lines, but decides case by case, quite independently. He's new to the area, and is a net gain to the I/P area. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You know, we have an article for terrorist attacks, and article for violent incidents and an article for the conflit the incident is part of. That will possibly be four articles concerning the same topic, that generally has no major significance on the human race or the humans (questionable) in Israel-Palestine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions Add topic