User talk:Sandstein

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.

• 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.

Start a new talk topic

Shinese AfD

Hi, Sandstein. I see you closed the AfD for Shinese as keep, which I don't disagree with. However, I brought up valid points that were not responded to at all. Is deletion review an appropriate avenue for contesting this? Two of the three votes were rather spurious and I'd like to see my concerns addressed in some way.

Thanks. I'm sorry for bothering you, but I figured that as the closer, you'd be the best person to ask. – anna 11:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinese (2nd nomination), I assume. Sorry, DRV is only for contesting the outcome of the discussion, not for continuing the discussion. If you want to continue to discuss the merits of the arguments presented, you can do so on the article talk page or with the users who made the arguments on their talk pages.  Sandstein  11:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's right, sorry for not specifying. I'll start a discussion on the talk page and notify the voters and take it from there, I suppose. Hopefully they'll be willing to address my specific concerns... thanks for the quick reply. – anna 11:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again, but I had one last question. On second glance, I'm seeing submissions at deletion review, like this one, that don't seem to be contesting the closing admin's judgment but are instead asking for scrutiny of the arguments presented. Is this acceptable or is it non-standard? It seems like it'd be the logical spot to contest flimsy arguments, but obviously I'm not sure. Grazie :) – anna 12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

DRV is concerned with outcomes. That DRV request argues that the discussion should have been be closed with a different outcome. According to what you say above, that's not what you want.  Sandstein  16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it something that can be used if you think a debate should be relisted (which I feel may apply in this case)? – anna 19:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, but such a request is almost certain to be unsuccessful unless you can convincingly show that a relist would very likely have resulted in a "delete" consensus.  Sandstein  19:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for explaining. – anna 20:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)

Hi Sandstein. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter as delete. Your closure was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has been amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nom

Thanks, however I don't usually do DYK and I therefore have under 5 past DYK's: "New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review requirement"

I usually do GA only. If that changes at least I'm now aware though :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, all right, thanks.  Sandstein  21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Shutterbug investigation

a quick FYI, I have reopened the NestleNW911 (talk · contribs) WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbugsock investigation. The original claim was closed but overturned later. You were in the discussion which overturned the ban. It is being reopened because the user in question has shown new editing patterns since the original ban was overturned.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

More on Victorian scientists

Sorry to return to something that was archived, but I only just checked to see what you said in reply here. I looked up a few sources on this, if you are interested, to give a flavour of how fluid the boundaries were then. I'd be wary in general of applying WP:PROF in that era, or indeed any era before the 20th century. Much better to see what coverage exists in sources explicitly dealing with the history of science, as it is the authors of such sources that will have done the notability assessing for us. Anyway, the sources are: (1) ‘Men of Science’: Language, Identity and Professionalization in the Mid-Victorian Scientific Community, Ruth Barton (2003), History of Science, vol. 41, p.73-119; (2) Victorian Science in Context (Bernard V. Lightman, 1997), and in particular chapter eight of that essay collection 'Ordering Nature: Revisioning Victorian Science Culture' by Barbara T. Gates; (3) Desmond, James D. (2001), "Redefining the X Axis: "Professionals," "Amateurs" and the Making of Mid-Victorian Biology – A Progress Report", Journal of the History of Biology (Springer Netherlands) 34 (1): 3–50. There is lots more on the role played by Victorian amateur scientists where that came from - it's a fascinating topic. If this comes up again, I'll post something at WT:PROF, though it has likely been discussed there before. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting info, though I have an absolute layman's understanding of the history of science. Even though if WP:PROF doesn't apply to such amateur scholars, though, it seems to me that the general criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO should still be applicable. After all, without some third party coverage, there's little chance that we can write a non-OR article about the person or that they are in a general sense interesting enough for anybody to want to read an article about them.  Sandstein  21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shinese

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shinese. 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. Against my better judgment, but since one participant is blocked and another seems to have gone inactive after a failed RfA, I'm giving it some kind of shot anyway. At least I can say I tried. – anna 02:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hans Adler is not an administrator (perhaps you meant editor). Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)