User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:52, 10 April 2017

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

Request for closure

User:Sandstein Please close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #25, at my request. I initiated it. I'm accepting User:Cullen328's advice. Many thanks Tapered (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm

hi s'cuz me but Titanic Sinclair is a HUGE public figure, why did you delete his wikipedia?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.254.228.101 (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia still exists, I didn't delete it. And it does not belong to a person named Sinclair. Sandstein 08:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own Wikipedia either but you seem to be quite happy to delete other peoples additions to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.138.201.43 (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 2 § Bernardo Guillermo

I noticed that you did not leave {{subst:DRVNote}} on J947's talk page, or tag the AfD with {{Delrevxfd}}. Are those steps only required when the closer is an administrator, or perhaps you just forgot? I was going to implement those steps of the process described above on your behalf, but I thought I'd ask first. Best Regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure does in fact only provide for such notification if the closer is an admin. Sandstein 05:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

follow up question on Talk Page reply

I'm teaching a class using Wikipedia this semester, and my students and I are in the thick of learning verifiability/notability. In response to my student, Jossoto, you wrote that "Lead content does not need footnotes if it is referenced later on." Is there a Wiki page that touches on this that I can share with my students? I think they will find it useful knowledge as they continue to edit. Thanks. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:CITELEAD. As usual, it provides for case-by-case discussions, so it does not prevent Jossoto adding citations to the lead if they consider that a particular claim is likely to be challenged and should therefore be cited even in the lead. Sandstein 17:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating Score Runoff Voting

Hey Sandstein, I posted the original article about Score Runoff Voting that you deleted in December. Since then, there has been considerable analysis discussion about the system in a variety of venues, including a research report published by the Sightline Institute: http://www.sightline.org/research_item/sightlines-voting-system-reform-priorities-in-oregon/?utm_source=Sightline+Newsletters&utm_campaign=12293aaab4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_04_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_18df351f8f-12293aaab4-296276477 and a detailed simulation analysis published by the Center For Election Science: http://electology.github.io/vse-sim/VSE/

The two references above, plus the original IVN published articles would seem to satisfy the TOOSOON and science-based concerns on the original AfD.

As an aside, it's also now under active campaign for adoption in two counties in Oregon.

Wikipedia told me to talk at you as the first step to re-posting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nardopolo (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the article. Sandstein 06:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your ARCA comment

I'm kind of confused by these statements:

"One might also consider that by using an untranscluded, editable template for their sanction..."
"sanctions contained in untranscluded templates are invalid,"

Aren't we talking about transcluded templates? That is, the inclusion of the content of one document within another document by reference? Untranscluded templates would presumably be subst'd and stand on their own, unaffected by any central changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I confused transcluded and substituted. Sandstein 04:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

martin stoltz

would like to redo my page as it seems it was deleted and I can provide the proper sources.

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 Aren't we talking about ''transcluded'' templates? That is, the inclusion of the content of one document within another document by reference? Untranscluded templates would presumably be subst'd and stand on their own, unaffected by any central changes. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 00:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 :You're right, I confused transcluded and substituted. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 04:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
+== martin stoltz ==
+would like to redo my page as it seems it was deleted and I can provide the proper sources.