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

John Vinzelts

• Hello Madam/Sir, Please sorry for calling on your attention to help me resolve on an issue concerning an Article i have created as John Vinzelts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and was looking for an Arbitary Member to help me resolve it. I'm currently teaching my young daughter how to edit wikipedia articles, unfortunately on the same laptop. I have been charge now for Sockpuppet and with deletion Tags on my article please could you help? (Professorat (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)).

I don't quite understand what your specific problem is and what your daughter has to do with it. If the article meets our speedy deletion criteria or consensus forms to delete it, it will eventually be deleted. Sandstein 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your negligence; someone deleted one of my comments in an open deletion discussion that you closed, etc.

Someone deleted one of my comments in this then-open deletion discussion that you closed.

The comment was

• Keep, because I dug for a few minutes, and here's one strong indicator of current notability: Of "what the editors at HealthDay consider to be the most important developments in Pharmacy for June 2018" were four articles from JNO. This from a total of 58 articles, 37 of which were behind paywalls. That's 19 percent of the open access articles.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone interpreted it as a second vote and perhaps it was deleted it on that basis. That's not a reasonable basis for deletion of the entire comment. And I thought deletion discussions aren't votes, so how is saying Keep twice even voting? *If* I understood that it wasn't allowed, wouldn't have done it, and would be willing to apologize for it now, but I don't understand that that's the case. Did you consider the arguments I made on the deleted comment? The struck ones? I don't see any indication that you did. Also, I don't understand the basis for striking all my other comments. Can you please address these concerns? I was blocked for complaining about some misbehavior and no one appears willing to have a conversation with me about my or others (alleged) misbehavior. Are you willing to do either or both? I'm trying to make sense of the responses I've received and there's rarely any connection I can see between my edits and the allegations, let alone policy.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion. Sandstein 20:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Please reply.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You were being disruptive and the discussion was unanimously in favor in deletion apart from you. The discussion would have concluded the same way regardless of the striking or deletion of your contributions. There‘s nothing for me to do here. Sandstein 05:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why you bothered to reply. You avoided both answering my questions and addressing my concerns. Seems to be common- it's like what happened in the other discussions I've attempted to have with someone who opposed a contribution of mine. I still don't know if you considered the arguments I made on the deleted comment. The evidence suggests you didn't. Your second sentence doesn't change that, but it implies you think it's irrelevant. So that's my first question.

I feel hostility in every sentence. I'm already aware I was supposedly disruptive. Your repeating that statement is unenlightening. I'm guessing what the point of your final sentence was and can't find one compatible with civility.

It's a blatant falsehood - your claim that "the discussion was unanimously in favor in <sic> deletion apart from you" - as I recall. I checked. Yup. Clearly you didn't consider the "Don't Delete" vote and argument by User:Mrmxzptlk. That's negligent.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel rudely and unfairly treated. You still haven't responded to my reasonable questions and concerns above - instead you archived them. I still have no clue what I did that supposedly was disruptive. I don't understand. I could find no argument presented (by anyone) to explain the assertion. Could you please tell me? I'd appreciate a response regarding your other claim that was blatantly false. I've been civil. What is your problem?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to what I wrote above and will not reply further. Sandstein 19:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Stairs

Would you have any objections to my splitting out a separate article for 'City of Stairs'? I ask since you originally made it as a redirect to the Divine Cities trilogy. DS (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, if you can make it into a decent real-world based article, per WP:WAF, rather than just a lot of plot summary and in-universe info. Not that I think that you particularly tend to do that, but a lot of book articles look that way. Sandstein 16:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please be civil.

Please be civil. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you refer to? Sandstein 22:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

AFD of QuickStudy

Hiya. I noticed you raised a comment about the notability of QuickStudy. You might be interested to know I have nominated the page for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuickStudy --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ferrolens

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ferrolens. 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. 194.177.198.8 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)