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

North Charleston, South Carolina and User:City of North Charleston

Recently the above named user has started editing again at the article in question. The user has made 5 edits total, all to this article, all unsourced, and one which was fairly blatantly NPOV ([1]). Their most recent edits consisted of removal of sourced census data and insertion of unsourced data, as well as an inadvertant incorrect statement ([2]). I reverted this edit ([3]) and attempted to engage the user at their talk page ([4]). While I was doing so, they reverted my revert ([5]). I also warned them of a possible COI issue ([6]). I wanted to seek your advice rather than edit war by re-reverting and prior to filing a report at WP:COIN. What would be the best way to approach this? Thanks.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also apprised them of the issue with their username ([7]), though I fear I may be over-templating.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've username-blocked the account and left further advice, maybe that will help resolve the issue. If you cannot verify the changes through a search, I think you would be justified in reverting them again.  Sandstein  18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 20:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Common Statement?

I started working up a combined draft of the points made by apparently like-minded people at User:Wnt/User_Faction/santorum#A_mutually_compatible_point_of_view. You're one of the 11 I think should be compatible. I'd like to get as many points as possible that everyone involved can agree on completely, so I'd much appreciate it if you could endorse the statement, and/or specify which points you reject or need reworked or explained. (and in all fairness there are a few I can see need work). Interested? Wnt (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My statement was procedural and regarded the scope of any possible arbitration case. In the RfC, I've (weakly) supported a merger on UNDUE grounds. So I'm not sure that my opinion is compatible with that of all of the other people, or these opinions with each other.  Sandstein  21:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for answering. I'm not sure how this will turn out... Wnt (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can a High School Yearbook be used as a "Reference"?

Hello. I am considering the use of a school yearbook to add verifiable information to a few articles. Is this considered and acceptable means of referencing? Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an American and so do not know whether such books are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required by WP:RS. You might want to ask at WP:RSN.  Sandstein  04:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein: You didn't phrase your answer as a question, but I'll answer it as if it were a question anyway. No, it's not a third-party reliable source, but it might be considered acceptable as a primary source depending on the situation. It's been years since I looked at my yearbook, but I suppose it would probably be acceptable to cite in an article about the school on how many games their sports team won (for example). (Of course, a school newspaper would probably be a better source). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents, I would avoid using a year book as a source. At my school the year book was created every year by a committee of juniors at the school and only looked over by an assigned teacher and I believe that this is a common practice for high schools, in the US at least.

However, the main reason I would object is because unless you bought the yearbook from the school in the year it was issued or you go to that school's library there is no way to obtain a copy to verify any information claiming to come from that book. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." I think yearbooks in general by their nature fail many of the tests laid out in that page.

Phancy Physicist (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:V does not require sources to be easy to access (athough that's certainly nice). Some online sources may require an account or payment, while some books may be available only in university libraries. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But that is exactly my point. Yearbooks for all intents and purposes are self-published by the school and not available to the public in general. No matter how obscure the book or article if you go to the public or local university library with effort they can get you a copy. But if I want to verify a fact from a 1974 yearbook for a highschool in Lewistown, Montana, U.S.A. I can't even get it from the Library of Congress. I have to know somebody from Lewistown or go there myself and maybe the school library has a copy. This unavailability combined with its self-publication and lack of professional fact checking makes a yearbook a bad if not unacceptable source IMHO.

To discuss this further I would say go to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Can_a_High_School_Yearbook_be_used_as_a_.22Reference.22.3F Which the OP of this post started.

Phancy Physicist (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 5, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Economic history of the Arab world

Hi Sandstein. I notice this has a G5 tag on it, and I was going to delete it for that reason, but I saw that you had closed a previous AfD for the page as "keep", so I wanted to ask your opinion before proceeding. What are your thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it has substantial edits by others and has survived an AfD, so should not be speedy deleted IMHO.  Sandstein  05:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it be. Thanks. 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification regarding MickMacNee case

Further to the initial discussion at the "Motions and requests by the parties" section of the workshop page of the MickMacNee case, this message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee now considers you to be a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee, and that your conduct will be examined during the proceedings. By direction of the arbitrators, I have accordingly re-added you to the list of parties to this case. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)