User talk:El Sandifer

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8

I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me.

Webcomics proposal

Hi Snowspinner,

I've written down as a proposal page some of the things you and other people have said, and put it all at User:SCZenz/Webcomics/Proposal. Can you take a look, and see if there's anything that you can think of that's left off? I'm not saying I agree with all the criteria—I need to do some research on specific sites—I thought it would be helpful to write up a full, coherent, multi-criterion proposal to help with further discussion.

Let me know what you think. -- SCZenz 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Expertise discussion

Hi again. I just wanted to let you know that I've put a question on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding expertise counting extra on AfD's. This was largely a response to Mr. Gerard's insistence on the point. I just wanted to mention that it is by no means an attack on your credentials, or an effort to bring the argument about webcomics into another forum. We've had some pretty insistent arguments about the issue, but I think it's been a fair debate and we're making progress; I hope you think so too. -- SCZenz 23:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Woosterite Speaketh

Hi Snowspinner. You asked about my IS, which is a magazine reporting on students with disabilities at Wooster and giving students a taste of disability studies. My adviser is Peter Havholm, who will have to teach me Quark. Since Kauke is closed this year, Taylor now holds the computers with Quark loaded on them. :)

I think I may have seen you around in LiveJournal-land (that is, if you use the same name there, too). I think we must have a mutual friend there, though I'm forgetting who that might be. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Before I could even say a word to Peter Havholm, he said, "Phil says hi." :-P PS, good common sense on that AfD... --Jacqui ^★ 18:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, another Woosterite! (Hi, Jacqui). I'm currently at Wooster as well. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 02:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Closing the Wooster debate

Hi again Snowspinner. With respect, I don't understand your early closing of the debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_College_of_Wooster_Greeks_(2). I do not know of any rule allowing such a decision—especially not for the reason you cite. Articles are repeatedly nominated every so often, and there's no rule against it, while the rule you said you oppose is policy at Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy. Your action seems rather close to a violation of WP:POINT, but perhaps I misunderstand. Can you explain? -- SCZenz 07:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 14:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Your revert

Sorry, I assumed that 68.101.68.213 (talk · contribs) was a vandal attacking your User page; I assume from your revert of my revert that it was you, un-logged in. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Able and Baker

Hi Snowspinner

Regarding the Able and Baker AFD, I see that your arguments have swayed a number of people over to the "keep" side, and the article seems headed for either a "keep" or at least a "no consensus". I still have no opinion myself on the merits of the article, since I am perhaps the least knowledgable person on webcomics you will ever find on Wikipedia. Mathematicians rarely have much knowledge of webcomics.

However regarding the first AFD which I closed, I would like to point out that it is really your own responsibility to keep a check of the daily AFD listings and add your points to the discussion before the debate closes. In this case you got lucky since there were some people who had added their keep votes on the first debate, and because I made a more or less unilateral decision to reverse my original "delete" result, thereby giving the article a rare second chance. Had the debate yielded the clear delete consensus which I thought was there originally, I would have voted "keep deleted" at DR without any regrets. If the debate had been closed as a "delete" by anybody apart from myself, I would also have endorsed that decision as a reasonable one at DR, the same way a great number of users endorsed my original decision. (In this case, I was the only one who knew that I had completely overlooked the valid keep votes, so I was able to make a more informed decision.)

In general, trying to bring up an argument over the article's merit after an AFD which has run its course in process for five or more days giving a "delete" result will be futile. I don't really know if DR should be that way, I have some concerns about the low scrutiny of individual AFD debates occaisionally yielding unreasonable "delete" results which are made almost irreversible by "Keep deleted, valid AFD". For me, it's not a huge deal, after all, I have access to all the deleted material, and could even print out a thousand copies of deleted articles and use it as wallpaper if I wanted to. But the way DR is handled today, that is definitely the way it works, and so it is best to get your arguments in early, before it's too late.

Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We should make a good faith attempt to enforce policy. Voting "kd" on DR simply because the AfD result was formally correct is failing to address the principal question: "Is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia with this article?"

If it is, then the previous AfD should be reversed. Consensus never overrides commonsense. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV

I greatly appreciate your support at my RFA, and no less so because of your general stand against the use of RFA as a remedy in Arbcom cases. I hope that my explanations have served to answer any outstanding questions as to my trustworthiness, as raised by others. Sincerely,-St|eve 04:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Trust

Snowspinner,
Please don't mistake my objections for a personal issue of mistrust. As I've said several times, it's only about outside verifiability, and the differance between an expert opinion on the factual nature of something and it's relative importance. I can't support any objections that you would do anything less than honest, as I assume good faith and have no evidence otherwise. I'm deeply sorry that you've been offended.
brenneman^(t)(c) 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner,

I haven't had much direct contact with you, although you did feature on an early version of my user page. Thus forgive me if I ask: Is everything all right in your world? Your contributions seem to be becoming more, well, shrill. On WP:WEB there is every chance that we could come to some form of guideline that you can live with, if you'll have some faith in the process. That also means having some faith in your fellow contributors, even those whom you believe to be aligned against you.
We've all got similar goals in mind, for the project as a whole and for little things like guidelines. If we focus on the areas we agree on first, that will make the other things easier.
brenneman^(t)(c) 22:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And again I'm trying to express some concern. You're looking near meltdown on WP:DRV right now, and I'm trying to offer an ear, or an eyeball or something. What's gotten up your craw, so to speak? Forget that random public bunfight on the other end of town, just pretend for a second that you don't think I'm some sort of enemy combatant and tell me what's going on? - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Reclaim

could use some of your expertise. Someone came in and half-heartedly threatened to nuke it if it didn't improve. You know your critical theory way better than I do, and I think it could come in handy to expand the article. There's a brief mention of Foucault's idea of "reverse discourse," but not enough to fully explain it.

If you don't have time or are uninterested in doing anything with it yourself, a few helpful hints on its talk page, or mine, would be welcomed. If you're too busy, though, I understand -- I'll pull out my Foucault texts at home over winter break. Thanks. Jacqui ^★ 16:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have removed you request for comment on Hahnchen, because it was not certified by two users who had failed to resolve the dispute earlier. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"regardless of your personal distaste for me"

Snowspinner,
I'm reaching out again here, trying to find some way forward.

I'll again say that I don't have any personal distaste for you. I'm just finding it very difficult to reach any sort of compromise with you. When trying to work out a guideline, something like "this survived AfD" simply isn't helpful. We're trying to go to root cause here, and ask why it survived AfD. We distill out the things that are important to people, we codify them, and thus we avoid (in a large measure) repetitive argument.

With regards to the A.B. AfD the thing that changed that from it's previous "delete" to "no consensus" was you. Not the evidence of syndication, but you. People are pretty specific about that. The problem is that that really doesn't help much.

We cannot have a state where (with the excpetion of Jimbo) we are deciding what stays and what goes based upon one person's opinion. In fact, thinking back to Ashida Kim, even he doesn't get to decide sometimes.

This really isn't about anyone casting aspersions on your academic standards. Ok, that may not be 100% true, I shouldn't speak for other people. Some of them may have axes to grind. What this is about for me are the tenants WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. I just want some simple, objective guidelines that we can get general agreement on.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Micronation Infobox

An info box template has recently been created by myself and O^O for use in Wikipedia articles about micronations and other unrecognised entities, to address longstanding concerns and edit wars that have resulted from the inappropriate use of the standard country infobox in these types of articles.

This new info box has so far been successfully incorporated into the following articles: Sealand, Republic of Rose Island, Independent State of Aramoana, Empire of Atlantium, Avram and Province of Bumbunga, and it is intended to incorporate it into most of the other articles in the micronation category in due course.

However, one editor, Samboy has suggested that the micronation infobox should be excluded from Empire of Atlantium on the grounds that the article is "not notable" and because only 22% of micronation articles in Wikipedia currently have the info box (ie because the info box project is not yet complete).

As someone who has contributed to similar discussions in the past, I thought this might interest you. I have instituted a poll on this subject here, and invite you to review it if you are so inclined.

Thanks. --Gene_poole 06:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My personal issue with Gene Poole's action is that there is a conflict of interest here. One of the first micronations he added this infobox to is, conveniently enough, his own micronation. And, while he sets up a poll about whether we should add the template to the article, he did not mention the poll in WP:RFC, which is the best way to make the poll visible to people who have never been involved in the issue. Instead, he posts the existance of the poll on the user pages of a number of users who he feels are symphathetic to his micronation. User:Tony Sidaway has felt that this kind of campaigning is dishonest. Samboy 07:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The College of Wooster Greeks debate reopened

Since you participated in this AFD debate, you might like to know that it has been reopened following discussion at WP:DRV. The new debate is at here. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have reverted the import of the old votes since the old AFD is more than a week old, and the article may have changed a bit since then. Instead I spammed the talkpages of everyone who participated in the previous AFD. If you strongly disagree with my revert, then I won't revert a second time. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• OK. It's definitely not a big deal. At least one user, David Gerard, has already responded to my spamming, so you might want to be a bit cautious when pasting in their old votes as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Bait taken, I guess

I've already discussed the Wooster Greeks thing over at WP:DRV. The Afd closure was blatantly improper. To me, it sure looked like an effort on your part to tune consensus to your own tastes. I'm not sure why you're wondering about it now, I thought I made myself abundantly clear at deletion review. FWIW, it looks to me like I'm not the only editor who found your closure questionable. Friday (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Southern Ivies

Snowspinner, I take your point in the last edit. I didn't mean it that way. But I did re-tweak your edit so as to remove the unsourced assertion that these schools are "prestigious."

(For the record: I did not go to an Ivy League school as either undergraduate or graduate, by the way; I did my graduate education at a "public Ivy." Both of my kids went to state schools, one of which happens to be a "public Ivy" and one of which happens not to be).

The constant pressure of academic boosterism in Wikipedia grates on my nerves and from time to time it just gets to be too much. My own alma mater's article keeps growing cardinal-and-grey peacock feathers whenever I'm not looking, and I sometimes try to pluck them.

As far as I know, Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that uses the word "prestigious" in connection with universities. I'm willing to be proved wrong on this. As far as I know, Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that knows or cares about U. S. New rankings.

I hate this whole article because the whole point seems to me just to brag about how great Duke & al are. The Public Ivies article has recently acquired a foul paragraph whose only point seems to be to brag about "them." It opens "While public universities typically are larger than, and can lack opportunities available at, liberal arts colleges, the Public Ivies boast of many attributes that many of the actual Ivy League cannot match." It contains impressive claims such as that "The University of Florida was the first and is (as of 2005) the only university in the world to achieve an Audubon Sanctuary status, one of only 607 such sanctuaries in existence."

Recently academic boosterism seems to have taken the form of creating article after article about various "Ivies." We can't all be in the Ivy League—why we would want to isn't particularly clear to me—but it seems that, well, we can at least be in a Public Ivy or a Jesuit Ivy or a Southern Ivy or some kind of Ivy. It's only a matter of time before someone writes an article about the "Engineering Ivies."

Anyway, I would like to find some acceptable way that points out that the obvious—that calling a school a Southern Ivy is just a way of saying you think it is a very good school—without asserting as fact that these schools are "prestigious," which is, I think, far less capable of objective assessment even than "notable."

Our articles go on and on and ON about U. S. News rankings and how many Nobel prizes the faculty has won. I think they would bring a blush to the cheeks of even an admissions officer.

See also User:Dpbsmith/rank for some, uh, thoughts on this matter. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ernie Dingo

So instead of properly listing it on the copyvios page, you just undeleted it? Isn't that criminal action? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Jolanta paterek

You don't think An accomplished artist and art historian, Jolanta now resides as an associate professor at the Georgia Community College. is imminently speedyable? You obviously don't understand the speedy deletion criteria. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Evidence. You are welcome to make suggestions and comments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Workshop Fred Bauder 15:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 case. →Raul654 03:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitraton committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair case. →Raul654 03:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The College of Wooster Greeks (3rd nomination)

While I do not dispute the close as no consensus, do you mind not closing an AFD in which you've participated? There's hundreds of uninvolved admins who can do the same thing... Titoxd^(?!?) 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this one will be controversial, certainly. Given your previous involvement, you should not be the one to close it this time around. I've unclosed it. Friday (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't closed this one before, and as it's an obvious no consensus keep I closed it this time. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Given your involvement, I don't think you should be the one to close it either. There's a request on the talk page for an uninvolved party to close it. This is not an unreasonable request. Friday (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Inclusionist?

I have noticed lately that you've become quite an inclusionist. I remember before you deleted some content about NYT and Village Voice music reviews of a multi-platinum album, despite my objections, so I am a little bit skeptical of this change in position. But I thought of a way you could demonstrate your inclusionism, and at the same time go some small way to righting the wrongs you've done to me over the last year: Autobiography sales and chart positions used to be an article, and is now a redirect; VfD tended towards keep, but it was redirected nevertheless. I would like to get this article restored. Do you think that is a good thing to do, and if so, how should it be done? Should it go through deletion review, although it was previously kept by the vote and is now technically still extant (as a redirect)? Everyking 10:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you should take the initiative. If I start any process it will be tainted by my earlier involvement in the dispute. Everyking 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autobiography sales and chart positions (current revision, an attempt at reopening that was quickly dropped) and the last version that shows the actual vote that counted. Everyking 06:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Of all people...you, who worked so hard to get me punished for reverting those articles, now wants me to go and revert it again? Everyking 06:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it. Enough people complained about me and those articles before that I'm not going to go stirring up a hornet's nest, regardless of whether I'm right. One more battle erupting and I could be right back for Everyking 4—and who do you think would be filing the case? I think you should revert the article as a gesture of goodwill. Everyking 09:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

IAR

<Grin> Your version wasn't half bad, no. Just the (in)famous "Ignore all rules ... including this one" sorta got snowed under. Hmm, How about this way? Kim Bruning 21:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Stewart

My "non-notable per nom" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Stewart meant that the comic was also non-notable for the reasons you listed (no album, only "claim to fame" is as an opening act). Since you seem to have a problem with it, I have struck the "per nom" portion. Best, Dragonfiend 23:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

the facts on Joe Johnston

You might reconsider this edit if apprised of the situation surrounding it. "Joe Johnston" was previously userfied, to its creator User:Rotundgrappler, as a vanity (history). though had previously been a semi-attack page for Robert De Niro [1]. Philwelch advised Rotundgrappler about vanity pages, yet Rotundgrappler blanked his user page and created a new Joe Johnston page, from which you removed the speedy-deletion tag. {{deletedpage}} comes to mind. ~~~~ 23:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

moron more on Joe Johnston

Hey, look at this [2]. Was he not adequately warned first? ~~~~ 00:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder thread

The thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration regarding the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Fred_Bauder has long since ceased to be productive. May I suggest a cooling off period with regards to that thread and that any follow up discussions be take to individual talk pages. FuelWagon 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

WP:CIV TheChief (PowWow) 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Another try

I was looking around and I found a more interesting case than the one above. Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005 was actually deleted by you (following a VfD vote), personally, on Feb. 28. So this one would be a perfect case for you to try to get fixed on Deletion review. Since it was deleted outright, not redirected, this one can be treated as a standard deletion issue. Everyking 10:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Haukur makes three excellent points on my talk page. Besides those, I have one other point: you have argued, unless I've misunderstood you or misremembered someone else's argument as yours, that VfU, or deletion review, shouldn't just be about reviewing process; it should also be a forum for revisiting a debate, opening the way for a deleted article to be undeleted even if there was a 100-0 margin in favor of deleting during the original debate. Everyking 12:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole idea, of course, presupposes that Phil actually feels that the article does not merit a longer stay in the graveyard. He can, of course, legitimately hold another opinion on the matter - regardless of what inclusionist tendencies James has perceived in his recent votes - and then the point is moot.

As an aside I get 14,200 English language Google hits for the exact phrase "Ashlee Simpson tour". I get 1,010 hits for the exact phrase "Hrafnkels saga" - the title of a featured article I wrote. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Not just his votes; he's been arguing vociferously lately for some really radical inclusionism, more radical than my own, fighting to get webcomics and that kind of thing kept. So I figure he could help get something that actually deserves to be on Wikipedia restored, and at the same time go a little ways towards mending fences with me, assuming of course that he desires that at all. Everyking 22:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I just browsed the current deletion review discussions and they're not quite what I expected. The people involved seem to be very concerned with procedural issues and I honestly don't know if throwing poor Ashlee in there would do any good - even if Phil were to do it. Can't we just be bold and recreate the page, using the rationale that it's going to be an essentially different article? And create it under a different name even? Or would that still bring on a G4 speedy-deletion tag within minutes? Surely there must be some reasonable way of resurrecting an article without showing that there were procedural problems with its previous deletion? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel almost as though my presence in this conversation is wholly incidental. Phil Sandifer 23:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can sympathise. Let's move this elsewhere if you feel we're imposing on your talk page. I'd still like to hear your opinion on what the best way to move forward on this would be. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Phil, you never did respond to me again. I can recreate the article and may well do so, but I would vastly prefer to have the history undeleted as a starting point. Please explain how you could give "no convincing grounds" for undeletion in light of the points raised by Haukur and myself. Everyking 10:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can accept that reasoning. You may be right about that. But I do feel the proliferation of other tour articles is s very strong point in favor of undeletion. Everyking 19:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup:Tampa

I'm writing to let you know that the Tampa meetup has officially been announced -- Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa2 &rarr;Raul654 04:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Dacodava

I am a Daco-Roman and I am immortal!Dacodava

Your vote on Guanaco's RFA

Yep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. You may make proposals and comment on proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare

Please be familiar with the policies of Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before making a recommendation as to whether an article should be deleted or not, or making a comment on an AfD. AfDs are for discussing articles and whether they ought tho be deleted, not for discussing your personal feelings about other editors. Dragonfiend 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Can you stop being condescending and mousing around people's talk pages snarkily calling me "Snowy?" Phil Sandifer 06:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  I will henceforth desist referring to you as "Snowy". - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Mob rule

When I first came to wikipedia I really respected you. You seemed not only to understand the letter of the law but the spirit as well. I've mentioned before that you even had a place on my user page as someone to emulate. But I have to say that with every contibution you make any slight shred of that feeling that remains is further diminshed.

I cannot believe that you would not only accept but condone what has happened at this AfD, and your altering of the proposed guideline goes beyond any possibilty for me to assume good faith. If it's ok by you for people who have no commitment to the goals of the project in general, who don't contribute to it operation, and who don't care about anything but their own interests to contaminate the process as long as you get what you want, then you are not on the side of good any longer.

The fact that you have not been able, with logical coherent discourse and citing your sources, to make a succesful bid for inclusion of articles like this speaks volumes.

brenneman^(t)(c) 00:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)