User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/September

Depopulating a category tree
Hello — About a month ago you closed this RFC with the result of no consensus to make a change in the group-page text. The user who opened the RFC has interpreted your closure as a personal assignment to him to depopulate Category:Anti-Semitism and all related categories. Please check his recent edit list, and note that he is systematically removing categories from literally hundreds of articles, and in his edit summaries citing this RFC as the reason.

A number of editors, including myself, have objected, noting that there was no conclusion that anything should be changed; that there seems to have been no assignment made, to him or to anyone; and that his bulk deletions are frequently contradictory to the content and cited sources of the affected articles.

As the closing administrator, may I ask if mass deletion of categories from articles was your intent or expectation?

Thank you for your time in checking on this.

Unician &nabla; 07:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No. As I told that user then, I only established whether there was consensus to change the text on the category page and determined that there was not. I did not find consensus to systematically remove pages from the category; that was not discussed in the RfC.  Sandstein   08:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your very quick response. I believe that the editor in question is doing damage to the encyclopedia as WP:DISRUPTPOINT, and I believe that, should this be noticed by external media, it has potential to bring disrepute to the project.  Other editors have noticed this disruption.  Which of the various channels of problem resolution would be most appropriate for bringing this ongoing damage to a prompt and enduring halt?  Unician &nabla; 11:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know, as I haven't followed this situation closely. A well-attended community discussion about whether there is consensus for such removals would seem appropriate to me, off the cuff.  Sandstein   11:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, because these edits relate (often) to living persons, the topic area is covered by WP:AC/DS. If it becomes clear that such removals are disruptive, about which I don't have an opinion at the moment, they might be grounds for a request for discretionary sanctions at WP:AE.  Sandstein   11:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the root cause of the problem has been the ignore-not-challenge approach to the original CFDs, not helped by at least one user taking an attitude that they can personally overturn it by shouting "WP:BURO" or "there is no consensus because I do not consent", and refusing to accept the validity of the location and the outcome of that discussion so doesn't try to get it reviewed or launch a new one but instead edit-wars then launches awkwardly focused discussions. Some users have followed the instructions on this and other categories and removed individuals & groups accordingly. Others have not hence and this has led to them piling up in the category, not helped by edit wars on both the articles and the categories.
 * It's my interpretation that that RFC effectively was about content inclusion but it really wasn't worded well at all, and you get people arguing about different status quos.
 * I suspect the only long term solution is to hold a new broad discussion on the whole question of what bias categories should and shouldn't include and exactly how to draw the line - one thing that seems clear above all else is that there's broad consensus they should be treated the same, though people disagree on whether an individual category should change now or wait for others, and narrow discussions based on one category or one area of discrimination are getting nowhere. (It would probably also help to ban from the discussion using the Nazis as an example of anything as they're not a remotely typical example where the sources may be divided or the accusations are partisan attacks that are ignored rather than countered.) Timrollpickering (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

TBAN?
Hello Sandstein,

I was on my holidays just returned couple of days ago and I found out I was TBANed again. I couldn't even take part in AE discussion and how did you ban me again without even knowing my position? Per Georgian scripts and Mesrop Mashtots I haven't edit warred as promised you when you lifted that ban from me, I haven't violated 3RR and I kept constructive and cooperative attitude towards an Armenian users. None of that presented links filed against me at AE proved anything that I was engaged into an unconstructive, aggressive or uncivil behaviour. I've done much for those articles to be free of bias from all sides whether Georgian or Armenian. You can see the talk pages of those articles to closely see how it all went. Also I've left you a message before all this happened as these are the articles the admins should closely look at every edit that's done because these two articles are being vandalised from both Georgian or Armenian sides 24/7. Jaqeli 15:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you had ample time to respond to the request for enforcement. That you chose not to, for whichever reason, is your own business. Your other concerns are too unspecific for me to be able to usefully respond to them.  Sandstein   15:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I said I was on my holidays and I could not answer as I was not online and you've banned me without knowing my position. I haven't edit war and I haven't violated 3RR. Have you seen the histories and talk pages of those 2 articles? Jaqeli 16:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care that you were on your holidays. Wikipedia does not revolve around your personal schedule. What matters is that you had several days to respond. Again, your appeal is too unspecific to respond to it, because it does not address the edits at issue in the enforcement request. The appeal is denied. You can appeal in other venues as you have been instructed.  Sandstein   16:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What is unspecific? See this. None of those links say anything as I've violated nothing. That user just literally copied all the links of the talk page and the history and have you even checked them? None of them show my edit warring, violation of 3RR etc. On what basis then you've put that ban on me again? My concern is very specific and I am asking you to closely check the history and the talk page conversations of the Georgian scripts and Mesrop Mashtots articles. Jaqeli 16:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Appeal
I'm following the procedures to appeal an AE action and discussing with you first. My comment was a direct response to not one but two separate invasions of my section violating both the rule "involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections" and misconstruing my comments to mean something they didn't. Considering your quoted the most offensive part of my comment, I don't see how it can be all that offensive. The dispute - editing my section - had nothing to do with the topic area of Manning naming or gender identity and a log in that case is inappropriate. I request that you withdraw your log here and we settle for a verbal reprimand on my talk page.--v/r - TP 17:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the two editors should not have edited your section, but that does not justify calling them, or others, "morons" - nothing does, really. The log entry is topically appropriate because your incivil comment occurred in the context of a discussion about conduct with regard to transgender topics, and is therefore within the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorized for that topic. I originally intended to block you directly, but then decided on a warning. The log entry of the warning is needed because, if such conduct reoccurs, the enforcing administrator(s) may want to consider your previous conduct in this topic area. For these reasons, I decline to remove the log entry. However, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute, which provides that "any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one", I am transferring the log entry to the log of that case.  Sandstein   17:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The offending comment wasn't in the Manning topic area. It was in an AE comment not even about the Manning case.  Regardless, are you open to further discussion or does this mean I should move on to the next step?--v/r - TP 17:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute, the sanctions authorized in the Sexology case also "apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning". This was the exact subject matter of the AE thread in which you commented, namely, a dispute surrounding conduct about pronoun usage on Talk:Chelsea Manning. The discretionary sanctions therefore apply. Additionally, irrespective of subject matter, WP:AC/DS, which also authorizes sanctions, applies to all AE discussions. Considering your comments on your talk page, where you appear to be of the mistaken view that your conduct was appropriate, I remain of the view that the warning is necessary. You are free, insofar as I am concerned, to pursue any further appeal you may desire.  Sandstein   17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Oathkeeper regarding expert SPS criteria
You are being contacted because you have made substantial edits to the article Oathkeeper.

There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." Participation is welcome. 00:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Irving Andrews
Hello. Several months ago you deleted this article after closing its AfD. I have since discovered significant new information which I think might justify undeleting the article. I have discovered two new sources which appear to say that Andrews was awarded the Order of the Crown of Romania in the rank of Commander. I think it is likely that this award satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The two sources are:
 * Bates Student, vol 57 (1929 - 1930), 10 May 1929, p 2, col 3 Internet Archive
 * The New Pioneer (1945 or 1946) vol 4 (published by the Cultural Association for Americans of Romanian Descent) Google Books:

This information was not included in the deleted article or mentioned at the AfD. I think it is reasonable to assume that none of the participants was aware of it. I certainly wasn't, and I was the one looking hardest for sources.

Do I need to go to deletion review to have this article reinstated? James500 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you need to. Awards such as this only make a person "likely to be notable", and "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", according to WP:BIO. I think that such awards are merely an indication that sources probably exist about a person that can be used as the basis of a biography about them, but if you've already looked for those, it's not going to help much.  Sandstein   05:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There were actually quite a lot of sources in GBooks that mentioned him. Does it matter if I matter if I only mentioned the ones that I thought looked most promising? James500 (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't know. That's up to the people at DRV to decide, I suppose.  Sandstein   10:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

How about, for the time being, a redirect to Order of the Crown (Romania) and a history only undeletion per WP:REFUND to facilitate merger? This is what WP:BIO mandates even in cases where a person fails BASIC. James500 (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Where do you want to merge it to?  Sandstein   08:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Order of the Crown (Romania), which I assume is going to be spun off into a stand alone list sooner or later. James500 (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's only a list of names with no biographical content, no history restoration is needed for this. The redirect can be created by any user on their own.  Sandstein   09:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Refernce for the PC-7 Team
Hello Cane you have a look at the PC-7 Team Page? Because the References I made are declared as "unreliable source". I don't agree with this, because one is the official Swiss Air Force Homepage  and the other the official PC-7 Team Homepage (if you scroll down you see:© 2014 | SWISS AIR FORCE PC-7 TEAM | MILITÄRFLUGPLATZ PAYERNE | CH-1530 PAYERNE   . Thank you FFA P-16 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Air Force page is reliable, in my view, but with your history of sockpuppetry and generally poor judgment and prose skills I'd think it would be better if you left the editing of these articles to others.  Sandstein   08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But why have they then be declared as unreliable? No one cares to put in informationsor hold this articles upn to date, so i had tried to do it. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but, everything else aside, your written English is very poor, and this often means that your edits reduce rather than improve Wikipedia's quality. Please reconsider whether you want to contribute here rather than in another language edition of Wikipedia.  Sandstein   19:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But I stil not understand why the official PC-7 Team page and swiss air force page should not be reliable. I know my english is not good but ther are often informations missing ~(or in the past wrong or no more actual) and I try to put them in because no one other had made it.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to your AE comment
Do you have any further opinion to offer at WP:AE? Your last comment was August 31. I am planning to close this as no action but would hesitate if there is a net majority for a topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Commented there, thanks.  Sandstein   10:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

TBAN appeal
Hello Sandstein,

I'd like to ask for the TBAN to be lifted from me. I'd go for 1RR over Georgian-Armeno articles. I deeply believe this TBAN is not necessary to be on me because I am not engaged into a disruptive editing of any article here on wiki. I am greatly contributing to many Georgian articles which can have very marginal Armenian connections to it in some way and this is a motivation killer for creating a new articles or making even some minor edits which have some very marginal connection to Armenia. I promise that I'll go for 1RR and will not edit war and will try to do everything possible to discuss on the articles respective talk pages and if problems would arise I will ask for help from other admins. I know my mistakes and I am learning it as I acknowledge them. I have those minor mistakes I make so I am ready for those to never happen again. Jaqeli 13:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The sanction was reinstated as recently as 15 August 2014, see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154. I see no reason to lift it again, especially considering that your statement does not address your conduct which caused the sanction. The appeal is declined.  Sandstein   15:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014)
I just want you to know that whilst I respect you as a sysop, your recent closure of the deletion discussion about this article has made life extremely difficult for those of us working in the Ukraine crisis area. No one has any idea what this supposed "article" is about, how it is different from other articles, what title it should have. It is an absolute disaster, and now we have two articles being developed by different sets of editors with the same content area 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). It greatly saddens me that you had an opportunity to solve this problem, but instead now there is no clear solution whatsoever. In the meantime, we have a mess with no potential for resolution. Next time you close such a discussion, please think of the editors on the ground that have to deal with the content messes created by such decisions. You don't have to clean it up, as an uninvolved party, but we do. And, to be frank, we can't really do so in this case, because there is "no clear solution", as you said. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As I see it, there is a disagreement among editors as to whether both articles should have the same scope, or whether the "invasion" article should cover only the most recent part of the conflict. As an admin, I can't resolve this by fiat - I can only try to find out whether there's consensus for a solution, which there wasn't. This will have to be resolved by the editors involved, perhaps via a RfC.  Sandstein   16:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sysops have taken tough decisions on the basis of policy and guidelines, even if "numerical" consensus was not in favour of such a decision. Regardless, I can understand that there was no "easy answer", nor an easy closure that would've resolved the situation. I just wanted to say that I don't see any way forward, at the moment, and the talk page of the article is making it clear that each person has a different conception of what the "article" should be about. Perhaps an RfC is appropriate. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Books or Seasons?
I was wondering if it was possible to move Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) to Avatar: The Last Airbender (Book 1), Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2) to Avatar: The Last Airbender (Book 2) and Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) to Avatar: The Last Airbender (Book 3), to make them consistent with the The Legend of Korra books, since both series are in the same universe. I asking you because you seem the most active with The Legend of Korra articles. Or we can get a consensus, if that's possible. QuasyBoy (talk)  14:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I don't really care all that much about consistency between series, but if a move were to be made I'd rather move "book" to "season" as is standard with all other TV series.  Sandstein   14:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I never understood why the Korra seasons were listed as books, considering the Avatar seasons are listed as seasons. Its probably because there was talk at one point about how there was going to be two books per season or something like that. So about the page moves concerning the Korra articles do you want make the moves or should I? QuasyBoy (talk)  14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's probably the reason. I recommend making a move request, as this might be controversial; I'd support it.  Sandstein   15:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Will do. QuasyBoy (talk)  15:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The move request is up now: Talk:The Legend of Korra (Book 1). QuasyBoy (talk)  15:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request warning to be expunged. Thank you. v/r - TP 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding deleted article for Multiclet?
John wilson swe (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Hello, Is it possible to retrieve the article for Multiclet that was deleted. I believe quite an effort was put into this and it would be nice if the text can be preserved using a different hosting method (since Wikipedia didn't want to host it).

Lately there has been some evolution for the Multiclet CPU, so there might as well be enough independent material to support the case for Wikipedia to host this article, but I need to find the original copy first in order to judge that.

Regards, John wilson swe


 * You'll find the deleted text at http://pastebin.com/3Q0bgD5w. It will be automatically deleted in a day because it lacks proper attribution and licensing info in this form.  Sandstein   08:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for guidance
Hello, I've recently posted on ANI, asking for guidance on how to proceed with an instance where several editors were participating in 'I can't hear you'-style behavior, but after a couple days, the section I opened was archived, seemingly, without anyone taking a look. This type of behavior, outright ignoring presented recent sources, is discouraging. I'd much rather someone saying "please follow the rules!" when someone acts out (not listening, uses sources from 2 years ago, blames someone as a, etc.), than having to go through, seemingly, endless bureaucracy and witch hunting. Please advise. Thanks. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't help you here because the problem you complain about seems to be a generic case of "people disagree with me and don't want to listen to my arguments." To begin with, nobody is required to listen to you, and if you fail to obtain consensus for your views, then you should abide by that. There are, however, several options for continuing discussion listed at WP:DR, which you may want to explore.  Sandstein   06:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is silly how much bureaucracy is written, yet, so much of it is ignored. Fine. I will read more bureaucracy. I would like further guidance here if you don't mind my asking. I've twice called you for guidance on issues and in both cases you read the material very lightly and replies were inaccurate 'there's no point in your complaint but you can look into DR' messages. I would really appreciate it if you review the ANI post a little deeper. My main "argument" is that multiple sources from 2014 were ignored. Add to that poor talk page and article space activity and one wonders what kind of conduct gets the cheese around here. If, after reading deeper, you still don't see it -- there must be something wrong with the way I've written it (I haven't imagined it and wasted some time to present it). In that case, I could use some explanation on how one explains such instances -- or that instances where sources and multiple other editors are ignored is considered a gloss-over-able activity (I hope not). Thanks in advance for all your time and effort. I'm sorry if I'm asking too much. I just feel that there's too much bureaucracy and a LOT of monkeying around (from my short time trying to contribute), ignoring it and hurting the project. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: after discussing it a bit further and seeing less silliness (there was still a rant about Israeli sources), I inquired about the use of old sources, which ignore the 2014 changes. 3 days passed without objection or clarification (one editor noted agreement with my concern) -- which seems long enough to move forward and make a source based change despite some raised concerns. Thank you for your time and guidance, I'm sure there's so much silliness, that as is a good tactic with 4 year olds, letting it slide gets even more results than asking people to stop it. Only time will tell. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Small question: how can I link to "thank you" alerts? I enjoy making a small collection of interesting occurrences on my user page. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how, sorry.  Sandstein   08:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm sorry to still be bothering with you but I'd rather do that than fish for multiple admins. (a) That behavior seems like chess-playing more than an honest attempt to get things done respectfully. (b) You've been in the following of the relevant thread and, hopefully, come to learn a bit about its participants. An editor has chosen to remove the citation for the text. This seems like horrible and (seemingly) unjustifiable conduct. Please advise. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Admins aren't the content police, and I can't advise you here. The topic doesn't interest me, and I'm not following any threads in this regard. This is a content disagreement, and it must be resolved among the interested editors per WP:DR. Removing a reference is, in and of itself, not misconduct because there may be justifiable grounds for doing so, such as the reference not being reliable or not relevant to the topic, or any number of other reasons.  Sandstein   15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Where do you suppose is the best way to get community perspective on this issue of reference removal (note: the reference was definitely reliable and relevant). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To begin with, the article talk page, or WP:3O.  Sandstein   17:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits on Cerebellum
Hi, I undid your edits on Cerebellum. We try to stick to WP:MEDRS, and while it states that sources such as New Scientist are acceptable as "news sources" I didn't feel your edit was justified on the Cerebellum page. It may very well be justified on the Cerebellar hypoplasia page, and maybe there should be a see also link from Cerebellum to Cerebellar hypoplasia, or if it can be sourced properly a sentence on it. I don't think an entire section is appropriate. I hope you haven't been discouraged from these articles as WP:Neuro needs all the help it can get. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 18:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

ARCA Request
I've asked Arbcom to determine whether a threshold for consensus has been met regarding the AN thread. Please see Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment.--v/r - TP 19:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing comments by editors at WP:AE
I have a suggestion: instead of collapsing the comment, just use the archivetop/bottom template, to close discussion while keeping it visible. This might reduce the irritation of the guy who reverted your edit, while achieving the same effect. Kingsindian (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good idea. Thanks.  Sandstein   07:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, on second thought, no. The admins who need to read these comments have already done so, and everybody else would just get annoyed at the soapboxing, aspersions etc.  Sandstein   07:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Historical sources - query
Hi, I was wondering about your thoughts and where I can get further community thoughts about whether or not it is possible that a cartoon book could be used for neutral "voice of history" for historical facts. e.g. "at 6am the men left the camp" (source: comic book based on interviews with the men involved 50 years after the events of the day). Best, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Whether a source is appropriate for use in Wikipedia depends on the criteria described in WP:V and WP:RS. If you are looking for community input, WP:RSN might be the place to go.  Sandstein   10:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

GIADA
Dear Sandstein, I'm writing you about the entry GIADA that was relisted for further consensus after it was named for deletion: Articles for deletion/GIADA Just wanted to notify you that I have changed the text of the entry, and strived to make it more linear and enciclopedic. I have also added some third sources that prove that GIADA, in my opinion, deserves to stay on Wikipedia. Two of them are first rank-Italian nationally relevant newspapers: La Repubblica and Ilsole24ore. I have added these sources both in the entry GIADA and in the discussion AdF. I would appreciate if the case of the entry GIADA could be concluded positively. Of course, we are open to further discussions and would appreciate any comments and suggestions to improve. Thank you very much. Please find the list below: On website: “Giada sbarca in Montenapo, stile italiano, capitali cinesi” On website: “Il percorso inverso di Giada Italia Cina andata-ritorno” (Silvia.gasparri (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Roddolo, Enrica. “Ecco il mio business, prezioso come Giada”, Il mondo, 27 September 2013, p. 12-13.
 * Crivelli, Giuglia. “Giada sbarca in Montenapo, stile italiano, capitali cinesi”, Il Sole 24 Ore-Moda 24, 6 September 2013, p. 22
 * Ciullo, Giovanni N., “Il percorso inverso di Giada Italia Cina andata-ritorno”, La Repubblica-Affari Finanza, 7 October 2013
 * Epiro, Stephanie, “Giada opens in Milan”, wwd.com, 17 September 2013.


 * The discussion has now been closed, and any further discussion would need to be had with the closer, .  Sandstein   10:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement
You are the only admin I know active in the Arb Enforcement could you look at this ANI thread [] and compare that with Usertalk:Neotarf as it appears that ediotr has made comments that appear to be in violation of that arb decision. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please submit a request with all required information to WP:AE and I'll have a look at it.  Sandstein   09:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure i screwed up the formatting but i added it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw you observations and I understand what you were saying, I have corrected that with the correct sections and precendents form that case. Sorry that was a little embarassing lol. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Piandme
Thank you for your support at the edit warring noticeboard. Just thought I would also make you aware I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into Piandme, which can be found here. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Tuleap
Hello, I'd like to support the (re)addition of the page for Tuleap software. Although it's not yet famous for every software developer, it's actually an interesting one. I've used it myself, and I know it is used by several big companies that are supporting its development. It's popular in France and its developers are quite active in demonstrating it and contributing to other related open-source technologies.

I'm intrigued by the reasons that made you delete the original page. Is Wikipedia only aimed at listing technologies that have been produced by companies that are big enough to spend millions on marketing it, or is it aimed at storing and sharing as much knowledge as possible? I understand that an article can be asked for rewording in case it sounds too much like an advertisement, but I don't get why a technology should be censored because of its (relative) lack of popularity.

And about popularity and wikipedia, it could be a chicken and egg problem. I can tell you of other technologies that were added to wikipedia when they had less users than Tuleap currently have, and that are now well accepted because they've grown since. I even believe that many listed at Application lifecycle management are less popular than Tuleap, at least in my field of work. So I'd find it fair to re-add the Tuleap page, and to simply help its authors to avoid turning the page into an advertisement (which is a difficult thing for whatever technology/product).

Mickael.istria (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, but on Wikipedia, the only thing that really matters for whether we have an article or not are the criteria described in WP:GNG. Can you provide references that show that these criteria are met?  Sandstein   09:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Tuleap: Enoushka (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606775/open-source-software/119849-Bossie-Awards-2013-The-best-open-source-application-development-tools.html (slide 22)
 * https://www.eclipsecon.org/europe2014/session/first-open-source-agile-planner-eclipse-and-agile-teams
 * http://www.eclipsecon.org/2013/sessions/adopting-agile-methods-and-open-source-tools-large-enterprise


 * I'm not exactly sure of the kind of source you like, but here are some examples (which have already been highlighted in previous discussions)

Such articles make that in my opinion, Tuleap has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mickael.istria (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.open-source-guide.com/en/Solutions/Development-and-intermediate-layers/Development-tools/Tuleap this site (open-source-guide) is provided by an independant company that "sells" support for OSS software, so it shows that Tuleap is part of some serious commercial offerings
 * http://www.journaldunet.com/solutions/dsi/les-outils-de-gestion-de-projet-open-source/tuleap.shtml Journal du Net is actually a quite serious French site about Information Technology for the Enterprise. See French wikipedia article for JDN which ranks it as 2nd most important site for B2B. It's an independent site. Journal Du Net can be compared to TechCrunch.
 * http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606775/open-source-software/119849-Bossie-Awards-2013-The-best-open-source-application-development-tools.html InfoWorld is independent from Tuleap, and awarded Tuleap last year as one of the 30 most interesting open-source development technology (slide 23). It seems to me that Tuleap is the only technology of this listing that doesn't have a wikipedia page.
 * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portail:Informatique/Liste_des_articles_par_nombre_de_vues ranks Tuleap in the 1st quarter of most viewed Computer Science pages on French wikipedia, this is in my opinion a good indicator of popularity


 * At first glance, the only thing that appears relevant per WP:GNG here is the Journal du Net article, but that was already discussed in the previous discussion so it doesn't really count, and possibly the Infoworld article, but I can't get my browser to display slide 23. The rest are self-published, not-independent or otherwise ephemeral pieces. I'd say the sourcing isn't quite solid enough for an article yet.  Sandstein   11:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a screencap of the slide 22 of the Inforworld Bossie Award for Tuleap: http://i61.tinypic.com/2qno5sh.png If the "Journal du Net" and the "Inforworld Bossie Award" are not reliable sources enough for an article on wikipedia, could you explain me why such articles are allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odoo or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codendi_%28software%29 Where are the reliables sources for those articles? Thanks.Enoushka — Preceding undated comment added 11:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I found also this source, an article published by the MagIT online magazine, member of the TechTarget group: http://www.lemagit.fr/actualites/2240223226/Enalean-Obeo-et-Ericsson-developpent-le-1er-connecteur-Open-Source-agile-pour-Eclipse Enoushka (talk)
 * But is that award itself notable? I used to write IT articles and have never ever heard of it. Secondly, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument - it's quite possible that Odoo should not exist here either, so thanks for bringing it to our attention. Every article has to exist on its own merits the panda ₯’  12:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the Infoworld Bossie Awards are noticeable. At least, they're taken seriously by several organizations. I let you make research such as "Bossie SAP", "Bossie Oracle" or "Bossie " to see how some software company welcome this award with pride. Maybe you don't know the Bossie because you've not been focused on Open-Source software, but I believe any major contributor to an open-source project would be very glad to get a Bossie. Mickael.istria (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Enoushka, these other articles are not "allowed", it may just be the case that nobody has gotten around to delete them yet. See generally WP:WAX.  Sandstein   17:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that StackOverflow shows some community interest on Tuleap: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/tuleap. I've made search for some other software that received a Bossie award, and some of them have less than half activity on StackOverflow than Tuleap has. StackOverflow is independent. Mickael.istria (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but awards, Internet buzz, community interest, etc, don't matter in terms of Wikipedia's inclusion standards. What matters is the amount of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, because that's what we need as the basis of article content, and I'm still unimpressed about what's on offer here.  Sandstein   17:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements
The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at AE
I feel that your comment at AE (warning me about casting aspersions) is rather unnecessary. I thought it would be useful to provide anyone closing that discussion with some background to the interaction between those two users (I don't know why you used the phrase "without good evidence", as I had provided a diff to the ANI discussion that led to the topic ban). Beyond participating in that discussion and being the closer of the RFC I referred to in my comments, I have not (to my knowledge) previously interacted with Netoholic. Number  5  7  09:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've replied at AE. If you wish to participate in the AE discussion as an uninvolved admin, I recommend that you do so in the results section, as the other statements are normally these of involved users.  Sandstein   10:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I don't often get involved there, so wasn't entirely familiar with the protocol. Cheers, Number   5  7  10:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gender representation in video games
Please see the talk page so we can hash some things out. Thanks. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox
Do you think it would be canvassing to neutrally notify the participants of the original AFD (#1) about the relist? I was thinking about the following, but did not know if it would be appropriate.

"The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed." Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you contact all participants, that should be ok.  Sandstein   04:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have done so. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)