User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/February

Isango

Hi Sandstein,

I am part of the Isango! team and I've just been informed of the removal of our page on Wikipedia. I thoroughly read the reasons mentioned to take this decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Isango) but I still don't understand why our company has been discarded.

Could you please tell me what are the changes that we can implement to satisfy your policies or if we can we show you evidence of our achievements?

Regards, Jeremy Barber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.72.233.50 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia's inclusion rules regarding companies are described at WP:ORG. I recommend that you read that page and then tell me if there is anything that could make your company meet these requirements and that was not already in the deleted version of the article. Please note especially that it is not relevant, for the purpose of these rules, what your company's achievements or merits are – only to which extent your company has been covered in independent reliable sources.  Sandstein  15:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your comprehensive answer!

Aren't "The Times", "The Telegraph" or "Yahoo News" supposed to be relevant sources as well? Could I ask you to please have a look at our media coverage section http://www.isango.com/mediasite/ to get your point of view?

Thanks, Jeremy Barber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.72.233.50 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Cokemachineglow

Hi Sandstein,

I was wondering about the possibility of re-creating an entry for the Webzine Cokemachineglow.com. It was deleted by you in 2006, but I believe that the site's prominence and relevance in the virtual sphere has grown significantly since then. It regularly attracts between 60,000 - 70,000 unique readers a week, and has received mention in a number of national, established venues: NPR, the New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, and a contest sponsored by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I can provide links or examples if you'd like. Thanks for your consideration.

ablesbAblesb (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The article Cokemachineglow.com has not existed. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being more clear; the article was called "Cokemachineglow" and was about the site Cokemachineglow The discussion regarding its deletion is here: [[1]]

Here is a link that demonstrates the site's inclusion in a "Best Canadian Music Website" poll by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Here is a mention of the site on NPR; Here is a mention of the site in Entertainment Weekly. There are also hundreds of mentions of the site on existing Wikipedia pages, usually on pages for musical artists. I would be happy to provide more links, or proof of the site's readership. Thank you once more.Ablesb (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't restore Cokemachineglow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) based on this. As explained at WP:GNG and WP:WEB, inclusion requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, not mere mentions. Any merits the site may have, such as number of readers, is not relevant for this purpose. Regards,  Sandstein  18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

But that thinking is backwards; as a site that produces critical reviews and coverage of newsworthy music, cokemachineglow is designed to be a reliable source. Substantiating coverage through presence on other outlets defeats the whole point of cokemachineglow being an outlet itself. And, if I am to take your own standards and a ruler for what is "reliable", it would appear that the dozens of times this encyclopedia cites cokemachineglow in pages for artists, albums, and songs the site has covered substantiates the reliability of the site as a source for reliable critical content. Otherwise, is it not absurd to justify the inclusion of said artists, albums, and songs with a site that you yourself are deeming unworthy of inclusion? Brianriewer (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Cokemachineglow may well be a reliable source which Wikipedia may use to reference its articles. If so, that does not mean that it is notable enough to be the subject of an article, which would require that it has itself in turn been the subject of coverage in other reliable sources. Look, you may agree with them or not, but our inclusion requirements (including WP:WEB) are the result of a very long and protracted consensus-finding process among this site's tens of thousands of editors, and they will continue to apply until there is sitewide consensus to change them. If you don't like that, you are free to write an article about Cokemachineglow on some other website that has different inclusion requirements.  Sandstein  20:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a disagreement with your policies; it's a disagreement on what qualifies under a fundamentally arbitrary requirement like "substantial coverage" from "reliable sources". I see how this policy might disqualify Cokemachineglow as an item worthy of an article; however, the merits of similar sites like Tiny Mix Tapes, No Ripcord, Stylus Magazine, Consequence of Sound, etc. seem to be virtually identical to the ones being presented in Cokemachineglow's regard. Yet all of those sites have articles in Wikipedia and Cokemachineglow does not--while at the same time, other articles are being justified by the fact that Cokemachineglow has covered them as a "reliable source" itself. I completely understand where you are coming from, but I would also hope you can see how this might be extremely frustrating from my perspective. (Brianriewer (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

This problem is discussed at WP:WAX. The point is this: these other sites have articles because apparently other sources (including Cokemachineglow) have covered them (if that is not the case you can ask for their deletion), but Cokemachineglow does not have an article because no source appears to have covered Cokemachineglow. No coverage by independent reliable sources means no article, period.  Sandstein  21:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But, again, as an outlet for these exact types of coverage you are looking for, it seems like Cokemachineglow is made to play by someone else's rules. It precisely the goal of the observer, critic, and reviewer to not become the subject of conversation but to examine and appraise that which is; by needing to insert itself as a topic of news in order to be noteworthy, it defeats the whole point of its being. No newspaper is looking to be part of the news, no reporter is looking to be reported on, no critic is pining to be the subject of critique--yet this is the only way you suggest Cokemachineglow can substantiate its own article. And I guess what it still comes down to, in my confusion, is how Cokemachineglow can justify the existence of other articles, and stand as some authority worthy of being noted for the sake of others on this very website--and have Wikipedia's treatment of it as a reliable authority be echoed by Metacritic, CBC, NPR, and Entertainment Weekly--but does not, by means of that authority, justify its own article. It just seems bizarre that hundreds of articles would exist with the help of a site, but that site could then not consider itself noteworthy by means of the hundreds of times it is cited in the most popular general reference work on the internet. Is Wikipedia itself not a "reliable source"? (Brianriewer (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Well, as long as Cokemachineglow does not become the subject of conversation, it will not have an article on Wikipedia. Sorry, that's just the way our rules work. The idea behind these rules is that all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable in independent reliable sources (see WP:V). This is so that readers can make sure that what they read in Wikipedia has already been reported by a reliable source, i.e., a reputed publication with editorial oversight. That's because Wikipedia itself is empathically not such a reliable source - precisely because anybody can edit it! Also, these sources must be independent from the subject: We can't base an article on publications by the subject itself, because if we were to do that the article would not be neutral: nobody is unbiased when writing about themselves. It follows from this rule that if a subject has not been covered in independent reliable sources we cannot write an article about that subject, because we could not make such an article neutral and verifiable. This is concisely summarized in our core policy, WP:V#Notability. I recommend that you read the policy pages I have linked to, so as to gain a better understanding of the framework we operate in.  Sandstein  22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD -- solicitation of !votes outside of wp

Hi Sand. You closed an AfD some time ago that appears to have been plagued with the solicitation of !votes outside of wikipedia.

The AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahdyar Aghajani.

You can see the solicitation, by Jigsawnovich, here.

Jigsawnovich, btw, has just been been determined to be a sockmaster.

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that was too long ago and there were too few apparently canvassed "keep" comments for me to change the outcome now. The article can of course be renominated at any time.  Sandstein  07:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Six !votes. Only 2 keep !votes. And only one was not an SPA. I would think that with the above indication of off-wiki canvassing, the 5-1 !vote (not counting the SPA) is a clear delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(I prefer to talk of comments or opinions; we do not cast votes and "!votes" is not an English word.) To begin with, I ignore the "delete" opinion by "Rapefarsiforlife" on account of the username. The two "keep" opinions appear to offer valid opinions, SPA or not. It is not clear whether 82.44.19.246 wants us to delete or keep the article. The "delete" oopinions by SaharJavadi and Farhikht are relatively weak, saying only "fails WP:something". The only substantial valid "delete" opinion is by Spada II. So we have 2 "keep"s versus 1 to 3 "delete"s; that is not consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  09:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical question

IF a position of a clerk for AN/I and AN were created, and IF someone proposed your candidacy for this position, would you be interested in it?VolunteerMarek 05:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not currently interested in any sort of conduct enforcement work, because we have too high an institutional tolerance for disruptive conduct on the part of established editors, and for administrators undoing enforcement actions of others on a whim. Under these circumstances, it takes an enormous amount of disputes, energy and work to make any solution stick. Until we arrive at a clear rules-based framework for conduct enforcement, with orderly and enforced appeals procedures, I find that doing conduct enforcement work is not an efficient use of my time.  Sandstein  06:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Scooterboy

Thanks for closing the Scooterboy AfD and deleting the article. Bizarrely it was recreated just minutes later. Can you take a look please? --Biker Biker (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that none of the sources given actually use the word "scooterboy". I think this is a bit of tendentious editing by someone miffed at the article being deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I declined the speedy deletion. The new article is substantially different from the deleted one; it has more references. You may start a new AfD if you think this version is still problematic.  Sandstein  20:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Psst! It's actually pretty much same situation as at Man-made law (AfD discussion), except that I tackled that one first today. I spent two hours with that edit page open, reading books and typing, which probably conflicted with the deletion. I'm saddened to see that to some people the simple practice of writing content that documents a subject with reference books in hand is "tendentious". Actions do strongly belie words in this case, don't they? Don't forget the AFD notice on the article. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Kitschies winners

Category:Kitschies winners, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Translation and notification request

Hi,

Some people object to the RFC on users because only enwiki is aware of it [2]. If you have the time, could you translate it and notify the dewiki? A native speaker would do a much better job than I can, and I'm also unfamiliar with the de Wikipedia-related jargon and pages. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, see de:Wikipedia:Projektdiskussion#Meta-wiki requests for comment on users.  Sandstein  15:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal monograms

This is to inform you that I will henceforth ignore the voluntary restrictions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#Slow-burning edit war.

In January last year, Fry1989 inserted a monogram into the article on the Queen Mother, which I tagged and waited for 4 days for a source. None came, so I removed it. We agreed in May not to revert one another. He has now broken that agreement by reverting on that article. Consequently, as he has broken the contract, it is no longer in force. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Insertion 24 January 2011 Removal 28 January 2011 Agreement in May 2011 not to revert Fry1989 reverts and marks the reversion as minor without an edit summary

AfD 2012 February 7

When I went back to look at the fate of the AfDs that I've voted in, I noticed that an IP editor had voted at the wrong place.[3] I'm curious to know whether his or her votes were taken into consideration when the AfDs were closed. Thanks. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not by me, because I open the individual AfD subpages to close AfDs, and so would not have seen these. In any event, AfD is not a vote, but a discussion, and statements that treat it as a vote, such as this mass of "Keep" statements with no reasoning, would not have been taken into account even if they had been made in the proper place. (See WP:JUSTAVOTE).  Sandstein  17:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone asking for talk page content of article which you deleted

I think that they are a bit confused on what happened and who to ask, but at my talk page User_talk:North8000#Talk page of an deleted article someone is asking for the talk page contents of an article which you deleted. I suggested they ask you but in case you wish to look at it now..... Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see the practical need to recover a talk page of a deleted article, but I'll wait until I'm asked to do something.  Sandstein  21:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Information Dissemination

Hi, you just undid my edits to the article on Information Dissemination. This is ok. However, please acknowledge that Information Dissemination is a term that is widely used in the field of databases in computer science research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.10.223 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, that's because the article Information Dissemination is about something other than what you wrote. It is about a weblog of that name. Therefore text about computer science does not belong on that page.

Wikipedia handles articles about things with the same name by giving them different titles, see WP:DAB. Now, if the "information dissemination" you mean is a notable topic, we could have an article about it, but it would have to be a different page, e.g, Information dissemination (computer science). I recommend that you use the WP:Article wizard, which will help you write that article if you want to.  Sandstein  21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. If I find some time, perhaps I will create such a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.102.43 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Just in relation to this past information, I letting you know that I introduced a new bunch references in that article, in case if some activists will try to complain about it. M.K. (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page of an deleted article

Hallo Sandstein

The article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morphological_computation_(robotics) was deleted. Due to my ignorance (and as was pointed by User:Train2104 in the deletion review) the talk page is lost (I thought that it will remain after deletion, sorry). Is there any way to recover the Talk page of that article, so we can put the whole history/criticism in here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morphological_computation_(robotics)? I ask you for this, because I have received comments (from people mentioned in the article) about the "authoritarianism" of the deletion. Having the full discussion could help to illustrate them the reasons for the deletion (for example I cited all the policies that were violated).

Finally, is there a way to get a copy of the wikitext of the article? If that is possible and not too much trouble, I would like to get one. Just because I foresee how the comments I am receiving may evolve.

Danke viel mal and sorry for my mistake. Kakila (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: I just realized North told you about y inquiries. The reason to recover the talk page is that I did not copy enough information to the deletion discussion and now it is not clear why it was deleted (except for the comment by Bearian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakila (talk • contribs) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We do not undelete talk pages that have no corresponding article, and the closed AfD should not be edited. But I've made the content of the deleted talk page available for a day at [4], should you want to use it outside of Wikipedia.  Sandstein  22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have retrieved the content of the talk page. I think this should be enough. Thanks again! Kakila (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (season 1) as a Good Topic

We're in striking distance! Baelor is on hold, and I do not anticipate any problems with it. After that Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) has been sitting in the queue for a while. I love what the Season 1 article is, and if you're ready to nominate it as a FL, I'll be able to help with that as well. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I hope that I'll get around to copyediting Baelor this weekend. For some reason, I'm not really comfortable fine-tuning articles I did not write myself at the content level. With respect to season 1, it might be better to wait until the DVD set is out, because it contains the sort of background stuff I feel is needed to write a really good article. Also is it enough of a list to qualify for FL? Much of it is prose.  Sandstein  19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been years (3, I think) since I worked on a FL, but that was for another television series. So, if you have any other contacts who have been working in the area more recently, they'd be better to ask than I. I DO know that there is a LOT of material in press about season 1, and I don't think we actually need to have the DVD commentaries, notes, etc. to actually get it to FL. After all, those are themselves primary sources, right? :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the sort of primary sources we can judiciously use as long as the content doesn't appear self-serving or implausible... True, there is a lot of press that we can use too. I'm not sure that I'm motivated enough to undergo the FA/FL process, which I understand is rather tiresome and results (qua process) in little actual benefit to the reader; but who knows, maybe I'll try it some time.  Sandstein  20:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done both FA and FL, and found FL to be a lot more friendly and reasonable. Still not a cake walk, but at least I was able to work through it successfully on one occasion... :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Baelor is well in hand now, if you want to go through for another round of copyediting be my guest, but I think I've got it to at least GA standard now. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

New developments: 1) Baelor was reviewed by a banned sock, so the status is kinda in doubt now, although I have no doubt it can pass again, because the review was actually pretty good. 2) I'm working on Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) for GA right now: again, the reviewers have some good ideas and reasonable requests. 3) I asked for peer review on Game of Thrones (season 1) and got some basic feedback so far at Wikipedia:Peer review/Game of Thrones (season 1)/archive1. Any help with any of those is welcome, but I will probably be focusing on the GA before the peer review because of the time factor. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

1 and 2 are done, so I'm shifting focus to the list. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organizers

During the course of the discussion the page was moved to List of community organizers, leaving a redirect behind. You closed but have only deleted the redirect. Was that intentional? Moondyne (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's a bug in the closing script. Thanks for the notice.  Sandstein  08:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

completing edits to my Wiki page

HI Sandstein ... A fan of mine recently posted a new version on my WIki page. I contacted him as there were a few errors but has never gotten back to me. Since there were some misunderstandings on my part when I first entered into WikiWorld, I want to make sure that I do the right thing this time. What I wish to do is simply correct a few errors, facts and duplicate information that needs to be tidied up. Do I have your permission to make those edits? Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Demby Constance Demby Constancemary (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you don't need anyone's permission to edit Wikipedia, but you should follow the rules at WP:AUTOBIO if you want to edit your own biography - which, as it says there, is strongly discouraged. If you tell me what's wrong in which article, I can maybe fix it for you.  Sandstein  23:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to do the right thing of course. here's what I've seen so far that needs to be changed

1. corrections of duplicate material that he left there that should be deleted...

2. there are "notables" that I would like to include...

3. the new album was excluded from the list...

4. there is a section that is jumbled up in terms of sentences being in the wrong position, doesn't read right....

5. there are two photos that need to be put on the site, and I have no idea how to do that - plus the old photo of the cassette needs to be removed...

Here's another idea, I can simply copy and paste the entire wiki bio into a document, make the changes and then send the corrected version back to you. If I did that would you be able to post it? as then it will all be corrected in one action and in one document. seems simpler and easier, but then I am not familiar with all the wiki rules and particulars. I'm acting on the assumption you made that -- "I can maybe fix it for you." Thanks Sandstein I really appreciate your help and guidance! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Demby Constance DembyConstancemary (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I can't do that amount of editing for you. I recommend that you say on the article's talk page what specifically you want to be changed, and why (i.e., "Text" should read "Alt text" instead, because newspaper X says so). Then interested editors may do it when they agree with you. This increases the likelihood that the changes stay in the article, because you do not appear to be very familiar with our formatting conventions, so anything you add may appear jumbled and might be reverted for that reason alone.  Sandstein  07:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and it looks like I've got it covered now. Thanks Sandstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Demby Constance Demby Constancemary (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

TTR World Snowboard Tour

Deletion review needed for TTR World Snowboard Tour never saw it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion dont see a Wikipedia:Deletion discussions Theworm777 (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted the article directly because it met a criterium for speedy deletion, namely, WP:CSD#G11 - blatant promotion.  Sandstein  09:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I put a Deletion review on it. Want to see if it can be saved or not can you add TempUndelete to it? Theworm777 (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's not how you do it ... you file your WP:DRV, and request it be undeleted during the review period (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(PS: Having looked at it, I agree with Sandstein. You're better off creating a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT that isn't so promotional and peacocky, then ask some advice before moving it) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review says

1.Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

Things have worked out so far Theworm777 (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, you came to the admin, he told you why it was deleted. You're not happy with that decision, so you're supposed to file at WP:DRV - you don't recreate the page with a template. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I just encountered this while new page patrolling and wasn't sure whether to tag for speedy delete or not. The article has been re-created as a blank with only a deletion review template but as far as I can see, it's not listed at WP:DRV. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if I am unhappy with that decision or not right now. I just want to see the page to see if I want to try to save it or not. It dont need listed at WP:DRV yet. Sorry about adding the tag I guess I read the info on it wrong. Theworm777 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The deleted content was entirely promotional in tone and poorly sourced. You are much better off recreating the article from scratch based on reliable published sources.  Sandstein  15:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily, which occured following the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)