User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/February

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 23

Would you care to explain the closure? It was requested that the decision should be overturned to speedy deletion, but instead of addressing this, you stated that discussions on whether certain tags should appear on the file information page or not are out of scope for deletion review. However, the request was never about whether certain tags should appear on the file information page – only about whether it should be overturned to speedy deletion, which is a completely different thing. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was that there was no deletion decision that could be overturned. Putting a tag on a file page is not a deletion decision. If you want the image to be deleted, then you must make a request at WP:FfD.  Sandstein  12:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For being a staunch, unbiased upholder of admin principles. I've been an admin (and an old man) for a long time but I still believe I can learn a lot from you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.  Sandstein  12:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Bei Bei Shuai

Everybody agrees that Bei Bei Shuai is about State of Indiana v. Bei Bei Shuai and not about the person. See the talk page and the request for deletion. Please move Bei Bei Shuai to State of Indiana v. Bei Bei Shuai. Letuño (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that everybody agrees. I recommend that you make a move request via WP:RM#CM to find out whether there is consensus for that.  Sandstein  22:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted reference

Why did you delete the reference I added? [1].

It said "became the subject of international public attention in 2011,^[1] 2012^[2] and 2013^[3]" and you reverted it to "became the subject of international public attention in 2011^[1][2]". Letuño (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was inadvertent; I intended only to undo the bolding of part of the lead sentence that didn't comply with our manual of style.  Sandstein  22:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Do you still remain by the word that if an Arb states your approach to ARCA is problematic you will refrain from that area? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"Remain by the word"? What does that mean?  Sandstein  22:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Once you stated that if even one arb said your approach to Arb enforcement was an issue you would stop. I was wondering if that was still the case? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I remember writing that if an arbitrator asked me to stop engaging in arbitration enforcement I would heed that. I've no intention of trying to help where my help is not wanted.  Sandstein  22:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I was going to mention [[2]], and suggest your approach lighten a bit or ask if this was what you meant when saying you would stop. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You were going to? So are you asking and/or suggesting that now, or not?  Sandstein  22:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just curious if your position has changed. Minds can change over time and you are free to do that too but I wanted to know if that had changed or if you planned on changing your approach or not. I'm not going to raise a big stink just asking what your thoughts on your approach was and if they had changed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that my approach to arbitration enforcement is something I should discuss with arbitrators, if any are interested in doing that, but not with editors who I remember chiefly (by way of their block log) for repeatedly engaging in problematic conduct.  Sandstein  22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's your perogative but when you dismiss someone because of blocks 5 years ago as a justification of avoiding the question, I guess that's your choice too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing or other behavioral problem

user:RolandR reverted my editing of Norman Finkelstein few times. One of his reasons was a poor translation. I asked him what's wrong with the translation but he ignored my question. (The talk page section). user:Kmhkmh and user:Duncan objected to the translation but they too ignored me when I asked them to be specific.

I found user:Taketa in the list of wp:Translators available#Dutch to English, and he approved the translation I used. user:RolandR intervened and unsuccessfully pressed him toward a different translation.

user:RolandR refused to apologize for his edit summary: "Cherry-picking a poorly-translated out-of-context remark, presumably from a hate site and not from the Dutch original." In my opinion, user:RolandR ,user:Kmhkmh and user:Duncan disruptive editing is conflicting with Wikipedia behavioral rules.

I wonder if you can tell user:RolandR, user:Kmhkmh and user:Duncan that they should behave themselves. Ykantor (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It is simply not true that I ignored Ykantor's question. I discussed this at length on the article talk page, as did several other editors, including those dismissed above as "ignoring the question". The fact that we did not pursue this on several other pages is irrelevant; the place to discuss this is at Talk:Norman Finkelstein, where every other editor who has taken part in the several hundred words of discussion disagrees with Ykantor. Can we please continue this discussion there, and not needlessly multiply the places where this is being discussed? RolandR (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, that sounds rather more like a content dispute to me, and, I'm sorry to say, one that I'm not particularly interested in. For what it's worth, this disagreement doesn't seem to be (only) about the exactness of the translation, but about whether the inclusion of the quote on its own is appropriate, which is a very different matter. You should try other venues of WP:DR - random admins' talk pages aren't one.  Sandstein  20:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As user:RolandR lies here again, it highlights his bad conduct problems. So he probably realize now that he may continue with his disruptive editing, and saying in his user page "those racist Jews". Well I was impressed with your handling the difficult cases of the wp:ae so I tried to ask you to handle this case as well, but it seems that you are not interested. Anyway, thank you for your prompt reply. Ykantor (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Moulai Abadullah

This is just to note that various (apparently sock) IPs have clumsily complained here about the deletion of Moulai Abadullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and others have removed their messages because of the socking. If anybody who is not a sock wants to follow up on that, they can make a userspace draft that addresses the notability problems identified in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulai Abadullah. @OccultZone:, please don't remove messages from my talk page. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Please guide how and where to make userspace draft. The fact is this person is a notable person. Please refer [3] "Mullah on the Mainframe, by Jonah Blank, p.37",Quote:‘Bohra myth credits Abdullah with planting the lasting root of faith in Indian soil.’ Thanks,--Recon12345 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I said, anybody who is not a sock. That is, not a user with three edits.  Sandstein  12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Please look at my experience of 2 months and not the numbers. Thanks,--Recon12345 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing a page

Hi there.

My name is Noura Al Noman, and I was surprised some time back to see a wiki entry about me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noura_al_Noman

Not knowing the rules of Wikipedia, I attempted to add new info about my books.

I don't know if I can ask this of you or not, but I was wondering if you can add that my second book has been published since Jan 2014, by the same publisher. The book title is "Mandaan" (part 2 of Ajwan) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20554065

I am now working on part 3.

Regards NouraNoman (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Noura

Hello, Ms. Al Noman. I've updated your article. In principle, people may edit the articles about themselves, but they should be very careful about it or limit themselves to suggesting changes on the talk page; see in general our policy WP:COI.  Sandstein  21:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

ARBEE

Hi, Sandstein, long time no see. Would you please take a closer look at the edit war in breach of the WP:ARBEE editing restrictions going on at Soviet war crimes? The conflict needs to be resolved in accordance with Wikipedia policy/guidelines leading to some kind of community consensus, if not, you might want to consider starting a new 2015 section at the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern_Europe#List of editors placed on notice. Thanks in advance. Poeticbent talk 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, if you think that admin action is needed, please make a request at WP:AE, so several admins can have a look at it.  Sandstein  06:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Sandstein/Archives/2015,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thanks. Timestamp to allow archiving.  Sandstein  06:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

List in lead?

Hi Sandstein,

Concerning Borderlands, I thought that WP:PROSE was the way to go, but I also found WP:LOW, so having it in a list isn't all that bad. But don't you think this is a bit redundant for the lead? The contents list is right below the lead, and it has pretty much the same structure as that list. Otherwise the lead might just be a bit too detailed, especially already listing the spin-offs. --Soetermans. T / C 17:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, my concern was primarily that one very long paragraph makes the lead a bit unreadable. It doesn't need to be a list, though. Also not all readers may have the contents list displayed, so I think at least listing the main entries in the series is appropriate.  Sandstein  06:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Thanks for your input! --Soetermans. T / C 16:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Moulai Abadullah

Hope you might have visited ping at User_talk:Ruksakba#Restoration_of_Moulai_Abadullah. Would you please like considering review of the page deleted?106.215.131.209 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nah, too socky.  Sandstein  21:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sagework Deletion

Please explain why you closed the Sageworks deletion discussion, given that the number of people voting to delete the page vs keep it was evenly split. There are major issues with keeping this type of self-promotional content on wikipedia. Please explain yourself. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please link to the deletion discussion you refer to. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sageworks AFD discussion there is no consensus, so the issue must be kept open. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As you say, the discussion resulted in no consensus. When that happens in Wikipedia deletion discussions, the page is kept by default. We would need an explicit consensus to delete the article. Deletion discussions are not kept open indefinitely but are closed after at least 7 days of discussion.  Sandstein  08:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The result of your keeping the article is continued trolling by the company staff and affiliates to self-promote this useless article. What other options are there to rid Wikipedia of soapbox advertisement like this?--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit the article to make it less promotional.  Sandstein  20:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is about a small time private company and should be deleted.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that discussion has been had, so there's no point in repeating it.  Sandstein  08:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. Quick question: In cases like the article you're discussing with the user above, what's the proper policy on the "Issues" header? In other words, the AFD discussion has been closed, but didn't reach a consensus. Therefore, should there be a WP:NOTE tag on the "Issues with this page" header? There seems to be some disagreement on the issue, looking at the page's edit history. I haven't weighed in yet b/c I genuinely don't know the answer. I was hoping you might be able to provide some guidance. Warm Regards. --Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Roamingeditor222226: Sorry for the delay. If you are asking whether the article should carry a notability warning tag, I'd advise against it, because tags serve to alert editors to remediable problems, but in this case there is no consensus about whether that problem exists.  Sandstein  21:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar

Thank you for your contributions to the article Bechdel test. What a most fascinating topic and article. I hope you'll consider quality improvement further to perhaps WP:GA and beyond. Thanks for this contribution related to multiple important topics and intersecting with multiple WikiProjects on Wikipedia, including: WP:Feminism, WP:Gender studies, WP:LGBT, WP:Women's history, WP:Human rights, and WP:Film. The Wikipedia community appreciates your important efforts at quality improvement on this site related to these (often unfortunately under-covered) topics. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  08:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking for your help/senior editor eyes

Hello. I'm currently engaged in several back-and-forth edits with a few users on a page that you have reviewed, when it was nominated for AFD. The page in question is Sageworks. My view is that these editors have a clear WP:COI and grudge against this company, and are making uncited, unsubstantiated claims, in violation of several Wiki policies (ED, WORDS, NPOV, etc). I can make a case for why I think I'm right, but I'm also a new editor, and I could be totally off. I was hoping you might be open to taking a few minutes to review the page to ensure that these editors are not in violation, or if I'm doing something incorrectly (I'm certainly open to that possibility as well). Either way I think a senior editor would be beneficial to all involved. Are you willing to take a look? 77 woodmont (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but this topic simply does not interest me as an editor. I recommend looking at WP:DR for more advice on how to get other people, who may be more interested, involved to help you resolve this disagreement. To start with, you and the other editor should begin a dialogue on the article talk page, which you have so far both not done.  Sandstein  21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the reply. --77 woodmont (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i came here to share that, :FYI, I've posted the following to any participants in the AFD who weren't already invited by 77 woodmont:

"Hi, there's some active editing and discussion going on about the Sageworks article at Talk:Sageworks, and you're invited to participate. Some editors commenting in the recent AFD have already been invited by another editor, and i am just making a point to contact the others, including you, to avoid any appearance of selectivity."

You already answered clearly to 77 woodmont, but I want to be able to say I informed everyone. Thanks. --doncram 23:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, User:Roamingeditor222226 who contacted you in "Sageworks Deletion" section above, and User:77 woodmont here, appear to be 2 sockpuppets of many. I was partly duped to "help" some. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sageworksinc opened. --doncram 05:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Logging a sanction

Hey Sandstein. There is now a WP:AE#Parishan complaint and I was searching the AA2 log for previous mentions of that editor. Please note you closed a previous AE complaint in 2009 with a 1RR per week restriction but your action does not seem to be in the log. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe I forgot that then or it got lost somehow in the shuffling of logs. Oddly there was until now no section Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#2009, and Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#2009 says it's courtesy-blanked but the history is empty. I've at any rate now logged it at the old location.  Sandstein  21:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you did log it back in 2009 but I didn't see it due to this courtesy-blanking business. I wonder if the blanking is such a good idea. We don't courtesy-blank the cases themselves. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Korra - Germany/France broadcast info?

Howdy Sandstein, re: [4], I'm not sure the France and Germany additions are consistent with WP:TVINTL. I don't see anything glaringly noteworthy about the additions, and these aren't English-speaking nations. Respectfully, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we should avoid mere lists of broadcasts, but on the other hand Wikipedia isn't a US-only project, and the way the series has been picked up in major markets strikes me as mildly interesting. I mainly wanted to mention the French fandub project, though; it may be just another Internet pipe dream, but at least it got some media coverage.  Sandstein  22:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

True that it's not a US-only project, but consensus at WikiProject Television has shifted away from perfunctory inclusion of starts/ends in English-speaking nations, unless there is a noteworthy reason to do so. If this were a German series, I would argue that US airdates aren't within the scope of our interest. Similarly I think the German info is not necessary. Yours is a reasonable argument for inclusion of the French dub, since it did make press. Anyhow, not worth a fight, but if it does get removed, the consensus is already there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)