User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/April

Smart learning

Hi @Sandstein: Thanks for closing the AfD. I am very comfortable with this. I would like to have access to the wikitext so that I can merge some selected aspects to educational technology. I had forgotten to userfy a backup. Is the proper procedure for me to request userfied access of the redacted content for this purpose, please? Once I have ported what I have a mind to salvage, which would take 5 minuutes, I'd MFD the userfied page. Thanks. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: I've copied the deleted content to http://pastebin.com/D4qz7Q6K, where it will expire after a day. Since it's by you, there should be no problem copying it to other articles.  Sandstein  08:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Thanks. Task completed. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Polk

Can you move the article to draftspace. I don't want it in my userspace, as there should be multiple editors. Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please ask somebody else, I'm not familiar or comfortable with this "draft" thing.  Sandstein  16:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are not familiar the process, perhaps you shouldn't be closing deletion debates, where 60% of the responses are to simply echo the nomination, and 40% of the responses are to move to draftspace. Please reopen the deletion discussion so that a person who is familiar with the process can close it. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope.  Sandstein  16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused how you can both claim you aren't aware of the process that you are making judgements on, and that you are qualified to make such judgements. I assume you don't object if I take this to WP:REFUND. Nfitz (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead if you want.  Sandstein  11:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sandstein, moving to draft space is similar to userfying. In either case, the point of userfication or draftification is to provide a safe place outside of mainspace to work on an article. The difference is that draft space may encourage more public collaboration because the article isn't in someone's "private" user space. It's your call. If it's possible that the article can be improved, there's no harm in moving it to draft space (which I find slightly easier than userfying, actually, in that I don't have to remember the user's sub-page path). In the case of Ben Polk, non-notable footballers do tend to become notable after a time, so restoring to draft space for the purpose of establishing notability is reasonable. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the concept, I just don't like it. If we delete an article, this means we don't want it. No point then, in my view, in retaining it in a different namespace. If the topic does become notable later, recreate it as a stub with sufficient sources, then ask for undeletion of the old history.  Sandstein  19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree, except in cases like this, where the player is signed to a full professional contract just before the start of the season, with every expectation that he will either make an appearance (for Portland), or be sent down to the fully-professional Portland Timbers 2 team. Quite frankly, I don't understand the desire to delete an article for a few days, that we all know will, unless some tragedy occurs, be quickly recreated - but that's another issue! Nfitz (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(BTW, I was waiting before pressing the button on the move to draft, as Polk is MIA from the Timbers. He's likely training with Timbers2, and will play on Saturday, but with no information confirming he's been loaned out, I thought it prudent to wait). Nfitz (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, see, that's American sports, just about the most uninteresting topic in existence to me. Meaning I am not in a position to understand anything you just wrote.  Sandstein  06:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ben Polk made his professional debut yesterday, playing for Portland Timbers 2 in the United Soccer League listed in WP:FPL as fully professional, thus meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Can you restore the article? See [1] Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• No, again, I know nothing of US sports, please ask somebody else to evaluate this.  Sandstein  21:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What? That's just absurd. You clearly are unqualified then to be closing debates on the subject. Please avoid this area of editing in the future. Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And now thanks to your failure to deal with this properly, someone has recreated the article from scratch. Can you please restore the edit history. Nfitz (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, what I did is close an AfD, that takes no subject area knowledge, only evaluating consensus. Everything else I leave to those who care about the topic.  Sandstein  05:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Restoring an edit history takes no subject area knowledge. If you feel your ignorance is such that you can't restore the edit history, then you should also not be closing the AFD, because it means you did not have the knowledge to judge between the two suggested outcomes. Thanks for messing up the situation, and making extra work for everyone. 19:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Graffiki

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Graffiki. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Sujit Meher

You should not delete Sujit Meher he is very impotent international public figure . https://www.facebook.com/sujit.mhr/ he has certified facebook page . How can you delete his article . This is kind of madness . Wikipedia will take strict action against you .I want to tell you restore article as soon as possible else you have to face block . You will be block for editing .--Savefashion2020 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure he would like to be described in those terms.... --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm, ok, go ahead and try to block me. On the merits, please see WP:AFTERDELETE.  Sandstein  15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Feathercoin

Hello, First I want to say Ive never edited/created a wiki so I really dont know what exactly what all this is. I noticed there is a page for Feathercoin but it looks like it was moved by you. What is the reason for this and can it be moved back? We (Feathercoin community) would like to create/update a page about our coin and this could be a good starting point if we can use it. Thanks AMDDJunkie (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please link to the page or discussion at issue.  Sandstein  18:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Some dim sum for you!

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 08:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Gary Catona Revisions

Hello. I've been updating the article for Gary Catona and am wondering why you reverted it back to the original text. I understand my new version may have been too much, but I think that the first paragraph and Notable Students sections are at least relevant because of their expanded references. The current article only has three references, while my revision added another 20 or so (all third-party major media sources like USA Today, LA Times, Vanity Fair, NY Post and others). Thank you for your help. Woodenships513 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason is that your text reads extremely promotional, as though taken directly from a marketing brochure, in complete disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Editors who write stuff like that are very often rapidly blocked for misusing Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising.  Sandstein  18:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow! That was harsh punishment. The first and only warning on 17:39, 6 April 2016 and blocked indefinitely less than an hour later on 18:26, 6 April 2016. From the editor's contributions, most were relating to just 5 pages with approximately 2 year gaps between 2011 to 2013 and 2013 to 2015. With about 70 edits in total, this editor is what I would call a "newbie" (don't bite the newbies). Not only that, but the edits are not an example of a flagrant disregard of Wikipedia policy or extreme promotion. Would you consider overturning the block or ask another Administrator o have a look at the editor's contributions? SethWhales ^talk 16:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punishment, they are to prevent future problems. Woodenships513 can get it lifted very quickly if they make an unblock request that indicates they understand the problem with their editing, see WP:GAB.  Sandstein  18:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

AFD of Tabetha_S._Boyajian

You might want to take a second look at your close of WP:Articles_for_deletion/Tabetha_S._Boyajian. I haven't looked at the sources to form any opinion, but the accounts Davidbuddy9 / QuentinQuade have just been block for sock-voting at another AFD, and the swarm of IP 184.x.y.z keep votes in the AFD are covered in feathers, waddling like a duck, and quacking loudly. Heh. Alsee (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been going through the sock's edit history and I just found WP:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Centauri_Bc. You'll definitely want to revisit that close. It's a clear Merge consensus. If you discount the sock-keep votes by Davidbuddy9, QuentinQuade, and the multiple IP 184.x.y.z, there is only a single legitimate keep vote remaining. The rationale for that solitary keep was pretty well demolished by a cite to the Notability guideline. Alsee (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm, you may well be right, but the AfDs are so old that there's no point in reopening them - just make a new deletion request if you think deletion is still appropriate.  Sandstein  11:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariana Jollee

At first I wanted to list it on WP:Deletion review but than I decided to follow the tip and talk to you. I can't see that a consensus was reached in that discussion. Especially the last votes have pointed on new sources for WP:GNG which have not been considered in above statements. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but there were "delete" opinions after these sources were mentioned, indicating that they were not so persuasive as to totally alter the course of the discussion. But after reconsideration, I've relisted the AfD; please see there.  Sandstein  09:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted page Kash 11

Hello Sandstein,

I just noticed that my page for Kash 11 was deleted by you, and I'd like you to let me know why. I posit that Kash 11 is an important and significant Nigerian artiste who deserves a page on Wikipedia, I would appreciate if you can give me the required feedback.

(RunRunSure (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC))

Please link to the article at issue.  Sandstein  19:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Pardon but...

Being involved in other places, I failed to provide the sources I had found, and would thus like the article Jet Boy (film) given to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Jet Boy (film) so I can work on it and/or an article on its director. I would definitely check back with you and nominator Bearcat before returning a revised article back into mainspace. Okay? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure,  Done.  Sandstein  10:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Fast.... Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Linda Cohen

Sandstein, I am curious as to your quick closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Cohen with no summary. There were 2 people commenting in favor of keeping it and 4 for deletion. That's not much of a consensus. The arguments for deleting it were weak and not based on policy, but on reinterpreting policy. I viewed them as more IDONTLIKEIT votes than actually based on GNG. I think relisting the discussion would have produced a better result.--TM 22:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, if you wish...  Sandstein  22:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Doombot

An article that you have been involved in editing—Doombot —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Care to comment on this Broadcom discussion?

You've shown an interest in Broadcom in the past so you might be interested in this Talk:Broadcom#Proposal to make two moves. Cheers! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 00:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-admins closing TfDs as delete

I noticed an old DRV close you did here, where you referenced that non-admins cannot close discussions with which they lack the technical ability to implement. Please note that the "next step" when you close a TfD as delete is orphaning the template (removing all transclusions) or listing the template at WP:TFD/H for orphaning, not actual deletion. Because of this, all non-admins have the technical ability to do the next step in a TfD if closed as delete. There was also consensus at a large-scale RfC in the past that non-administrators can close TfDs as delete (see here). This is long-since old news, but I wasn't sure if anyone ever mentioned that the procedural closure of the DRV wasn't correct. Cheers. ~ Rob^Talk 19:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.  Sandstein  12:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Abolitionism (bioethics) content

Hi there

As per the recent deletion discussion, can you mail me a copy of the source pre-deletion? I would like to merge this into the H+Pedia project at http://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism. Thanks! Deku-shrub (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Deku-shrub: Copied to http://pastebin.com/ndCkBgGc, will expire in a day.  Sandstein  12:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, got it :) Deku-shrub (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD No Consensus?

Hi there! I see you closed a debate at AfD for Chase Koch as "no consensus". I have a hard time seeing that since there were six votes for delete and three to merge the page. Among the four votes to keep, one is a confirmed sock-puppet. I don't understand how that constitutes No Consensus. Hopefully we can clear this up. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There are no votes in AfDs.  Sandstein  20:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

To expand on that, AfD closers don't look for majorities, they look for a consensus of policy-based opinions, which I assume I didn't find in the discussion you didn't link to.  Sandstein  20:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chase Koch. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite.  Sandstein  20:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

So can you provide some clarity? DaltonCastle (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I don't see consensus to delete here, or to keep, or to merge.  Sandstein  20:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so you say its not a vote, you look for a consensus of policy-based opinions. And there was a large majority who noted the page does not meet WP:GNG. They were split between Merge and Delete. And Merging would satisfy the concerns of the Delete camp. With respect, I don't see how this could have been closed as it was. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. I've re-closed the AfD for the reasons explained there.  Sandstein  07:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think there was a procedure error here. The AFD was closed, but then argumentation continued without notifying members. Had I or others known that the discussion would continue after it was "closed" we may well have participated, which could lead to a different conclusion. The proper course of action (in my opinion) would have been to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. "redirect" is different from "no consensus" and once a deletion is closed, it should remain closed--not continued on another editor's talk page where it can be one-sided. I have no reason to suspect bad faith, I think it's just an "oops" that is easily fixed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, editors can and should ask a closer to reevaluate their closure before asking for deletion review.  Sandstein  16:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration and time. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct. I see no reason to make anything out of it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)