User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/April

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 2 § Bernardo Guillermo

I noticed that you did not leave {{subst:DRVNote}} on J947's talk page, or tag the AfD with {{Delrevxfd}}. Are those steps only required when the closer is an administrator, or perhaps you just forgot? I was going to implement those steps of the process described above on your behalf, but I thought I'd ask first. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The procedure does in fact only provide for such notification if the closer is an admin.  Sandstein  05:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

follow up question on Talk Page reply

I'm teaching a class using Wikipedia this semester, and my students and I are in the thick of learning verifiability/notability. In response to my student, Jossoto, you wrote that "Lead content does not need footnotes if it is referenced later on." Is there a Wiki page that touches on this that I can share with my students? I think they will find it useful knowledge as they continue to edit. Thanks. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:CITELEAD. As usual, it provides for case-by-case discussions, so it does not prevent Jossoto adding citations to the lead if they consider that a particular claim is likely to be challenged and should therefore be cited even in the lead.  Sandstein  17:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Recreating Score Runoff Voting

Hey Sandstein, I posted the original article about Score Runoff Voting that you deleted in December. Since then, there has been considerable analysis discussion about the system in a variety of venues, including a research report published by the Sightline Institute: http://www.sightline.org/research_item/sightlines-voting-system-reform-priorities-in-oregon/ and a detailed simulation analysis published by the Center For Election Science: http://electology.github.io/vse-sim/VSE/

The two references above, plus the original IVN published articles would seem to satisfy the TOOSOON and science-based concerns on the original AfD.

As an aside, it's also now under active campaign for adoption in two counties in Oregon.

Wikipedia told me to talk at you as the first step to re-posting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nardopolo (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please link to the article.  Sandstein  06:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Your ARCA comment

I'm kind of confused by these statements:

• "One might also consider that by using an untranscluded, editable template for their sanction..."
• "sanctions contained in untranscluded templates are invalid,"

Aren't we talking about transcluded templates? That is, the inclusion of the content of one document within another document by reference? Untranscluded templates would presumably be subst'd and stand on their own, unaffected by any central changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I confused transcluded and substituted.  Sandstein  04:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Uhm

hi s'cuz me but Titanic Sinclair is a HUGE public figure, why did you delete his wikipedia?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.254.228.101 (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia still exists, I didn't delete it. And it does not belong to a person named Sinclair.  Sandstein  08:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't own Wikipedia either but you seem to be quite happy to delete other peoples additions to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.138.201.43 (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

martin stoltz

would like to redo my page as it seems it was deleted and I can provide the proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pteor (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the page and what are the sources?  Sandstein  11:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

United Express Flight 3411

I think your snow close of this deletion discussion is inappropriate. It was in full course and many arguments for either side had been presented. Most problematically, a quick glance already exposed a number of SPA's in the keep camp. So any closing review should have been done more thoroughly. I'll therefore kindly request you undo your closure and let the discussion run its course and let a full review of the discussion take place.Tvx1 16:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if one discounts several likely SPAs and poor arguments (on both sides), I don't see a way for this to end at a result other than "keep", given the overwhelming majority of at least somewhat reasonable "keep" opinions. You can contest this closure at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  17:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for United Express Flight 3411

An editor has asked for a deletion review of United Express Flight 3411. 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. Tvx1 17:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Frage zu Löschanträgen

Hallo Sandstein, ich kontaktiere Dich weil Du hier ein Admin bist, Du Deutsch kannst und es mir einfacher geht in Deutsch zu kommunizieren. Und weil Du hier schon einige Löschanträge auf von mir verfasste Artikel bearbeitet hast. Einige wurden behalten andere gelöscht, auch hast Du dich auch schon selbst für erhalt oder löschung ausgesprochen. Ich verstehe das es Löschdiskusionen gibt und Artikel manchmal gelöscht warden. Aber nun wurden diese nacht wieder 3 Löschanträge auf Artikel die ich verfasst habe gestellt. Unberechtigt wie ich finde.. z.b auf Divisionär Bernhard Müller Stv Kommandant und zukünftiger Kommandant der schweizer Luftwaffe, nach meinem wissen reicht schon der Rang oder die Funktion (Stv Kommandant / Kommandant LW)aus um wichtig genug für Wikipedia zu sein. Den Artikel über Sphair und den Einsatz ALBA existieren nun schon seit langem.. doch erst nach dem ich gestern eine kleinigkeit daran gemacht habe wurden sie von The Banner zur löschung nominiert.. Ein klarer Fall von wikihounding. The Banner stalkt mich schon seit jahren ca. 80% aler Löschanträge auf Artikel von mir kommen von ihm und zwar in themenbereichen wo er andere vergleichbare Artikel überhaupt nicht bearbeitet und höchsten kurz vor oder nach dem Löschantrag einen Themenverwanten Artikel bearbeitet. Bei jedem löschantrag auf einen Artikel von mir der nicht von ihm gestellt wurde äussert er sich mit dem Votum zum löschen. Ich frage mich echt warum fällt einem Admin so etwas nicht auf? Warum wird so ein mobbing einfach zugelassen? Die regeln hier in der englischen Wikipedia sind offenbar nicht gleich wie in der deutschen, ich kann mich daher auch nicht gegen dieses vorgenen wehren. BTW schlechtes englisch ist kein Löschgrund sonder nur ein grund zum aufruf zur verbesserung. Also das ist doch wirklich nicht im Sinn von Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dübendorf Air Base The only Air Base he want have deleted
• The only airshow page he nominatet for deletion[[1]].
• The only aircraft (build) aircraft page he nominatet for deletion from him was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85
• [[2]] einziges Flugzeugprojekt das er gelöscht haben wollte
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nils Hämmerli Kunstflugkommandant
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medisize Schweiz AG Kuststofffirma
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGP 3 Trailerusanhänger, einziger Artikel betreffend Öv Fahrzeug das er zum löschen beantragt hat
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medisize Schweiz AG
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug Einziger Antrag über Museen die gelöscht haben wollte, leider hattest Du auch für die Löschung über die 2 Mussen ausgesprochen (aber ob du pro or contra warst ist nicht das problem, sondern diese Hetzjagt von The Banner gegen mich)

Diese sind nur ein paar der Löschanträge die er systematisch gegen Artikel von mir gemacht hat. Und dann natürlich noch eben die 4 Löschanträge die jetzt am Laufen sind:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force ALBA

Die ständigen provokationen und verunglimpfungen sonst erwähne ich nicht weiter, ausser hier ein typisches Beispiel [[3]]

Wäre es nicht mal an der Zeit solchem Cybermobbing einhalt zu gebieten? FFA P-16 (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English to converse so that others can follow the conversation. I don't see these deletion requests as "cybermobbing", because they seem to have been made in good faith and several have been successful. It is part of the Wikipedia editing experience that others may challenge what we write. You should make sure that your articles can withstand such challenges by adding references to coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. If your articles contain such references, the articles should not have problems at AfD.  Sandstein  07:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"In good faith".. Gezielt werden Artikel die ich verfasst habe von diesem einen Nutzer zur Löschung vorgeschlagen, Artikel aus themenkreisen wo er sonst keinen einzigen Artikel beanstandet.. Artikel teils artikel die neu verfasst wurden ohne zeit zu geben das diese ausgebaut warden, oder artikel die seit Jahren existieren und nun einen halben tag nachdem ich eine kleine änderung gemacht habe folgt sofort ein löschantrag... sorry aber das ist wikihounding und Cybermobing. Ja das ist die englischsprachige Wikipedia, aber du als schweizer verstehst ja deutsch, deutsch schreiben fällt mir leichter und The Banner kann (behauptet er zumindest) auch deutsch. Nicht erfüllen von WP:GNG ist einfach ein standart vorwurf.. Den bringt er ja auch beim Stv. (und in 8 Monaten nicht mer "nur" stv) Luftwaffenkommandant, wo alleine durch den Rang ja schon GNG erfüllt ist. Tut mir leid das ich dich gestört habe, hätte aber von einem Admin, der zudem Deutsch (und Schweizbezogenes) kennt etwas mehr erwartet. :-(. Tschüss nix für ungut.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@FFA P-16: Ich verstehe Deine Faszination für das Thema - ich war selbst länger Stabsof (Hptm) Stufe Trp Kö, allerdings nicht in der LW. Ich denke aber, dass Du dich davon etwas zu sehr mitreissen lässt. Deine Artikel sind von aussen betrachtet (aus der Sicht eines Nichtschweizers) schon häufig grenzwertig. Sie betreffen nicht nur relativ obskure Themen (einzelne Of, Flz, Gte, etc.), sondern sie sind auch häufig sprachlich schlecht geschrieben und ungenügend mit Quellen versehen. Es ist vor diesem Hintergrund verständlich, wenngleich schon fragwürdig, wenn jemand sich vorgenommen hat, sie via Löschdiskussion systematisch überprüfen zu lassen. Dem kannst Du nur sinnvoll begegnen, indem Du bessere Artikel über offensichtlicher relevante Themen schreibst. M.E. wäre es besser, die Schweizer Armee auf einer höheren Ebene (Teilstreitkraft, Wf Sys, gs Vb, etc.) zu behandeln, as auf dem von Dir gewählten Detaillierungsgrad.  Sandstein  17:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Nun warum soll es Grenzwertigsein? Obskur sind die Themen nun ja auch nicht.. es gibt eine vielzahl von Artikeln über vergleichbare Fahrzeug, Flugzeuge, Flugzeugprojekte, Geräte von zig verschiedenen Staaten.. komischerweise macht die gennante person aber dort keine Löschanträge. Von Artikel über Kommandanten von Weltbekannten Kunstflugteams, oder über den zukünftigen Kommandanten LW der ja nur schon vom Rang her die Regeln erfüllt sind ja nun im vergleich zu den Artikel über andere Militärpersonen nix besonders ungewöhndliches. Ja sprachlich haben meine Artikel mängel..das ist aber kein Löschgrund und es gibt zum glück Leute (denen bin ich sehr dankbar) die das verbessern.. (das braucht aber etwas zeit).Mag sein das einige Finden ich bringe zu wenig referenzen.. es ist jedoch fragwürdig wenn für jeden Satz eine Refernz verlangt wird.. Es erschenint mir auch nicht im Grundgedanken der Wikipedia zu sein das man bei zu wenig Referenzen den Artikel zur Löschung nominiert .in der selben zeit einfach mal googeln würde mehr bringen...Ãber es ist offensichtlich das es ihm nicht darum geht.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Aphmau

Would you be willing to add to your close a note that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Aphmau is in progress? -- RoySmith (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, done.  Sandstein  13:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review question

Per consensus at this RfC, non-admin closures should only be overturned when there is a reason other than that they are a non-admin. Could you add such a rationale to this DRV? Thanks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the reason is that it was a controversial decision, given the arguments raised at DRV, and as such unsuitable for a NAC. But I don't see the need to comment further at DRV, particularly not on the basis of a 5-year-old RfC. What matters is the policy, WP:NACD.  Sandstein  16:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 4#Meaning of the word "is" is

Hi Sandstein. Would you consider reclosing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 4#Meaning of the word "is" is as "list at RfD"? Of the 10 editors who commented at the DRV, eight were fine with more discussion of the redirects at RfD.

1. George Ho started the DRV and asked for the redirects to be restored.
2. SmokeyJoe endorsed the deletion and opposed redirects but wrote: "But no objection to relisting, as it has been so long, and several others would like to discuss the case."
3. DGG supported a relist.
4. Hut 8.5 supported restoration, writing, "I don't see the harm of having another discussion now."
5. Hobit supported a relist.
6. Patar knight supported a restoration or failing that, a relist.
7. I supported restoration and wrote, "it is reasonable to discuss this again after 8 years."
8. RoySmith said "keep deleted" but wrote, "I'd be perfectly happy to relist this instead, so the community can decide."

Only Stifle and Aervanath wrote "keep deleted" and did not say they were fine with a relist.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cunard (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose one can read the discussion that way. But I'm ok with you going ahead with a relist by recreating and then renominating the redirects at RfD. The issue is frankly too trivial for me to want to be involved any more.  Sandstein  05:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my suggestion! I have recreated the redirects and nominated them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 14#Meaning of the word "is" is. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

List of vetos exercised by the US government in the UN Security Council

Hi, would it be possible to reopen the discussion for deletion of the List of vetos exercised by the US government in the UN Security Council. The conclusion was to merge the article into List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions, but no such merging has been done to date. I think this is because the former provides no additional real information that is not already provided in the latter. Additionally, the article is full of poorly sourced anti-US propaganda, and there seems to be one user who keeps adding to it (look at his most recent edits on the article). Anyway I don't know what can be done since a decision was already voted on, but it seems clear that something needs to be done about it. Auguel (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you can just do the merger yourself.  Sandstein  08:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to merge though. All real vetoes are already present in the main articles. Auguel (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Then redirect the article.  Sandstein  09:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by redirect? Auguel (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:REDIRECT.  Sandstein  17:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I created the redirect. Thanks for your help. Auguel (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

People's Climate Mobilization / People's Climate Movement

Greetings Sandstein! You recently closed the AfD discussion for People's Climate Mobilization as "Delete". The page creator, Another Believer, kept a copy in Draft space (fine) and created a redirect to List of environmental protests (not so fine in my opinion). He also created a redirect from People's Climate Movement to the same list. Neither the Movement nor the Mobilization are mentioned in the list article, so I wonder whether the redirects are legit. I wanted to ask for your enlightened opinion instead of launching another discussion or slapping a {{db-g4}} on the page. Pinging Another Believer for comments as well. — JFG ^talk 10:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, a redirect is different from a recreation, so G4 wouldn't work. You can try WP:RFD, though.  Sandstein  11:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The article should have just been moved to draft space, not deleted. I recreated the redirects because people may still be searching for information about the upcoming event. I'll submit a request to move the draft over the existing redirect. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Thanks for your input. @Another Believer: You say people may still be searching for information about the upcoming event but your redirects point them to a page which does not mention those events. Either you add the event to that page or you don't redirect there; the current setup is confusing to readers. — JFG ^talk 21:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Would a cross-namespace redirect be legit? i.e. redirecting the mainspace name(s) to the draftspace article? — JFG ^talk 21:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe you can redirect to the draft space. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure I want to waste more time worrying about this. We'll have a new article for this event in the main space in just a couple of weeks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I have added an entry about the planned event to the list, so that redirects make sense to readers; that will do until the page is re-created. — JFG ^talk 18:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG and Sandstein: Would either of you be willing to move Draft:People's Climate March (2017) into the main space? This planned event has received a lot of press coverage, and Wikipedia should have an article just like it did for the Tax March and has for the upcoming March for Science. Please let editors help expand and improve this article. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I took a look at your draft and it still looks mostly like a WP:SOAPBOX announcement, which was one of the key reasons it was rejected at AfD; I'm not taking the responsibility to revive it, sorry. — JFG ^talk 16:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: OK, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you for your help

Hello can you please help me find the source of the problem why my wikiepedia created page is marjed fro speedy deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:C600:C440:F9FC:3150:3CA0:95A2 (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This request is incomprehensible.  Sandstein  09:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mr Ernie

Appealing user

Mr Ernie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mr Ernie (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite ban from commenting at WP:AE [4] and logged [5] for casting aspersions here [6].

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notified here.

Statement by Mr Ernie

I understand why this sanction was necessary at the time. I apologize to User:Volunteer Marek for casting aspersions and to User:SPECIFICO for arguing and being defensive. My comments were inappropriate - I completely acknowledge this. I am requesting the sanction be lifted as it is no longer preventative. I have reread the WP Guidelines [7]. Additionally, I do not intend to participate at WP:AE.

Result of the appeal by Mr Ernie

• @Mr Ernie: OK, I'm lifting the restriction and logging this on the sanctions page.  Sandstein  06:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:STABILITY listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:STABILITY. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:STABILITY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion:DWHL

I Criticize your deletion of an article name DWHL because of your unreliable reasons especially it takes that you didn't improved the article and minimal sources of information. I suggest to make some additional research rather than to delete classified information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirenzon (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your criticism is noted.  Sandstein  09:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have nonetheless re-deleted the article because it was an unsourced recreation of the article deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWHL, see WP:G4.  Sandstein  09:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted your criticism, I try to study the case and made some research to gather more improvement. the said article are still notable with strong implication to the locals because I was part of it. but this case never bring to wikipedia until the time that have a strong evidences and further research. if your deletion still does, I respect it in my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirenzon (talk • contribs) 11:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nordic Identity in Estonia

Hi, I'm curious as to why you decided (decision guidelines?) that the Nordic Identity in Estonia wp:delete discussion had the result of "no consensus", when there were two "delete" votes and six "keep" votes. There was also a consensus on the talk page. The outcome was that the article's name was changed. The creator of the wp:delete discussion also noted the consensus on the discussion page. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's also the nomination, so it's more like 3 to 6. That's close to but not quite consensus to keep, in my view. In any case, the result is the same: the article is kept.  Sandstein  14:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but also the person who nominated the article for deletion agreed with keeping it after some changes were made. Everything is listed on the discussion page. The outcome matters because if it is nominated again by someone who wants to delete it, the previous outcome will be taken into consideration. I think the "no consensus" decision was erroneous. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)