User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/July

Deletion of David Rudolph page?

Hi why did you delete David Rudolph’s page?

Did you read what you see when you try to open the page? Sandstein 21:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I read the page, and the argument that he is ‘just another lawyer’ is false. I assume you’re also deleting Rob Kardashian’s page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.75.205 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by that. Sandstein 05:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Since he was ‘just a lawyer’ too, surely you should delete that page with the same logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.75.205 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No. And, actually, the page David Rudolph exists. We even have two David Rudolphs. Sandstein 20:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven’t answered my question. If your logic ia that he is juat a lawyer, why not also delete Rob Kardashian’s page? Also the David Rudolph in question isn’t linked on that ‘David Rudolph’ page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.145.98 (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not deleting Rob Kardashian because he is not the subject of a deletion discussion. And you need to tell me the exact title of the deleted article about the David Rudolph in question or I can't look into it. It seems by your edits that it is David Rudolf? You can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rudolf why that article was deleted. Sandstein 06:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it’s David Rudolf. Agree with the comments within your talk that he is not just another lawyer. He has been involved in high profile cases with international tv involvement, making David some what of a celebrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:D088:6E00:9DDC:EC0E:A162:AC09 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

tpp merger with the new CPTPP/tpp11

the vote [1] has been positive. and it is time to actually merge them. Especially as I am getting riled up every time I see those are still separate pages.

I have no idea how this is done etc. so throwing it to you Jazi Zilber (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps an admin should first close the merger discussion. You can ask for one to do this at WP:AN. Sandstein 18:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wang Linkai

I do not understand why Wang Linkai should be redirected back to Nine Percent. He is notable and well-known with his works.User:Pogba12345678910 (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Because that was the outrcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiao Gui (musician). Sandstein 18:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No Consensus close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Kleinman

Can you explain how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Kleinman was closed as "no consensus"? Whether you look at the numbers or at the strength of arguments, this is a no-brainer "keep". If your argument (again) will be that "no consensus" and "keep" are equivalent,why not just close it as keep and end the cycle? Alansohn (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Because the numerical split was 4:3 and I don't see an obviously stronger argument on either side. Sandstein 18:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

REFUND of DIS – Study Abroad in Scandinavia?

An article about the NPO DIS – Study Abroad in Scandinavia was deleted following an AFD with very little participation. The organisation dates back to 1959, and I believe I can source it to NORG and ORGDEPTH. Would you be willing to REFUND it, not to main space, but to User:Sam Sailor/Drafts/DIS – Study Abroad in Scandinavia? Sam Sailor 14:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't undelete articles. Sandstein 18:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sandstein/Archives/2018. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please check as soon as you can. Home Lander (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

An oversighter got to it, but it looks like they missed an edit summary. Sandstein 19:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Good enough. Thanks! Home Lander (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Tye AfD

Hi, pretty sure the AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Tye (3rd nomination) was leaning towards "Delete and Salt". Looks like it has just been deleted, unless I'm mistaken. Could you salt it was well? Thanks. Shritwod (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I just popped in and salted it. Enigma^msg 21:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Shritwod (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Stephen Platcow page

In your rationale, you mention that substantial coverage does confer notability. Stephen Platcow has been covered by dozens of reputable media outlets. Did you review the references listed in the article? Your deletion doesn’t make sense based on your own logic. Starfire55 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Platcow your view about this was not shared by anybody else. Sandstein 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You voted delete based on the fact that there was not media coverage. The article itself provided proof to the contrary. Many, many links were provided proving there was in fact coverage which by your standard confers notability. The other person who voted to delete did so based on his or her claim that Platcow was not the Executive Producer. I added more sources that prove that he was despite the fact that many of the existing sources already disproved that claim. So again, a vote based on incorrect information. Given that this is a fact based site, this should be reposted for further discussion and the false votes removed for being inaccurate. Why would a vote based on incorrect information be counted? This type of thing would never fly in an actual newsroom. --Starfire55 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Good thing we aren't in a newsroom, then. Sandstein 20:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

AFD close of Susmita Basu Majumdar

Thank you for your perceptive close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susmita Basu Majumdar. The irony is that I hadn't supposed anyone would close based on the strength of the arguments. It was only because I thought it would be closed "delete" that I dared put in my "keep" argument. Also, while I'm here, thank you for your consistently fair closes at DRV (and, I guess, AFD though I less often look there). I suspect they quite often go against your personal opinion. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I request you to re-open the AfD? As someone, who is a native-speaker of Bengali language, that lends precisely zero to encyclopedic notability, (by our standards).∯WBG^converse 17:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry, we normally don't relist discussions more than twice. At some point the discussion needs to end. Sandstein 20:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Eh...I missed that it was on it's second relist.Anyways, a renom will be in order:) ∯WBG^converse 04:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:AE matters

Please see my proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No, whatever the solution to this mess is, it will not end up affecting only one side. Sandstein 09:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Delayed onset muscle soreness

The text boldly states that:

"Continued light use of the sore muscle also has no adverse effect on recovery from soreness and does not exacerbate muscle damage."

This is not correct. The cited source says:

"... soreness is not necessarily a warning signal ..."

This has a different meaning! Please don't simply restore the previous version! Tony Mach (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is somewhat contradicted by the source when considering repeated bouts, when a decreased muscle function was actually observed. When you are unhappy with the grammar (as you obviously are better than me), please please please, kindly fix the grammar - but please don't reintroduce the errors from the previous version. Tony Mach (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tony Mach: Could you copy this to the article talk page so that all interested editors can weigh in? Sandstein 09:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Request + Clarifications

1. I do quite a bit of work on AfDs and on military history, and would want to be sure I am taking a wide enough berth around the TBAN. I would appreciate if you could clarify scope regarding (in regards to AfD !votes and/or edits to such articles (that are not Poland specific)):

a. Military Equipment - Polish military equipment are obviously in-scope. Would Messerschmitt Bf 109 (ubiquitous German warplane, also in use over Poland), or T-34 (ubiquitous Soviet tank, also in use in occupied Poland (as well as post war production)) be in-scope?

b. Military personnel - Polish military personnel are obviously in-scope. Would a figure such as Hermann Graf (German fighter ace who also flew or was based in occupied Poland during parts of the war), or Ivan Konev (Soviet general - also commanded the advance through Poland in 1944-5 as well as doing many other things) be in-scope?

c. Military operations - Invasion of Poland is obviously in-scope. Would the Occupation of the Baltic states (close to Poland and related to Molotov-Ribbentrop), Operation Barbarossa (started out in occupied Poland, rapidly moved into Ukraine/Belarus/Russia), or East Pomeranian Offensive (in pre-1945 Germany, after the war became Poland) - be in scope?

2. I know this is not a negotiation, but would you consider modifying the TBAN(s) to the narrower Polish-Jewish relations possibly with a longer date bracket (e.g. 1917-1969)? This would be a more accurate definition of the area under conflict (which also involved topics such as Lwów pogrom (1918), other violent events involving Poles and Jews in the Second Republic (and forming thereof), and post-war violence and departure/expulsion of Jews up until 1968 (an example of this was brought up at AE)).

Thank you for your time.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

1. These subjects are only in scope of the ban if they are mentioned in relation to the war in Poland. You can still mention or edit them in articles or content that is or are unrelated to Poland's World War II history.

2. Yes, that would have been a possible alternative scope of the topic ban, but there are now a number of similarly-scoped topic bans and I'd like to keep them congruent to avoid enforcement problems. Sandstein 08:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Type 003 aircraft carrier

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Type 003 aircraft carrier. 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. —Madrenergic^talk 16:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Protection

It's not a huge deal materially, but as a matter of ethical principle, if you want to keep your userpage in protected mode, then when you want to edit it you should ask an administrator (not yourself) to unprotect it and then to reprotect it when you're done -- the same as the rest of us have to. Otherwise it's self-dealing, like a policeman using his siren to get home in time for dinner. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your view is noted, but I disagree. Unlike police sirens, me protecting my user page against repeat vandalism doesn't bother anybody else. Sandstein 08:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it bothers me. I mean my userpage gets vandalized too -- has been over a dozen times. This is why God gave us rollback buttons. I doubt that you were given the ability to protect pages so that you, personally, could have an easier time of it than other editors. Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Relist

I'm sorry but why is the article for Mike Ehrmantraut relisted again? The Optimistic One (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Because there is no consensus yet. Sandstein 20:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

In the first nomination there was fewer responses and a consensus was met for that. Just saying. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

From Your Grave

Why is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Your Grave being closed as delete instead of redirect, and the other two articles by the same artist are being relisted for a second time? There is no good reason why a valid search term should not be kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

We have consensus in this AfD, but not yet in the others. Each article is considered on its own merits. But you can create a redirect if you want to. Sandstein 20:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Some advice

Hi Sandstein. As a frequent AE admin, can you help me find a way through a tricky situation? Sdmarathe has been banned from interacting with me. It's a one-way IBAN, so theoretically, my behavior should not be constrained at all. In most cases, this worked just fine; they went their way, and I went mine. Their recent edits, though, require administrator attention, in my opinion. If I report them to AE, does their IBAN prevent them from replying/defending themselves? I have no wish to be accused of gaming the IBAN to my benefit. I'd ask GoldenRing, who imposed the ban, but they haven't been very active for a few days, and disputes get stale quickly. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not a problem for you. WP:BANEX allows the interaction-banned user to engage in necessary dispute resolution, which includes responding to AE requests against them. Sandstein 08:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense; I wasn't certain whether it was covered. I'll file the AE report. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I agree with Sandstein. And email usually gets my attention pretty quickly if you need it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vandana_Menon

This is regarding the deletion of the page mentioned in the subject.

The article provides external references to 2 websites about the actress as well as 1 reference to a State Film Award for a movie of the actress. An IMDB page of the actress has been provided in External Links. Besides Wikipedia links have been provided to all the movies of the actress. Don't all of these provide enough sources?

ScienMaster (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps they do, or perhaps they don't, but what matters is that the participants in the deletion discussion were of the view that they don't. Sandstein 08:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 11. —Cryptic 20:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

undid your delete- here is why.

Hi Sandstein.

It seems you may have removed Jaclyn Bradley Palmer from the Lorain Notable people site. I reversed this because she was just inducted into the Inaugural class of Lorain distinguisehd people:http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20180616/lorain-schools-alumni-association-announces-inaugural-class-of-distinguished-alumni

Thank you and hope I have not overstepped my bounds. I am not so experienced with Wikipedia... just a fan from her hometown who was surprised that not only was her page deleted but also she was removed from the Lorain page.

Also, is there a way the page could be recreated with less promotional verbiage? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.64.71 (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Normally if an article is deleted it is also removed from lists of notable people. Whether that's appropriate for this particular lists is for editors to decide. The article can be recreated if the concerns in the deletion discussion are addressed. Sandstein 06:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

edit clash at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black supremacy (2nd nomination)

Hi Sandstein. I made an edit clash on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black supremacy (2nd nomination). [2] Didn't realised you closed the discussion whilst I was putting forward my response. Senegambianamestudy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I see. Sandstein 06:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

[3] - This is just somewhat unprofessional, I am sorry! In England and Wales (well, in all of the UK, either in England and Wales, in Scotland or in Northern Ireland, really!), the cause of death ((other than in the case of apparent homicides) when it is considered otherwise unnatural or unexplained nevertheless or otherwise suspicious nevertheless) is not confirmed officially or otherwise until BOTH an autopsy (or an initial autopsy, to be followed by a second one ordered by the latter) and an official Coroner's Inquest. Well, just a 'heads-up' to you, that's all! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Miracles of Jesus

I apologize, it was not my intention to contribute to an edit war. As is true with differences of opinions on the leads of all contentious articles, I think the best path forward is to open the discussion up to more editors, and see where consensus lands. I have started a discussion on Talk:Christianity to that end. I'll readily admit that my own bias as a Christian could be obfuscating reason and clearly stated WP policy to the contrary...though for five reasons (of varying quality) stated on the Talk page, I do think it should remain in the lead. Nevertheless I will abide by consensus, and look forward to the discussion. Thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Article about deleted articles

Thought this would interest you [[4]]. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Paywalled ... Sandstein 21:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

2nd paragraph has the gist. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saul_Klein TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Sandstein 06:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you consider rewording this

Sandstein, with all due respect, do you realize that this warning [5] reads like you are formally warning me of the possibility of sanctions for actions on a page I have never edited, let alone edit-warred? Vanamonde (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry - I pinged you because contributed to the AE thread, but if you're not edit-warring in the topic area you don't need to fear sanctions. Sandstein 22:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it still reads like you're warning me for actions already committed, and the reason I'm being nitpicky is that I'm sure it will be brought up in future conflicts (Vanamonde was warned for edit-warring at AE!) but since you've clarified that that's not the case, maybe that's okay. Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Furniture Choice Deleted Article

Hi, I had an article deleted recently and I would like to work on it in my sandbox and get others in the community to help me to improve it. Is there any way you could give me the info from the deleted page? I put so much work into it but didn't realise if it got deleted I wouldn't be able to access it so I didn't save a copy. I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia properly! There was no copyright violation or anything Chickabiddybex (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not undelete pages, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Never mind I found a copy of it! Thanks anyway :) Chickabiddybex (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

access deleted article history?

I see the history of articles is deleted from my contributions page once the article is deleted. Is it possible for me to access this history (without proposing its recreation)? I'm interested what, if any, tags were affixed to this and to other articles when they were reviewed. Jzsj (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, only administrators can do that. Sandstein 19:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mystery_Case_Files:_Key_to_Ravenhearst&welcome=yes

Thanks to stop the madness in this article that turning in round. But this series is not really «Run-of-the Mill» (except for the recent ones) because it create the genre. You say it is because of prejudice against the casual playing. I hope that one discussion by article than one for all the games. Frapril (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I forget to say that I hope it will help to discute of the notability of articles to make one discussion by articles instead of one discussion for all games. Frapril (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I if we want to proposing an article to deletion after, it’s possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.236.230.117 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you mean. Sandstein 22:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I just ask if we can made consensus on the talk pages of article. It also say that "Run-of-the-mill" is a Pejorative term, and it'S better to use ordinary because it sound like you have prejudice to casual games. But it'S not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.236.230.117 (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Sandstein 19:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

2017 Southern Europe heat wave

Hello, I saw you closed the AfD as delete. I think the decision was premature given that I gave a number of this year's sources (i.e. not contemporary news articles) establishing GNG and LASTING and none of the delete voters after me seem to have taken them into account. I should've pointed out on the AfD page, but I absolutely planned to fix the article up once the British IP was through with his hasty "improvements" (probably caused by the AfD nomination). Daß Wölf 01:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think consensus was reasonably clear, and the discussion did run for the required 7 days. Sandstein 06:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have anything against me starting that page from scratch? I do believe I can make a useful article based on scientific coverage. Daß Wölf 23:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ping? Daß Wölf 18:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. No, anybody can recreate a deleted article if they can address the concerns that led to its deletion. Sandstein 19:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll try and draft it some time soon. Daß Wölf 19:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Sandstein/Archives/2018. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I agree with your assessment and your suggestion. Sandstein 20:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

DRV procedural issue

Hi, not sure if you've kept up on this, but per the top of DRV: "If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion)." So I _think_ the normal policy would be to restore the deleted article. At a guess, you won't be inclined to do so. In that case, you should probably update the close to explain your reasoning. Hobit (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I should have addressed this, but given that everybody who's likely to take issue is going to come here, I'll address it here: Normally a no consensus outcome of a speedy deletion's review would indeed have resulted in overturning the deletion. But this procedural direction (strangely, DRV itself doesn't seem to be policy?) assumes that all agree that normal deletion policy applies. Here, however, the very applicability of deletion policy (including DRV) is contested. As a result, I believe that we'd have needed at a minimum positive consensus to overturn an admin action under these circumstances, to take into account the concerns that we might be overturning a specially protected kind of sanction. As it is, I think a broader discussion will be needed to resolve this matter. Sandstein 21:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty IAR way to proceed. It's pretty clearly not what it says on on tin. There isn't a choice--no consensus of a speedy results in restoration. I get that you don't care for that outcome here, but your closure of no consensus and keeping it deleted isn't a choice that DRV allows for (being listed as "policy" or not). And a discussion on a user page isn't the place for a closure clarification either... Plus you just assumed in your closure that DS allows for speedy deletion, something that isn't listed anywhere I can find. I get that you do a lot at DS, but this really isn't within admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia talk:Deletion review is the place to continue this discussion, as the close directly contracts the main DRV page instructions for "no consensus" results on speedy deletion, supported by a WT:DRV consensus barely over a year old. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hobit: I agree that purely in terms of deletion procedure the DRV no consensus should have led to a restoration of the article, but the problem here is that whether deletion procedure applies is precisely the point of contention. And that's not something I'm comfortable with casting a supervote on, as a single admin, based on a "no consensus" result. There was probably no way to close this DRV and make everybody happy, but I think the current outcome is most in keeping with how our consensus-finding process works. For what it's worth, I've never used general sanctions, and I don't think that this issue has any relevance to WP:AC/DS, as these are ArbCom-created procedures. The problem here is that we have two community-created procedures that are in apparent conflict with each other, and that's something the wider community needs to resolve. I think this resolution is better sought in a RfC than in individual deletion discussions. Sandstein 07:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

While I don't completely agree with every aspect of the close, after reviewing it, my conclusion is that Sandstein is well within his leeway as the closer to close it how he did. All of the evaluations that were made along the way to arriving at that close are defensible, and the close itself seemed fair enough. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that in light of the non-ordinary situations at play, his closure is perfectly defensible.∯WBG^converse 07:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There are two discussions open at the administrators' noticeboard where this has been mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cryptocurrency general sanctions and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Draft:Periodic Table of Cryptocurrencies - Blockchains deletion. Peter James (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

As the closer of a RfC

I was hoping you might offer some suggestions related to the NRA article and the subjection/RfC on which you helped close a while back. You closed this RfC with the statement that consensus supported a few sentences. I think we had that shortly after the closing. Since then several editors who are active on the politics end of things have pushed more material into the NRA article. I feel this is against the consensus closing but local consensus is currently dominated by numbers rather than much else. Would you offer an opinion on just how much counts as "a few"? What would be the best way to get some independent eyes on this? Thanks Springee (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you link to what this is about? Sandstein 05:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, sorry! Yeah, not linking isn't going to help. Here is the RfC [[6]] and here is the current talk page discussion [[7]] as well as an older one where new material was added [[8]]. Thanks Springee (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Right. Sorry, my role was limited to assessing consensus at the RfC. I have no special authority or knowledge to offer in subsequent discussions, which I have not followed, other than the broad observation that, if circumstances change, editors may want to re-assess consensus. It's not up to me, but to interested editors to determine through discussion whether recent developments such as the indictment of an alleged Russian agent warrant a more extensive coverage than what was decided in the RfC. Sandstein 20:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Biggs jasper

Hello! Your submission of Biggs jasper at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Millionaire Top Prize Winners article

I'm not of the opinion that the reasons to delete List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? top prize winners were sensible enough to warrant a deletion of the article. In my view, the discussion was "tainted" by arbitrary "keep" votes from users who didn't act in any reasonable or policy-backed manner; I agree with your evaluation of those votes. What I don't agree with is taking the three "delete" votes that simply went per nom and reinforced the original requester's reasons for deletion into full account, as arguments were made by myself and What's New that outlined why those reasons don't necessarily apply to the article. In particular, the often-cited WP:LISTCRUFT does not seem relevant to the article in question; the content is notable (as outlined in the applicable "keep votes"), verifiable and neutral, maintenance of the list does not require a disproportionate amount of effort, and its existence is backed by the main article about the show itself; as such,m per AldezD's comment from Jul 20th, the fact that an article about the very topic of a top-prize winner doesn't exist is, in my eyes, not a valid reason for this list to lack context.

To summarize, arguments were brought up against the deletion of the list that were not disputed, discussed or otherwise delegitimized. All originally cited reasons for deletion were disputed, without reasonable doubts having been brought up against those disputes. It is certainly a list that would reasonably be included in the show's article (as per other game show articles that list top-prize, series, or otherwise notable winners, which include, but are in no way limited to Only Connect, 1 vs. 100, Jeopardy!, The £100K Drop et al.), but has become long enough throughout the years that a split into its own article became justified. In conclusion, the simple fact that the list is large does not qualify it for WP:LISTCRUFT or WP:IINFO, and there have been no arguments brought up that explain why it would. Pascal40 (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right that the "per nom" opinions aren't the height of Wikipedian wit either. That doesn't, however, make them inadmissible as long as the nomination makes sense in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it does. Whether the nominator's argument is stronger than the counterarguments you mention isn't something I need to decide; just that it is defensible in terms of our policies and practices. Editors can disagree about the finer points of notability, and here I think we have a reasonably clear consensus for the "delete" side once one omits the nonsensical "keep"s. Sandstein 15:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Have the Bots finally (re-)arrived en masse from Twitter?!

Pretty [much] "[an] open-and-shut [[court] case]" at least to me! [9] -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

And this concerns me how? Sandstein 16:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Florence Faivre's nationality

Hey, I just noticed the three-days-later updates to this for the first time while doing research on my own edit history specifically to BLPN. I think you missed the point of my question: assuming the reliable source in question wasn't just in error, it was definitely talking about heritage, not nationality, since she can't be both French and Thai legally. We don't generally quote "heritage" in the opening sentences or infoboxes of our biographical articles; we quote nationality, if it is known, but in this case the only source we have does not apparently give nationality so much as an ambiguous description of her heritage.

Because this is how our articles are normally written, the article at present strongly implies she possesses a particular type of dual citizenship that she is not legally allowed possess. I don't know about Thailand (or France, for that matter), but in Japan it's theoretically possible for naturalized citizens to maintain their original citizenship as long as they do not formally renounce it, but that is illegal, which is where my concern about that article arose, and why I brought it to BLPN.

(As an aside, it's not generally considered helpful to call such statements made by others on talk pages or noticeboards "original research", as WP:NOR specifically states that the policy doesn't apply to such statements: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Discussing the usability of a source generally considered to be of adequate reliability for a BLP statement they don't, strictly speaking, support -- again, nothing in the source specifies whether they are talking about nationality/citizenship/parentage/heritage/whatever, but the way we cite them we are definitely talking about nationality -- is not "original research" under the definition generally used on Wikipedia.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

And then I noticed right after posting the above that you just took my side in a dispute over interpretation of the speedy deletion policy, so coming here with a message about something from two months ago (even if I just noticed it now) without thanking you came across as rather dickish. Apologies for that. Also you already know the NOR policy, and "don't call other editors' talk/noticeboard comments original research" is more of a pet peeve of mine than a policy point that needs to be shoved down others' throats, so might as well strike that part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this overcomplicates things. We have a reliable source describing her as "French-Thai", and so that's what we write. If one assumes that she has parents of both countries, then it's not a stretch to assume she has both nationalities, which makes the distinction immaterial. Sandstein 19:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of My Article

I Wrote an Article on a living Biography of my Mom's. You deleted it. I wanna know exact reasons why it was done. And how can I make a permanent article posted on wikipedia?? Page name Amita Chapra.

The reasons for the deletion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amita Chapra (2nd nomination). There is no such thing as a "permanent" article on WIkipedia; any article can be deleted if there is community consensus to do so. Sandstein 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Biggs jasper

On 25 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Biggs jasper, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Biggs jasper is one of the most sought-after extremely siliceous gemstones? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Biggs jasper. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Biggs jasper), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Casliber 00:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"Extremely siliceous gemstone"

Do you have access to the whole source and does it actually says that? I tried to open it: I can only see the first page, but it is written by a competent mineralogist, and it would be surprising if he wrote something as asinine: a rock is either siliceous or it isn't; nothing prevents one from counting silicon atoms but, in view of the ubiquity of quartz, that would be seriously pointless (i.e., 90% of siliceous materials would turn out to be 'extremely' so). complainer 09:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Complainer: The source describes it thus at p. 61: "The superior quality of this jasper, with its pleasing shades in tan and brown, makes it one of the most sought after of the extremely siliceous stones." I assume that means that the jasper is rare among gemstones in that it is extremely siliceous. I've temporarily made the full source available at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZrtoSB_4ou7wmg0zv5oU3vhoGrtIMgIo if you want to take a look. Sandstein 10:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt your good faith; in my opinion, now the question is a general one, i.e., whether something senseless said by an otherwise reliable source should be reported, verbatim and uncritically, in an article and on the main page of wikipedia. complainer 11:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a mineralogist, so i don't really have an opinion of my own. But generally we report what reliable sources say, to avoid WP:OR. Sandstein 13:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but WP:OR would only apply to inserting information, not to expunging; two further factors in this particular case are 1 - the fact that, of several pages of factually correct information, the editors have singled out the one absurd statement, which is unfair to both the source and the readers and 2 - WP:CK complainer 13:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What's absurd about the statement? So I assume there are gemstones who are more siliceous and gemstones who are less siliceous. And this jasper is a kind of gemstone that is very high in silica, that is, extremely siliceous. That seems to make sense. Sandstein 16:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I might have explained it badly, but "siliceous" is not really a matter of degrees: a [gem]stone is either siliceous or it isn't; specifically for jasper, which is basically pure silicon dioxide, saying "extremely siliceous" is exactly the same as saying that water is "extremely aqueous". If I have to give an exact equivalent to the statement, it would be: "S.Pellegrino is one of the most sought after of the extremely aqueous beverages". While the correctness of the statements could be defended on technical grounds, and there certainly is worse on wikipedia, I don't think having this even mix of nonsense and truism on our main page reflects well on wikipedia. Oh well, at least it's now safely confined to an article three people a month will read, if even. complainer 07:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoshiki Nakajima

Hi there. I noticed that you deleted Yoshiki Nakajima several months ago, as it appeared at the time that he did not meet WP:ENT. Since then, he played the role of Yoshifumi Nitta, the main character of the anime series Hinamatsuri, and also released a single that charted on Oricon, Japan's main music chart. Is it okay with you if I send this to deletion review, to test for consensus on whether or not he now passes the notability guidelines? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You can do what you like, but as far as I know even entertainers need substantial coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG, or "significant roles in multiple notable films", which a single role in an anime probably doesn't qualify for. Sandstein 07:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Noted. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 26#Yoshiki Nakajima. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

I'd like to ask you a favor. Last time when I submitted something to WP:AE you said it did not worth any action. I am sorry for that. Wasting time of other contributors and admins is not my intention. Hence I would like to ask you to look at this and tell if this is something worth reporting at WP:AE. If not, then fine, I do not care. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have the time to look at a bunch of undated and unexplained diffs. Sandstein 07:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I can easily date them, but what exactly needs to be explained? Should it be something about the story, or the history of editing by the contributor? I do not understand. Given that, I would rather not submit the request. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

To evaluate a complaint at AE, we ask for an explanation how exactly each diff violates a conduct policy. E.g., "[diff] is a personal attack because the user called me a jerk". Sandstein 15:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. So, speaking about such edit, for example... What needs to be clarified here? The user places in the infobox a claim that the poisoning was committed by unknown "Russians" and ...the British government, while sources tell that was done by Russian GRU people [10]. He is promoting a conspiracy theory [11] on WP pages. That user edits only a single page, specifically about this event. He repeatedly removes well sourced info [12] directly relevant to the subject [13]. He edit war to remove such well sourced information from the page: [14],[15],[16],[17]. Does not something like that worth reporting on the WP:AE? My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring is sanctionable at AE, but disagreements about content are not. You'd also need to make clear why this is in scope of any discretionary sanctions remedies. Sandstein 17:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Kunal Kamra

Can I get the copy of the article Kunal Kamra to my userspace? You had deleted this article after the AfD. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't userfy content, but somebody at WP:REFUND might. Sandstein 12:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Rochelle Adonis

Hi Sandstein, back in November 2017 you deleted the Rochelle Adonis article after the AFD closed as delete. Someone has recreated it now and I was wondering if it was still possible to undelete the prior version into my userspace? There were some better sources in there that I was hoping to recover. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't userfy content, but somebody at WP:REFUND might. Sandstein 18:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

About Consortiumnews

Actually you should not have deleted this article, since there are at least two reliable sources reviewing it ([18] & [19], I didn't know the latter when I participated in the AfD discussion opposing the deletion. I should have Googled "Consortium News" not just "Consortiumnews").--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consortiumnews was in 2016. You can recreate the article if you can address the deficiencies identified in the AfD. Sandstein 17:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

But I really want to update and expand the deleted article, since the article was well-written (for me) and not a stub. I don't want to write the article from scratch. It's too troublesome and takes too much time for me.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You can ask somebody at WP:REFUND to userfy it. Sandstein 10:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit to closed AE

Sorry about that, my edit was one minute after yours, and I didn't realize you had closed it until now (I'm on a very slow internet connection).

I must say I wish there was more active input from admins in these situations. Even if it went against me at least I could learn and try to understand your views. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Your negligence; someone deleted one of my comments in an open deletion discussion that you closed, etc.

Someone deleted one of my comments in this then-open deletion discussion that you closed.

The comment was

• Keep, because I dug for a few minutes, and here's one strong indicator of current notability: Of "what the editors at HealthDay consider to be the most important developments in Pharmacy for June 2018" were four articles from JNO. This from a total of 58 articles, 37 of which were behind paywalls. That's 19 percent of the open access articles.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone interpreted it as a second vote and perhaps it was deleted it on that basis. That's not a reasonable basis for deletion of the entire comment. And I thought deletion discussions aren't votes, so how is saying Keep twice even voting? *If* I understood that it wasn't allowed, wouldn't have done it, and would be willing to apologize for it now, but I don't understand that that's the case. Did you consider the arguments I made on the deleted comment? The struck ones? I don't see any indication that you did. Also, I don't understand the basis for striking all my other comments. Can you please address these concerns? I was blocked for complaining about some misbehavior and no one appears willing to have a conversation with me about my or others (alleged) misbehavior. Are you willing to do either or both? I'm trying to make sense of the responses I've received and there's rarely any connection I can see between my edits and the allegations, let alone policy.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion. Sandstein 20:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Please reply.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You were being disruptive and the discussion was unanimously in favor in deletion apart from you. The discussion would have concluded the same way regardless of the striking or deletion of your contributions. There‘s nothing for me to do here. Sandstein 05:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why you bothered to reply. You avoided both answering my questions and addressing my concerns. Seems to be common- it's like what happened in the other discussions I've attempted to have with someone who opposed a contribution of mine. I still don't know if you considered the arguments I made on the deleted comment. The evidence suggests you didn't. Your second sentence doesn't change that, but it implies you think it's irrelevant. So that's my first question.

I feel hostility in every sentence. I'm already aware I was supposedly disruptive. Your repeating that statement is unenlightening. I'm guessing what the point of your final sentence was and can't find one compatible with civility.

It's a blatant falsehood - your claim that "the discussion was unanimously in favor in <sic> deletion apart from you" - as I recall. I checked. Yup. Clearly you didn't consider the "Don't Delete" vote and argument by User:Mrmxzptlk. That's negligent.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Sandstein, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 02:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)