User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/March

Bernie Singles

Hi Sandstein, I just want to point out that _every_ !vote after the new sources were presented !voted to relist. All of them. And given that the sources in the article (even without Roy's new ones) were well over the WP:N bar (USA today and GQ having articles solely on the topic for example). Oh well. Hobit (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I !voted to endorse the AFD closing decision to delete rather than to relist again. I was solely considering whether the AfD close was proper, which was the question raised in the DRV. At that time I could not see the article. I was not in any way giving an opinion on whether the later suggested references warranted further discussion in the light of the prior state of the article (by then temporarily undeleted). To that question I would have suggested "relist". Thincat (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I see, but if the article is recreated as a stub with the new sources and then AfDed we're more likely to get a productive discussion than we were to reopen the old discussion. Sandstein 07:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you please userfy the article for me so I can at least start a stub with the sources there rather than recreating from scratch? (Sorry for the delay in responding, wonderful vacation just ended today) Hobit (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Done at User:Hobit/Bernie Singles. Sandstein 09:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Hobit (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN: Block for review

Per the discussion here, I have opened a thread on WP:AN, here is the link of the thread that involves you. Lorstaking (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Now closed on procedural grounds.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyways, your vieews are solicited in the discussion about possible unblock.Regards~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabi Holdings Inc.

Hi Sandstein. I hope you’re doing well. I’m curious as to why you relisted this AfD. There was only one individual other than the author arguing keep, and eventually even the person who accepted it st AfC decided it shouldn’t be included. The keep commenter also eventually agreed with some of my sourcing analysis and everyone else who commented did as well. There was a lot of conversation, but it looks like a pretty obvious delete and I don’t see the reason for a relist. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

After reexamining the AfD, I agree and have closed the discussion. Sandstein 22:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

History of 201 Bishopsgate

Every non-redirect revision of 201 Bishopsgate is copied without attribution from Broadgate Tower. I see three options: We can retroactively provide attribution, though I doubt it's worth the effort. We can revdel every non-redirect revision of that page. Or we can delete it all and create a redirect from scratch. At the AfD discussion I argued for the latter course as the easiest; which do you prefer? Huon (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd just leave it be. Not worth the time for an obscure redirect. But feel free to do what you prefer. Sandstein 20:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Faraci

Hi. I notice you are relatively active in closing deletion requests. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Faraci has been live for the appropriate 7 days now, and is overwhelmingly in the direction of a merge. If you feel it is also time to close this, please act. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

All AfDs do get closed eventually when an admin gets around to it. Just be patient... Sandstein 22:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AE

Are you confident about this unusual close [1]? You had to wait until the report was archived. If other admins are not interested then you could be the one to take action. I don't know where we can disagree that Willard84 is one highly disruptive user, and his own comments on AE were speaking enough about his incompetence, deception and battleground mentality. I can't see a reason why you should let him scot-free and continue his disruption. What he did in those two recent examples were block worthy alone and in addition to long term issues with him even after a warning from EdJohnston that further edit warring will lead to topic ban. Clearly a topic ban was warranted now, unless you are saying that edit warring, deception, battleground approach, etc. are no more sanctionable offenses. I will disagree. Excelse (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagreement noted, but if you continue in this vein you may be sanctioned yourself for casting aspersions against others, see WP:ASPERSIONS. You need to accept that your request was looked at and considered not actionable. Sandstein 07:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My above comments are in agreement with 4th and 5th note of WP:ASPERSIONS under "Selective examples 2008–2015", that allegations should not be made without evidence. I have no other choice than to accept what you said for now, but given your response which is really unsatisfactory, I can conclude that I would look forward to an opportunity where I will be allowed to question this system, because these days it seems to be lacking its credibility and people have questioned before if we really need it. Other alternative would be to question your ability to handle these requests. We will see what happens first. Excelse (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ankur Jain

Please userify the page so I can work to address the issues raised and submit the article to AfC. I understand I cannot simply just move the article to mainspace without more people reviewing it.ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't normally undelete deleted articles. You can ask another admin. Sandstein 15:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Pseudo Slang's deletion

Hi Sandstein,

I hope this finds you well. This is Rod Phasouk, on behalf of Pseudo Slang. Regarding the deletion of Wikipedia's article about Pseudo Slang, of Boleyn, Mattg82, and Sandals1, only Mattg82 responded to your latest communication:

Take it to DRV and have other editors look at it. Mattg82 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please pardon my ignorance of Wikipedia's protocols, but is this enough to put the article up for Deletion Review? If so, who actually makes the submission?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, Rod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.117.62.129 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm, sorry, that got archived. It seems nobody was really interested in discussing this further. The process is described at WP:DRV, but if you undertake it if may be immediately dismissed because of your conflict of interest (WP:COI). Sandstein 22:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, thank you for your reply (and apology). I must admit the situation leaves me at a bit of a loss over what to do going forward, so any advice you may have to offer would be greatly appreciated.

In the interests of clarity and also consolidation, here are links to the original deletion post and subsequent Talk posts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pseudo_Slang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/January#Pseudo_Slang_deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/February#Pseudo_Slang's_deletion

And here are links providing evidence of Pseudo Slang's notability per criterion #1:

http://www.okayplayer.com/reviews/pseudo-slang-200908198688.html http://vocalo.org/post/159683773156/jill-hopkins-spoke-with-mc-sick-and-dj-form-aka https://www.britishhiphop.co.uk/features/interviews/pseudo_slang.html http://www.ihiphop.com/blog/album-review-pseudo-slang-well-keep-looking/ http://artvoice.com/issues/v5n16/this_is_buffalo_hip_hop.html https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1830659881.html https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1636336.html https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-152445638.html

Thanks again for your time and consideration, Rod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.117.62.129 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in helping you promote your band on Wikipedia. If the band is notable, somebody without a conflict of interest will recreate the article eventually. I don't have anything further to say. Sandstein 23:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging's topic ban

Hi, you imposed a topic ban on User:TheTimesAreAChanging from post 1932 American politics on February 7th, 2018. Has this topic ban been rescinded or amended in some way? He appears to have been just ignoring it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are diffs of this, the place to report it would be WP:AE. Sandstein 23:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but what I'm asking is if the topic ban is still active and in its original form.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes. Sandstein 23:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Datacoin Deletion

Hi Sandstein

You deleted the Datacoin page and asked for a reference not from the coin documents.

Here is one: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/datacoin-dtc-features-blockchain-data-003900184.html

Datacoin is active, traded on 2 exchanges and will be added to a third.

Coinmarketcap listing: www.coinmarketcap.com/currencies/datacoin

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extro24 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, no. This is a press release. "Accesswire" apparently is a service for the distribution of such. Sandstein 14:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Rick Mitry DRV

Rick Mitry (AfD discussion)'s at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 14, temporarily at least, and this your pro-forma notification that its nominator skipped. —Cryptic 00:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Chakresh Kumar Article

Hi Sandtein, This is regarding the page deleted yesterday. The reason for deletion was that it is not linked to any other pages. But it is linked to two other pages. The sources has information and mention of Chakresh Kumar and as well as Alankar Theatre. Apart from that, the article is linked to two other articles on wikipedia, named Shiwani Saini and Category:Indian theatre directors. Its a biographic and Encyclopedic article of one of the eminent directors in Indian Theatre. Please review the request once more. And help me to improve the quality of article as required. Sanjeev22mannan (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. This does not address the reasons for why Chakresh Kumar was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakresh Kumar. Sandstein 16:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Orghielleis

Hello,

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orghielleis - would you mind sending me a copy of the deleted article so I may recreate it as Budbud, which is a verifiable town, and probably the name of the place in Somalian? SportingFlyer talk 14:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Which reliable sources exist for Budbud? Sandstein 14:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Will find links to sources later due to a time crunch, but at the very least it was seized by militants and ended up in the news and has articles on WP in other languages. SportingFlyer talk 16:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

English language Budbud sources, more in Somalian (which I do not even pretend to understand). Some of these are trivial but they show the town can be WP:V: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] SportingFlyer talk 03:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't undelete articles myself, but you can ask somebody at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 16:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Request to draftify/userfy

Hi, this page about a local legend was AFD'd due to lack of sources, in June 2017. Later, a film on the same name Odiyan (2018 film) was created and was moved to Odiyan (film) and finally to Odiyan. So, could you restore the original deleted page into a draft or into my user page ? I would like to rework and recreate it as sufficient sources are available now. Thanks. --Let There Be Sunshine 15:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete articles myself, but you can ask somebody at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 16:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Cleashindra Hall no consensus

Hi I see that Disappearance of Cleashindra Hall has been closed with "no consensus" which I am unsure of and how it differs from "closed as keep". The article is still there, so does this mean that it will remains up for good? Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No consensus means that the article is kept for now because there has been no consensus to delete it. See Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for deletion page. Sandstein 21:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChangin AE

TheTimesAreAChangin is editing modern US politics again. Is this permitted? - GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be? Sandstein 17:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like an indefinite topic ban is in effect.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The diff you linked appears unrelated to US politics. If you want to request enforcement action, please use WP:AE. Sandstein 22:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Zak Elbouzedi

You deleted this article as a result of AfD a couple of months ago. It has been re-created, and it looks like it will pass AfD this time because Elbouzedi's soccer career has advanced. Is it appropriate to undelete and merge the deleted version for proper attribution? Thanks! Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete articles myself, but you can ask somebody at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 16:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Daniel_Pickering

Hi Sanstein

I'd just like to ask why this page was deleted.

You can see the person is notable, Daniel has created a TV Series Little Charley Bear, which has aired in over 120 countries,

You also had to go through and edit many other pages which linked to Daniels, including Chapman entertainment, the production company which distributed the show.

If you just Google Little Charley Bear you can see how much content there is about it.

Surely the whole point of Wiki is to inform not remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Williams 222254 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Mark Williams 222254: "Daniel has created a TV Series Little Charley Bear, which has aired in over 120 countries" Doesn't matter; Wikipedia's concept of notability is different than what you might believe. Please read WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Mark Williams 222254, have you read the deletion discussion? Sandstein 14:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch (2nd nomination) was probably the most well written one I've seen in a while. Great job. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I dropped by to pretty much say the same thing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I will third the praise of your closing. I was thinking before that I don't envy the job of whoever closes this AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And, I will chime in to appreciate the closing statement.That was damn well-written and an accurate reflection of the entire proceedings.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And, without wishing to sound like bandwaggon jumping, that was a good close. I'd already closed it once but you managed to do it without wagging fingers at people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Recreation of article deleted at AfD

Would you please take a look at Ezidkhan (autonomous region) which is a virtual duplication of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomous Region of Ezidkhan, which itself was created by the sockupppet[[Gani zanyar (the editor creating the new article wasn't identified as a sock). Also see User talk:Doug Weller#Warning about vandalising and history-censoring of the now 4 year existing Ezidistan autonomous area. I obviously don't want to use any Admin tools here. As much as I admire the Yazidis, this appears to be an attempt to use us to do the usual righting of great wrongs. Interesting that there are no new sources since September 2017 so far as I can tell. This is basically all OR, as discussed at WP:NORN last year. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No opinion about the merits of the content, but the article is a clear G4. Deleted. Sandstein 16:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Immediately restored with yet another source that doesn't mention the subject.[10] Doug Weller talk 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And salted. Sandstein 16:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of At Boshoff

I want to discuss re-assessing the deletion of the page on At Boshoff please. I know and agree that there is not much to be found easily on the Internet, but he is most certainly notable in charismatic Christian circles and especially in Africa. He has just been voted one of the 100 most reputable Africans in a reputation poll alongside people like Desmond Tutu and Cyril Ramaphosa. I will continue to find and make accessable reliable third party sources. Mvnrsa (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, a poll does not represent the kind of sourcing needed to pass WP:GNG. Sandstein 21:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way I can get the content of the original page moved to a user page I can keep editing? Mvnrsa (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification and Amendment

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment_request: India-Pakistan regarding the sanctions you imposed. MapSGV (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Absurd situation

Hi, Sandstein. You helped creating a completly ridiculous situation that led to the removal Yezidistan autonomous area from wikipedia. While yesterday the Washington Post reported on this Yezidi-Kurdish controlled area, (like the 30 other sources on the page) and it has been de facto autonomous for now for more then 4 years!

This autonomous area is mapped on wikipedia and all other existing conflict maps,

denying it existence is beyond any rationale and is simply surrealistic. Please correct this absurd situation as it is making Wikipedia looking ridiculous. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The source doesn't even mention Yazidis let alone an autonomous region or Ezidkhan. The map is the editor's original research. There might be a WP:CIR problem here. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Because the Washington posts refers to Yezidi's as Kurds, as the Yezidi's are often seen as a Kurdish people.

The Iraqi Insergency map is not original research, but made by large amount of users, with huge amounts of sources!

Some maps of the autonomous region mapped on:

• https://syriancivilwarmap.com
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map
• https://militarymaps.info/ (pro-Russian)
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iraqi%E2%80%93Kurdish_conflict_map.png
• http://iswresearch.blogspot.com/2017/03/iraq-control-of-terrain-map-march-9-2017.html

Why are you still denying something that is that clear?

If you don't believe that West-Sinjar is under EPC/Sinjar aliancese-groups control, who do you think that is controlling this area and what sources do you have to back such absurd claim?

Why do you think Turkey/Erdogan currently wants to attack the area if you claim it is not under Sinjar-alliance control?--Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Niele~enwiki, if you can convince Doug Weller that there are now adequate sources for this topic, I'll restore the article. But what you did was just recreate Ezidkhan (autonomous region) twice with very superficial changes, which is why the title is now protected against recreation. Sandstein 17:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Why one uninformed person and Beshogur (an account of a user claiming itself to be a pan-Turkish-nationalist that for years focussed only on reducing/removing Kurdish content from wikipedia and got several times banned for this) can overrule

30 sources, the washingpost, ISW, wikipedia's own conlfict maps,...

Believe the sources, West Sinjar is under control of EPC and the Sinjar alliance. Fying both Iraqi and Yezidikhan flags.

The EPC/Sinjar alliance is not in conflict with Baghdad because it distanced itself from the KRG when Iraqi forces took east-Sinjar and most of Sinjar town from KRG.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I've posted to his talk page but am dubious about any result. He clearly thinks I'm supporting genocide which is not conducive to discussion. And since he thinks that maps made by multiple editors, the year old ISW map that doesn't mention Ezidkhan, etc are sources he can use, I'm pessimistic. Even the questions above show he doesn't understand our policies. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

On the basis of the above discussion, I don't see grounds to undelete Ezidkhan (autonomous region). Niele~enwiki, if you disagree, you can request a deletion review at WP:DRV. Sandstein 07:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Page Suborno Bose

Hi,

The references given are both correct and retrievable. May I ask to know why the page was deleted?

Gaurabwiki (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the deletion discussion? Sandstein 14:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have. The sources are retrievable and can be verified. The person is well known with multiple awards & accolades.

Gaurabwiki (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's as may be, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suborno Bose determined otherwise. What new information would be grounds for overturning that consensus? Sandstein 07:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Recently he received the Business leader Award in the Eastern Region of India by the Times Group at The Times Business Awards 2018 & Economic Times Most Promising Business Leader of Asia Award at Malyasia in November 2017. Gaurabwiki (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Gaurabwiki: None of those awards seem to be notable or significant, so the subject still fails WP:ANYBIO. Grasping at straws like that doesn't help you in the way showing the subject meets WP:N would. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree and decline to recreate the article. Sandstein 13:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs

Hello, you have recently done some admin work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs so you may be able to check something for me. Today I did a non-admin closure for the AfD on the album Book of Ryan. I may have messed something up because at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs everything under that particular AfD now has the blue background giving the indication that they have been closed, which is not true. If I missed a step somewhere, please advise. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have also asked another admin about the same thing, so sorry if there is any duplicated effort. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this sounds like something technical, which I'm not good at. Sandstein 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Resolved! (I missed one of the many confusing tag removals required when closing a discussion.) Thanks for your time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Dylan de Bruycker

The article about Dylan de Bruycker was deleted a year ago due to failing WP:NFOOTY which is no longer the case now since the subject has played for the senior Philippine national team (though not a "full" side, but the senior team nevertheless) in FIFA "A" international at the 2017 CTFA International Tournament (Source) and recently for a FIFA-sanctioned friendly against Fiji. (source). As per WP:DRV, I'm requesting you, the closing admin of the AfD on the subject's article, to reverse the article's deletion so I don't have to start from scratch.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 17:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay I'll do soHariboneagle927 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

But reading WP:REFUND, it is more appropriate to refer the article to WP:DELREVHariboneagle927 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dylan de Bruycker

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dylan de Bruycker. 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. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

September 1939 Communist Parties of Western Belorussia revolts/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała

I'm interested in writing an article along the lines I described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination), something on the "September 1939 Communist Parties of Western Belorussia revolts" which included this and the events in other places discussed in the now deleted article. I would like to use that article as a basis for the new article, and I think it might be best if I keep the edit history from that article for the new article, as if it were closed as a rename, per WP:PRESERVE/WP:CWW. My plan is to ping the editors at that AfD in the talk page on my userspace and try to get consensus for a title and, as much as reasonably possible, the content before moving it to article space. I would also ping you, as the closing admin, before moving it to article space. I prefer the article in my userspace rather than draft space, as if a neutral consensus isn't reached, I would like to reserve the right to have the article speedy deleted, given some of the political sensitivities involved (I understand that I am not perfectly neutral either, and I'm fine if you prefer to move it to draft space). Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND for an userfication. Sandstein 07:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess there is a DR, so we'll see. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Positive Choir

Why did you close this as "delete"? Two arguments are WP:ATA, then there's one "keep" and one "delete". I would have closed this as "no consensus". Considering your excellent AfD close the other day, with a very well thought out rationale, this is surprising. FWIW I forgot about the AfD, but was reminded about it because the choir is name-checked in St. Pancras railway station, which I have watchlisted (as I improved it to GA). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I would't be so quick to dismiss the "delete" opinions, but I've relisted the AfD: more opinions can't hurt. Sandstein 11:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the last "delete" after the first relist is fair comment, but the others are just WP:JNN. Possibly the solution is to redirect the term somewhere, I'm just not sure exactly where at the moment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I just commented Keep, but in the absence of a consensus to do that I suppose it could always go to Lurine Cato. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Or possibly NHS Blood and Transplant, which is the whole point of the choir. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royden

Thanks for the heads-up when you closed the discussion. Cleanup on Royden done. Narky Blert (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick question...

If an editor is subject to a TB, where does one go to confirm the ban is either active or has expired? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Ask whoever imposed the ban, I guess. Sandstein 18:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that helps. *lol* How do I find out who imposed the ban? What if it happened 6 mos. ago or 2 years ago - have we ever had a forever TB? I would think we'd have logs of some sort. From what I understand, we have community topic bans, AE topic bans, ArbCom topic bans, and I think that's it, but I also thought we had a centralized location to find them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope. You can search the user's talk page history to find out who imposed the ban. Some bans are logged, see WP:BAN. Sandstein 20:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh my - did WMF establish that logging system? I can think of a few reasons why they'd do it that way...

1. Hunting for logs is a cure for boredom.
2. Confusion helps editors fit in.
3. If editors could easily research TB logs, we risk being terrified.
4. Organization kills creativity, and distracts from our job to build an encyclopedia anyone can edit.
5. No one will ever find out who is subject to a TB, which explains why we AGF.

Too bad we don't handle blocks the same way. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Previous article for deletion- Adam Amin

I know more than a year ago a debate was held that determined Adam Amin shouldn't have a page on Wikipedia because he hadn't done any notable work. Since then though Amin has become ESPN's head voice for the NCAA College Wrestling Championships, he has called the college football national championship (ESPN2 Homers Telecast), he has become the lead play-by-play voice for the NCAA Women's National Basketball Championship on ESPN and will be calling the national championship next weekend, and he has become the lead play-by-play voice for the NFL on ESPN Radio. The reason he was deleted was for not having called any notable events. I'd think calling three national championships within the last year should open up discussion to have his page restored or have a new page created. I would like to know what needs to be done to have this started. Thank you for your time and any assistance you can provide. Bigddan11 (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in sports. You might want to ask whoever requested deletion. Sandstein 12:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong place

I should've posted at DR but anyway, I might as well ask you first: Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Massacre_of_Brzostowica_Mała (see rationale). The burnt of the problem was, when I checked yesterday, a single UNREFERENCED sentence in the lead which contained the ethnicity claims. This is a storm in a teacup, this unreferenced sentence is the only thing that is being disputed, and without it, nobody would care much about this. Instead of removing the sentence because it clearly fails WP:V, we somehow ended up at AfD. I'd suggest you restore the article minus the controversial claim, and in case there is any edit warring about it without adding sources (IF, since, seriously, all of this and the claim was unreferenced!), well, you know better than me how to plonk some people with DS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

My impression is that not only the ethnicity of the perpetrators is unreferenced, but the problem is that the whole article is not verifiable, at least not sufficiently for a topic of this nature. Sandstein 07:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As stated, I disagree. In fact, I have now found a reference, English too, for the disputed sentence: [11]: "On the night of 17/18 September 1939 r., urged on by the Communist Zak Motyl (Motek Zak?) of Brzostowica Wielka, a pro-Communist criminal gang led by Koziejko and Ajzyk (Icchak?), consisting of Belorussians and Jews, attacked the estate of Brzostowica Mała near Grodno and the nearby village Brzostowica Mała, where the administrative authorities were loca- ted. It appears that they slaughtered a large number of, if not all, the eth- nic Poles in those localities. This massacre...". This should confirm both the notability of the massacre, and add a (attributable to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz) claim for the perpetrators nationality. Btw, Polish historian pl:Krzysztof Jasiewicz in [12] (in Polish) called this "likely the best known massacre in the North-East Kresy" ("do bodajże najgłośniejszego mordu na Kresach Północno-Wschodnich doszło z 17 na 18 września 1939 r. w Brzostowicy Małej w pow. Grodno "). The topic is clearly notable, and I am afraid that you've been swayed by some IDONTLIKE its here. Another reliable, academic source for the massacre (briefly mentioning it, at least) is [13]. pl:Dzieje Najnowsze is a peer reviewed journal by a reliable academic outlet (pl:Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuffla Polskiej Akademii Nauk) and the author is another reliable Polish historian pl:Mieczysław Bielski - that said, he just cites "K . Liszewski, Wojna polsko-sowiecka 1939 r., Londyn 1986", and the author (pl:Ryszard Szawłowski - KL is a pen-name) is called by pl wiki a amateur historian, nonetheless he is cited in a number of other sources, and the review of his book in what seems an academic outlet at [14] is postitive. Anyway, the topic is notable, per sources cited, and I strongly disagree with the deletion of this the article. Please let me know if you'll restore it (reopening the AfD to see if get more votes to swing it, perhaps) or if I need to hit DR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm, the link you provided goes to a Google book page for "Ejszyszki: kulisy zajść w Ejszyszkach : epilog stosunków polsko-żydowskich na Kresach, 1944-45 : wspomnienia, dokumenty, publicystyka, Volume 1", which doesn't sound like an English book. The content isn't accessible to me. Moreover, this Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is somebody who in our article is described as "an ideologist of the radical right", and whose appointment to a US post triggered a controversy over his supposed antisemitism. Whatever the merits of these concerns, I just can't conceive of the idea that we could source a "massacre of Poles by Jews" to a work by somebody like that. This kind of subject needs very good, preferably English academic sources that are accessible to all, and perhaps more importantly, consensus that what we have are good sources. I don't see either here. I decline to undo the deletion, but of course you can appeal it at WP:DRV. Sandstein 10:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Which I did, but - shrug. Since you said in the AfD you can userfy the topic, could you do so in my userpage? I want to see what can be salvaged for merger in Skidel revolt. I'd also like to ask you to consider soft-deleting this instead of hard deleting. Particularly if I end up merging stuff, it would be nice to have a non-deleted attribution page history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete articles. If the DRV is closed as endorsing the deletion, I can't see any reason for undeletion either. Sandstein 11:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I am confused. You wrote yourself while closing the AfD: "Userfication with view to a possible partial merger to the apparently less controversial Skidel revolt, to the extent that consensus allows, remains possible.". I am asking you to just do what you stated as possible in the AfD, and userfy this for me, so I can review how to do said 'possible partial merger'. PS. If you meant you don't want to soft delete it, that's fine, attribution history for content copied within Wikipedia is a dead principle anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have all relevant sources at hand, so you should be able to write a brief summary of the event in the Skidel article - if that is even warranted, given the verifiability concerns. But that's for editorial consensus to determine. I am however unwilling to help in propagating what (to me, as an outsider) has the air of nationalist, if not anti-semitic, propaganda. Sandstein 12:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Request to reinstate Komodo Platform entry

Hi,

We, the members of the Komodo Platform team, are writing in regards to your recent decision to delete the Komodo Platform Wikipedia entry. We kindly request that this decision be reversed. In an effort to persuade you, we'd like to address some of the concerns raised in the deletion log for the Komodo Platform page:

"Delete - sources don't appear to be independent, and they don't say much either, so the article is very short. From reading the article and some of the sources, I can't tell who runs the business, where it's located, who regulates it, has any business been done, etc. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)"

The sources we cited on the Komodo Platform page are, indeed, independent. Perhaps they are not as credible as, say, The New York Times or The Washington Post, but they represent the most objective and respected cryptocurrency media outlets currently in existence. The blockchain industry is in its infancy and therefore does not yet have an internationally renowned publication dedicated to the companies and technological advancements that occur within this space. Likewise, individual cryptocurrencies and blockchain companies do not ordinarily receive coverage from mainstream media outlets.

Here is a short list of independent articles that mention Komodo Platform and provide verifiably true information about our project:

https://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/forget-bitcoin-12-cryptocurrencies-following-150000996.html

     "Komodo is a relatively new cryptocurrency to hit center stage, but it brings a whole slew of advancements that virtual coin users and investors are bound to appreciate. Naturally, as is the case with most of these cryptocurrencies, the blockchain is once again the star."

https://stocksgazette.com/2018/02/08/resurrecting-the-komodo-kmd-dragon/

      "Komodo is an end-to-end blockchain solution you can use to launch your own independent blockchain or ICO. This sounds more or less like what the Ethereum platform does or even the ICON (ICX) platform."

https://cointelegraph.com/press-releases/komodo-is-the-foundation-for-a-new-decentralized-ecosystem

      "The Komodo Platform is a project that unifies all decentralized technologies an organization called SuperNET has been developing during the past two years. The goal is to build a framework and make the development of decentralized applications (DAPPs) easy."

https://themerkle.com/what-is-the-dico-platform/

      "This is where Komodo claims to be different from the competition. By supporting native cryptocurrencies, any coin can latch onto the existing platform with some minor modifications. Moreover, the platform also provides a crowdfunding solution – including support – which can be taken off the platform at a later date. "

We can sympathize with the sentiment that these publications are not the most trusted sources of information on the internet. In response, we would like to call attention to the fact that these same websites are cited as sources on several existing Wikipedia entries, including but not limited to:

--Ethereum (source #84 cites themerkle.com; source #87 cites cointelegraph.com) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum --Bitcoin (source #67 cites themerkle.com; source #72 cites cointelegraph.com) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

We could, of course, provide many more examples of these sources being used on Wikipedia entries but these two pages serve to illustrate the point.

We could also provide many more mentions of Komodo Platform in articles published by independent, credible sources-- sources which are also cited elsewhere in Wikipedia entries. If this would prove helpful, please let us know and we would be happy to provide a complete list of all the mentions Komodo Platform has received in the media.

Furthermore, we would like to point out the fact that many cryptocurrency entries on Wikipedia are of comparable length and quality to Komodo Platform's prior to its deletion. Some notable examples include:

NEO (cryptocurrency): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEO_(cryptocurrency) IOTA (cryptocurrency): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOTA_(cryptocurrency) Zcash: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zcash Cardano (platform): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardano_(platform)

There are other examples but, once again, we assume this is sufficient to make the point.

The concern raised by Wikipedia admin Smallbones that "From reading the article and some of the sources, I can't tell who runs the business, where it's located, who regulates it, has any business been done, etc." also needs to be addressed.

To begin with, there is no single individual who runs Komodo Platform. We are a decentralized cryptocurrency ecosystem with a team spread out throughout the globe. We use a horizontal organizational structure and we do not have a single, physical location where our project is headquartered. By design, we are decentralized and have no central location. Similarly, we have no single leader. Our lead developer, jl777, chooses to remain anonymous, and we defend his right to do so.

If Wikipedia administrators would like to learn more about the Komodo Platform team, information is available at the following links: https://komodoplatform.com/our-team/ https://komodoplatform.com/komodo-2018-from-roadmap-to-reality/

As to the comment that it is difficult to tell whether any "real business has been done," we would like to make clear that we have developed many unique technologies, including innovating atomic swap technology and creating the world's most advanced decentralized cryptocurrency exchange, BarterDEX.

On top of that, we are preparing to launch the world's first decentralized initial coin offering with an existing business, PouchNATION, that has chosen to integrate blockchain technology into its business model. The new project is called BlocNATION and can be verified from these sources:

https://www.coinbureau.com/review/komodo-platform/ https://cryptoreader.com/new-dico-confirmed-blocnation/ https://blocnation.io

Finally, we would like to state very clearly that we are eager to work with Wikipedia administrators to remedy any existing issues with the Komodo Platform entry on Wikipedia. We will work diligently to expand the entry, provide accurate information with credible citations, and provide all of the details necessary for our entry to meet administrative approval.

We look forward to your response and to creating an acceptable Wikipedia entry for Komodo Platform.

Most Sincerely, 174.109.79.2 (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)The Komodo Platform Team 174.109.79.2 (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)dICO@komodoplatform.com

There has never been an article called Komodo Platform. Sandstein 22:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Komodo (cryptocurrency). The deletion discussion was unanimous. The arguments advanced above should have been made during that discussion. I don't see clear evidence of substantial third-party coverage; even the Yahoo News article, which appears to be the only reliable source, has only two paragraphs, whereas the other sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable. Moreover I will not help you promote your business on Wikipedia. I decline to undo the deletion. Sandstein 16:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"OK, you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Komodo (cryptocurrency). The deletion discussion was unanimous. The arguments advanced above should have been made during that discussion. I don't see clear evidence of substantial third-party coverage; even the Yahoo News article, which appears to be the only reliable source, has only two paragraphs, whereas the other sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable. Moreover I will not help you promote your business on Wikipedia. I decline to undo the deletion. Sandstein 16:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)."

The arguments above were not advanced during the delete discussion because we were not aware such a conversation was taking place at that time. This is not a refutation of the arguments we advanced; in fact, it doesn't even address the arguments at all. That we didn't advance these arguments at an earlier point in time does not invalidate them.

Further, we did provide clear evidence of third-party coverage. As we noted in our initial request for reinstatement of the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry, all of the sources we cited are cited in a number of prominent Wikipedia entries. If it is the case that these sources are deemed credible for major Wikipedia entries, such as those on Bitcoin and Ethereum, then we see no reason why those sources ought to be deemed unreliable for the Komodo entry. It is a gross contradiction. We posited all of these points to you in our initial request for reinstatement but, again, none of them were even acknowledged. If there are meaningful reasons why these sources are credible in some contexts and unreliable in others, we would love to hear them.

We are not interested in promoting our business on Wikipedia. We have plenty of avenues for promoting our business, with which we are contented. Our aim is to create an objective, credible, informative entry about Komodo so that individuals who wish to learn about it may do so.

174.109.79.2 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Komodo Platform

Of course you want to promote your cryptocurrency, and I'll not be helping you to do that. You should not be editing Wikipedia in topic areas where you have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. If an established Wikipedia editor unrelated to your organization wants to recreate the article based on sources such as those you provided above, they're welcome to try to do so, but you should not be involved in this. That's all I have to say on this matter. Sandstein 20:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your position that this is an effort to promote Komodo Platform is an utter fabrication. You have provided no evidence to support this conclusion because no evidence exists to support that claim. The text of the Komodo (cryptocurrency) was not, in fact, written by Komodo Platform or anyone affiliated with Komodo Platform. The text was not written as part of some marketing ploy, as you suggest. That you make this insinuation without offering any evidence to support your conclusion is both irresponsible as a Wikipedia admin and insulting to Komodo Platform.

We understand Wikipedia's policy on Conflicts Of Interest, and we completely understand why such policies are in place. We agree with your statement that "You should not be editing Wikipedia in topic areas where you have a conflict of interest." However, this is not what we're talking about. It's not even remotely related to the conversation we're having. We are not trying to make edits to the Komodo Platform entry, nor have we ever tried. We are simply requesting that the deletion of the Komodo (cryptocurrency) be reversed.

You seem to agree with our point that the sources cited in the Komodo entry are credible when you say, "If an established Wikipedia editor unrelated to your organization wants to recreate the article based on sources such as those you provided above, they're welcome to try to do so, but you should not be involved in this."

Our request is that the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry be reinstated so that other editors may, in fact, have the opportunity to improve and expand the entry.

Komodo Platform is a noteworthy blockchain company that Wikipedia readers deserve to learn about. We see no reason why the page should remain deleted.

174.109.79.2 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Komodo Platform

Upon further research, it has come to our attention that the admin who initially flagged the Komodo (cryptocurency) entry for deletion User:Prince of Thieves was determined to be a sockpuppet account of User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver. Both of these accounts, as well as all of the other sockpuppet accounts of User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver have been permanently banned from Wikipedia. We have no idea who this user is but, given the fact that this user was violating Wikipedia policies and using fake accounts, we suspect the move to delete the Komodo (cryptocurency) was motivated by Dislike Of The Subject WP:DLS or a personal vendetta, rather than an honest desire to improve Wikipedia. In light of this new evidence, we feel that it is only fair the Komodo entry AfD discussion be reopened so that we may participate in the conversation and present all of the arguments we have laid out here on your talk page. We request that you Relist the Komodo (cryptocurency) entry so that an objective, balanced, and unbiased review of the page may take place. 174.109.79.2 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Komodo Platform

==Deletion review for Komodo (cryptocurrency)==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Komodo (cryptocurrency). 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. 174.109.79.2 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Plan 9 (startup incubator)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Plan 9 (startup incubator). 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. Störm (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Outline of self

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of self seems improper because you were the nominator. The verdict of no consensus also seems off because the Keeps seemed to outnumber the Deletes by 7:3. The whole thing was a farce because there was no stated reason to delete and there was an obvious alternative to deletion – merger into self. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

My nomination was made in an administrative capacity in enacting a DRV decision, as I stated, and I expressed no preference for keeping or deletion. I don't see consensus for any outcome in the discussion, despite a majority of "keep" opinions, and in any case the outcome of "no consensus" and "keep" is the same. I am therefore of the view that my closure was proper. Sandstein 09:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for closing the discussion at ANI regarding my topic ban. Like you, I wasn't exactly certain what topics are banned but I will cast a wide circle and refrain from editing articles that are templated with WikiProject Medicine on their talk page and articles that contain medical information. If I'm not sure, I won't edit. After conferring with my mentor after a period of four months, he has agreed to assess my readiness to once again edit WikiProject Medicine articles. Is this how you've understood the consensus to be? Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Regrettably I can't say much more on what I understand the consensus to be than what I wrote in the closure, but what I can say is that the sanction does not encompass any sort of mentorship. You are of course free to undertake a mentorship, but your sanction will remain in place until the community agrees to lift or modify it by consensus. Sandstein 20:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What the topic ban covers

Sandstein, regarding your close on the Barbara (WVS) ANI thread, I have to state that I share the concerns expressed by SilkTork, Tom (LT), Cullen328, Robert McClenon, Clayoquot and Rivertorch when it comes to how far to extend the ban and/or what the ban covers. Perhaps Jytdog is also concerned? This is why I and others stated "broadly construed." Anatomy falls under medicine. It is a branch of medicine. It's why WP:MEDMOS has an Anatomy section. That stated, we usually don't tag our anatomy articles with WikiProject Medicine; this is because the WikiProject Anatomy tag covers anatomy, and WP:Med editors generally want to keep the WP:Med categories free of the anatomy and sexual articles so as to not overpopulate the listing. So Barbara (WVS) stating that she will "refrain from editing articles that are templated with WikiProject Medicine on their talk page and articles that contain medical information" seems to leave her open to editing anatomy articles even though the ANI thread mainly focused on her editing anatomy articles and the community was clear that she should not be editing them. Also, most of my interaction with Barbara (WVS) has concerned sexuality topics (including the Vagina topic). And like others, I do think she will start focusing on these articles instead. These articles also often have medical content in them, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

And to be clear on her editing non-medical articles: Per what you stated about how topic bans work, she shouldn't be editing any medical content in a non-medical article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

fwiw my eyebrows furrowed when i read the part of close that said "the sanction imposed here is unusual in that a topic ban is defined in policy not as applying to certain articles, but rather as applying to a whole topic...." That is true, and in my view that was not the intention. I acknowledge that Flyer's OP and the TBAN proposal both had the odd turn of phrase "medical articles".

With regard to the topic, as the WP:MED page says, "We discuss, collaborate, and debate anything and everything relating to medicine and health on Wikipedia "" - the link there is to Health information on Wikipedia and you can see this is quite broad, and definitely includes sexuality and anatomy. See also Wikipedia:Biomedical information which discusses the hardcore medico-scientific kinds of content that are involved where MEDRS is needed, distinct from things that are still about medicine or health but may be more historical, society/culture, and the like.

Sandstein if you feel that the thread should be re-opened to clarify this, that would be fine with me.... Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC) (ack! redact to add in missing "not" Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC))

During the discussion, the range of the topic ban was raised a couple of times as it was thought that "medical articles" was not clear enough, and by the end it was felt that "Health, medicine, anatomy, and sexuality" were the topic areas of concern. This is mentioned in the section at the end named "Is It Time for a Close?". SilkTork (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Barbara has agreed to avoid all health-related content in mainspace, I think, which includes psychology, medicine and biology (incl. microbiology) - and this includes sexuality, too. We'll be focussing on rigor under my mentorship, and we'll come back to ANI when both Barbara and I are confident the topic ban is no longer necessary. Have I got that right, Barbara? (Basically, untill the work she publishes is robustly, consistently perfect in all respects, we won't be coming back to ANI.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We can probably simplify our future lives by getting a clearer scope of the topic ban, if necessary by re-opening the AN/I thread and pinging participants. I find it disconcerting that the Barbara's description above of the scope of the topic ban, i.e. "templated with WikiProject Medicine on their talk page and articles that contain medical information", is so different from the scope she had agreed to with Anthonyhcole. I think I saw consensus for SilkTork's scope description, but if Sandstein doesn't agree then shouldn't we continue the discussion? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reopen it. I had said "medical articles, broadly construed". I would amend that to "topics relating to health, medicine, anatomy, sexuality, or biology in main and talk namespaces". Let's make this airtight so that there's no confusion and no temptation. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, everybody. My job as closer is only to determine what consensus is in a specific discussion. What I was able to determine was only that consensus was "topic ban from medical articles". If this wording is deemed ambiguous - and in my view, it is - it is up to the community to initiate a new discussion at WP:AN to amend the wording. I would not reopen the existing discussion. If a broad topic ban is desired, the wording might read instead "... is topic-banned from medical topics, including human anatomy or sexuality". Sandstein 07:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein is correct in that the wording people used in agreeing to a topic ban was "medical articles" as that was the wording that we started with. It was only later that we saw the difficulties inherent in such wording and started to broaden the scope. I am largely at fault as that was the wording I used myself, and I think others followed me. We do need therefore to add a coda discussion to the existing one to clarify the full scope of the topic ban, pinging those involved to review the wording as suggested by Sandstein: "topic-banned from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality." I'll set one up now. SilkTork (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Vahdat Rahimi

Hello. Can you please check this article for WP:G4. You deleted it post AfD just 2 weeks ago. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV

Hi. I'd appreciate your letting us have any additional input on this appeal, on the clarifications-and-amendments page. There have been several comments (by arbitrators and others) mentioning you since you last posted there. If you don't have anything else to add, please confirm that? Thanks very much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

ARCA motion

An ArbCom motion that involves you has been proposed at ARCA. For the Cmte, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ed Crane

I noticed you added this content to Ed Crane (political activist). I think that was a good edit. I wanted to get your thoughts on this content, currently at Cato Institute. I think it probably makes sense to include the sexual harassment allegations against Crane at the Cato Institute page because he was the long-time leader, but the current content seems to potentially run afoul of BLP and be overly detailed, given that it is the page of an organization and not the relevant individual. I thought of perhaps replacing what's currently at the Cato page with the exact content you added at Crane's page, but wasn't sure if that made sense. Would appreciate your thoughts, thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Sandstein 06:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Home Lander

Are they really deceased? Don't we usually require more than an IP's assertions, especially just a few days after the last edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie891's creature (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No idea to what you refer by this. Sandstein 06:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

An IP added a tag to the page of User talk:Home Lander, saying that they were deceased. I was curious what the procedure is for this, especially verifying the death. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like that would be Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines. Sandstein 19:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hi. I didn't get round to contributing to the discussion about whether the Stephen Dure page should be deleted or not, and was wondering if there is any chance that the page could be restored.

Thanks. Reg Hill (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if the reasons for the deletion can be resolved. Sandstein 20:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I did recreate the page later (I added a lot more information with more sources, and am 99.99% sure I resolved the reasons for the deletion), but it was taken down hours later because the result of the discussion about the article was delete. Are you able to look at the latest revision of the page before its third deletion, and see if the page can be restored based on that? Thank you. Reg Hill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You should ask SoWhy (talk · contribs), who made the most recent deletion. Sandstein 19:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)