User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/August

discussion as to rather the ASMR article would be fit for re-creation.
Last year you rightfully deleted Autonomous_Sensory_Meridian_Response for lack of notoriety. Recently vice.com ran a story on the phenomena and I wanted to ask if, 1: vice.com would be considered a good enough source, and 2: If it would be appropriate to re-create the page detailing ASMR as as a culture/internet/youtube phenomena. Kyleshome (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite this source? (WP:CITE, including the URL; see cite news.)  Sandstein   22:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be here. I'm learning whats considered valid sources and citations, so apologies if this is a grossly invalid source. Kyleshome (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Found another one, here they are in cite wikimarkup form:




 * Kyleshome (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kyleshome (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that these constitute substantial coverage from reliable sources, which allow the recreation of an article about the topic as a cultural / Internet phenomenon.  Sandstein   06:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD - Metrication of British Transport
Hi Sandstein,

You recently closed this AfD request with the decision "no consensus". Three editors were in favour of deleting this article, but two of the three, User:Pother and user:Ornaith have since been labelled as sockpuppet of a banned user User:DeFacto. Since this remoives all support for deletion of the artcile apart from that of the promoter, I request that you You might like to look at the artcile's talk page to see Kakastok's campaign to disrupt it. Martinvl (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strike out all comments by Pother and Ornaith on grounds that they have been identified as sockpuppets of a banned user.
 * Reassess the article on the basis of comments that are left.
 * If appropriate, reclassify the decision as "keep".


 * The page certainly needs admin intervention. I for one feel that I've been personally attacked and accused of bad faith (such as the above) by Martin and others far more times than is reasonable.  You wouldn't think that asking that points be verified by sources that actually make the claims concerned (as opposed to sources that don't) would be that controversial, but apparently it's so appalling that it's a "campaign to disrupt" the article! Kahastok talk 22:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reassessed the AfD's outcome as requested. A to the mutual allegations of disruption, they are too unspecific for me to do anything about them; see generally WP:GRA and WP:DR.  Sandstein   05:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reassessment. Martinvl (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

RedColony
Hello, you had deleted the Page 'Red Colony' (and Redcolony and RedColony because they linked) a few years back. I did not at the time want to recreate the page and fight with the admins over it. However, we are in the process of working on registering it as a proper 503(c)(3) in the US. While here and now is not the place for be to debate the philosophy of what factual information should and should not be deleted from an encyclopedia, I would like to ask that what we as "proper" organization would need to do to not have our page deleted if it were recreated once we were formally registered.

To put my question into context, I ask this not for "Advertising" or even "Branding", but that once we pick up with the number of users we've had previously I would like our users to have the ability to create and edit a page for us as they desire, especially once we move solely from being an Internet-only organization. As it stands however, users are greeted with a "This page has been deleted banner" which I fear will prevent them from adding whatever they decided to add.

I wouldn't normally create an article for an organization I found (I didn't create the original article), but under the circumstances, I would like our users to have the ability to freely write what they wish without fear that the article will be deleted because it has previously been. You can view my history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimktrains) and while I'm not the most active user here, I feel that I have a stable track-record of creating and adding to good articles with good information.

I know you can't magically flip a switch and undelete or guarantee that no one will ever delete it again, but I just am asking for advice from the deleter on what would be considered adequate to not be deleted and what is thought of the idea of creating the page with basic information once we're registered so that any user who wants to add information will not be greeted with a "This article has been deleted" message.

Thank you,

Jim Keener

Jimktrains (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I assume you refer to, deleted per Articles for deletion/Red Colony. Please understand that any registration your organization might undertake, or any other objective merits or qualities it might have, are irrelevant for the question of whether or not we cover it in an article. The only relevant criteria are those in our notability guideline, which you can find at WP:ORG, so please read that page thoroughly. The article may be recreated if it contains the references to reliable third-party coverage necessary to meet these criteria.
 * Even if your organization meets these criteria, though, you or anyone else associated with it should not be the one to write the article about it, because we want to write a neutral encyclopedia, and nobody is neutral about their own project. See, in that regard, WP:COI.  Sandstein   05:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Bianca Jade DRV
Did you notice that the discussion started on August 3 so the close is a bit early? T. Canens (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice; I didn't read the date and assumed that it was the next day due for closure, being the section above the cutoff line. I've undone the closure.  Sandstein   12:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unlabel
Why did you delete this page? Dribblingscribe 20:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that was the result of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Unlabel.  Sandstein   22:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bechdel test
Hello! Your submission of Bechdel test at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of "Brocas Helm" page
Hello,

I'm wondering why the page for Brocas Helm was deleted. Can you please comment?

Thanks!!

Jack - drummer from Brocas Helm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.165.254 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's because you appear to fail our inclusion requirements (WP:BAND). This has been discussed at Articles for deletion/Brocas Helm (2nd nomination), User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/July and at Deletion review/Log/2012 July 25.   Sandstein   15:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of the fact that Michael Derrer is a public person in Switzerland
Evidence of the fact that Michael Derrer is a public person in Switzerland:

1. Political functions

- he was elected as a judge of the district of Rheinfelden this month http://www.fricktal-info.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67211:bezirks-und-kreiswahlen-im-bezirk-rheinfelden-stille-wahl-der-kandidierenden-von-cvp-fdp-glp-gruenen-svp-und-sp&catid=294:bezirk-rheinfelden&Itemid=487

- In an earlier election this year he was, by a small margin, not elected to the district's Educational Supervision Board http://www.nfz.ch/comment/1785

- He is responsible in his party for the general elections to the cantonal parliament on October 21 http://www.ag.grunliberale.ch/p119001811.html

2. Influential consultant for political matters

- as a consultant for the Swiss Federal Parliament, his report (written jointly with P.Krüger and A.Schönenberger) about salaries and working conditions of Swiss parliamentarians triggered the enlargement of parliamentarians staff http://www.parlament.ch/d/dokumentation/berichte/weitere-berichte-und-studien/Documents/ed-pa-entschaedigung-infrastruktur.pdf - the study has been widely quoted by specialized publications http://www.parlament.ch/d/dokumentation/berichte/weitere-berichte-und-studien/Documents/ed-pa-prof-parl-int.pdf (the reference is here "Krüger et al.")

3. Swiss expert for Eastern Europe

- Swiss newspapers have written about his activities as initiator of a large public-financed know-how programme to eastern europa i.e. http://www.derarbeitsmarkt.ch/arbeitsmarkt/de/themen/archiv/101223/Im_Osten_viel_Neues_f%C3%BCr_beruflich_Erfahrene or p.6 on http://www.gagarine.ch/DIVERS/Gagarine10.pdf and there was a large report on Swiss public TV http://www.rts.ch/emissions/mise-au-point/1374068-.html, as well as on Russian TV

- he has been speaking at various conferences on bilateral relations between Switzerland and Eastern Europe i.e. http://www.casa-romanilor.ch/evenimente/2004/conferinta_investitii_geneva.htm or http://gallery.leaders-21.com/displayimage.php?album=42&pos=93 or http://wspolnotapolska.org.pl/wydarzenia/szwajcarskie-firmy-kusza-polakow/

- his academic study on Ukraine has received great attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.185.231 (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.   Sandstein   15:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ownership
I'm having problems with an article creator who seems to have "ownership" issues over it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay... have you tried proceeding per WP:DR?  Sandstein   15:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to address the person in question directly. Here. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With me? It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.   Sandstein   21:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it's asking too much for you to look at what article you and I both edited today? Apparently it isn't "ownership issues" as I thought, but simple dismissiveness. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If, as it seems, you disagree with me about something regarding an article we both edit, I suggest that you mention the specific problem on the talk page of the article, instead of making oblique references here.  Sandstein   10:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Legend of Korra GA review
It only has two comments left that need to be fixed! I don't want to fail it. Ob tund Talk 16:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Muhammed Qasim
Hi Sandstein, hope you're doing ok. Could I ask for a second opinion on my closure of Articles for deletion/Muhammed Qasim? Someone challenged my close on my talk page and I'm trying to decide whether it's worth sending it to deletion review or not. You seemed like the natural person to ask, but if you don't want to for whatever reason, that's fine. Also, I don't think I ever thanked you personally for your part in closing the verifiability RfC, so thank you - the close was really well done. :) (And those graphs were a nice touch, too.) — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 22:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that your closure was correct, and I would have certainly closed the discussion the same way. There's a clear consensus that the topic is not notable. The one "redirect" and "merge" opinion each make little if any argument, and at any rate the "redirect" opinion is compatible with deletion because a redirect can still be created now.  Sandstein   22:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you! Looks like deletion review would be a bit hasty, then. Also, I just got another comment from the user who challenged the close, and it looks like they're now satisfied my explanation, so everything should be sorted out now. Thanks again. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Gu Kailai
There's a discussion at Talk:Gu Kailai concerning the treatment of the body double claims, as well as some surrounding BLP issues. Thought you might like to weigh in on how we can handle this material as judiciously as possible. Cheers. Homunculus (duihua) 21:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)