User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/January

Maybe take a peek?
Hey, I ran into this editor:. They said that they were blocked in 2009 for trying to remove vandalism from an article saying that Kevin Bacon won a Golden Globe award. I'm doing a bit of searching and so far I haven't seen any edits to Bacon's article or the Tremors article to back this up. Granted I'm only looking for things that might seem like vandalism or like they'd be about his awards section. I did, however, see that there was a block for this person. It's the weakest evidence since there were others blocked for outright vandalism during that time, but something about this just sort of strikes a chord. The newly blocked editor has some pretty combatitive content on their userpage, which is the main thing that made the edits by DougsTech stand out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Does this look like it could be him trying to evade a block? I've asked him to identify his prior account. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK... What is it that you would like me to do? They're blocked, and now it's up to them to make a case for why they shouldn't be, if they want.  Sandstein   11:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Socking
Sorry to bother, you were the last active admin on my watchlist - not sure if you've dealt with Vote X before but this on my talk and this noticeboard post could do with some looking at if you have a mo, thank you -- samtar whisper 15:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's quite weird, but I don't know what "Vote X" means. What would you like me to do?  Sandstein   15:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant User:Vote (X) for Change? The user who repeatedly re-adds discussion threads to ANI and other noticeboards/help desks (the reason why the humanities help desk gets protected every other day) - they've stopped harassing me but the IP should be blocked as ban evasion -- samtar whisper 15:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying that, the IP has probably rotated by now - thank you anyway --  samtar whisper 15:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Praise and veneration of Muhammad
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Praise and veneration of Muhammad. 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. Eperoton (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Praise and veneration of Muhammad
I believe you've broken policy with your closure of this discussion. The policy states: Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The discussion clearly failed to reach consensus, with roughly half of the respondents supporting each position. You've given your personal opinion as justification for the deletion, which I believe is based on a perfunctory and poorly reasoned misreading of the discussion. Where can this action be appealed? Eperoton (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At WP:DRV.  Sandstein   15:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't seem to get the wikilinks to work in the template. P.S. The XfD link is working now. Eperoton (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Sandstein/Drafts/Military of Switzerland
Hi there, I noticed that you created User:Sandstein/Drafts/Military of Switzerland and User:Sandstein/Drafts/Law of Switzerland a while back. Those pages seem like old draft versions of Military of Switzerland and Law of Switzerland respectively. Was those edits incorporated into the mainspace versions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know - not by me, in any case, as far as I remember.  Sandstein   09:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I ask because as you know userspace is not intended for long-term storage of content already in mainspace. Can the content be merged (the military is largely sources while the law has some sources) or would you consider deletion? I'm just working through the backlog at Category:Userspace drafts from March 2007 right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I might get back to work on these sometime - in any case, deletion seems pretty pointless, because the content would still be accessible to me as an admin.  Sandstein   17:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

List of supercentenarians who died in 2012
I am taking List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 to DVR. The proper place to access copyright is Copyright problems where there are experts on copyright law. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Any admin is expected to take action on clear copyright problems on their own, without necessarily having to ask others. See WP:CSD.  Sandstein   19:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Relisting AFD Kim White
I added a lot of project to the talk page. The notification of the proposed deletion should be again relisted/refreshed to include all those projects. I would appreciate any assistance you can provide. Thank you. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing for me to do here. If you want to notify wikiprojects, you can do that on the projects' talk pages, but if that has been done already, it's pointless to do it again.  Sandstein   17:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a discontinuity. You notified, but it did not include a lot of the projects that would be concerned.  I have not been involved in that kind of activity, and I thought there was an a clean way to do it.  Thanks for responding.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't notify anybody.  Sandstein   17:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Sorry for the bother.  Happy New Year!  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD closing rationaile
I noticed in your closure of Articles for deletion/Kreuz Dortmund-Nordwest you included the comment "making deletion mandatory per WP:V". I don't believe WP:V says that; aside from BLPs, while sources for verification must exist, they are not required to be in the article (per Verifiability point #1 and No original research). While I don't believe the closure was wrong (full disclosure, I !voted delete), I think this should probably be clarified, at least in the future. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. That a source exists is the requirement for NOR. But that it is cited in the article is the requirement for V. Content that has no cited sources fails V and must be deleted if it is contested and no sources are added.   Sandstein   09:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO this is an important issue dividing our community, and has been for several years now. While I support the intent in general of your closing, in the specific I am concerned that it is missing the mark.  I've not seen the article in question, but the AfD said that readers could verify material in the article by looking at the map, i.e., "You...look at the map in the article..."  .  This is the verifiability intended by WP:V.  For what it is worth, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 61 cites related text from WP:DP.  My broader concern is that effort to demand references/sources/citations, when these demands contradict WP:V, saps the effort to address a real problem I think we have with WP:Verifiability at Wikipedia.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups
I am not singling you out but as closer of the RFC I am notifying you out of courtesy. I've started an ANI review of the RFC you closed today. WCM email 02:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress. 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. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Royal Government von Hessen
Iam comfused about the deletion of the Royal Government von Hessen article? Why was it deleted? Can a talk page be made instead? Why do you not just contact them and gather information then cross-reference that info with factual information. Then decide on the future of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:380:9d15:224a:513c:a5fd:6bb0:9b37 (talk • contribs)


 * There is not going to be an article if the topic does not meet WP:GNG. Can you show that it does?  Sandstein   09:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

International Liaison Committee for a Workers' International
Hello, I was going to create a page for this international, which includes a major party in Algeria. But I see you have deleted it in the past. Why is that?Zellfire999 (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * was deleted as the result of a community discussion at Articles for deletion/International Liaison Committee for a Workers' International.  Sandstein   09:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

can you close this entry?
Articles for deletion/2016 Tel Aviv shooting, there is no support for deletion and over 10 users agree on that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Has now been closed already.  Sandstein   15:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages
Thank you for your recent articles, including Władysław Leopold Jaworski, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 23:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not really interested in wikiproject bureaucracy, personally.  Sandstein   23:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

AFD David Bray
Can you adjust the closing rationale in the AFD for David Bray to allow recreation based on currently available information, not on future development of notability? That would be in line with the subjects stated preference, "TNT Delete and redirect OR Delete and start a stub anew with new editors." Since there was no consensus to delete, I think it's fairer to go with the less radical of the options that Bray agreed to.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I think the subject's preference was mainly that the article is deleted.  Sandstein   19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Sandstein and Samuel, actually I'm okay with what Samuel proposes if it helps? My bigger concern was the past history of the former article that included some personal information that as the article subject I didn't think was notable or appropriate? An alternative would be to redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Modernization_of_the_FCC.27s_information_technology_systems if someone feels that is appropriate. I am trying not to be too involved as my primary focus is on "getting stuff done". Thank you both for your help and understanding. Northernva (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK with a redirect, but once we have a redirect, it's basically an open invitation for someone to branch it off into a new article.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, in this case I don't see a real problem with a grounds-up recreation. Can't guarantee that somebody won't renominate it for deletion, though.  Sandstein   21:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that decision was a good call, an interesting balance of elements and policies. I learned something there! :) Shritwod (talk) ~ Thank you all. I did a redirect, though to a different existing entry. Please revert if you think doing this is inappropriate or if I've somehow done this incorrectly. Thank you. Northernva (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Close review
With no stated rational, I'm concerned you just counted votes without weighing the strength of the arguments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_longest-lived_United_States_Governors. I'm considering DRV but would like to understand your decision first. Legacypac (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, list notability issues are more or less a popularity contest, because there's no black-and-white policy: it's a matter of editorial judgment. The OR allegations weren't taken seriously in the discussion, and IMHO correctly: whether somebody was a governor and how long they lived is normally sourced in their articles - so that's not a killer argument that would override what is otherwise a keep consensus.  Sandstein   15:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * well if you assert no policy applies, I'll think about that. First I'm going to apply some general policy discipline to the article. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

AvantGrand edits
Hi Sandstein, I wanted to point out that my edits to the "AvantGrand" page was made solely for the purpose to correct the wrong information that N2 is an "upright piano" (-> Klavier). Although N2 it is arranged "upright" it is still using the key action of a grand piano (-> Flügel). There fore the classification (and link) as "upright piano" is not correct (see my entry in the article talk page, that I placed there before changing the article. I believe that the information that each of the models uses a grand piano key action is an important technical information for this article. Feel free to change the wording. But please stop reverting to wrong information. Thank you, Enno.
 * OK, your edit sounded a bit like advertising.  Sandstein   18:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox religious group
Hi Sandstein. I have a question about your close of this RfC. Does it also extend to image galleries used in templates such as infobox religious group? I removed the gallery from the infobox of Maronites with per the aforementioned RfC. I thought that was according to your close and the consensus that was reached. The image gallery has been re-added citing a local consensus on the article's talk page. If such galleries are not considered to be covered by the RfC, then that's fine I guess. If they are covered, however, then there are galleries in Christian, Mormons, Antiochian Greek Christians, etc. which probably need to be reviewed and removed as well. Just for reference, "Christians" uses infobox ethnic group while the other three articles referred to above use "infobox religious group". Personally, I don't think these image galleries are really needed in any infoboxes at all for pretty much all of the reasons stated in that RfC and this also includes single-file user-created montages like File:Greatest Chrisitans.jpg (that name in and of itself is POV and although those pictured are likely Christian, it seems inappropriate to label many of them as "Greatest"). I also think that if all it takes is a single tweak of an infobox template, such as changing "ethnic" to "religious" to make the gallery RfC compliant, then it's going to be hard to truly implement said RfC unless such a thing is addressed. I realize there are other ongoing discussions about this, but I thought I'd ask here first since it was your close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In my personal view, yes, the consensus found in that RfC also applies to religious groups, because the arguments voiced in the RfC also apply to them (unclear who to select, representativity, etc). Also, ethnicity can encompass religion. The MOS currently codifies - there's an ongoing discussion - this principle as "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members" (WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES).  Sandstein   08:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I agree with everything you wrote. For reference, my attention was first drawn to these infoboxes because I noticed a number of them were using non-free images, but the more of them that I saw the more I began to think that even using only "free" images could potentially be problematic because of the problems mentioned in that RfC and in the other threads discussing their usage. Anyway, there seems to be a bit of edit warring going on at Maronites over the aforementioned gallery, but I expect that's going to be the case in quite a number articles until all of the details of the RfC and how it should be applied are worked out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_29
Next time you close a DRV like this, could you maybe consider moving to draft rather than article space, to give the people asking for it back the message that it needs improvement and hopefully avoid an instant AfD? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not my call. The consensus was to allow recreation, so that is what happened.  Sandstein   19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

AFD Involuntary Celibacy 4th go
Any chance you can lock this until 3 masochists, sorry I mean 3 generous admins, agree to torture themselves by closing this. Its quite obviously degenerating into a shit fest. Alternatively, I'll agree not to post to the page again if you can persuade likewise. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree that it would probably help if you and and would stop posting in the AfD, just to keep both of your stress levels down... But I'm not going to full-protect a discussion just on behalf of two editors, sorry.   Sandstein   20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Firehouse, Hook & Ladder Company 8
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Food_Matters_(2nd_nomination)
While I think not deleting it is a reasonable outcome, I'd suggest "no consensus" would be a better close. The sources aren't that good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ...Oh, never mind. It's at least 75% copyvio. Started eyeing it for cleanup, I thought the sources for the plot summary looked odd. Then I checked them, and found the plot summary. word for word. This... would have been nice to know in advance. Still, notability is, if not perfectly established, at least somewhat established, so I shan't object to a non-copyvio recreation (at least, not on notability grounds - I could see fringe issues that mean it needs fixing). Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your AfD close
Re: Articles for deletion/CSUSB Transit Center -- I see few, if any, votes for actually redirecting the page. Given that the title is a promotional neologism, shouldn't the now-redirect be deleted? Virtually all of the useful content from the station page's history has been added to the San Bernardino Express page already.
 * If content has been merged, we can't delete, because of attribution requirements.  Sandstein   21:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Virtonomics
Hello Sandstein, would you please restore Talk:Virtonomics? The page was deleted after the second AfD. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.  Sandstein   18:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there may have been some misinterpretation?
Hi Sandstein, hope you're doing well. I think there may have been some misinterpretation of the delete that was done for, I'm okay with the redirect and I thought after we discussed you were okay with the redirect too? Is that the case? I was hoping to move on; thank you. Northernva (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Is there something you want me to do?  Sandstein   22:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User Nagle is now claiming that there cannot be a redirect from the former article at because of your deletion verdict, however I think that's a misinterpretation of your verdict unless I'm missing something? I will confess to being a relative newbie on protocols here. I was okay with the redirect that was done, however now he's reverted it back to delete claiming that the deletion decision was that their shouldn't be redirects. I don't see anything that said that? When I proposed deletion, with the caveats of being the article's subject, I was okay with a redirect and other editors seemed to support the Delete and Redirect proposition too? Am I missing something? Thank you for your time and assistance. Northernva (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article, which is about a Government official, was deleted after requests from the article subject. That's fine. What's not OK is the article subject re-creating the article as a redirect to an award they won, the Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership. There was some discussion at the AfD of redirecting David A. Bray to Federal Communications Commission in the AfD at WP:Articles_for_deletion/David_A._Bray. Redirection to an award article was not discussed. The article subject did that. They have thus cherry-picked a single reference that makes them look good.
 * Editing one's own article at all is a WP:COI violation. This particular edit by the article subject is spin control. What we have here is a U.S. Government official manipulating Wikipedia's processes to make themselves look good. Such events have, in the past, resulted in negative publicity in major media.
 * The AfD result was Delete, and we should stay with that. John Nagle (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The change to redirect David A. Bray to Federal Communications Commission is an improvement. That's neutral, not promotional. John Nagle (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi John Nagle, thank you for the information. There was a conversation before the redirect that Sandstein approved. I made sure to ask as I'm unclear on protocol. @Jahaza had asked and I said, consistent with my original proposal, TNT Delete and redirect OR Delete and start a stub anew with new editors. I had even left you a note on your talk page about this. I've always caveated and made known who I am, including making known that redirect, and I made sure to ask and document this before I did the redirect. The only reason for the redirect to that location vs. FCC is I've done things other than the FCC and that award recognition was not for my work at the FCC it was for work other than the FCC, I just happened to switch roles at the same exact time as the award. That said, I am completely fine with not having the redirect there. The redirect by others since are not me if that helps to allay your concerns. @Bushranger, @Shritwod, @Hasteur, @Monty845, @Guerillero had all said the same thing of a redirect. You had actually said Keep when the article was being discussed. Again, I think there may have been some misinterpretation? Am open to learning. Thank you. Northernva (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * John Nagle is right. I trust the matter is resolved now.  Sandstein   06:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein. In learning all the protocols, the misinterpretation may have been on my end and if Nagle had responded [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nagle#Thank_you_for_your_help. to my two early posts] that might have helped clear up any misinterpretations. To avoid any conflicts, redirecting was something I did discuss with you and User:Jahaza and since Wikipedia links to articles I didn't know that linking to one vs. another would be an issue. However I now understand and did disclaim in my summary of the edit "Thank you all. I did a redirect, though to a different existing entry. Please revert if you think doing this is inappropriate or if I've somehow done this incorrectly." Explaining the different Wikipedia protocols is helpful. Thank you again for your help and wishing you a wonderful new year ahead. Northernva (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

ACE & Company's page deletion
Hello Sandstein, I see you just deleted ACE & Company's page while I was making updates. I actually don't get the reason why you did this. Indeed, all of the statements were totally objectives, stating true facts like the year of creation, the founders, assets under management, the type of activity, investments made, etc. I just added close to 15 new sources from Techcrunch, KPMG, Private Equity Wire, Tech In Asia, Deal Street Asia, Irish Times as well as renowned swiss newspapers and magazines such as Le Temps, Bilan and AGEFI to make the article more consistent but you wouldn't even give me the time to share my point of view on the subject. In the meantime, this page had been reviewed and was online for nearly 3 months before you decided to delete it. Waiting to hear from you. Sincerely, Angelina Kramer (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because of unanimous consensus in the community discussion at Articles for deletion/ACE & Company. That discussion ran for the required seven days. You therefore had enough time to voice your opinion. But now, the discussion is over.   Sandstein   12:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

AFD:Sandella's
I have no reason to complain about your close. Thanks for your service. I do have a question about how to weight a !vote, however. This edit by User:Stuartyeates is a copy and paste delete assertion from the first deletion discussion, including datestamp. In your opinion, is such a contribution a valid assertion to delete? Did you assign any particular weight to the assertion? On the one hand, the assertion IS from the original contributor. On the other hand, the reasons given point to the condition of the article in 2011, not the condition 4+ years later. Personally I have no qualms with Stuartyeates doing things their own way, but I've never seen this sort of copy/paste assertion in an AFD, and so pointed it out in a comment during the process. Would you be willing to briefly discuss the merits of such a contribution? In any case, I appreciate your dedication to neutral closes of processes. BusterD (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was quite odd, but I didn't give it a lot of thought because whether this one opinion was counted for the purpose of assessing consensus or not did not affect the outcome. Had it been relevant, however, I'd likely have given it less weight, much like a pure "keep" or "delete" vote with no argument attached.  Sandstein   15:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've done this several times at AfD I believe, to indicate that my position has changed; I should have updated the timestamp. I'm not overly concerned with how much weight my opinion gets. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm greatful for Stuartyeates's rationale. I don't have any problem with the action, but wanted to know how a frequent closer would deal with such a situation, in the abstract. Thank you both for your input. BusterD (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Entry
Greetings & Happy New Year:

This concerns your entry Brittney Williams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittney_Williams

I am publicist for painter Brittney Leeanne Williams. The Wiki page you created for her is actually an amalgam of TWO distinct Brittney Williams.

The Brittney Williams who does fine art is NOT the Brittney Williams who does comics

Comic Brittney is here: http://anotherbrittneywilliams.tumblr.com/post/52363938292/birdstump-lois-jimmy-and-clark-designs-take

The 2d paragraph of Brittney's bio is the comic Brittney, not Brittney Leeanne Williams. The rest of the bio is Brittney Leeanne Williams

ALL of the comic links under "Works" are the comic Brittney, not Brittney Leeanne Williams

Press links #1, 4, 5, and 6 are the comic Brittney. The rest are Brittney Leeanne Williams

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best, CyMo (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this error out. That was a bit confusing because the name, the appearance in photographs and some of the biographical aspects of the two Brittney Williams were the same or very similar. I've preemptively deleted the article because it is not clear whether either the painter or the comics artist are independently notable enough for an article. If you know of any media coverage or other reliable sources as described in WP:GNG that cover the painter (or the comics artist), and that could be used as the basis of a separate article for either artist, I'd be interested in them.  Sandstein   08:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Intelligent falling
I was wondering if you could elaborate on your "no consensus" closure of Articles for deletion/Intelligent falling, especially in regards to whether the subject passes WP:GNG. None of the "weak keep" !voters seemed to believe that it did. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion about that, myself. I just see that we don't have a consensus for deletion.  Sandstein   11:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

so what should I need to do to? sorry I didn't understand. Who was the one that agree to delete it? I'm new here so it's all new for me. How can I reopen it? I'm PHD student of Pro.Ronel and I really think that it's important to have this value in English also in wikipedia. Thank you very much for your help. I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by מורן חסיד (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing was deleted in this case.  Sandstein   10:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Criminal Spin
Hello,

I'm a PHD student of Pro.Natti Ronel who added the value criminal spin to Wikipedia. please check: http://criminology.biu.ac.il/en/natti/

I didn't understand why you deleted this term because it's mentioned in many terms in Wikipedia. Please see: 1. Sexual masochism disorder - the last paragraph 2. BDSM - in the psychology title. 3. Self-control theory of crime - in the Low self-control - acute vs. chronic title. 4. problem gambling - in the Psychological mechanisms title. 5. group rape - in the Causes and characteristics title.

so as you can see this term is mentioned in many values in Wikipedia so I and Pro. Ronel both think that it's important to have a value of criminal spin which be more explained. there are many of articles on criminal spin. In these days research is being carried out in this subject in the USA. This is the details of the researcher: Arizona Wan-Chun Lin, M.S. Doctoral Candidate Indiana University of Pennsylvania Department of Criminology arizona.lin@iup.edu

Furthermore It's part of a Positive Criminology theory (http://positive-criminology.biu.ac.il/). We had a serious conference on this issue (https://www.facebook.com/International-Conference-Positive-Criminology-Victimology-1514043965553286/?fref=ts) Further to what was said you can see that it was done a serious research on it so please return back this value to Wikipedia. Thank you very much, Moran Segin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by מורן חסיד (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted because of consensus to do so in the discussion Articles for deletion/Criminal Spin. What you write does not make me believe that outcome was in error. Inclusion in Wikipedia is determined according to the criteria found at WP:N, and the discussion concluded these were not met.   Sandstein   17:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yes we saw the remarks and we added more references I believe that when you or someone else have deleted it you didn't see all the changes, because Pro. Natti Ronel added more references we didn't added it in the first version when we published but in the the second version we did a lot of changes - so I believe that now it will fit to Wikipedia roles. I Can published it again the second version and you can see all the changes that we made. If it's o.k I just need do added it again? Thank you, Moran — Preceding unsigned comment added by מורן חסיד (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A deleted article may be recreated if it addresses the reason for which it was deleted. if it is substantially similar to the deleted version, though, it may be speedily re-deleted.  Sandstein   08:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

How can I addresses to the reason for which it was deleted? I really think that it's important to keep it - what should I need to do now? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by מורן חסיד (talk • contribs) 09:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to read what was said in the deletion discussion, and the policies linked to from there.  Sandstein   10:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I already did it and we made all the changes after it we changed all what was written there. I think that it was deleted by mistake and people didn't see that we made all the changes which was written there. So how can reopen the discussion to write there? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by מורן חסיד (talk • contribs) 12:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion is over. It cannot be reopened. I've already provided the advice you need to recreate the article in an improved form, if that is possible. If you have further questions, please see WP:HD.  Sandstein   12:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

o.k I have read it again and I understood. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by מורן חסיד (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata
I went back to that DRV to begin an AN thread about TakuyaMurata and was mildly surprised to see it closed with that amount of finality. I can certainly see the case for a block in this case, but I'd question whether an indefinite block without warning is a proportionate response. Self-confessed non-English speaker, may well not understand the idiom; he wouldn't be the first person to think a "capital crime" is a "serious crime". Even if he did construing that as a death threat seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I don't feel strongly about it, but I did raise an eyebrow.— S Marshall T/C 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, indefinite is not infinite. If he makes a convincing unblock request, he can be unblocked quickly. But I'm not one to take even implicit threats of violence at all lightly. No matter how such statements may have been intended, what matters is how they're understood. Given that he linked to the article on capital crime, it's difficult to imagine he didn't understand the meaning of the term.  Sandstein   17:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Vikings
Hi there,

after my first draft of the paragraph in dispute, I linked the events (and names) of historic importance to the WP articles. Do you not think that this is a basis reliable enough in these cases? We are talking about historic facts like the Lindisfarne raid in 793 - this is not disputed in any secondary or tertiary sources. These links to historic facts are IMHO different from citations and quotations in the first part of the paragraph, were historians discuss special aspects of -for example- social life of the early Middle Ages. I do not have to "prove" that the Lindisfarne raid took place or that the historic Rollo became the first Duke of Normandy in 911! (Of course, we CAN discuss the sentence about Ragnar).ThomasMuentzer (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, which article does that concern? Could you copy this on its talk page so that we can discuss this together with any other interested editors?  Sandstein   14:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, did it there now Vikings (TV series)ThomasMuentzer (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake sensitive AfD discussion
I object to your abrupt and premature closing of the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Earthquake sensitive While there was an initial consensus to delete, we were, in fact, still discussing the matter, and discussion had just revealed a confusion of the basis for deleting. In particular, there was (and remains) a lack of clarification as whether deletion should be based on the article being crap (which is curable), or because the topic is non-notable (not curable). I do not object to the deletion itself, but the discussion should be reopened in order to clarify the basis for deletion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the closure wasn't premature: deletion discussions normally run for seven days. Nothing prevents you to continue discussing how to cover this topic elsewhere, such as on an appropriate talk page.  Sandstein   22:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Seven days is the minimum time before a discussion may be closed; nothing at WP:NotEarly says it must be closed by then. I note also that WP:AFD/AI says: "consider letting others know that you are in assessing the discussion by adding AfDh" [alternately: Closing]. Which would have been a lot more considerate than abruptly chopping off an on-going discussion. And the discussion was on-going: Tigraan added significant comments at 23:57 25 Jan., and you closed the following day at 20:03, before I could properly consider his comments and respond. As to an appropriate page elsewhere: the only alternative would be Talk:Earthquake sensitive, which, per your action, is deleted. Perhaps you would kindly re-create that Talk page so we can resolve the basis for the deletion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, there are no talk pages with no page attached. But you can continue on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Earthquake sensitive or basically anywhere else, such as your talk page, just ping the other participants.  Sandstein   12:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I could easily re-create ES (as a stub), but whether this is allowable depends on the basis of the deletion, which is the point that was being discussed, and was left ambiguous. Are you suggesting I could re-open WP:Articles for deletion/Earthquake sensitive? I would be happy to, but am mindful of the "no further edits should be made". My own talk page is inappropriate for discussing another page, and anyway the key issue is the nature of the supposed consensus at AfD. The only other alternative is deletion review, but it would be much simpler if you might acknowledge a possible misstep and reopen the AfD discussion. What do you suggest? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, the AfD itself is over, you may not reopen it. But you can continue discussion on its talk page, or, as I said, anywhere else. Recreation of the article is only allowed if you find new, previously undiscussed sources that make the topic independently notable after all.  Sandstein   05:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As the AfD is closed (and not to be reopened), how are to we to "continue the discussion on its talk page"?


 * As to recreating the article, your position assumes the basis for deletion is that the topic is non-notable. However, that is the point that needs clarification, as it was becoming clear that the ostensible consensus was largely based on the article being "unscientific crap". The point is unresolved, and as things are seems quite unresolvable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the last time I'll repeat myself: Go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Earthquake sensitive, or indeed any other talk page you like, except for this one, and ask others to continue the discussion there.  Sandstein   22:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review start.me
Hi! I just noticed you closed the deletion review for the start.me article. I understand your conclusion that there is no consensus to endorse the appeal. I understand that this would normally lead to moving the article to AfD. What I don't understand, however, is how the fact that the explicit proposal to move it to AfD did not reach consensus can overturn default policy to move it? Wouldn't it make more sense to follow default policy when there is no consensus about any I(other) proposed course of action? Michieldewit (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not policy, just practice.  Sandstein   13:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so wouldn't it make more sense to follow default policy practice when there is no consensus about any I(other) proposed course of action? Michieldewit (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'd have sent it to AfD if there had been no consensus between "overturn" and "endorse". But in this case there was no consensus between "list at AfD" and "endorse"; and the general rule is that a deletion decision is maintained if there's no consensus to overturn it.  Sandstein   15:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am getting more confused by the minute. There is no consensus: some suggest to endorse the deletion, others suggest to list at AfD. Your conclusion is to endorse the deletion, even though some have suggested this needs to go to AfD because it was never an A7. Wouldn't it make sense to pick the safe option and move it to AfD as any doubt about the A7 is a strong indicator this should have gone to AfD? Michieldewit (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, for the reasons given above and in the closure of the DRV discussion. I'm not inclined to discuss this further, as the discussion indicates that you are a founder of the website at issue and therefore have a conflict of interest; and I have better things to do than to help people promote their companies on Wikipedia.  Sandstein   15:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I will just ignore the rather low insult about my integrity: a COI is a reason to be extra cautious, not a ground to convict by default. I already have a draft copy of the article I am working on that I will later on post at AfC. I was just intrigued about the procedures at Wikipedia and a little confused about the things I saw going on. There seems to be a slight bias in your ruling. Apart from that, I am just defending my integrity and the values that are the foundation of Wikipedia. Michieldewit (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Earthquake sensitive
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Earthquake sensitive. 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. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)