User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/January

Bitstamp
I didn't see this AfD until now, and I'd like for it to be reopened. There are many reliable sources available such as, ,. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * as nominator, what is your opinion?  Sandstein   07:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is every user's right to request a listing at Requests for undeletion, we can discuss it there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , in principle you can recreate the article if it is substantially different from the deleted version. But there is no basis in policy for reopening a properly concluded AfD., did you mean WP:DRV: I don't think that Requests for undeletion would be useful here.   Sandstein   16:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the AfD was conclusive, though. At least when I close AfDs, I regard discussions with zero or one "delete" !votes other than the nominator as soft deletes, which can be overturned upon request. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it was conclusive in the sense that it ran for 14 days and was unanimous... The distinction is somewhat academic, though, because as an admin you can access the deleted content and unilaterally recreate the article in an improved form. It's up to others then if they want to ask for speedy or ordinary deletion again.  Sandstein   08:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have recreated it and added citations from various reliable news sources. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad, I meant DRV. We can always discuss things, but really, King, do we have to waste community time trying to reanimate some WP:CORPSPAM? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP with the sources I've found. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump (card games)
What's the deal with deleting Trump (card games)? That doesn't have anything to do with the decision at Articles for deletion/Trump Suit. StAnselm (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't meant to delete that. The AfD closing script seems to have deleted it too for some reason. I've undone that.  Sandstein   21:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you look at your deletion log, there are a whole bunch of other pages that got deleted too (e.g. No trump). StAnselm (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Several other pages were deleted as well, e.g. Trump (card game) (r from singular), which seem like they'd be reasonable redirects to Trump (card games). Not sure if that was intentional or not, just thought I'd leave a note in case it wasn't. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. These were all redirects, I've restored them now.  Sandstein   21:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. No-trump is the last one, I think. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "Harvey J"
Although you have closed the discussion as a "delete", the article still exists on Wikipedia. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, just a recreation.  Sandstein   06:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article after seeing new references added? It was properly sourced post being flagged for deletion. Billboard, Oxygen, and Uproxx are all notable sources and are commonly cited. Hennygang (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on your talk page.  Sandstein   12:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

workplace violation
Althought I find a redirect a more appropriate solution than a blunt deletion, I couldn't help noticing that your edit redirects to an article that contains almost, but not entirely no content concerning violations. Would it have been too much hazzle to at least try and rescue a little bit of the substance of the now-redirect? Would you think that any expectation of readers looking for information on workplace violations will be only partially satisfied? The way you tweaked it, they do not appear to exist at all. Slightly less than optimal solution, wouldn't you think so? -- Kku 07:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you're free to merge any content that you think is appropriate from the history of workplace violation to the target article. Whether it stays there is up to the consensus of editors, of course.  Sandstein   08:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Dogs
There is an error on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_beagle,_harrier_and_basset_packs_of_the_United_Kingdom

"Britannia Beagles – based at Dartmouth College, the pack dates back to 1878."

The Britannia Beagles are in fact based at the Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth, Devon. The beagle pack pre-date the college which was built in 1905. The link provided is to Dartmouth College, the Ivy League establishment in the USA. The correct Wiki link is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Royal_Naval_College — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.76.146 (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you can fix that yourself. Just edit the page. See WP:BOLD.  Sandstein   14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to
…talk some time in the next day, I would be glad to do so. I return to ordinary labours in the next few days. Please know I have "no horse in the race," at the Page article. I simply believe in improving articles that life and work send me to, and the dependence of the article, overly, on the one Politico source—which no informed scholar would argue is a balanced perspective—made the article an invitation to direction I felt would not be encyclopedic. I apologise for coming on so strongly, but I came in, as I always do, checking links in references, completing references, looking for more references, and revising and editing as like a former professor (for that is what I am. As I said at that Talk page, when I finish, I am under no illusion that the story is closed—I often overwrite, leaving plenty of source content, via quotes in text or in citation, to speed the process of paraphrasing by others that can be true to source. That it to say, I know the article was not perfect, nor was I wed to it, "as is," when I left for my meetings today. It was simple the wholesale reversions that I was resisting (with a little ruffling by your statements indicating "exemplary" stupidity)—compare my response to the reversions, to my response to the edits of the "Dr" fellow who came next. There has been some resistance to some of his decisions, but certainly not all. That is, I know the article is everyone's, and not mine. respndez, s'il vows plait, ici (here), if you wish. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I don't currently have time to attend to the matter but I'll look at it over the weekend. Just a bit of advice, could you perhaps chill down a bit and try to be more concise? I think you mean well, but you come across as a bit ... overwrought. Regards,  Sandstein   09:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

DS / post-1932 US politics
Hi Sandstein. Briefly, in your judgement, does US foreign policy fall under this sanction, and if so, how broadly construed would that be? Cheers, O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  06:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To the extent that the relevant aspect of US foreign policy is also an issue of US domestic politics, probably yes. For example, US-Israel relations per se probably are not covered, but the domestic political disputes in the US about US-Israel relations are covered. &nbsbyp;Sandstein   09:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  09:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Again thank you for this clarification for us all. That said, you recently TBANNED a user a named "TheTimesAreAChanging" with that very condition:


 * So wouldn't this EDIT be a clear violation of his TBAN then? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=760179804


 * In the header of the article, it even says BOLDLY, "This article is part of a series on the Politics of the United States of America." So that irony could not have been lost on him.


 * The edit (listed above) in particular that he chose to make was about the US and Russia's interference with elections which is the hottest thing being debated in America politics right now! Before his TBAN he was busy making disruptive edits about this subject as well, but on directly related pages on the subject. Unbelievable. Clearly he's just trying to find a creative way around his ban so he can sneak in edits about it and resume edit warring on the subject, etc. In general, TTAAC probably could really use a brief time out anyways from editing 'period' since he simply can't stay away from his 'addiction-to-politics' long enough to edit other less contentious subjects, and, I can't imagine that this is healthy for anyone's nerves, especially him. Maybe the break will do him good and give him time to reflect on his priorities.


 * Sorry for the sloppiness. Rushing off to work so I only had a couple minutes to fire this off, doh! But really have to go now. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.190.14 (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update#2: TTAAC has also just been found guilty for socking puppetry for, you guessed it, so he could edit U.S. political pages and get around his TBAN. Maybe he should be indeffed at this point if he's going to go that route??? This all the more offensive since the thing he likes to rant about the most is OTHER people's alleged sockpuppetry. What a hypocrite! He's clearly a WP:NOTHERE with no desire to rehabilitate himself during his six month cooling off period you assigned to him for that very purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.190.14 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in complaints about sockpuppetry by ... IPs. If you think AE action is needed, log in to your account and make a report at WP:AE.  Sandstein   18:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Undeleting Music News - Music-News.com page
Below are just some reason why I feel the Music News page should be reinstated.

This is not a promotional piece, the initial article covered the site, as is always the case - warts and all - but the Wikipedia using public deserve to have a source page for the thousands of links and reference notes attributed to Music-News.com from across the music landscape.

-Music-News.com is one of the largest, and well-respected music news sources online. It is top on a ‘Music News’ google search having been identified by Google as a quality site and having held that position for over 12 years. -A search for Music-News.com on Wikipedia shows many hundreds of quoted references, entries and footnotes from every genre of artist and relevant news articles and content. -Music News is regularly asked to appear on the BBC News programming as well as BBC Radio and many radio stations world-wide. -Music News is a member of the BRIT Awards and BBC Music Awards judging panel. -Regularly quoted by New York Times, The Times, Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror, Independent, The Guardian, Express, Metro, Evening Standard and more too numerous to mention across the globe. -Over 250 independent journalists write for Music News, Music News Italy, Music News Malta. -Music News is park of a network consisting of Music News: music-news.com, Film News: film-news.co.uk, Theatre News: theatre-news.com, Game News: game-news.co.uk. -Regularly interview top musicians while also giving a voice to up-and-coming talent https://www.youtube.com/user/MusicNewsWeb -Music News provides breaking news 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. -Strong music industry connections with BPI & PRS for Music. -Passionate about real music of all genres from all countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 09:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please link to the deleted article or its deletion discussion.  Sandstein   10:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the deletion page link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 08:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Music_News
 * Your arguments above do not address the specific, Wikipedia policy-based concerns raised in the deletion discussion. Restoration request declined.  Sandstein   17:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Delphix deleted wikipedia page
Hello Sandstein,

Can you please provide more information as to why the Wikipedia page for “Delphix” was deleted? We would like to understand more about why this has occurred.

Delphix is a registered trademark and company with locations in Redwood City, CA (recently moved from Menlo Park), San Francisco, CA, Atlanta, GA, Longmont, CO, Tokyo, Japan, London, Boston, MA, and Frankfurt, Germany. Our company is similar to Actifio and Informatica whose Wikipedia pages can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actifio, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatica. Can you please provide information as to why Delphix was deleted, yet other companies were not? Thank you.

Delphix website: https://www.delphix.com/ Resource: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/delphix

Sincerely, Representative for Delphix Rzolfaghari (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Delphix was deleted because a community discussion at Articles for deletion/Delphix (2nd nomination) found consensus to do so. Please read the discussion to find out why.   Sandstein   19:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

why new page patrol is a very mixed bag
sometimes mad, sometimes bad, sometimes weird, sometimes enough to want to move on and retire
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Donald_Trump_and_Fascism

sheesh - agree or not agree with the premise, it is worthy of the weird category JarrahTree 11:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A peculiar article indeed.  Sandstein   12:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * must say very impressed by the speed of the cu admins - done gone dusted blocked and out of the way - impressive JarrahTree 12:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

USS Wistaria (SP-259)
The AFD for this article at Articles for deletion/USS Wistaria (SP-259) should have been closed as 'no consensus' 5 keeps and 5 deletes Brad (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as explained in the closure. AfD is not a vote.  Sandstein   06:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz
No comments on Malik's edits and his POV. Wrong accusation of sockpuppetry is also a personal attack. User:MShabazz is marked as "This user is an alternative account of Malik Shabazz. This banner confirms that the user is familiar with Wikipedia policy on using multiple accounts and that this account will not be used for sock puppetry. You may discuss this account at User talk:Malik Shabazz."

This was written when the SPI was filed. -- Marvellous Spider-Man  18:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That may have been a misunderstanding of the multiple accounts policies. WP:AGF. It doesn't read as an attack, just misguided.  Sandstein   23:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It was no misunderstanding, it was an unwillingness to click on blue links. And the use of invective is not a personal attack. Please learn to tell the difference. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 00:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Malik Shabazz, I previously knew you as a competent veteran editor. If you really believe that swearing at fellow editors is acceptable conduct under any circumstances, particularly in a discretionary sanctions area, I will have to watch your contributions more closely in the future.  Sandstein   08:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, you may want to see a doctor about the possibility of early-onset Alzheimer's disease. A few months ago, you accused me of POV-pushing on behalf of a terrorist organization. Or have you forgotten? In any event, watch what you'd like. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't remember anything like that. Though I do have a tendency to remember only the good things in life. Until now, I'd considered that a benefit for working on Wikipedia.  Sandstein   14:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Singapore National Day Parade, 2016
Hey Sandstein. If you don't mind, could this AFD be relisted for one more week? That would give me a bit of time to find sources (they are available at my local library, but not accessible from home). While I don't agree with the speedy keep rationales, there might legitimately be enough sustained coverage to justify the articles (due to this being the National Day Celebrations, which garners quite a lot of coverage over months). A relisting would give me enough time to look for sources (and determine if they are adequate). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it would be too much of a hassle to undelete all these articles just for a relist. But if you do find good sources for individual parades, I am not opposed to userfication so that you can work on the articles.  Sandstein   07:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would be happy if you could userfy these articles to my userspace then. There are lots of sources available and a couple of editors from the Wikiproject might be willing to help me out as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, it would be even more of a hassle to userfy them for what would be, in my view, a very remote possibility of benefit for the project. Also, I don't do userfication in general. But you can of course ask others to userfy these pages.  Sandstein   14:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK no problem. I will ask someone to userfy these. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Unity
Hello Sandstein,

I don't know if you remember or know who I am, but we have both been involved in discussions regarding a specific banned editor, as well as deletion reviews regarding Polandball (where you alerted me about [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=632023380#Arbitration_enforcement_alert:_Eastern_Europe administrative sanctions] which existed for that specific topic).

I have since holded a small grudge against you as an editor. I may not have expressed this on-wiki, but it's been there in the back of my head. I would like to take this time to apologise for this, and like to share some WikiLove. We're both here to contribute towards the same project and goal(s).

I do wish you have a good continuation of the year, and this may be a year of unity, rather than divisiveness, despite the new American president and all the uncertainty of freedom of speech which may follow. (t) Josve05a  (c) 13:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Have a good year!  Sandstein   15:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Underwood
Hi Sandstein. I'm just dropping you a note because you closed Articles for deletion/Matthew Underwood as "delete", and while you did delete that article's Talk page, Matthew Underwood is currently still extant and needs to be deleted too. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's odd. Probably a script error. Now deleted, thanks!  Sandstein   14:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Teresa May
There is currently a big news story about Teresa May because of a staff error at the White House, but this redirect is incorrectly linking to the PM article, not the actress. See this search for a burst of new stories in multiple languages. Specifically, I read https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2722238/who-is-teresa-may-porn-actress-who-starred-in-the-prodigys-smack-my-b-up-video-all-you-need-to-know/. The fix is to restore the dab and the article deleted at AfD, at Articles for deletion/Teresa May (2nd nomination). Your close doesn't give a WP:DEL-REASON, but without clear language to the contrary, I have to assume that this was not a WP:DEL14 (NOT) or WP:DEL7 (V), and I am also assuming that this was not a WP:DEL9 (BLP) deletion. I note that two other Wikipedia's today updated their Teresa May page, which we can't currently do. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't determine whether recent news changes the consensus that the actress is not notable, and it does not interest me either. All are free to recreate the article if they believe the AfD's concerns are addressed.  Sandstein   09:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the AfD decision as notability, which means that the content was not a part of the decision at AfD. Notability is defined outside of Wikipedia, not at AfD, and it is objective to say that notability has increased since last July.  Regarding a new article, our policy is to preserve the work that others have contributed.  Since you currently have no interest in the notability of this topic, I'm left to interpret that to mean that you don't have an opinion about a WP:REFUND to draftspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like the article Teresa May was created on the say day as Articles for deletion/Teresa May (2nd nomination) started, so during the period of discussion, there were two articles on the same subject. One got deleted. The one that remained should have been deleted as WP:CSD at that time. Given that, I am pondering whether a history merge is appropriate, or just a G4 deletion of that second article. The WP:1EVENT coverage is already mentioned in the deleted article, so I don't see how anything has changed. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have doubts about whether the recent news coverage makes the h-less Teresa notable, but the newly created article is sufficiently different, with its new source, to escape G4 deletion. It's up to editors as to how to handle this, e.g. with a new AfD.  Sandstein   08:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

AfD closure
Hi Sandstein, I just wanted to say that this was an excellent close with a very well-reasoned and articulate closing statement. I won't clutter up your talk page with a tacky barnstar, but I know that closing AfDs (especially contentious ones) is a thankless job, and your efforts are certainly appreciated by those of us who aren't brave enough to deal with debates like that! :) –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Just so it's clear
I responded and pinged you on AE because I don't want the case to be closed with me receiving a "warning". I plan on appealing my TBAN in the near future, and having just recently had it put on the record that I had made a "grey area" edit, for which I was "warned", will not look good on my appeal.

I also think warning me because I had misidentified a scholarly paper as an "essay" and so inadvertently misled you, in an edit that never should have been reported on AE in the first place, is unnecessary. Last March's ARCA request did not result in an amendment to my ban -- all that happened was that it was clarified that I never had been banned from making edits like that, and "warning" me away from doing something that I was (and am) not actually banned from is ... not going to make building the encyclopedia a more pleasant experience for me or for anyone else.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)