User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/July

Canvassing by user:Genealogizer
A request to change pre-1935 Iran to Persia taking place.

Clear case of canvassing by user:Genealogizer.

Genealogizer posted a notification on RGloucester's talk page of the Rfc on the Iran talk page, knowing full well how RGloucester has voted in the recent past.(17:10, 4 June 2017) --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * How does this concern me?  Sandstein   13:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

2032 Summer Olympics AfD
Why did you SALT it until 2027? That's a bit far away. There will almost certainly be reliably sourced information prior to then, since hosts are typically decided seven years in advance (so 2025) and there's reliable information on bids or potential bids for several years leading up to that. The 2028 article existed since 2006, and although there's no reliably sourced information for the 2032 article at the moment, and therefore the deletion was correct, there will almost certainly be ample reliably sourced information several years before 2027. Is there a way to give it semi-protection against creation so only auto-confirmed (or extended auto-confirmed) users can recreate it? That might prevent "drive-by" recreations while allowing an experienced editor to recreate it when the time comes. But I don't know if that capability exists. Smartyllama (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's sufficient info previously, anybody can create a draft version and ask for unprotection.  Sandstein   13:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The other problem is there was absolutely no consensus to salt it for 10 years. The only person to mention a specific date said 2020, which seems a bit late to me but would be a fair compromise. There's definitely going to be a need for an article before 2027, as we'll almost certainly have a host by 2025, and information for at least a few years before that, so salting it until 2027 seems like just wasting everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there was consensus to salt it, I think. Would you have preferred indefinitely?  Sandstein   17:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There may have been consensus to salt it, but not to salt it for 10 years. Opinions on how long to salt it included "until 2020" and "until verifiable information is available", which will be well before 2027. Nobody supported salting it until 2027, explicitly or otherwise. As I mentioned, salting until 2020 would be a reasonable compromise. Smartyllama (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pointless discussion. As soon as somebody comes up with a valid draft, we can unprotect it, whether tomorrow or in 2020.  Sandstein   17:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Donald Trump–CNN beating video
At User_talk:Jdcomix I have asked the non-admin closer to revert his/her close, but think this AfD needs more attention than to just go back into the queue. My !vote to delete at the AfD was focused on the title of the article. Today I have also read the content, and believe that the content substantially fails NPOV. Please bookmark this AfD or take further action as seems warranted. Unscintillating (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't take admin action on somebody else's AfD closure. You can contest the closure at WP:DRV, however.  Sandstein   16:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Quick licensing question
Per your comments, I'm interested in following George Ho's suggestion, but I'm a little unclear on the re-licensing. The image is already covered by CC 3.0 as a "cc-by-sa-3.0" license. Is the idea that I should remove the Share Alike clause? For example would a "cc-by-3.0" license be preferable in this case? I didn't know if I should ask you or George Ho, but I'll contact him instead if you'd prefer. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the proposal either, so I suggest you contact George Ho.  Sandstein   17:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Regnar Lodbrog - Danish origin info Was changed??
You changed information on regnars site about Hring being a dane?

Please keep to historical fact instead of changing Them to something thats wrong. Sigurd Hring has always and will always be a Dane. Its mistale is Maybe because that huge parts of sweden That we know today Was under Danish territorium and some regular swedes who dont know history Would Then say he Was swedish, but thats NOT true. You Can also view Saxos Works and it will document the same.

So please edit it back to be correctly!

Ill refer to a guvernement history site in Denmark to verify my saying: Mikkel1984 (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand what you mean to say.  Sandstein   09:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You changed it 5 hours ago:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrok Mikkel1984 (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You blocked Either me or the site for corrections. I made some small changes at first noting the origin of Ragnar and Hring. This Was removed again which seems Wierd cause it makes sense to include their origin.

Note that its NOT for debate where they are from, unless the tales from Saxo and Iceland Sagas are wrongfully, also note that these are the "only" sagas that really tells the story about Ragnar - all historical researchers Would agree that these sagas are the most trustworthy sources.

Also the info is actually stated by Æectpr Annette Lassen from the Nordic Research Institute at Copenhagen University faculty of History. http://nyheder.ku.dk/alle_nyheder/2016/04/sagaerne_om_de_danske_vikingers_bedrifter_udkommer_nu_paa_moderne_dans/

I want to do even more changes on the site so it will become a more clear and rightfull picture of the events that are Truelly historical known. Please tell me how i Can proceed so the site Can be corrected accordingly to the actual known history?

Mikkel1984 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Legendary Norse figures can't normally be easily associated with a modern state. That's particularly the case for Ragnar Lodbrok whose very existence is uncertain and whose legend may be based on the exploits of various men. No scholarly source I know of describes Ragnar as simply "Danish", and neither does the website you refer to. You'd need to reference better, academic sources for such a claim.   Sandstein   19:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems absurd? It States directly in the sagas he Was born in Lejre which is a City in Denmark nearby Roskilde. Its undisputable that he is a Danish legend, all known verified information has roots directly in the Danish history. Sorry to Inform you but your Way of saying sources are unreliable seems like you are talking about a field where you are NOT educated cause this is informations from governmental history. Please notify how i Can refere to any source when you dont want to be using the Saga where all information is from, nor will you accept the aknowledged Lector in history from Copenhagen University who have studied Danish history and the Saga of Saxo and Iceland... this seems absurd, you cant find a more trustworthy site than official governmental publikations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkel1984 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions
Could explain what is the basis of your comment here and here? In WP:ARBAPDS Arbcom authorised using standard discretionary sanctions, which means that uninvolved admins are allowed to impose page restrictions, including consensus requirements. Thanks. To be clear, I started writing this before you closed this, so this is not a reaction to the close. Politrukki (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My (unanswered) question was whether this was indeed a discretionary sanction and whether it was properly notified.  Sandstein   10:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I must admit that I somehow managed to read your second comment selectively – but it seems that I was not the only one – which makes my question really stupid. I'm sorry for being obtuse.
 * Let's focus on my enforcement request (first diff) for the last time: at which point, if any, it became clear to you that my request to enforce a page restriction was valid? If my enforcement request was missing some important info, how should I (or someone else) prepare better for the next time? I.e. if someone requests enforcement, are they expected to prove that a remedy applies, beyond filling the mandatory parts in the AE request template? Politrukki (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I expect them to show that all requirements for enforcement action are met, including if applicable such as are described at WP:AC/DS: "The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place. Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate". Other admins may have different expectations.  Sandstein   15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think policies and guidelines, like NFCC, require an explicit rationale
By chance I noticed the discussion you initiated at.

Maybe this is an issue where we share a concern.

I've been perplexed with the increasingly strict interpretation a small number of volunteers put on WP:NFCC.

I am reminded of something a lawyer the WMF hired to give advice on the legal status of images taken by Afghans, and published in Afghanistan.

Paraphrasing from memory, he said that it remained perfectly legal for us to continue to use these images freely, until Afghanistan was fully signed on to one of the international treaties on intellectual property reciprocity. He said we were free, of course, to choose to enforce stricter standard, but our own internal rules had nothing to do with the law.

Personally, I think he was trying to keep from letting show that he thought our stricter internal rules were ridiculous.

I think we have a similar situation with our internal rules on fair use images, non-free images.

I think if we, as a community, are going to choose to enforce rules that are stricter than the law requires, it should be easy to find a clear rationale for those extra restrictions.

If whoever put in place our extra restrictions on fair use images had laid out the rationale for those extra restrictions, we might look at the rationale, ten, fifteen years after they were put in place, and decide that there was no longer a need for those extra restrictions.

People forget the original reason why modern states put copyright laws in place, put patent laws in place. The original reason, of course, is that copyright, and patents, are believed to benefit society, as a whole. By giving artists, musicians, writers, film-makers a limited time when they control their creations, we help make it possible for them to afford to go out and create more art, more music, more novels, more films. We see this cultural expression as good for our society. Same with patents.

So why then did modern states create exemptions for "fair use"? Legislators decided, in modern states around the world, that there were limited circumstances where a photographer's right to make a profit from their photo should be superceded by other publisher's need to use that image.

I think the main reason those other contributors are so keen to pounce on fair use images is that they identify with the photographers, and want to preserve their right to make a profit. But, those photographers have no recourse when other publications make use of their images in ways that comply with fair use legislation.

If the WMF is going to protect the profits of those photographers, at the cost of denying our readers the use of images we are legally perfectly entitled to re-use, I'd really like those responsible for NFCC to explain the rationale for this restriction.

If, once the rationale is available for review, if it no longer really seems like a good idea, I think NFCC should be rewritten to be less restrictive.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There are certainly strong disagreements in the application of the NFCC, it seems. But I think that the policy as such is fine. It just needs to be applied as written.  Sandstein   10:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Bob Hasegawa Official Portrait.jpg
Is there a particular reason you closed as no consensus? The only arguments in opposition were made by the uploader, and I'm not sure what discussions he/she is citing in the second bullet. Meanwhile, made a pretty good argument in support of deletion. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And Tukwilaphile 2643 also made a reasonable argument, and you didn't really make any. So we have no consensus.  Sandstein   18:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Closures by a sockpuppet
The sockpuppet performed a closure on Talk:Government of the Republic of China. I thought about re-addressing this and the user's other closures at WP:AN, but first I would ask you first about the closures. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hm, my recommendation would be to simply note below the closure that it was made by a sockpuppet. Then it's up to any interested editors to decide whether and how to contest it. I don't think we have a policy that invalidates closures simply because they were made by a sock, but interested editors might request a reevaluation of the closure by another editor.  Sandstein   13:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I made note in six pages: . --George Ho (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Australia–Guatemala bilateral treaties
Hi. Please note 2 other articles were also nominated for deletion. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, these are now also deleted.  Sandstein   13:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Coherent catastrophism
Hi - you closed the AfD on this as delete. I don't see any significant difference in this new version, but given the personal attack on me at the AfD I don't want to delete it myself. This is by a brand new account. The account that created the earlier version hasn't edited since the AfD. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I come in peace
I come to you not to challenge you in any respect. I come to you with every intention of good, every thought of peace and positiveness. I know you feel strongly about the Hodgkinson image. There's nothing wrong with that, and I am not here to debate you on it. I come to you as a fellow Wikipedian.

Wikipedia is a very large project. There are thousands upon thousands of truly active editors. It is guaranteed there will be situations in which the way you think things should be just doesn't happen. From this view, it can seem inconceivable that people just don't get it, they just fail to see the veracity of the view and find agreement with it. We can find ourselves in a situation where if we just state things a little bit differently, try one more time, just maybe...just maybe we'll finally show them the truth and they will agree. But, it just doesn't work that way. The editing population of Wikipedia is far, far too diverse for us to ever find unanimity. It is the chaos that is our blessing and our frustration.

Let me give you an example from my experience. Some time ago, I ran across Potions in Harry Potter. Finding it in a horrible state, I tagged it with unreferenced and inuniverse. It sat that way, without improvement for the better part of a year. So, I prod'd it. This was denied just eight minutes later by the administrator who restored the article despite the prior deletion discussion, despite it being salted, despite it being created as a redirect through salting  per request. Another editor attempted to return it to a redirect, but less than a day later the same administrator turned it back into an article. I asked for the article to be improved (see discussion), but nothing happened. So, I renominated it for deletion (see discussion). That deletion closed as keep by an inexperienced editor who should never have attempted closing the AfD WP:BADNAC #2; they had 4 months editing experience and almost none in AfD. Given the history of the article, deletion, restoration and protection it should never have been closed by someone so inexperienced. To date, the article remains badly unreferenced and horribly in-universe. It's very far removed from being an encyclopedia article. It belongs on a Wikia site. I'm still astonished this whole mess went that way.

From my view, this is not a rational conclusion to this mess. I could have easily raised this issue at WP:AN/I or other dispute resolution methods. Nevertheless, I dropped it and walked away. An awful lot of energy had already been expended on this issue by many people, with the result effectively being the same as it was back in 2007. It became counter productive to do anything about it. There is no such thing as 'perfect' at Wikipedia. I can't make things go the way I think they should all the time. I'm lucky if it's 50% of the time. Sometimes, even the most maddening of situations just have to be dropped. Sometimes, the most blatantly and insanely obvious conclusions are unachievable. Sometimes, you just have to walk away.

I invite you, nay beg of you, to please self close Deletion_review/Log/2017_July_26. We've been through 2 FFDs and a DRV about this. Another DRV isn't going to solve anything but start another FFD, which will start another DRV, and another FFD, and another DRV, and etc. Like the Potions article, there just isn't any point anymore. This amount of effort over a single thing on the project isn't helpful. Please, I beg of you. Do the right thing, and just walk away from it. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it is useful to clarify what the outcome of "no consensus" FfDs is, whatever the particulars of the current case.  Sandstein   14:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that a discussion regarding that issue would be useful. We have different opinions about it of course, but a discussion would be useful. DRV isn't the appropriate place for that discussion. I think you can agree that regardless of the conclusion of the DRV on that point, it wouldn't hold water without a broader participation base, such as at an RfC at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Fictional family trees
Hi. I realized that you had nominated multiple fictional family trees for deletion. I was a major contributor to three of those family trees that were finally deleted but I can see your point. Yet, it's really interesting that you have only nominated family trees related to A Song of Ice and Fire-Game of Thrones characters while we have other fictional family trees on Wikipedia in the form of templates about characters from The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit such as Finarfin family tree, Half-elven family tree, Elwë family tree, or even characters from Star Wars like Skywalker family tree. We even have articles about fictional houses and families such as House of Telcontar, House of Húrin, House of Hador, Durin's folk, and Solo family, and there are huge family trees included in all of them. Shouldn't these be deleted as well? Keivan.f Talk 04:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, yes, if they are not also notable as topics.  Sandstein   07:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If notability is the only thing that matters, then I'm afraid that all of these articles and templates possess the same level of notability as the articles that have been already deleted. I don't know whether you intend to nominate them or not, but I will also support your decision if you truly want to eliminate all of the fictional articles-templates in this category, and not only A Song of Ice and Fire-Game of Thrones templates. Have a nice weekend. ;) Keivan.f  Talk 08:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, see now Articles for deletion/House of Telcontar.  Sandstein   08:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's hair
Hello! Back in late October you closed the discussion at Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair, saying, "The result was redirect to Donald Trump". However, it seems to me that the result was actually redirect to Donald Trump in popular culture. In early December someone changed the redirect to point to the popular culture article, and it's been that way until quite recently, when someone else changed it back, citing the AfD discussion. The popular culture article, unlike the main article, actually has a "Hair" section, so it's a much better fit. The section also has a notice that "Donald Trump's hair" redirects there, for whatever that's worth. I wasn't following the original discussion super closely, but I thought there were some pretty good arguments to redirect to the popular culture article. Thanks for your (re-)consideration of this matter. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Upon further review, what I said is not correct. At the AfD, no one argued for merging to the popular culture article, because that article wasn't created until January, after the AfD was closed. Although actually it's a bit confusing, because the article history for "Donald Trump in popular culture" shows it being created in January, but the "Donald Trump's hair" redirect was changed to point to the popular culture article before that, in December. So, I guess I haven't quite sorted that out yet. But setting all that aside, at the current time I do think the popular culture article is a way better fit. What do you recommend? Should I open a discussion about this on the talk page of the redirect, perhaps? — Mudwater (Talk) 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you don't object to the status quo, you don't need to do anything.  Sandstein   16:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I object to the new status quo, i.e. I think that this recent change makes things worse. That is, I'd like the redirect to go to "Donald Trump in popular culture" -- it was that way for some months, until recently -- instead of going to "Donald Trump" -- which is how the AfD was closed.  (Apologies for the addition confusion on my part but the "in popular culture" article was created in 2007, not 2017.)  So, what do you think is the best way to proceed?  Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hm, I tried this. .  Sandstein   17:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks!  — Mudwater (Talk) 18:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)