User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/October

Shot Tower Capital
Republished Shot Tower Capital - new original independent coverage has been published and included and cited throughout to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Multiple publications over last 5 years, including coverage in two of the most famous entertainment estate matters, are included and properly cited to meet WP:GNG. Being bold :) Thanks for your help. EricPfromTustin (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Um, are you actually going to respond to me, or just delete this like you did the last message?
I would like to discuss your deletion of the page I created (the list of mythological and fantastic creatures in contemporary fiction). I left a note to that effect, and you deleted it without, as far as I could tell, responding in any way, not even to say, eg, "I disagree, sorry" or whatever. Not fair, and not reasonable. Tamtrible (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't remember deleting anything. Your comment was archived. Ï saw no question or anything else in your note that I thought I needed to respond to.  Sandstein   19:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to falsely accuse you. But I brought up a few relevant issues attempting to dispute the deletion of my page, which I thought at least merited a response along the lines of "I don't agree" or "Insufficient" or whatever, if nothing else, even if you did not consider them adequate grounds to reverse the deletion.  Tamtrible (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, if you want my opinion on something, please ask for it. Can you please restate what article this is about and why you contest its deletion?  Sandstein   17:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It was "Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction". The main objections seemed to be that it was "original research", and that it didn't have enough sources.  I was attempting to accumulate sources, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Types_of_mythological_or_fantastic_beings_in_contemporary_fiction, I just wasn't sure what to actually do with them.  And I asked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Does_this_count_as_.22original_research.22.3F if it counts as "original research" to, for example, say "This book has a vampire in it", and the person who responded said that it did not, provided, eg, the work itself called the creature a vampire.  Since the "original research" on the page mostly consisted of saying "This book has vampires and werewolves and magic users in it" or whatever, I'd... at least like more of a chance to add the needed sources before the page is deleted for good.  Tamtrible (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I put a lot of work into the page, and at least a few other people contributed as well. And I was trying to get more contributions.  It was getting better.  Tamtrible (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but this is not a reason to undo the deletion, because the sources you collected didn't convince the other people in the deletion discussion. These sources also do not address the problem that the article content was original research because you just threw a lot of sources on a talk page instead of referencing the content that was actually in the article.  Sandstein   07:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if anyone *saw* the sources I collected. And the original research problem may be from a faulty (or at least non-universal) interpretation of what constitutes "original research".  I am not the only one of the opinion that saying that a book with a character that the people in the book call a vampire or a werewolf or a mermaid or whatever has same in it is not "original research", because it's not deep interpretation, it's just "Yep, vampire, check."  And the fact that at least one person flat-out called it "fancruft", and several others made similar comments, suggests that at least some of the people were voting against it more because they, personally, didn't see it as interesting than because the article itself was poorly written or non-notable.  I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fancruft#Policy_relating_to_fancruft .  Tamtrible (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also point you towards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft#Don.27t_call_things_cruft . Tamtrible (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is noted, but I am not interested in discussing this further.  Sandstein   17:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Your experience with the Weinstein article
Recently you were able to bring some difficult edits into the Weinstein articles which dealt with a controversial theme. There is a similar difficulty with another page for William P. Lauder and it has been difficult to find someone to do this edit on controversial themes. If you might consider helping, this is the discussion for it and you can see the difficulties in doing this edit here:. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this just doesn't look interesting to me.  Sandstein   18:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Need some help and suggestions
Hello Sandstein, This is Mijash Tembe, I have created an article on Raksha Rai but that is going to be deleted. I have no intentions to benefit from the subject but I genuinely thought that he has done some significant works in the field of Nepali Literature and he should be entered in to the wiki. It would be great if you could suggest or indicate the areas which need to be rewritten or re-referenced? Thank you very much. (Mijash Tembe (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Hi, sorry, I know not enough about the topic to help out here.  Sandstein   18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dexter Metacritic ratings
Template:Dexter Metacritic ratings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Listing difficulties
Hi Sandstein, (I found your User-name on the nomination page) I seem to be having difficulty listing an article for deletion on this page: Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 17 -- I believe I followed the instructions correctly (never have done this before) but for some reason it doesn't list on the page like the other nominations and is lacking a section title. The article I proposed for deletion is Second inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant. Below is the message that was listed on the nomination page but has since disappeared:


 * Three other articles, Ulysses S. Grant and  Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant  and  United States presidential election, 1872, already cover the inauguration at length. No need for a fourth article, esp since the article offers very little info and has remained a stub since it was created 8 years ago. The article only had one citation : [Ulysses S. Grant, 1873 | Twenty-Second Inaugural Ceremonies | Inauguration of the President (removed) which gave an "access denied" result, while the 2nd half of the one paragraph in this article remains without a citation. Subsequently the article has no citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You added it to the log correctly; however, the nomination page wasn't created correctly (see WP:AFDHOWTO II). I've corrected it for you. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bryce Hirschberg
Would you care to explain how two delete !votes with no real policy-based arguments regarding the subject's notability (not even a single claim that he isn't notable between them) constitute a consensus to delete? --Michig (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Somehow I overlooked your opinion, sorry. I've relisted the discussion.  Sandstein   21:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pat Geary
You deleted a whole series of articles based on two short comments. To my knowledge, there was no AfD notice posed on ALL the affected articles. I certainly did not notice. I am not a huge Godfather fan, though I am aware other people are. I happened to be watching one of those articles because I have referred to the character and that drama in other comments. It seems odd there were so few comments, unless this entire process was done to back door the removal of this content. The absence of comment is telling. You as the deleting administrator are now party to supporting this corrupt practice. If an article is nominated for removal, there should be notification. At a minimum on every affected article. That includes categories. My advocated solution is to send a message to all editors who have edited the article in question. This kind of decision, that YOU made on behalf of wikipedia, should not be made in secrecy. Trackinfo (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked and you're right: the other listed articles were not tagged as nominated for deletion. Nonetheless, I consider that this procedural flaw does not require overturning the deletion: the articles were all about roughly equally obscure fictional characters from the Godfather films, so if somebody is really interested in all of these characters, they are likely to have noticed the nomination of the one that was tagged for deletion. As to your other procedural concerns, the discussion ran for two weeks, double the required length of 7 days, so there was ample opportunity for comments (or raising concerns about the lack of AfD tags), and the nomination was listed in the required public forum WP:AFD. There can therefore be no question of the deletion happening via the "back door." The deletion process also does not provide for notifying all who edited the article(s). It just looks like relatively few people cared enough to comment in the discussion, but such is life.  Sandstein   08:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

AFD
I would appreciate an explanation for this AFD since none was provided in the closure. I am a little baffled considering many of the keep !votes were based on the presumed existence of continued coverage and "impact". However, editors like Pincrete and Drmies, thoroughly noted that, not only was that based on passing mentions, but many of the sources were misrepresented.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/805827950] Some of the !votes were just flat out terrible and should be ignored. Others were deceived as a consequence of the "expansion" that occurred during the AFD. I will probably need to take this to DR but I would appreciate your thought-process before making a request.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Notability with respect to "news"-type events is mostly a function of how significant, broadly speaking, an event is in the opinion of editors. That's not an area in which hard and fast admin decisions about whose arguments are valid and which aren't are possible; rather, it's a matter of editorial judgment about which people can in good faith disagree. This includes opinions about, as here, how much continuing coverage an event had and what impact it had. Given that opinions were roughly divided, I couldn't find a consensus for deletion here.  Sandstein   11:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely you realize that consensus is based on the strength of rationale not the divide of opinions. One of the main points by keep !voters was how much continued coverage there was and the impact of the event, as you noted; however, participates in the discussion later realized that the claimed coverage and impact was based on the misrepresentation of sources and passing mentions. It was a bit too late: already a few editors voted on those misconceptions and hence their rationales are considerably weak. I would think the logical possible outcomes are deletion based on the strength of votes not phased by the misrepresented sources or relisting to encourage the participation of editors who are aware of these fallacies and can !vote accordingly. "No consensus" advocates for editors to taint the discussion with false claims on coverage and impact; worst still, participates realized this but you appear to still be giving equal weight to those arguments. That is where I respectfully disagree.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that there is a fair way to determine strength of argument in matters of editorial judgment such as here. If the "keep" opinions would have all been politically motivated, or pure votes, etc., sure, I could have discounted them but that wasn't the case.  Sandstein   14:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is much easier than you are making it. I noticed at least three editors who based their vote on false premises (including the one who created them). Three other editors diligently pointed them out with diffs and explained why those policies hence are not met with the event. How doesn't that determine the strength of their judgement, if three editors looked at the sources and found what keep !voters were claiming was, in fact, false and provided detailed counter-analysis that explained why? One editor misrepresented the sources, at least two followed it, and three others found the premise was false. Whose judgement would you believe it stronger; the answer seems obvious to me. That is why I'll need to take this to DR later today unless I have broken through to you. In my experience however, I've only ever done that a handful of times with admins. Thanks for letting me badger you nonetheless.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2014 Dijon attack
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2014 Dijon attack. 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.
 * I don't see an actual deletion review request.  Sandstein   19:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC) - OK, just misformatted.   Sandstein   19:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
for taking the time to sort through all the stuff at the List of Confederate monuments and memorials. I was one of the editors who wanted the whole graph gone, but removing the labels took care of many of my objections. My stance somewhat hardened after things such as "I personally suspect this one has been triggered by right-wing freak outs", "Those who oppose its inclusion are Lost Causers who are trying to sanitize/ whitewash history", "Scratch a group complaining about the SPLC, and there's a 99.9% likelihood you'll find a hate group" began to appear because being called a hate groupie does not usually take one to a good place. it is a little funny because a month ago I was called a Marxist and now I am an alt-righter. But I appreciate your making the effort to wade through all this crap and arrive a a pretty good, hopefully workable solution. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

?
I think you meant to put this on a different page. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's just an automatic removal of a link to a deleted page.  Sandstein   19:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Reasoning behind removal
While I appreciate your overall contributions to Wikipedia, I find it unusual that you'd delete large sections of info from Steven Erikson's article without any valid reasoning. You state in one that the things written there are not sourced, while I have provided 4 independent sources. You also make the argument that Donaldson isn't a neutral source because they have collaborated, which is confusing since there are thousands of articles here that also use individuals as a source who have collaborated with each other. And if you want to make the argument that there is a bias in the source, then read the section again, and add something that in your opinion would balance the thing.

I apologize in advance if this in anyway comes off as defensive; that is certainly not the intention.

  The Lord of Moon's Spawn   ✉    11:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll comment on article talk once I've got the time.  Sandstein   14:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User is breaking his promises to you
Hi, Sandstein! I don't know if you have seen the thread WP:Administrators' noticeboard. I pinged you, but pings have been unreliable lately. This is a case where you imposed a TBAN on TheTimesAreAChanging back in January, citing "a generally confrontative rather than collegial approach to editing". Primary targets of his attacks were users SPECIFICO and Volunteer Marek. Six months later you lifted the topic ban, in response to an email in which he repented of his "incivility and personal attacks" and said he had "no intention of returning to the vitriolic talk page rants that got me in trouble". However, he has continued his "confrontative rather than collegial" approach, and specifically continues to attack SPECIFICO, in somewhat less vitriolic terms than before. This seems to me to be a violation of the promises he made to you, so I thought you should be aware of it. If you are simply choosing not to respond to the current case, that of course is up to you, but I thought you should be aware that he appears to be breaking the promises he made to get you to lift the TBAN. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I saw that, but I try not to involve myself in the chaotic ochlocracy that is AN/I. If somebody thinks that arbitration enforcement action is (again) warranted, the place to request it - in a well-structured manner - would be WP:AE.   Sandstein   17:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Honey Select concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Honey Select, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)