User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/June

Rationale
Hey Sandstein. you seem to have forgotten a close rationale at Articles for deletion/Powers and abilities of Superman, just wanted to pick your brains on it. I was still poking at the article to try and salvage and turn it round. Hiding T 20:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it seemed pretty open-and-shut to me: 3 people considered that there wasn't sufficient sourcing for a separate article, and only one person was of a different view. I can't tell who's right and who's wrong, as this is a matter of editorial judgment, so in such cases a clear majority is normally determinative.  Sandstein   06:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict
I was a bit disappointed by the outcome. Three editors, including myself, gave what I believe to be valid policy-based arguments. The other three editors did not, and only took some time to actually explain their position. The other !votes amounted to IJUSTLIKEIT. It should've been redirected at the very least. And a closing statement would have helped. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A merge proposal, to Qatar–Saudi Arabia relations, 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis, or Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, can be proposed on the talk page. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No consensus outcomes are always disappointing, but there's no way I could have discounted all the "keep" opinions. Whether this is a fork or a distinct topic is a matter of editorial judgment, and not something for me to determine by fiat.  Sandstein   17:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Prayer Delete
Hi. You closed the Meher Baba Beloved Prayer (or whatever it's called) as delete, and I feel that it's very arguable the other way (as it was re-listed for further comment and I then came up with five sources). Would like to put this up for a deletion review, but I am lousy with code and really don't know how to submit it. Could you maybe format putting it up (in my name if need be)? Some of the request-for-this-or-that pages are pretty complicated, at least for some of us. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean Articles for deletion/Beloved God Prayer? Because I think I closed the discussion correctly (or, at least, you don't tell me why I didn't), I'll not request a deletion review of my own closure. You'll have to do it yourself or ask somebody else.   Sandstein   18:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, will try to figure it out. The prayer is sourced in four independent books at Don't Let Go the Coat in the section "Music and lyrics", as I pointed out and to in the last section of relisting, and earlier in the discussion I'd added both to the discussion and to the page The Who and Philosophy (2016 by Lexington Books, an independent publisher and notable book, see page 155). So five independent books were pointed out, four of them after the last relisting. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That does sound plausible, but I can't access these books and determine how in-depth and reliable their coverage is. And given that your arguments didn't convince others, and your fellow "keep" proponents made no policy-based arguments, I don't really have a basis to find consensus in your favor.   Sandstein   20:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Accessing sources on a computer is a requirement for a closer? To outright reject that there are reputable sources on the page because we personally cannot read them on a computer seems like an unusual reason to remove an article from Wikipedia. The reason for the deletion nomination was that there were no reputable sources in the article, and this reason was muted by the addition of a reputable source and a link to numerous other reputable sources which back it up. Maybe on this one you can reconsider and go the "no consensus" route if not outright "Keep", as the premise of the discussion had been addressed and fixed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. You don't need to convince me, you'd have needed to convince your fellow editors, and in this you did not succeed.  Sandstein   11:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The only 'delete' comment after the relisting was by an editor saying there were no independent sources. I then gave them five. That the one editor didn't come back and change their mind really shouldn't be reason to delete the page, it should just be a reason to nullify their comment. Another "Keep" editor struck their comment only because the album that the song was on wasn't their favorite Who album, first time I've seen something like that in a delete discussion. No need to convince anyone else, as an editor I provided the asked for cites. As for convincing fellow editors, these discussions are so limited in editors (many are decided by one person, kind of like the Supreme Court in the U.S. in their 5-4 decisions, only here it's often 1-0) that the point shouldn't be how many join in but if the requirement for notability has been reached. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * perhaps you could ask for a WP:REFUND to a draft page. Then you could add your sources and expand the page with relevant facts, and then ask for a review before getting the page put back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Fuzhou
Would you be willing to send me a draft the List of Tallest Buildings in Fuzhou page? I disagree with your delete, just because this should be a topic that sources should be readily available for, even if the current page was poorly sourced. Emporis and Skyscraper Center tend to be more reliable than Skyscraper City, even if Chinese sources can't be found. I'd like to add them and restore the article if I may. Thanks! SportingFlyer  talk  20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't userfy pages, but somebody at WP:REFUND might.  Sandstein   06:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, would you have any issue if I were to do so? SportingFlyer  talk  06:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, none at all.  Sandstein   07:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now restored to a user sub page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Shikha Talsania
Hello,

This page was deleted in Janaury-2018. I have re-created the page as Shikha Talsania now not an unknown person in Bollywood. Her latest movie has also started well.

Request you to please re-review.

Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. I have deleted and salted the page because it was not substantially different, in terms of sources, than when it was deleted.  Sandstein   06:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I do not have a back-up of yesterday's version. Can you please restore it under User:Vikram maingi\Shikha Talsania. I shall put more efforts and then get back to you

Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't userfy pages, but somebody at WP:REFUND might.  Sandstein   15:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Montgomery Advertiser
Thanks for expanding that. The paper ran a series of articles prompted by the opening of the Lynching Memorial, including a long one on itself beside the editorial you cited. Come on down to Montgomery and I’ll take you sightseeing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.152.152 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The Advertiser's review of its coverage is cited, I think.  Sandstein   18:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Quick note
Just a quick note on you comment regarding my writing format, when you said "combination of an aggressive tone with ALL-CAPS SCREAMING", just wanted to clarify that using caps was a way to just to highlight key words (points), not yelling. As you can see I use a lot of bold, italics and caps. If that is an issue, I can just refrain from doing that's no problem—point taken, but when you pick on the text itself as here "wall of text" it comes across as a bit dismissive, because my intent was to have orderly bullet point for each response to the various editors, and with the amount of text added by other folk it's actually not that much. --E-960 (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted, but actually there's also a length limit, 500 words, which is why I had to cut down your and most everybody else's statements.  Sandstein   17:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Rand page
Hello.

I updated and sourced information about the playwright Jonathan Rand - changes that were since deleted.

How do I begin again the discussion about this entry or appeal the deletions?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhondaLH (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * How can you address the concerns identified in Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rand?  Sandstein   20:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Recreating a Page
I would like to recreate a page Nirmal Baby Varghese (with different contents & more reference), that was previously you deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casablanca film corner (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How can you address the concerns identified in Articles for deletion/Nirmal Baby Varghese?  Sandstein   20:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Griffin Technology
If the consensus was to delete this, why hasn't it been deleted yet? Or are you working on it? That's fine if that's the case--I'm just not sure if someone has just re-created it once again, or what happened...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

FCAYS AE block
I'm not sure it was correct to say that that AE filing was not an appeal of the ban -- FC was asking for text that led directly to the ban to be struck, which presumably would obviate the need for the ban. Therefore, it was an appeal, if indirect. I definitely don't see that it was a further violation of the ban. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The user didn't say that they wanted to wanted the ban lifted or modified. That would have been an appeal of the ban. Rather, they asked for text written by somebody who did not impose the ban to be struck through. This has nothing to do with the existence or validity of the ban as such.  Sandstein   12:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree, but I'm not going to pursue it further. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandstein. FCAYS was warned to make a formal topic ban appeal prior to their post and their post at AE wasn't it. This is analagous to a topic banned editor going to Jimbo's page complaining about editors who supported a topic ban. --Neil N  talk to me 12:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

AfD
How is Articles for deletion/Darrers a no consensus?Please clarify. ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because people do not agree about whether to keep or delete the article. It is therefore kept by default.  Sandstein   15:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's expected that as someone who has been here for around 2 years, I will know such stuff.Explain on your rationale behind such a close. ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And, you'll surely do better to avoid such needlessly patronizing replies. ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Sorry, given the lack of a signature and the misspelling of "consensus" I expected this message to be from a casual visitor. There is no clear numerical majority and no side has the clearly stronger arguments in terms of policy.  Sandstein   15:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm...Surely the first two keep !votes are quite ideal.....Anyways, please re-list, so that the views of previous !voters could be solicited on the merits of the new sourcing.That regional sources are alloted a very minimal weight and classified ads/business listings/fly-by tweets (I'm amazed that a long-time-AfD-closer thinks these to be valid sources, for establishment of notability, but that's for another day....)  are not allotted any weight as to assessment of notability are quite longstanding.Also, you might need to re-read WP:NCORP, esp. after the recent up-gradation of the guideline.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric  15:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, two relists are normally the maximum, and there has been ample discussion.  Sandstein   16:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Michel Bosc page
Hi, Sorry for wrting you about this subject (and in a bad english) of deleting the page Michel Bosc. The comentary to explain the deleting was : " Kept in 2008, and has gone steadily downhill since. The only active editor is pretty obviously the subject. the 2008 AfD was in a climate of much less robust policies on biographies and sourcing. This has a coupe of sources, but none pass the twin test of reliable and independent. "Keep and clean up" is fine, but when, years later, it hasn't been cleaned up, and the subject has added more cruft, I think we should pull the plug. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC."

I'm very surprised about "coupe of sources, but none pass the twin test of reliable and independent" : if you check some websites like youtube (with 20 videos of concerts, on different chanels) amazon (13 books, published by real editors) and the musical editors websites Wolfhead Music, Fabrik Music, Aedam Musicae, you find several scores on the market place. You can even find a piece recorded on CD by Masae Gimbayashi-Barbotte. Of course I can provide many examples or linls.

On this Wikipedia you keep finding Michel Bosc on several pages, about Jeanne Delanoue, Jane Eyre, Francis Jammes and Jill Feldman, so why does he appears here and deseppears with his page ?

Thank you to explain me.

Mimichelmi (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Mimichelmi


 * The article was deleted for the reasons discussed by editors in Articles for deletion/Michel Bosc (2nd nomination). I cannot explain their reasons better than they have done there.  Sandstein   16:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

AfD close reasoning
Hi, you closed Delhivery AfD as no consensus, when you get a chance can you explain your reasoning? The Keep !voters provided reasoning that there were enough references to meet the criteria for establishing notability, yet none of the references provided meet the criteria and all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Some were asked to provide links and didn't. The last Keep !vote listed links, three of which had previously been pointed out to fail the criteria. No comments were added to the rest but a simple perusal shows that they too are based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. Thank you.  HighKing++ 10:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. The issue of the quality of the sources was discussed at some length. The editors favoring keep were explicitly of the view that the sources were sufficiently in-depth and independent. That is a matter of editorial judgment and not for me to decide. Therefore we have no consensus given the numerical split.  Sandstein   12:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for providing me with your reasoning. You say that the issue of the quality of sources was discussed at some length and that the editors favoring Keep were explicitly of the view that the sources were sufficiently in-depth and independent. The closing admin is supposed to weigh the arguments. Can you please explain what part of the Keep !voters arguments swayed you to thinking that they were making sound and rational arguments based on policy and guidelines? Because it isn't clear at all to me. We know that this isn't a simple count of !votes, but it seems to me that if an editor can say "Nah, I think the references are fine and meet the criteria of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH without actually engaging in any subsequent discussion, then we haven't really moved AfD beyond a simply count of !votes. You say that it is a matter of "editorial judgement" whether the references meet the criteria or not - but I cannot understand how you can interpret a debate on references and weigh the arguments if you don't. And if you don't, you're really just counting !votes, no? Can you explain this to me? Thank you.  HighKing++ 17:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In my view, as closer, what I can and should do in weighing the arguments is to determine whether they are made on the basis of accepted Wikipedia policies or guidelines. So I'll discard pure votes (e.g., "delete!") or opinions without a policy-based argument ("keep, I like it."). But if policy-based arguments are made (e.g., "keep, has good sources" or "delete, has no reliable sources"), it is my view that I must not second-guess whether these opinions are correct, except perhaps in blatantly obvious cases, because that would be casting a supervote and substituting my own opinion for that of the participants. I hope this has clarified my approach for you.  Sandstein   17:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thank you, it helps me understand the high level approach. Apologies for having more questions: how do you "weigh the arguments to determine whether they are made on the basis of accepted Wikipedia policies or guidelines" if you don't consider the sources being referred to in the arguments or don't consider rebuttals of those sources? If the issue of the quality of the sources is not being considered, I refer back to my previous point that a !vote could simple state "Meets WP:WHATEVER" and you, as the closer, would be satisfied? If you considered the counter-arguments and the rebuttals, I cannot understand how you would consider this as "No Consensus" so I am assuming you didn't give weight to the counters/rebuttals on this occasion - am I wrong?  HighKing++ 19:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as I am convinced that editors have made a good faith attempt to apply relevant policies or guidelines, I try not to "take sides" in disputes about how exactly to apply those policies to the topic at issue. For example, editors can in good faith disagree whether a source is reliable or not; if I were to discount one view or the other, I'd be casting a "supervote" and deciding the question myself rather than assessing consensus.  Sandstein   19:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But hang on. Isn't that what a closing admin is supposed to do? Rough Consensus means you have to determine whether an article violates content policies. I mean, where do you draw the line? And "good faith attempt" can be totally wrong. What you're saying is you don't care if they're wrong so long as they're argument was made in good faith? Have I understood you correctly?  HighKing++ 20:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it is a matter that editors can in good faith disagree about - in other words, a matter of judgment.  Sandstein   20:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandstein! I might not agree with your approach but I am closer to understanding it. My furrowed brow remains though. I suppose I believed the "duty" of the closing admin was to *evaluate* the quality of the opposing arguments and taking everything into account, make a decision (I suppose that is effectively a "supervote" if the closing admin weighs one side over the other). I'm struggling to understand how the approach you have described is any different that counting !votes. I mean, why bother reading all the references, checking whether the follow the various policies and guidelines, etc, if the closing admin will only look at whether arguments are made in "good faith" or not, regardless of whether the "good faith" !votes are even correct in their assumptions about policies and guidelines...  HighKing++ 11:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

AfD
You forgot to delete List of fictional assimilating races after closing the AfD. L293D (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 14:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Rudolph Moise?
I noticed something strange when checking an AfD that you closed and deleted. Rudolph Moise was deleted per an AfD discussion, but you closed that discussion as 'no consensus'. Did you mean to close it as delete instead? or was the deletion an error? Just thought I'd bring it to your attention to investigate as it seems a bit odd. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  10:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, looks like I first closed Articles for deletion/Rudy Moise as delete, then undid that to close as no consensus. Rudy Moise accordingly still exists, but the redirect Rudolph Moise was deleted in the first closure and not undeleted, which I now did. Thanks for the notice.  Sandstein   10:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Heads-of-state visits
(on behalf of, who is certain to complain about this point)

Based on the discussion at the more well-attended Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic visits to the United States, would you consider overturning Articles for deletion/List of heads of state and government visits to the Russian Federation to no-consensus? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No. AfDs are independent of one another and do not establish precedents. What you propose would have been more convincing had the USA discussion arrived at a "keep" consensus; but given the "no consensus" outcome the USA list was kept only by default and not because the community is now convinced that this kind of list should be kept.  Sandstein   18:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Westcliff school of skills deletion
Good day Sandstein

I accept the deletion process to be fair. I would try my best in future to adhere to the notability aspect of any future article

Barry Ne (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

AfD close argument for Mikie Sherrill
Can you please explain your close of Articles for deletion/Mikie Sherrill as "no consensus", based on the argument that "Disagreement about whether to redirect or to keep. Both sides have valid arguments."? While the arguments on both sides did include mentions of Wikipedia policy, it was only the keeps which addressed specific sources demonstrating that WP:GNG was met (in addition to sheer numeric superiority). The nomination and the first vote are typical of the weakness of the delete / redirect argument, in simply insisting that the article should be redirected, without in any way, shape or form addressing the existence, quality or in-depth nature of the sources provided. Mubogshu tried to push back unsuccessfully, only to be rebutted strongly by E.M. Gregory and by me, referencing specific strong references about the subject in reliable and verifiable sources that go far beyond her candidacy. There appears to be no reasonable rationale to interpret the results here as "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, my view is that if I agreed with you here, I'd be basically casting a supervote by substituting my appreciation of the sources for those of the editors participating in the AfD. I try not to do that in matters where editors can in good faith disagree, such as how to weigh sources. So I'll not be changing this closure. Anyway, the the article is kept in either case.  Sandstein   20:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?
You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion review
Hi Sandstein, Can you please review again Muhammad Khan article? Muhammad Khan, A Bangladeshi journalist got National Information and Communication Technology Awards, 2017 by the Government of Bangladesh. This is the highest ICT award in Bangladesh. As a national awardee, I think he is notable. NC Hasive •  talk  • 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this argument was addressed and discounted in the AfD, which is now over. You should have made it during in the discussion while it was ongoing.  Sandstein   09:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of national capitals in alphabetical order
Sandstein, is there any objection from you if I took the list you redirected and restored it under the name List of national capitals, and merge in List of national capitals by latitude and List of national capitals by population? That seems to be where the discussion was moving before you closed it, and am curious to see if you would be amenable to that. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular objection; my view as expressed in the closure is that it is now for editors to decide what to do with this content, as long as no additional lists are created ...  Sandstein   14:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured, but wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on any toes. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

List of national capitals
Hi, I reverted your close of AFD about list of national capitals, with this edit, and I would like to ask that you allow the reversion to stand. I explain myself there. I grant that you could insist that it be closed as is and go to appeal, but I think that should not be necessary. Sometimes I think your AFD closures go a bit contrary to the sentiment of discussion, but here I think it was just wrong. I'll watch here and there. --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, no, that's not how it works. AfD closures are not to be reverted, but they can be appealed, at WP:DRV. Or here, if you tell me why you think the closure was wrong.  Sandstein   20:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I explained in the reversion. I have already opened a DRV, which your reversion at the AFD directed me to do. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:REFUND request
Could you please restore the version of Celeris that existed at the close of the AfD, to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Celeris? The only reason that was AfDed (barely) is because of lack of paper sourcing; the vast majority of material on old videogame companies is offline, in paper gaming-related magazines of the era. It definitely does have possibilities. If probably 1–2 more sources had been present and had not been Virtual Pool-specific, the article would have been kept. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not interested unless you can provide sources indicating it has at least a chance of being kept if restored.  Sandstein   17:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

AE case
Hi, I see you removed a part of my post that exceeded 500 words. Whereas I see no problem with that (it was not essential, and I myself marked it as "auxiliary"), I need some clarification: MVBW continues to post his accusations (and I am not sure when he will stop), and, although I am not sure I am going to respond, I am wondering if my prospective response will be deleted due to the 500 words limitation. I am also wondering if 500 words limit is applied only to me, or other users, including MVBW, must obey it too.

In addition, I have to say that I like your attitude towards the "throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks" approach, and my question is: to avoid wasting of my and arbitrators's time, can they just point my attention at those accusations that, in their opinion, should be addressed, so I will be able to focus just on them? Another option is as follows: if the arbitrators show me what MVBW's diffs deserve a response, I may delete some of my text and focus on few important things. That may save everybody's time and efforts.

Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Right, I've cut down on the volume of the request too. Generally, my advice to AE participants is, say your piece, and stop talking. My interest in reading what participants write drops exponentially after the 20th or so minor addition or wording change. I don't usually read much besides the initial party statements anyway, the rest is generally pointless drama.   Sandstein   17:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion review
Hi there,

I think you may have been referring to my vote in Articles for deletion/Zara Kitson when you referenced that one vote "does not address the sourcing level and quality". To clarify, my use of the term "unelected politician" referred directly to the phrase "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" in WP:POLITICIAN. Many political candidates are referenced by the media, but this politician does not have significant coverage that would in my view, warrant an article.

I made an identical argument in the AfD for Toni Giugliano and a very similar argument in the AfD for Uma Kumaran. Such articles about candidates fail to meet the criteria for WP:GNG and set a bad precedent about the use of Wikipedia for electioneering as a campaign resource.

With this in mind, please reconsider your decision for the AfD.

--RaviC (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but no: you're right that just being a candidate does not guarantee notability, but in this case the argument had been made that the amount of coverage she received is what makes her notable, not the fact that she is a candidate. If your opinion in the AfD had addressed this, I'd have been able to give it more weight.  Sandstein   07:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Zara Kitson
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zara Kitson. 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. RaviC (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Guardian Bikes
Please restore WP:Guardian Bikes to Draft Space following your good faith deletion following Articles for deletion/Guardian Bikes. Whilst not agreeing with it I respect it.
 * As a minimum issues should have been picked up at AfC and article returned to draft for improvement.
 * There was in my opinion a muddled raise at AfD.
 * There is a possibility of WP:TOOSOON and alternative resource may emerge within the next year of so
 * There are options of using some of the content for alternative articles.

Unless you do so as a minimum I undertake to indicate in my opinion on the talk page the article should not goto main space without:
 * A substantial rewrite and addressing of issues in Articles for deletion/Guardian Bikes which I believe you likely deleted on the basis of the failed WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. It would also require that new significant suitable references have been found to emerge.
 * The availability of a suitable redirect target ... the article can then be moved to mainspace as a redirect whilst retaining appropriate attribution to the article creator.
 * A break out article from the section in Bicycle Brakes or perhaps a new article say Child bicycle design would perhaps be suitable options.


 * Renaming and reworking the article to represent some content in a different manner. (Not simply to Surestop or Syscend).

I'd also not like to see to complete loss of attribution to the article creator ... you will notice how the AfC then speedy lost the seed of a useful contribution

The talk page of the restored draft article is also probably a good place for the discussion.

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I do not do undeletions or draftifications, but somebody else at WP:REFUND may do this for you.  Sandstein   08:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

O Channel Medan
padag girea Wikipedia O Channel Medan di Indonesia Sumetra Utara Segrum Medan yang O Channel Loctok Manya --HMRafly9 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you, please try again in English.  Sandstein   08:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not even intelligble Indonesian for that matter - please see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manda_1993 - apology for not alerting you to this problem earlier JarrahTree 14:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Move proposal for Swiss referendums to initiatives
Please have a look at the proposed moves under Talk:Swiss_minaret_referendum,_2009. As fellow Swiss you know, that the proposed moves make sense. User:Number 57, an admin, wants to delete this entry because he claims, that a sockpuppet has proposed it. He goes on to associate me: quite clear crossover with the sockpuppeteer in question. He has filed an SPI report against 83.228.178.55.--BBCLCD (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you mean, and this does not look like it interests me.  Sandstein   20:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please strike your accusation
Sandstein, I have a lot of respect for you, even when we disagree and even if it doesn't always seem like it, but you really need to strike the part of your comment at WP:AE where you accuse an editor of anti-semitism. The editor restored a previous version of an article. And while one can quibble over which version is better, as I pointed out, it's just absolutely not true that the text is not supported by sources. You just didn't read the source carefully enough. You missed it and jumped to a very extreme conclusion, then you made a very strong accusation against an editor on the basis of your misunderstanding. That is a very serious matter and you really need to undo this (strike the comment and apologize to the involved editor).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And to add, at the AE, Icewhiz only shows you the edit in which Gizzy restored a version from August 2017, not even "her" version. What he doesn't show you is that Gizzy made something like 30 additional edits, some of which, like this one where she cleans up the old version! And look at that edit summary, Gizzy is making exactly the same objection to the text in August 2017 version that you did! She is cleaning up this version and removing anti-semitic material from it! In fact, if you compare Icewhiz's preferred version from March 2018 to the current version by Gizzy (who was in middle of cleaning this up and indicated they'd resume work tomorrow), it's almost the same as Icewhiz's version!

Why is he bringing this up to WP:AE then? Because WP:BATTLEGROUND. The whole presentation of the case against WP:AE is shockingly dishonest - showing only the initial edit which restores an older version, but not the multiple subsequent edits which clean it up. But hey, it worked because you and User:The Blade of the Northern Lights were too lazy to actually 1) read the source carefully and 2) look at the actual editing history of the article. You just jumped right to accusing an editor of anti-semitism.

I'm gonna ping because I think they're a very reasonable and level headed editor here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek, none of this is your concern. I'm waiting to see what GizzyCatBella has to say about this and will review the issue again then. I do not need input by you or other editors to do that.  Sandstein   20:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is my concern, as I am involved in the topic area and have been dealing with Icewhiz's WP:BATTLEGROUND for awhile now. Also, you're the one who always chastises people for casting WP:ASPERSIONS and demand diffs and proof before any accusations are made, yet here you quickly jump to an unwarranted conclusion and accuse another editor of "spreading anti-semitic propaganda", which is completely false! I'm trying to be polite about this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry this got tp your TP. I will note that my complaint clearly noted that GCB continued editing (concurrent to the filing) - and that these edits retained at least 5 serious misrepresentation that I clearly specified in the original complaint (there was also sloppy use of citations) - the version I linked in the AE was close to the state GCB left the article in. The trigger to my filing was the refusal to self revert the hoax version - but I clearly updated the filing to reflect also misrepresentations present at the time I finished writing the report (and had there been none - I probably would have kept this in draft - but there were at least 5, some serious).Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "I will note that my complaint clearly noted that GCB continued editing" - what you wrote was "User made some additional edits after this". What you failed to disclose is that those "additional edits" she made actually removed the text you were objecting to! In other words, she self-reverted most of her initial restoration of the older version and gave you almost everything you wanted (the only difference really is some additional info about the Jewish community in the town and a sentence about the Soviet occupation). The current - Gizzy's - version - is very close to your version. Yet, you ran to WP:AE ANYWAY. Because your purpose was not to improve the article but to get an editor sanctioned. That's called WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The original edits (repeated after being challenged) were grossly defamatory. The subsequent edits were not a self revert, and left several problems and mosrepresentations.Icewhiz (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, on both counts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You STILL need to strike your false accusation per WP:ASPERSIONS. You've had more than 24 hours to do it and you've been active on Wikipedia since you've been notified of the problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I need to do nothing of the sort. Casting aspersions means making accusations without evidence . There is plenty of evidence of misconduct in this case, at least in the judgment of all admins who have commented on it. Assessing evidence and describing misconduct as grounds for sanctions is part of my job as an admin.  Sandstein   19:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether there is "evidence of misconduct" is not the issue. Whether or not there is grounds for sanctions is not the issue. The only issue is whether or not you've presented evidence to support the notion that the user in question "is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources". You have NOT presented any evidence to that effect and this is a very serious charge (indeed, your attack appears to be based on your own failure to actually read a source and the edit history of the article). WP:ASPERSIONS says clearly:
 * "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."
 * You have not presented any evidence The accusations is severe. Your continued refusal to strike the comment can be taken as you repeating the false accusation. You have not raised this on the user's talk page. You have not raised this in an appropriate forum (you are free to file your own WP:AE report - Icewhiz did not make this accusation, or go to WP:ANI).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have taken note of your view, but maintain that AE is the appropriate forum for me, in my capacity as an administrator, to assess and evaluate editor conduct based on the evidence submitted there by others. I will not comment on this further.  Sandstein   19:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an appropriate forum for you to asses and evaluate editor conduct. It is NOT an appropriate venue for you to make extreme allegations against other users. It's simple, if you do indeed believe that the user "is using Wikipedia for anti-semitic propaganda" (and I assume you stand by that statement) then present the evidence in form of diffs. You can do that right here and now. Else, you really need to strike the accusation. If that kind of an accusation was made on an article or user talk page it would be sufficient grounds for a WP:AE report and would probably lead to sanction. If I or Icewhiz or somebody else accused another user of spreading "anti-semitic propaganda" you'd probably block them yourself. Here is the thing: you're not exempt from the rules you've self-selected to enforce.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Recreation of page Joseph Kevin Bracken
Hello, I see that this page was deleted by you after a deletion review based on lack of established notability. I can see that recreation of the article is allowed. I have re-written the article with much more substantial sourcing here: User:Lonehexagon/Joseph_Kevin_Bracken Since you were the person who deleted the article, I wanted to check with you before I submitted the draft for review. I was also wondering if there's a way to merge the history of the two pages so the original history is not lost. I appreciate any thoughts or suggestions. Have a great day :) Lonehexagon (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Deletion review/Log/2018 June 5 endorsed deletion but allowed recreation, so you can go ahead. I'm not the original deleter, that would be, just the DRV closer. So I don't have a particular opinion about this article.  Sandstein   19:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it! Lonehexagon (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Reporting being topic banned.
Can I report Icewhiz being sanctioned from editing the World War II history of Poland? Keep in mind that I'll have to use related articles as a prove.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, since you are topic-banned, and requesting sanctions against others isn't within the exception of WP:BANEX. If there is problematic editing by Icewhiz, others may and likely will report them, but you must now stay out of the topic area.  Sandstein   21:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At my appeal process, are you going to be involved or that will be entirely up to others with administrative privileges? GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can appeal either to me (in 6 months) if you want me lift the ban on the basis of your editing record, or you can appeal at any time to WP:AE or WP:AN if you think the ban was wrongly imposed, in which case I'll not be part of the decision about the appeal.  Sandstein   08:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One more thing, at my appeal motion, I will be exercising as proof articles related to my current topic ban area. Is that accepted? What is the general rule on that? I’m unable to locate directions to that concern? GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BANEX allows you to mention material that you are topic-banned from in an appeal if doing so is relevant to the appeal.  Sandstein   08:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Comparison of web browser engines (typography support)
I'm looking to get the article Comparison of web browser engines (typography support) undeleted.

I was not present for this happening, but the assertions of both participants are inaccurate:

"…half of the info already covered in the large CSS comparison article…"
 * How about the other half? The information I have referred to this page for across many years certainly is not present in another article. I looked.

"…haven't had a meaningful update in over 7 years."
 * Web typography has not changed significantly in many years, so why would information referring to it need to.

"…this one is also redundant…"
 * Again, the information in the article is not present in any other, and is therefore not redundant.

Thanks for reading. =)

Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the discussion is over now, and I‘m not interested enough in the topic to pursue this further.  Sandstein   04:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Comparison of web browser engines (typography support)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Comparison of web browser engines (typography support). 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. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Guardian Bikes page
Hi!

I worked on the Guardian Bikes page and was wondering why it was deleted? A little confused as it was first accepted, then tagged for possible deletion. The page had a handful of references that met the notability criteria including local a local Fox affiliate, the Huffington Post, and Metro, among others. Aside from its notability as a bike manufacturer in the US, it's patented SureStop braking systems have helped to significantly reduce biking accidents with children and have been adopted by other bike companies. I'm curious as to what I can do to appeal the decision to delete the page, or what you think the best course of action to take is here? Any guidance or help is appreciated.

Scrutineer (talk)


 * I've corrected the misspelling above as it's important to track contributions etc and at one point I thought you were using two different login names and as this could catch out Sandstein (also I have come in on this discussion earlier than I might have because of it). I strongly feel the speedy delete following a good faith WP:AfC submission and acceptance is unfortunate and not good practice (unless absolutely necessary) though the referral to the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Guardian Bikes was I feel ultimately appropriate.  I would normally have expected you to have participated in that discussion and an explanation as to why you did not might be helpful.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Guardian Bikes was deleted for the reasons indicated in Articles for deletion/Guardian Bikes. You can recreate the article if you can address these concerns.  Sandstein   18:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of sandbox while topic banned
Do this sanctions applied by you cover my personl notes in my sandbox? I'm referring to the removal of articles titles already there, eventual addition of others and draft text of my appeal. I need that page to accurately and clearly finish drafting my request before posting it. If yes (meaning I can’t use my sandbox), link rules that cover the official use of sandboxed for topic banned editors so I could examine that. I'm unable to find appropriate page covering the issue of using sandbox while topic banned.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, topic bans apply to all pages, including sandboxes. You need to edit some different topic now.  Sandstein   17:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I suppose preparing an appeal is exempt.  Sandstein   20:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)