User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/January

Articles_for_deletion/Student_suicides_at_Indian_Institutes_of_Technology
Hi

Thanks for contributing to the success of Wikipedia. One of my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Student_suicides_at_Indian_Institutes_of_Technology has been deleted. Without going into the merits of the argument for the deletion, I would first like to know if I can somehow get that data back for my own personal collection. Once I am done with having that data, I can argue on the merits of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKSPRK14 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The entire content was: "Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are institutes of national importance and have been established through an act of Indian Parliament. As of 2018, there are 24 IITs. In the recent past, the number of suicides in IITs has attracted significant attention. "  Sandstein   08:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases
Regarding your close at Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases, I think a more in-depth closing comment is needed and better analysis given to the quality of the arguments of the "keep" !votes. Given that none of these have addressed the WP:CATALOG issue and seem to have been coming from drive-by SPAs, I can't see how this could have been closed as anything other than "no consensus". -- wooden superman  10:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, hence the relist. Nonetheless, even if one gives less weight to those "keep" opinions, the required consensus to delete is simply not there.  Sandstein   10:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been relisted, but closed as "keep". I get that there's no consensus to delete, but given that the whole discussion reads like an example at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, I'd have thought a "no consensus" close would have been more accurate, especially as every single other list of this kind has been deleted under WP:NOTCATALOG.  -- wooden  superman  10:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the distinction is an academic one: the article remains. In my view, not enough opinions can be discounted to arrive at no consensus.  Sandstein   10:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to expand your closing comments in the AFD? Would be nice to have some more detailed analysis to refer to when this comes up again.  -- wooden  superman  10:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this would be worth the while.  Sandstein   10:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It really would. With a simple "keep" like that it reads like it's a snow keep, but given the quality of the arguments, this is clearly not the case. You really should show how you came to your decision.  -- wooden  superman  10:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Benediktas Mikulis
I request that you undelete Benediktas Mikulis. I read Deletion review and it says to "Discuss the matter with the closing administrator", which I believe is you. Consensus was not reached regarding deletion. The subject continues to be present on Wikipedia in Forest Brothers. Thanks for your consideration. — Reinyday, 21:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Benediktas Mikulis was in 2012. If there are now reliable sources that verify that this story is not a hoax, you can recreate the article or ask, who then asked for its deletion, to restore it. I note that the topic is not sourced in Forest Brothers and may be removed from there for this reason. See WP:V.  Sandstein   22:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please Restore Justin Klosky
Thanks for your contributions here on wiki. I don’t really know why the article was deleted there are references and Justin Klosky is notable and deserves to have a wiki page. I have seen pages with just four references and are up. I don’t know what to do now that it’s deleted, please help me to restore it, I know you can Ziggy 2milli (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * See Articles for deletion/Justin Klosky for why the article was deleted. I will not restore it. See WP:WAX regarding your comments about other articles.  Sandstein   10:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have only seen that but contributors keep saying he is notable while he is. Please help me to rescue it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy 2milli (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because editors' consensus is that the article should be deleted.  Sandstein   16:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright can you restore the article as draft so I will improve and Ziggy 2milli (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not undelete articles, but perhaps another admin will if you ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   22:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Why was Children's Theatre of Charlotte page deleted?
HI, I work with the Children's Theatre of Charlotte, one of two partner organizations in ImaginOn: The Joe and Joan Martin Center in Charlotte, NC, USA. Can you tell me why the Wikipedia page for Children's Theatre of Charlotte was deleted? It's possible it had not been updated recently, but I can help with that if the page can be restored. Thank you.

Rob Odum (contact information deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.73.186 (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. The article was deleted because there was a consensus to do so in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Children's Theatre of Charlotte. Because you are involved with the theatre, you should not attempt to restore it, per our conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI). You should wait until an uninvolved Wikipedian considers the topic interesting enough that they want to write a new article about it.  Sandstein   14:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and I understand the desire to be informational rather than "promotional" and the conflict of interest presented by me as an employee. It seems strange that the other partner organization at ImaginOn, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Library, has a page and we do not. If you know any uninvolved Wikipedians who might find us interesting, please give them a nudge! :) Seriously, though, thanks for your work with Wikipedia, I use it almost daily and have donated as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.73.186 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Generally speaking, the existence of any particular article does not mean that Wikipedia should or shouldn't have another one like it; this is explained in the essay WP:WAX. The more in-depth coverage of your organization in reliable media or academic sources exists, the more likely it is that an article will be created or not deleted; see WP:N.   Sandstein   15:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

2032 Summer Olympics
Request review of create-protect. You closed the last deletion with sodium chloride, and so deletion review is requested. There seems to be enough information now to warrant coverage of the bidding process.

Deletion review for Draft:2032 Summer Olympics
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2032 Summer Olympics. 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Rewriting deleted BLP article
Hi Sandstein,

I'm attempting to draft an BLP article on a subject that was deleted by you, if I'm not mistaken. Draft:Avetik Chalabyan I was able to find the deleted version here.

The version I have currently has been altered to fit Wiki's standards, tone and reliable sources to preserve its accuracy and avoid becoming a puff piece. Before uploading it as a new draft I would like to know if there are any other steps I should take before doing so.

Thank you in advance for your time.

AsiaPacific0327 (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not interested in the topic and therefore unable to advise. Perhaps you can ask, the deletion nominator.  Sandstein   17:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks strange that the first thing a newly registered user like you does is trying to recreate the page of some non-notable pencil-pusher. I suspect you of being a part of his PR operation, therefore I will not advise you in good faith. I can promise you that I will watch the situation around the page intently. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Alireza JJ
Hello,

This is about the deletion of the article Alireza JJ.

So I deleted about half the page for Alireza JJ for the parts that did not have enough reference or were original research, and then I put every thing with enough resources back. Some of the references were expired because of the websites, so I found new websites and references to include on the page. But the page was reverted back without another review. I am absolutely sure that the first few paragraphs that I had contained enough resources which anyone can go back and check. So there is no point in rewriting them. Now if there are any parts that might be an issue it would be great if you help me out to clear those parts as well, but I am sure that at least a few paragraphs have enough resources to keep on the page.

Something else also happened in the past few days. I believe a few other people vandalized the page. That might have been the reason that the page got reverted back.

Thank you--Farjj (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how this concerns me. I'm at any rate not interested in the topic, sorry.  Sandstein   08:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice!
Hello! Despite the delete closure at Articles for deletion/The Gaa Gaas the article was not deleted. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done now, thanks. Probably a script error.  Sandstein   11:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Appealing my tban
Hello Sandstain, I hope you had nice hollydays. I took the chance to spend more time with my family and friends. However, I am very sad because of what happened. I am one of those passionate editors which have no aspirations of becoming admins, but I take my role here very seriously. As only child, I grew-up reading encyclopedias, so Wikipedia became a passion of mine immediatelly. Its interactive, you can complete info, correct, and, of course, debate. Wikipedia launched the seed of a potential biggest and most complete encyclopedia ever to have been built by human kind.

My case is this one, User_talk:FkpCascais, which resulted from this report. As a personal remarc (after all, we are humans), I was dealing with sensitive situation in my personal life and it reflected in Wikipedia with me having much less patience than usually. What is really the problem? It is that all this nations have a minor groups of editors that work in synth in order to get the ideas they want to get trough the articles. However, this often means entering into conflict with other groups, or otherwise we wouldn´t have articulated the stories between the diverse articles. Another major problem is that fact that by cherry-picking sources one can write two totally opposite versions of one same event. That is when alliances between two against another are formed, I guess that this must sound comic for anyone normal, but it has been the norm in Wikipedia ever since. Editors are not here to find the truth but are here to impose their truth. The dispute resolution mechanisms often fail to deliver a quick and effective response, so POV-pushers know this, and when they cant have their own in the article, they will make endless discussions at talk-pages. If the opposing editor is persistent and seems to have a valid case, the next step is to try to eliminate that editor almost allways.

So what happened with me? I am one of a very few active Serbian editors. We are probably the nation with less active editors compared to country size. That is not a coincidence. That happened because many Serbian editors were constantly attacked and accused of nationalism for any minor thing. If a Serbian editor gatheres sources and stays strong, he would probably face an avalanche of attacks from editors from the neighbouring countries. Then we have also quite a lot of international editors which, remembering the 1990s, care many missconceptions and still apply the "Serbs are guilty" mentality. I am not saying they are wrong, each one is free to believe as he wants, but I just want to stress out that for us Serbs working on Wikipedia is much harder than the usual.

In this case what happened comes from about a month or two earlier. A series of Albanian (or Albanian origin) editors have been heavily rewriting all major articles related to Albania. That wouldn´t be a problem per se, however, the changes they are making is like making the articles look like a touristic brochure. I called the attention for it at Talk:Albania/Archive_11. There was added PEACOCK everywhere, everything became the best, greatest, newest, oldest, biggest, etc. For me it all started when I saw a pic of the Tirana airport saying it was one of the bussiest in the Balkans. Since aviation is an area I work a lot, and I contributed substantially to the List of the busiest airports in the Balkans, I obviously knew how wrong was saying that when the airport was 10th. Then I tryied to add some edits which were promptly reverted. I was always carefull to use only English-language reliable sources. I cant see how the year Ottomans came first time to Albanian coast is irrelevant, or how is that Kosovo is always used as Albanian ethnic space whenever the context for them is favourable, but they disallowed me to add that at the Battle of Kosovo Albanian contingent fought along Serbian side against Ottomans (a fact quite interesting and well documented).

I guess it is not hard to understand that Albanian history was very much linked to its neighbours, Serbia, Greece and Italy. By time they rewrote the entire article, Serbia/Serbs mention was left on only two occasions, and both negative! To see how biased this is, we can just see Albania Table of Contents (from countrystudies.us) and see that just for the period between Antiquity to late Middle Ages, Serbs/Serbia are cited 6 times, and beware this is a concise version. What is happening is that editors broke OWN and are writting the articles from their nowadays perspective. This is creating a highly unenciclopedic article where the best features are described and the rest hidden. For instance, the economy section speaks impressive numbers... but the fact that for a century Albania was known as the poorest country in Europe, is totally ommited. Just by googling thousands of results appear. Things need to be placed in context and reality must be shown. I wan´t feel good by Albania having been the poorest country, but I also don´t feel good with this propagandistic reinvention in which they also remove Serbian history and influence in the area.

Now, I understand everyone wants to present its country the best way, but giving green light to one group while eliminating the ones questioning certain issues, will not lead us to neutrality and objectivity. What we need is responsable editors from different places working all together trying to reach balanced articles.

The reason I was banned is because I brought a duzen of sources claiming Skanderebeg Serbian origin, and I was carefull not to bring any Serbian ones. I wasn´t trying to say Skanderbeg was Serbian, I just intended that the information about the number of sources backing Serbian origin claim to be added properly at the article. The area was by then ruled by Serbia, his grandfather fought at Czar Stefan Dushan army and receved property for his archivements. Those are important facts. We should discuss them and see a solution. I am not willing to accept that because of nowadays hateriot of Albanians against Serbs, this information is inconvenient, thus lets better punish the guy insisting on it. User:Deb had a perfect approach at the report. Calmed us all down and started looking for ways to solve this situation. I was alone, and the opposing editors found at my sandbox a text I translated from another author which I believe brings some interesting insigts about the fact that Serbian-Albanian conflict is a very recent event. I obviously don´t support all she says, neither am I racist, Islamophobist, or any of that. I grew up in a multicultural society, I love multicultralism.

User:Gerda Arendt was so kind that she considered me an awesome Wikipedian. And now I am topic banned for having brought 10 sources to raise a question and when ignored I asked for help at ANI and FuturePerfectSunrise (a admin I had many conflicts in past) sugests boomerang, and I am eliminated just like that? Sorry, but whoever sees the report can see how colaborative I am in trying to solve the issue, I even accepted my guilt that I have may been precipitated. And I receve a pure punishment, preciselly what should NOT happened, because wikipedia shoould block or ban preventivelly, not as punishment.

Sandstein, I believe you were too harsh on me, I honestly don´t even know exactly why I was topic banned? For taking a content dispite to ANI? For having a text in my sandbox which I never ever used anywhere at articles? I was never a vandal, I am an productive editor at many fields, but yes, they do all deal with the region I was born (I live in Portugal already 30 years) so that is how I kill my nostalgia. Would you please allow me to resume my normal editing? I promise I will obviously be extremelly carefull, and avoid disputes, btw, I have many football articles I have to update now. FkpCascais (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Further in my defense, you can see how I help other editors, for instance,, a new Bosnian football editor, you can see here how I have great cooperation with Albanian football editor Sadsadas, then here you can see the great collaboration we all have all from different countries, and you can even see BiHVolim, a stounch Bosnian nationalist, thanking me... All this editors see that I love my country, but that I am not a nationalist, and often count on me for helping them if they have doubts. Even my barnstars you can see I have from different nationalities, exemple, a funny one from a Croatian editor that says that even us disagreing and holding opposite views, we deserve half-stars for working things out. I cannot understand what view of me you got, but seems very wrong. I may have a bad day, but I am a staunch follower and defender of wiki rules and I usually try to do the best in each situation. This punishment has been very hard for me. FkpCascais (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I have not read this excessively long appeal. I have already told you in response to your several previous appeals that I will only consider lifting your topic ban after you have a substantial record of productive editing in other topic areas. I have not changed my opinion about this. I will not respond to further appeals.  Sandstein  07:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So where can I complain against this ban? I am just asking you to allow me to edit football. FkpCascais (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:AC/DS. You have already used the first two steps.  Sandstein   14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * SECTIONTITLE

Tom MacDonald (rapper)
Why was the Wikipedia page for Tom MacDonald deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1A12:8084:7546:3516:C11B:31C0 (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because there was consensus to delete the article in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Tom MacDonald (rapper).  Sandstein   08:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please Restore Unified Streaming
Hi Sandstein,

A little over a week ago I received a notice about Unified Streaming being nominated for deletion. While I regret not putting much effort into figuring out what that means, I now notice that the page was simply purged a week later. Note that while I only made minor changes recently, I was planning to improve the page. I'm disappointed that the page is no longer accessible and worried that I don't have the means to restore it myself.

Can you please restore the page (preferably including history) and/or explain what I should do to restore it?

Thanks, Tijnboon (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, discussion (such as it was) at Articles for deletion/Unified Streaming was that the topic failed our notability guideline, WP:GNG. Are you aware of any reliable sources that would indicate the contrary? If no such sources exist, the article isn't going to be restored.  Sandstein   11:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Sandstein - ok that sounds fair, although I'm presuming that you're concerned with "significant coverage" rather than reliability of the sources. That is, there might have been a link or two to press releases or the like, but I don't believe there was any contested info. I would also like to point out that wikipedia list several competing products (both open and proprietary) like Wowza Streaming Engine, GPAC Project on Advanced Content, Cameleon (software), etc. The information we want to add regards for instance pointers and descriptions to streaming video ingest, an ietf MPEG spec under development headed by this company. While in principle this information is all open to the public, it's scattered all over the internet  , frequently incomplete or outdated and generally hard to make put into perspective. We're in a position to bundle this in a paragraph which IMO would help the general public make sense of it. Similar paragraphs could be added on other subjects. Additionally, a word or two would be added about the history of company, its products and technologies.
 * The problem is that in the current situation, I have no means of changing or improving the article - not even in a sandbox - because it's purged and we don't have a back up. Tijnboon (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You talk of "we". Are you affiliated with Unified Streaming?  Sandstein   07:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed I am. I've known the founders for +10 years and I was involved with creation of the initial Wiki page. Does that complicate matters or make it easier? Tijnboon (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It complicates matters. Per our guideline WP:COI, you should not be editing articles you are personally involved with. You should wait until an editor without a conflict of interest recreates the article.  Sandstein   08:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nom AfD Withdrawal
Hi there,

I was hoping for a more experienced opinion - mostly as an area of interest rather than need, but it could be a rule issue (not that any harm has been done)

In this AfD, there was a nom, then an immediate Delete !vote "per nom".

After a bunch of Keeps, the nom decided to withdraw. Normally this can't be done if anyone else has registered a delete !vote first.

Does the fact that the !voter's "argument" is just "per nom" mean they have agreed to follow where the other has led, or is it as if they have written out the other's argument (in which case a change in the former doesn't change the latter)? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In my view, should not have closed their own nomination, because a good-faith "delete" opinion normally means that a nomination cannot be withdrawn. At least, they should have let another admin make the call. You can can ask them to undo their closure.   Sandstein   20:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The 'keep' arguments answered the question about notability in my mind. Had I let it run its course, I expect it would have been closed as 'keep' anyway, or at best 'no consensus'. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting The House of Fine Art page
Hi. I noticed that you deleted/removed the page The_House_of_Fine_Art. Can you kindly state some of your reasons for doing so? Thanks Wtoalabi (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Because there was consensus to delete the article in the discussion at Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art.  Sandstein   10:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that over one third of the people in the discussion wanted to keep the article, which doesn't sound at like a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1A12:8084:7546:3516:C11B:31C0 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY – consensus is reached by the strength of the arguments, not by the !vote count. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Bradv 🍁  01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Spectra Records
I'm going to express my displeasure with the procedure of this AfD. I know nothing of the merits, I can't see what was deleted. However, it was wiki linked off of an article I watch. That means it contributes to the content of that article. So there should be a notification to articles the potentially deleted content will affect. I can find no evidence that there was any attempt to notify such articles. Again, I watch, I would have participated if there was any issue with the potential deletion. I feel deprived of such an opportunity to comment. Trackinfo (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted. However, our deletion process does not require or otherwise provide for such notifications.   Sandstein   14:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry
Can you loosen or lift my TP?

I wanted to edit the article Jewish ghettos in Europe but noticed the section related to WW2 in Poland that stops me from doing so in accordance to the TP imposed (June last year). Link to my editing history in other topic areas to review is here.

Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As these 468 edits since July 2018 included per the editor interaction utility some 222 edits to 43 pages I edited (generally prior to GCB touching the page), I believe I had the (coincidental?) chance to observe many of these edits. I would like to comment that diff such as -
 * 04:04, 21 December 2018 (SYNTH to state Jewish origin of some communists - Jewish Bolshevism?).
 * 01:34, 16 January 2019 (making ghettos a "voluntary" thing).
 * 20:56, 18 November 2018 - violation of her Polish WWII TBAN - removing a critical review (that directly addresses the Holocaust, Jewish partisans) of the work of a very right-wing Polish historian.
 * 12:18, 11 December 2018 - another TBAN violation - Janicka is a scholar (of an opposite camp to Chodakiewicz) specializing in "categories of the description of Holocaust in the Polish dominant culture" (Shoah = Holocaust), "depiction of the Holocaust in art", "photographing concentration camps", who speaks on "Identity Panic: Counter-narratives of the Holocaust and their Institutionalization Beyond Political Cleavages (the Case of Poland) "When Denial Becomes State Policy: The Origins and Significance of the New Holocaust-Speech Law in Poland" (etc. etc.) who per GCB is a "random photographer". The article in question (on which GCB commented), was also being used to source: A 1942 article titled "The Jews in Polish Proverbs and Proverbial Expressions" published by the Division for Research on Jewry in the Kraków based Nazi research institute Institut für Deutsche Ostarbeit (IDO) claimed that Paradisus Judaeorum is a "proverb which provides a valid insight into the actual relations in Poland". (which was challenged by reversion prior to GCB's comment).
 * Do not instill confidence..Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, wouldn't they be OK to edit Jewish ghettos in Europe as long as they left the "Poland" and "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" sections alone? Just a thought. Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not inclined to tinker around the edges of topic bans because this often creates more overhead and confusion and boundary issues than it is worth. Please edit in other topic areas and use this work at a later time as evidence that you can work collegially with others and that the ban should therefore be lifted. I agree with the above that you can edit Jewish ghettos in Europe as long as you do not edit any content that relates to Poland during the World War II era.  Sandstein  14:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanksGizzyCatBella (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

ARCA archived
An amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  20:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting the Kred Influence Metric page
I noticed you deleted the Kred Influence Metric page. Kred is the most notable Influence Measurement tool available. Over 400K users and over 1M followers on Facebook. I believe you were maybe unsatisfied with the cited references and I think in my last edit to fix, the corrected links were overlooked. This page has been live for 8 years with no issue. Would appreciate guidance on improving the article instead of deletion. Thanks! 107.171.180.91 (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We have never had a page with the title Kred Influence Metric.  Sandstein   12:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies! I meant Kred Influence Measurement CameronBale (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This article was deleted per the discussion in Articles for deletion/Kred Influence Measurement. Are you associated with this company or product?  Sandstein   16:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. Yes I am associated with Kred. This page was live for many years with no issue and we wanted to have it updated to reflect recent milestones and media coverage. Following BTCGeek's comments I found that the Alexa rank was outdated because the homepage URL of the product had changed, and have since removed the Alexa rank altogether. I also added in numerous additional reliable sources which I believe were overlooked. BTCGeek cited that "Promotional information keeps getting added back" which I believe relates to when the page was restored so that it could be updated, following him/her deleting 90% of the page's contents. All we want is a page that fairly represents the brand and we appreciate your guidance in achieving that. CameronBale (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Because of our conflict of interest rules (WP:COI), you should not edit articles related to your own business. I will therefore not restore the article on your behalf. Wait for an uninvolved editor to recreate it if they find it important.  Sandstein   23:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Restoring the page:Runcie C.W Chidebe
Dear, I just realized that the page I created, Runcie Chidebe was deleted by you. I have contented against the deletion in 2016/2017 with reasons. But seeing it deleted now is not the right action. I humbly request you to restore the page..... The subject is notable and significant....You can search about him. If the page cannot be restored, what can we do...

Remember....one good quality about wikipedia community is to improve information..... I have helped to improved so many articles Wikinaija (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * We have never had a page with the title Runcie Chidebe or Runcie C.W Chidebe.  Sandstein   16:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion process
Hi Sandstein. I am very new and untutored in Wikipedia. I don't know how to write one single letter and get it on the page. I followed you and managed to glean this page might workas a start point. I want to support your proposal to delete the ~ Katelyn Nicole Davis ~ page. But I don't know how to do that. Can you help me? Thank you HER KNIGHT (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not my proposal, I'm just enabling the process as an administrator. Please see WP:Deletion process for how this works.  Sandstein   16:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Creating an article for Record Artist and Record Producer "K-R.O.K"
Hi Sandstein,

Good morning or afternoon,

This is K-R.O.K 1/2 of the famous group P.M. Dawn. I am looking to get an article created for me by someone who knows how wikipedia works. I have had several pages that got denied for no reason with reliable resources from major press outlets that mentioned my name both being in my group P.M. Dawn and also outside of P.M. Dawn as a record producer.I have also produced records for major artist that are featured on wikipedia and shows proof of charting on billboards. If possible could u please help? I can send you any resources that you need or you can just google K-R.O.K P.M. Dawn. Lastly, you can go on All music.com or Spotify and look up P.M. Dawn and you could see all of my info on there.

Thanks

K-R.O.K.

(Kroktheproducer (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC))


 * Hi. Sorry, I'm not writing articles on behalf or others or on topics I'm not interested in.  Sandstein   18:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of population centers by coordinates
Hi, you closed this AFD and deleted the talk page but the article didn't get deleted for some reason, if you could do that. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 04:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done now (script error), thanks.  Sandstein   10:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Move
move to draft please https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uma_Devi_(actress)
 * Why? And who is this?  Sandstein   10:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to improve it when I get reference so please move it Iamheentity (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   20:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Louis Sola
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Louis Sola. 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. 2605:6000:EE46:2300:F84E:D2C0:57D2:74FD (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sise-Neg
I do not know why but the outcome of the deletion was to delete this article per the deletion process. You deleted the article per the consensus to delete, voted "do not delete and merge/keep". All others on the Articles for deletion for Sise-Neg voted deletion as a credible fail of WP:GNG. Now, since voted to keep or merge in their rationale, he re-created the article, and redirected to Marvel Premiere. Given those logs above, and the XfD closure, I am in a fluttering stickiness to pure confusion. Anything I am missing? Or is it valid enough to do that? Given a clear consensus to delete? Thanks, I just thought to bring this up to your notice. Regards 182.58.231.246 (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)