User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/July

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Monica Observer
Hi Sandstein, I'm completely new and clueless, so please bear with me. I left some info in the talk section of [|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Monica Observer]and I am asking you for help since I see you participated in the deletion discussion. Please respond by PM if possible. Thank you.Chrisedits7 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please clarify your request or provide a working link to it.  Sandstein   18:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears vomited a bunch of text onto Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santa Monica Observer that should have been taken to WP:REFUND.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Would it be possible to restore the page List of people with autism spectrum disorders?
Hello,

I notice that you closed the deletion discussion on List of people with autism spectrum disorders as delete. However, there is a List of people with bipolar disorder article, which was nominated but kept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_with_bipolar_disorder. There is also a List of people with major depressive disorder article. The definitions of ASD, bipolar, and major depressive disorder all rely on vague diagnostic criteria, so vague criteria shouldn't be a reason for deletion.

Some people were concerned that the article was portraying a link between autism and violence; however, many studies nowadays have shown that only a minority of autistic individuals are violent, which is also true for most groups. It would be unfair to most famous autistic people that they cannot have this list like other groups because of the actions of a small minority. Ylevental (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No. This doesn‘t address the BLP problems for which the list was deleted.  Sandstein   05:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand better after reviewing the articles carefully. The List of people with autism spectrum disorders was pushing an agenda, whereas the other two were not. Ylevental (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent closure of AfD
Hi Sandstein, you close Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Metairie as merge. Would you please reconsider this decision? Merging does not make sense here since the article contains only one source which is not reliable (see WP:RSN#Emporis.com). Also, you may not be aware that the article was listed at Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list since it was never disclosed. Two of the votes came from its members. One of them cited WP:PRESERVE to justify merging, but unreliable information should not merged.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I've relisted the AfD.  Sandstein   06:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Why our page was deleted by you?
Good day! We are an independent music project based in kingston Jamaica. We are professional musicians who write record and produce our own music. We work very hard to get our message of positivity, equality and positive attitude all around the world. We just noticed that our Wiki page was deleted on July 6 by you - Orisha Sound. Please explain the reason for such action. It feels very discriminating and hateful. It took us a long time to crate our page and get it up. Please, can we get our page back - it’s a bio of us as an artist with music releases and information about our music. Regards Orisha Sound — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.220.227.46 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see Articles for deletion/Orisha Sound for the reasons why Orisha Sound was deleted.  Sandstein   19:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Uphold Page Deleted
Hi there,

I am the VP of communications at Uphold (formerly Bitreserve), it has come to my attention our Wikipedia page was deleted earlier this year. We have been in business sice 2013 and have extensive coverage across media, relevant investor articles and every other qualifying complaint users listed to have the page deleted. I would be happy to provide whatever information you/community are looking for to have the page reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:170C:6D00:55B7:D038:B122:AED3 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read Articles for deletion/Uphold. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Reinstate a revised page for Paria Porsche?
Hi there, last year you deleted the page [Parnia Porsche] due to issues around notability. However, since then she has appeared in various tv (alongside Charlie Sheen) and also interviewed him. The old page is locked but I was wondering could I recreate a page for her with new links and information (which I feel meets criteria and is publicly worthwhile). I'm not sure how to go about unlocking the page as I am not an administrator. Many thanks Kelmoo (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What are the three best new sources that you think convey notability per WP:GNG?  Sandstein   07:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Closure of AfD
Your recent closure of Articles for deletion/North Hudson, New Jersey and Articles for deletion/West Hudson, New Jersey was made without any explanation of the rationale. There appears to be a clear consensus to keep both articles. Would you review the discussion more carefully? The the nomination rationale is partially personal opinion. Any policy-based arguments have been corrected and editors for ivote delete have chosen not to address the re-write of the article or references provided. Can you please revert you action and leave it open and allow another editor to close the discussion providing an explanation for their decision? Thank you.Djflem (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see a consensus to keep. There are multiple "delete" opinions with what seem to be prima facie valid arguments. The result is the same, though: the articles are kept.  Sandstein   09:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which prima facie arguments are you specifically referring to? I think a look under the surface will demonstrate that only policy based argument for deletion were based on GEOLAND. The ivote for deletion participants did not respond to re-write or or being personally invited through pinging to looking at how the concern was addressed. They even agreed that indeed the places known as North Hudson and West Hudson do exist, didn't they? The nominator (who's declarations of ignorance about the place or the name are not policy) or others did not present satisfactory reason for deletion, whereas the ivaote keep did agree that the article is well-referenced and verifiable. That needs to be taken into consideration and it doesn't seem it was.Djflem (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I edit-conflicted with Sandstein but I would have !voted delete. (And, I think NC is a proper call). &#x222F; WBG converse 14:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem, I note that you disagree, but several people were of the view that these were mere geographic indications, as in "the south of Spain", rather than distinct places treated as such. It's not for me to determine that they're wrong, even if their view did not obtain consensus.  Sandstein   14:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:AE
Sorry if I used the wrong template, I'm seeing it now, I suppose. Should I delete it and start over? Submit another one and request that be closed? Or should I just let it run? I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here...if there is a "right thing". I recognize my behavior is in question, so I'm trying to do this correctly. Thanks in advance for your help. Buffs (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I think we can work with what we have now.  Sandstein   22:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * [ec] Thank you! Buffs (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Related comment, the directions state
 * Click here to add a new enforcement request
 * For appeals: create a new section and use the template
 * I took that to mean start at the top to click and add a new enforcement request. Perhaps it could be rephrased:
 * Click here to request new enforcement actions
 * Click here to appeal an enforcement action
 * Or something like that. I'm not touching anything until this is over. I don't want to be accused of disrupting processes. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * @Buffs, I think everybody on that page is sympathetic to the template situation, and it's a good reminder for us that discretionary sanctions are complicated, especially for people who don't have experience with anything related to Arbcom. ~Awilley (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Buffs (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Omnibussimulator (AFD)
...is at Deletion review/Log/2019 July 16, and this is your pro-forma notification. —Cryptic 21:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sani Mohammed
Thanks for that Correction (Wazirinbida (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Avlu
Hello Sandstein. I have added this tag to the page. Could you please delete the page? I should have created a subpage first. Puduḫepa 07:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Please make sure to publish articles in a form that establishes notability per WP:GNG, i.e. with sources, or they may be deleted before you get a chance to improve them further.  Sandstein   07:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the deletion and for the useful link, Sandstein. By the way, is an article with under construction template deleted? Just wondering. Puduḫepa 08:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An article can be deleted even if it has this template, yes. This is why it is better to prepare articles in userspace and to move them into main space only when they are viable as a minimal article.  Sandstein   08:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw your POINTY nom of Kyoto Animation studio fire
Your nom has SNOW failed, best to withdraw now. Abductive (reasoning) 11:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's done and dusted now, no need for further action.  Seldom have I seen such a clear indication of unified consensus.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Zdravko Juričko
Hello Sandstein, just wanted to ask you if I could have that article recreated? It is about a historical Croatian footballer, who passes WP:FOOTYN, and has no controversies at all at any level. It is not a very long article, I think it will not take you more then a pair of minutes to check it out and tell me if you find any problems in it. It is not urgent, so whenever you find time to see if you can do this for me, I will be extremelly gratefull. Kindest regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   19:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you very much Sandstein! FkpCascais (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Meaning
Your prose is almost invariably impeccably lucid (however much a ratbag like myself might contest its conclusions), but I found the following a non-sequitur because of the idiom used. Perhaps you might rephrase it for clarity? "'the attitude of some veteran contributors and admin that anybody who does good work gets to be a jerk.'"

That means, to this reader at least, that in your view there is a lamentable situation in which some veterans, general contributors or admins, consider anybody (=everybody) who do does solid work here to be an imbecile.' That may be what you intended, but either doesn't fit the context or leaves the intended point suspended in obscurity. Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks - no, I meant that these people are of the view that those who do good content work have the right to be a jerk. I'll amend this.  Sandstein   10:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. Sorry for the niggling, but there it mattered. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Check Yourself Screening Tool - Deleting Page
Hi, Thank you for your time discussing my article on Check Yourself Screening tool. I'm a recent graduate and my core part of research is suicide prevention tools in North America. Based on my research, I found this tool which has been associated to saving lives in USA, hence decided to put it in wikipedia.

I apologize for my writing that showed signs of advertising, I request that if the advertising tone can be highlighted i can make changes there. Other substance absue tools such as CRAFFT, AUDIT and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_Use_Disorders_Identification_Test are in wikipedia.

Your guidance is much appreciated.

My article is now deleted and moved here https://en.everybodywiki.com/Check_Yourself_Screening_Tool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asargana96 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Without a link to the deletion discussion I can't comment on that.  Sandstein   14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

???
Since when does a 1-1 vote qualify for deletion???
 * We don't vote on Wikipedia. I don't know what you refer to.  Sandstein   14:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @GWFrog: If you mean Articles for deletion/Encorps Drum and Bugle Corps, then not only do we not vote, but there were two participants that gave sound, policy-based reasons for deleting the article, and then there was your comment that wasn't backed up by Wikipedia policy. (If anything, it misinterpreted policy.) Even with the low participation, I think Sandstein got this one right. I would endorse this deletion if it went to deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

AfD Close
Just wanted to thank you for the close you’ve just done on that sf author. Roxy, the dog . wooF 10:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Your opinion was thoroughly researched, thoroughly explained, and cogently reasoned, start to finish. I regret that you suggested that the article should be renominated in the future, because it means we'll go through all this again, but that was within your power to suggest. Thanks for your work. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I had long deliberated on closing it myself. My conclusion might not have been the same as yours, but well done and thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for an adept close, Sandstein. The discussion was at times heated and personal. Do you think there's a case for Template:Xfd-privacy? Haukur (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback,everybody. I don't think a blanking of the AfD needs to be considered unless somebody makes a request for privacy.  Sandstein   07:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that your close is very well reasoned. I oppose making the conversation private. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing our edits?
Hello, we are the archivists at Lombard Odier in Geneva and wanted to improve the article relating to the bank, which is quite sub-par. We proposed a new version on the talk page, and the editor who replied to us kindly suggested we see with people from the Wikiproject Switzerland, where your user name is listed (we since also made a first round of improvements and fixed some formatting issues): here is the new draft.

Unfortunately the project's talk page sees little activity, and I'd like to come back to the editor with a strong consensus on the Project Switzerland side.

To be clear, the very same text has been posted in other languages (French, Spanish, German, and Italian), with editors there helpfully pitching in/editing afterwards (as you know, German also implements gesichtete Versionen, so this text had to be reviewed by someone before appearing publicly). We're entirely fine with the article living its own life and being edited by anyone, we understand it and actually like the idea that people can research and improve content (we are big readers too!).

So if you have time, would you mind having a look and telling me if you see anyhing of concern, changes to be done, or if you think the new text is ready to go live here as well?

Thanks a million and best regards, Hello at LO (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being open about who you are and what you are about, but I'm not interested in the topic.  Sandstein   16:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Michael Z. Williamson
I think you got that one right. Sad story, but what can you do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And ... though it didn't factor into the decision, it has to be said ... what a nice person the subject is. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)