User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/March

Tatzref AE
Sandstein, I posted my comment right after the thread closed; I hope you don't mind me moving this here:


 * I would still like to hear from if a. there's a COI with the Polish-Canadian Congress (KPK); and b. what he means when he says that "Collaborating with one of these states [Soviet Union] in furthering these goals constituted de facto collaboration with the other [Nazi Germany]." This reads uncomfortably close to Jew-Bolshevik construct of Nazi propaganda and / or  the Jews had it coming. (Since there was no comment from Tatzref on that during the AE, perhaps he can supply the answer here). --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban
Since you've closed the AE thread and since you note in your close that there is substantial disagreement over your topic ban (from at least three other admins - User:Black Kite, User:Drmies and User:Bishonen, and perhaps User:Newyorkbrad) I am formally asking you to reconsider your decision (per #1 here) and rescind the topic ban. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the topic ban is not or no longer necessary?  Sandstein   08:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, I can't say that I think it was necessary in the first place - you're incorporating an obviously contentious conclusion inside your question (that it was indeed necessary). It seems that multiple admins agree with me. There was no disruption on my part in the actual topic area as far as article content or talk page discussions are concerned. Your issue was with a statement I made at WP:AE. Now, contrary to your assertion, most of my comment (all but one or two sentences - and I'm pretty wordy) did in fact directly address the issues raised by the original poster. That's why my "points" were numbered - so that it would be easy to see exactly which of the original issues they referred to. I understand that you think that those one or two sentences were problematic and yeah, I can see that. Had you asked me to strike them I would have been happy to do so. Had you issued a warning I would have heeded it. If you had instructed me to provide further evidence or open a new AE request, I would have done so. But you did not make that possible.
 * I can promise however that I will not refer to the editors involved as a "tag-team" in the future and I'll refrain from discussing the possible motivations that the relevant editor might have for filing WP:AE requests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * VM has but recently cast WP:ASPERSIONS on an article talk page - 16:19, 26 February 2019 - suggesting some sort of connection between me an a sockpuppet. His assertion that a local publication (funded by the municipality) is a "And the source is reliable" - is not discussion of the challenge, but merely semblance of discussion. And this for rather glaring WP:REDFLAG content of "During Nazi occupation Poles and Jews were targeted for extermination" combined diff. He also reverted content 06:36, 24 February 2019 subject to the recent AE without any discussion on the talk page (still open), and furthermore stating at AE that " For the record, I have no access to Kopciowski either." - 05:59, 26 February 2019 (one of the source in question) - which is a shocking statement when when reverting an edit challenged for being a misrepresentation of sources and containing WP:REDFLAG content. I made that removal after specifically checking Kopciowski (among other sources) and seeing that it does not support "Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed". Reverting without even a semblance of verifying cited sources when it has been challenged as a misrepresentation is disruptive.Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, how about you stay out of this discussion between myself and Sandstein? You can bring your complaints elsewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely convinced. Your appeal, above, acknowledges that "those one or two sentences were problematic" and you write that you will "refrain from discussing the possible motivations" at AE. That's a good start. But I am disappointed that you expected a warning first. You are an experienced editor and have been the target of multiple AE sanctions. You do not need a warning, particularly given that in the very post at issue you outlined the conduct expectations that you yourself violated with the same post. You know that the Arbitration Committee's expectation is that all editors are on their best behavior in AE topic areas. And you do not convince me that you understand why I considered it necessary to impose the sanction: that your intervention as a whole - beyond one or two sentences - was not helpful in resolving the AE request against Tatzref, but that it compounded and continued the problem of battleground-like conduct in the Eastern Europe topic area, in that it cast the existing disagreements as a conflict between ideologically opposed groups rather than as presumably legitimate differences in point of view.
 * Your intervention was disruptive and unnecessary. At AE, I do not care a whit about your or any other user's personal opinions about the conduct of the parties. The only kind of comments by third parties that I welcome at AE are those which help me as a reviewing admin assess the complaint at hand, by briefly providing new, relevant evidence in the form of diffs. Otherwise, you should stay out of AE, and you should certainly not further inflame a dispute.
 * For these reasons, I remain of the view that the topic ban remains necessary to prevent further disruption of this kind by you. But in recognition of your partial acknowledgment of your problematic conduct, I reduce its duration to one month. You remain free to appeal this reduced ban in the venues provided for at WP:AE.  Sandstein   11:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Sandstein, thanks--that's something. I agree with you that VM's comments in that thread were not useful. I also agree that for a seasoned editor a warning is unnecessary. VM has been at many an arbitration case, and I think a general conclusion about his editing summarizes as something like "yeah, VM has a tendency to be a hothead but his edits are typically neutral and well-sourced". I think also that in the course of time VM is going from "seasoned" to "mature", haha, if I am allowed to patronize him a bit here (I know, I'm casting stones from inside a glass house). Anyway, I'm happy you reduced the topic ban, even if I wish you'd done away with it altogether. Thank you, and Marek, take care. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Deletion
I have not been on Wikipedia for some time. I noticed that you deleted an article that I contributed on "Henry Burkhardt III." May I ask why this article was deleted? Thanks.

JJ (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Henry Burkhardt III. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep
Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice
I have noticed 2 of the AFDs you closed as delete were not actually deleted: Articles for deletion/McKenzie Lee. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like a script error.  Sandstein   11:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Food waste in the Netherlands
Hi Sandstein

I just saw you have removed most of what I added about food waste in the netherlands. I was wondering what is wrong with the content I provided from Wageningen university. Also I was wondering about the list of active organisations of this issue which you removed. Would love to learn what is wrong with it all. Thank you in advance Cobynrg (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Coby Babani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobynrg (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. your edit had the following issues from my point of view:
 * Redundancy: Much of what you write is not specific to the Netherlands, but is an issue with all food waste wordwide. These matters are already covered in the article, and to cover them again would be redundant. This applies to the following text: "This wastage takes place in all parts of the supply chain and comprises losses in harvesting by farmers, losses during processing and transport of food, unsold products in supermar-kets and in companies such as caterers and food thrown away by the consumer. For each separate batch of food lost, the amount of waste may be relatively small, but added together, the total quantity food wasted is large. There are many owners of the food waste problem: chain actors, consumers and government. So if food waste is to be tackled, many actors will need to be taken into account within the total food system."
 * Copyright violation: It looks like you copied this text straight from the source. This is not allowed, see WP:COPYVIO.
 * Advocacy: Wikipedia is a neutral reference work, and we do not promote specific causes or points of view. See WP:NPOV. It is therefore inappropriate to write "Luckily, there are many actors in the Netherlands which are working hard on reducing food waste". Also, the long list of non-notable organization that follows appears promotional, at least as long as they don't have articles.  Sandstein   15:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi.

Thank you for your reply. I understand the redundancy, Copywrite, and Advocacy issues, I will go and read carefully the rules before continuing to write. About the list of organisations, they were all in Red, and A friend/colleague and me are working on creating pages for these organisations, some of them international networks, all fomidable and existing. So we put them in Red, indicating the pages are coming. Is it not a valid way to do it? We believe that the whole issue of food waste needs more national context, and are working on improving the Dutch side of it, we think this information is important to have in Wikipedia, the differences between the solutions offered in many countries is very diverse, and is interesting and important knowledge to share world wide. Please let me know your opinion, I'm interested in doing it right. Thanx again Cobynrg (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This approach is in principle valid if there is reason to believe that these organizations will likely all have an article of their own. But the requirements for that are relatively stringent, see WP:ORG. You should therefore first write these articles (or some of them), and if they are not deleted, you can re-add them to Food waste.  Sandstein   16:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Retroactive unblock request, and topic ban appeal.
Hi : -- LumaNatic (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't do that. Once a block has expired, it cannot be undone, and there would be no point in that, because you can edit now.  Sandstein   21:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As to the topic ban, I can't undo that either, as it was placed by the community. You'd need to appeal it to the community.  Sandstein   21:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * hmm... ok. And "the community?" You mean the original editors who initiated the ban? LumaNatic (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The community at large. See WP:CBAN  Sandstein   17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Tatzref AE
Response to post by K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Sandstein,
 * 1. I am well aware of Wikipedia’s COI guidelines, and respect them. Has K.e.coffman been designated as Wikipedia’s enforcement arm in this regard? He/she appears to have assumed that function by reverting recent edits of mine, for example, in the articles on “Jan Grabowski” and “Maus,” because I don’t respond to his queries:
 * 06:05, 3 March 2019 diff hist -1,500‎  Jan Grabowski (historian) ‎ Reverted to revision 885890045 by K.e.coffman (talk): Please address COI / NPOV queries before editing contentious topics, for example here:User_talk:Sandstein#Tatzref_AE (TW) Tag: Undo
 * 05:11, 5 March 2019 diff hist -129‎  Maus ‎ Undid revision 886005122 by Tatzref (talk) -- Please address COI / NPOV queries before editing contentious topics, for example here: User_talk:Tatzref#Query currentTag: Undo
 * Is this appropriate? If not, shouldn’t it be sanctioned? It will become clear why I choose not to chat with him/her on my talk page.


 * 2. Since I joined Wikipedia in May 2018, Icewhiz and Yaniv (יניב הורון) have been systematically deleting my edits, often for entirely spurious reasons. (Yaniv was recently blocked indefinitely from editing for “Tendentious editing across multiple topic areas and time frames.”) K.e.coffman has tagged along, helping them in this endeavour. For example, Bogdan Musial’s 2009 book “Sowjetische Partisanen 1941-1944: Mythos und Wirklichkeit,” published by the prestigious publishing house Ferdinand Schoningh, which contains information about the Bielski partisans, was removed from the article “Bielski Partisans” by several kindred editors, among them K.e.coffman, even after I pointed out that Yehuda Bauer, a leading Israeli Holocaust historian, called this book by a professional historian “a most important contribution” to the academic literature in a review in Yad Vashem Studies. The various reasons they gave to eliminate this book included: “part of a POV-pushing exercise” (Pinkbeast) “highly questionable fringe” (Icewhiz), “in foreign language” (K.e.Coffman), “non-English fringe work” (Icewhiz). This was done even though the reading list included works by a journalist and non-professional historian whom they liked and the notes included several Polish language newspaper articles.
 * 02:55, 28 May 2018‎ Pinkbeast (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,792 bytes) -137‎ . . (And remove this one, given it's part of the same POV-pushing exercise.)
 * 06:16, 28 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,929 bytes) +137‎ . . (Highly questionable fringe SPS.)
 * 15:03, 28 May 2018‎ Tatzref (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,929 bytes) +137‎ . . (→‎Further reading: Musial's book was called “a most important contribution” by historian Yehuda Bauer in Yad Vashem Studies)
 * 00:30, 30 May 2018‎ K.e.coffman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,592 bytes) -1,337‎ . . (rm per wp:further - in foreign lang; dead links; personal web sites; etc.) (undo)
 * 23:05, 31 May 2018‎ Tatzref (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,251 bytes) +659‎ . . (→‎Further reading) [INCLUDING FULL REFERENCE TO BAUER’S REVIEW]
 * 07:16, 1 June 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,592 bytes) -659‎ . . (Undid revision 843878281 by GizzyCatBella (talk) No consensus to include this non-English fringe work) (undo) Tag: Undo
 * It would be difficult to find a more clear-cut case of POV-pushing.


 * 3. I too have concerns about these editors. How are they linked? (They are staunch supporters of each other, even the blocked Yaniv.) How is that Icewhiz can singlehandedly perform all of these edits without assistance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Icewhiz How is it that he/she can devote what appears to be a pattern of regular weekday work hours (see Time Card) without remuneration: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/icewhiz Whom is he/she affiliated with?


 * 4. It would be helpful if K.e.coffman set out the quotation found in GizzyCatBella’s talk page in full: “The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies from August 1939 to June 1941. They acted in concert to destroy the Polish state and its leadership, and to persecute Poles. Collaborating with one of these states in furthering these goals constituted de facto collaboration with the other.” Furthermore, the matter has been discussed at length here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust/Archive_3#Use_of_self-published_(?)_material_by_Mark_Paul I don’t intend to rehash the discussion, nor do I believe I have to account to K.e.coffman. This is yet another example where it appears he/she has taken an enforcement role upon him/herself. I would note, however, that Alicja Jarkowska-Natkaniec, a respected scholar associated with the Jagiellonian University’s history department, recently recognized Mark Paul’s “Patterns of Cooperation, Collaboration and Betrayal: Jews, Germans and Poles in Occupied Poland during World War II” as an important and balanced study in her monograph “Wymuszona współpraca czy zdrada? Wokół przypadków kolaboracji Żydów w okupowanym Krakowie” (Kraków: Universitas, 2018), at p. 33-34. That author has impeccable academic credentials: http://fellowships.claimscon.org/fellows/cohort-xi-academic-year-2018-2019/jarkowska-natkaniec-alicja/. Tatzref (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Tatzref, it's not clear to me what you want me to do about this. I do not have the time to follow this up on my own. If you believe administrator action is warranted, please make a request at WP:ANI, WP:SPI or WP:AE as appropriate, with diffs as evidence.  Sandstein   10:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ahmed Romel
Greetings! Last year, you closed Articles for deletion/Ahmed Romel as delete. Today, attempted to recreate the page. I have deleted it under CSD G4, because it's a near-copy of what was deleted after the AfD.

However, on reflection, I have concerns about the limited participation in the AfD. Since you were the closing administrator, I want your comments. Do you think the discussion ended with more of a soft delete, so the article can be recreated on demand? Are you okay with the recreation of the article? Alternatively, are you okay with recreation followed by a move to draft space? Worst case, would you like the article put up for consideration at WP:Deletion review?

Please let me know what you think. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. As far as I am concerned, any recreation should only take place after the AfD's concerns have been convincingly addressed. The AfD participation was low, but that's nothing unusual.  Sandstein   21:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's why I had recreating to send to draft as an option, so that they could work on the text and see if they can get it up to mainspace standards. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I personally strongly disapprove of draftspace - users should improve articles in their own userspace, like in the good old days, and take responsibility for them. But the community thinks otherwise. I don't think that it is my place to object if you think it worth the trouble to restore this to draftspace.  Sandstein   08:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?
I just stumbled upon this (as you can see, I am not involved in the discussion, the diff just popped up on my watchlist). I may disagree with you on a number of issues, but I respect your view on others, and here I'd like to ask if you consider this type of comment about an ethnic editor group and their POV something that should merit some sort of warning or is it within the bounds of acceptable discourse? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that we disagree on anything specific? At least, I can't recall anything. The edit you point to exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND problems, in my view. A discretionary sanctions notification could be a useful first step.  Sandstein   10:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we disagree on the application and usefulness of topic ban vs more specific civility restrictions per prior discussion :> Regarding dsn, can anyone do it or is it for admins only? And if anyone, is there a handy template? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb Leviv&thinsp;ich 02:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anybody can do it. See WP:AC/DS.  Sandstein   19:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Snowtab in the Void
I just noticed this, my page Snowtab in the Void was deleted by or because of you. I can accept the fact that you deleted the real page, but you also deleted my user page. I blanked the page because i never wanted the page to be permanent, i was testing how to create pages from user pages, if you could reply that'd be appreciated Ryan Jay (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please link to the user page that you think I deleted.  Sandstein   12:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was User:Mariofan3/sandbox (which they've since re-created on the same subject...) Black Kite (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any record of User:Mariofan3/sandbox ever having been deleted?  Sandstein   08:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake. It was User:Mariofan3/Snowtab_in_the_Void.  Their sandbox is a similar type of thing, though. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void exists, and I seem to only have deleted a redirect, so I'm not sure what the problem is.  Sandstein   19:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

/* Talkback */ Reinstate page for Parnia Porsche
Hi, my page for Parnia Porsche was deleted a while ago but I wanted to suggest reinstating the page with new content. Her profile has increased hugely as she was in a recent ad in Australia but also has interviewed Charlie Sheen and been on a few covers with him which has generated a lot of exposure. Her notability as a model has increased substantially since my last edit and thought I could create a new revised page if possible. Currently it has been locked so I cannot do that at the moment. Would that be possible? Many thanks Kelmoo (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which new sources for Parnia Porsche that meet WP:GNG have appeared since the closure of Articles for deletion/Parnia Porsche (3rd nomination) on 26 November 2018?  Sandstein   20:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review issue.
Hello! I have found Articles for deletion/Mashinky (video game), which got some coverage since then and seems to be a pass of WP:GNG. Since I know you do not restore deleted articleS (or even userificationS), I wanted to know if it is okay to ask on Deletion Review for restoration/userification? Regards. Just in case you may want to consider anything, sources are: Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Rock, Paper, Shotgun (reliable sources to use per WikiProject_Video_games/Sources)
 * 2. PC Gamer
 * 3. iDNES.cz
 * 4. Czech Radio


 * You can ask for userfication at WP:REFUND, it's faster. You can then recreate the article if coverage has significantly improved.  Sandstein   21:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

please undo that joke
Yes, he's upset and making inappropriate comments. We can all see that., but playing jokes with someone's signature after you've blocked him is not appropriate,and is only going to inflame things. . Meters (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was unintended, some sort of editing mistake. I'lll undo it.  Sandstein   23:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. It seemed out of character. Meters (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Chandrashekhar Naringrekar page deletion
I noticed that Wikipedia lacked a page on the eminent surbahar player Chandrashekhar Naringrekar (1936–2005). A little digging showed that the page had existed, but had been deleted because of a consensus that it did not meet notability guidelines. I think this raises an important question about how "notability" is assessed in fields where knowledge transmission is largely oral, such as Indian classical music; and where primary source materials are hard to come by, as relevant citations (music reviews, newspaper bios) are likely to be in languages other than English, and in sources that are not online.

Naringrekar is widely considered to be one of the foremost exponents of the surbahar, a relatively rare instrument. Biographical information about him is hard to come by. I have liner notes from some of his recordings from back in the 1980s and 1990s, and scattered references to him can be found online. Additionally, ~30 of his performances are up on YouTube, some from bootlegs, other from commercial releases. That might not seem like a lot, but he made only a handful of recordings—not at all unusual for an Indian classical musician of his time. He was well known enough to have released recordings in Germany (on the Makar label) and the US (on CBS), in addition to a handful in India. A partial list of his recordings is in the third post on this discussion forum page, and yes, I can provide links to the recordings. He also played on George Harrison's first solo album, Wonderwall Music. All those are non-trivial achievements. I'm happy to provide references from liner notes and web pages, but I need a starting point. If the page is made available for edits pending review for undeletion, I can make some edits.

I do think it's worth pointing out that insisting on cited (printed/online) sources for articles on Indian classical music shows a lack of understanding of how the music is transmitted. It is taught in an apprenticeship fashion, and as an apprentice, one gains not only technique but lore from one's master. Naringrekar's artistry is part of the lore transmitted to any intermediate level sitar or surbahar player. The fact that "relevant news sources" don't exist in sufficient quantity to impress Wikipedia's editors seems rather irrelevant in context; and in fact, deleting a page on that basis just perpetuates the problem that Naringrekar appears to be an unknown. He's not.

Incidentally, I'm not even a sitar or surbahar player. I know of Naringrekar simply because most serious listeners of Indian classical music my age (let's just say I'm not in my 20s any more) would have heard of him.

Psurajit (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. Chandrashekhar Naringrekar was deleted per the discussion at Articles for deletion/Chandrashekhar Naringrekar. Consensus was that the subject failed our inclusion guidelines WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Do you have references to reliable sources that would indicate otherwise? I'm afraid that, per our policies and practice, reliable published sources are necessary to support the inclusion of any article, irrespective of the particularities of any specific field.   Sandstein   09:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Meat
Hello Sandstein, I just made the following edit: and explained my reasoning in the edits. I feel like the sentence reads better this way, but I defer to your experience. Please review and let me if you think my thought process is reasonable. Thanks. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the query. I think that "The animals which are now the principal sources of meat" is better than "Many of the animals which are now the principal sources of meat consumption":
 * "Many" implies that there are other animals which are principal meat sources which have not been domesticated. Which animals would that be? That's also not what the reference says.
 * Meat is a resource, consumption is an activity. Something can be a source of a resource (a source of water, coal, etc.), but not a source of an activity (drinking water, burning coal, etc.). "Sources of meat" is therefore correct, in my view. It's also the reference's wording.  Sandstein   08:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Dagger
Hello Sandstein, I've made improvements to the article at Draft:Dagger (zine), and it's nearly three times as long. I listed it at AfC, which directed me to DRV, and then to notify you, the closing administrator. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, but I have no time to form an opinion on this matter, so you need not be concerned with my point of view.  Sandstein   12:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Nostlagia Critic Episodes
Hello. How different is this article to the article deleted following WP:Articles for deletion/List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (3rd nomination) et al, please? Note that the redirect List of Nostalgia Critic episodes was created by a blocked sockpuppet, a month after you deleted the original. Thanks, Flapjacktastic (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted per G4. I can't display the original List of Nostalgia Critic episodes because of technical issues with the number of history entries, but from memory it's more or less identical.  Sandstein   18:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Löschung von 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis
Hallo,

nachdem das Keep entschieden ist, kann nun der entsprechende Löschvermerk im englischsprachigen Artikel entfernt werden?

Leiprecht (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems that it already has been removed.  Sandstein   14:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Steven Swartz
Could you delete Steven Swartz ? It is a copyvio, is very promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.190.40 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Already done by somebody else.  Sandstein   16:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wang Linkai (Xiao Gui)
Hi Sandstein, I'm contacting you because you're the admin who closed the AfD Articles for deletion/Xiao Gui (musician) last year (as redirect). I voted Redirect at the time, but just two months after the AfD, Wang Linkai (aka Xiao Gui) won the "Best New Musician" award at the 2018 Chinese Music Festival (see China Daily (in Chinese)). He received the award as an individual (not as part of the band), and as such meets WP:MUSICBIO. Please unlock the article so I can restore and expand it with the new information. Thanks! -Zanhe (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, done.  Sandstein   08:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I've added the new information and sources to the article. Also, could you please retarget the redirect Xiao Gui (rapper) to Wang Linkai? That page is also fully protected. -Zanhe (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Assistance
Hi Sandstein,

there is a case, very shortly [], after this warning, it is almost the fourth time I am insulted. EdJohnston seems off for a longer time, check his talk page. I would have waited before he returns and would evaluate the events and act accordingly (before I would mind to turn to the ANI regarding civility) as per our agreement, but this is by far...how long I have to bear such insults? (check his talk, all the details are there, with further links). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk))


 * Can you provide diffs of such insults after this warning by EdJohnston?  Sandstein   23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , . If you check, also administrators were accused around three times as "saboteur" collaborator of mines. For me really too much and enough...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC))
 * This looks like a bit of a complicated dispute. I prefer that  follow up on it once they're available again.   Sandstein   06:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Though, I contacted to you because of the emerging and continous incivility issue, that is easy to identify and extract, not the dispute/edit-warring of the user, that is another issue. Suprised anyway the earlier can just go on and on, despite of the clear warning, without any result.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Well, menawhile EdJohnston returned and acted accordingly. Anyway, thank for your time, just wanted to have in case someone who could supervise the events in case it would have been escalated during his absence. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC))

My comment at AE
Hi, Sandstein. I'm following up with you about my comment at AE. Here:, you said that you did not find evidence convincing, when two other AE admins clearly saw it the other way. If you want, I can go back and find earlier AE threads, but I think that this one is a pretty good illustration of what I'm concerned about. The issue was one of an editor, who was in favor of negative content about GMOs (and negative content about them is fine with me: I've added negative content about them myself), also addressing other editors in ways that I, and the other two admins, regarded as insulting beyond the point of what is allowable in that DS area. In case you don't know, I'm from the US – and I can see from your user page that you are from Germany. I've seen source material about public opinions of GMOs that indicates that GMOs are seen much more skeptically in Europe than in the US. I can speculate, therefore, that some European editors may be more comfortable with harsh criticism of GMOs than some US editors are (as a generalization, of course). And so I want to draw your attention, in a friendly way, to consider that, while it is fine for editors to be in favor of content that criticizes GMOs and GMO companies, it's also important for editors to communicate with one another civilly within the DS topic. Harshly negative language, or language that runs afoul of what ArbCom identified as accusations of being a shill, is a problem, and not just something that can be dismissed as justified criticism of possibly biased content. "Discuss the content and not the contributor", and all that. Please understand that I appreciate all the good work you do at AE, and I don't mean to be hostile to you at all. But I feel the need to "tell it like it is", as I see it, and I hope that you will find my suggestions constructive. Thanks for listening. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. If it's any help, I don't recollect on which side, content-wise, either you or the other editors in that case or the case now at AE are or were (pro or contra GMO, etc.); and if at all possible I try not to even look at that. I look at the conduct reported, and try to make a determination based on that. I's not always easy to disentangle conduct from content, but in cases where the content dispute is much more in focus than the conduct issues, AE is often not a good solution, because we admins don't want to be proxies in a content dispute.  Sandstein   21:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I appreciate the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:LumaNatic
Last month, you blocked LumaNatic for a week for violation of his topic ban from anything to do with race, racism, racial history and politics, slavery, or white supremacy, all very broadly construed. He's at it again, and today edited African-American studies, and created pages for Columbia University Institute for Research in African American Studies (IRAAS) and Columbia University African American and African Diaspora Studies. Please do something the needful. Natureium (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See also the discussion here. Natureium (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone can't see that creating an article on African American and African Diaspora Studies is somehow not violating a TB on race, racism, racial history and politics, then it's no longer a question of the topic, but of competence. ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? "Competence?" Really? Because every single one of my 10 supervisors here at Columbia from the Fellowship to the WiR and to the 2 Visiting Scholarships agree with me. Granted they aren't Wikipedians, and I haven't been here THAT long, but we are seriously trying to understand the points here. LumaNatic (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "People who don't edit Wikipedia, have an inherent conflict of interest in the subject matter I'm editing and don't understand the intrinsic, necessary, back-end bureaucracy of Wikipedia say I'm right" is not a good argument to prove that you're right, especially when you've been blocked, topic banned and gone through lengthy ANI discussions. I'm saddened by the lack of professionalism, LumaNatic. You are not just a volunteer editor, you've been given your University and Wikipedia's trust that you have a basic understanding of how this venue works and that simply does not appear to be true. Your role is to foster a relationship between the two, I'm not sure how you expect to accomplish that by having a meltdown whenever you come across something remotely construed as criticism. And for the record, though my opinion was not asked, I am not sure I agreed with the topic ban but I sincerely think you need to reassess what you're doing because it does not look good for WVS or WIR, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. Praxidicae (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's Hobson's choice, you see: either you know you're violating your topic ban and are doing it deliberately, in which case, it's disruptive editing; or, you don't understand what the ban means (even after the myriad discussions pointed out by Praxidicae above), in which case, it's a matter of competence. Just FYI. ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Praxidicae I am not having a meltdown - I'm just responding in a discussion that I was pinged in and accused of a violation. You go from saying you question my intent to collaboratively edit, and when I do collaborate within a lengthy discussion, then you accuse me of having a meltdown? LumaNatic (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My questioning your competence is directly related to the now deleted talk page discussion, so I'll ask here instead: Does the African Diaspora have anything to do with racial history, race or slavery? Praxidicae (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's not a meltdown, then what is your insistence everywhere that you are being attacked and harassed when confronted about a blatant violation of your topic ban? Again, we're circling back to competence. Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The "insistence" isn't "everywhere," -FWIW, I'm merely quoting a few editors who initially opposed initial topic ban. "The university" stands by my work, and don't agree that I exhibit a "lack of professionalism," (quite the opposite, actually, no matter how much I try to convince them that its not ALWAYS like this). In the spirit of assuming good faith, what exactly do you mean by your "disappointment" and that I "need to reassess what you're doing because it doesn't look good for WVS or WIR, regardless of whether you are right or wrong," because we're quickly losing track here. And as for your ""People who don't edit Wikipedia, have an inherent conflict of interest in the subject matter I'm editing and don't understand the intrinsic, necessary, back-end bureaucracy of Wikipedia say I'm right" is not a good argument to prove that you're right" as WiR/WF/WVS I'm required to have transparency with the university, who - at least initially - sought to deputize students/faculty/staff as editors/fellows/residents/VS so I don't follow how being transparent about their stance is bad. LumaNatic (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Requesting an interaction block and whatever else needs to be done against this editor for constant lies, stalking and harrasment - creating university department pages and editing a social science page to reflect said creations, at the request of said university for my WiR & Visiting Scholar duties at that, has nothing to do with said block - which I'm appealing as it is punitive, as demonstrated here by this editor. I usually ignore them, but this, yet another baseless accusation, is the last straw - when they last showed up on my talk page with accusations they didn't even deign to explain their reasoning for the harrassment when I asked. LumaNatic (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User blocked for a month.  Sandstein  20:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Purvis (actor)
Just looking into WP:DELREV of an article and the page asked if I've "discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first", which I haven't, so hello. The Jack Purvis (actor) article was deleted last year for having no sources and for meeting neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. I don't know what the article said at the time it was deleted, but Purvis played a main character in the film Time Bandits and a significant secondary character in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which would appear to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Sources can support this, as well as his working partnership with Kenny Baker and their combined appearances in the Star Wars films. I'd be happy to work on the article if it was restored. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can ask somebody at WP:REFUND to userfy it for you, I'm OK with that.  Sandstein   20:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

172.58.225.254 (talk) why did you delete my edit?
I added content to the wiki page of "Moshe Lax" Entering factual and truthful information. Why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.225.254 (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 172.58.225.254, are you Moshe Lax or acting on his behalf? See, generally, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTDIARY.  Sandstein   10:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not Moshe lax, but I am a family friend acting on his behalf, can you please revert the page back to my edit. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.35.108 (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. First, you should not edit on behalf of people you are personally involved with, see WP:COI. Second, you additions disregarded that we are not a society gossip magazine; see WP:NOT. We do not report social trivia, but only matters of public interest that have been reported in reliable sources, see WP:RS.  Sandstein   15:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

can you please revert the page back to my edit.
Burghrecords. Sonnyf (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)michael.s.fascia


 * This makes no sense to me.  Sandstein   15:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you make "5pm" redirect to the "5 P.M." dab page?
Hello Sandstein! I see you'd locked the title "5pm" years ago because an article about a non-notable subject kept being created at that name (mostly by a banned sockpuppeter). It should probably now redirect to the disambiguation page "5 P.M.". Since the disambiguation page "5 P.M." exists, is there any way you can briefly un-salt the "5pm" title so it can become a redirect to the dab page? Not only would this be consistent with other XX P.M. / XX A.M. dab pages, but it would also discourage future users from attempting to recreate the article on the non-notable subject.

The redirect at "5pm" would presumably then read:

#REDIRECT [ [5 P.M.] ] { {Rcat shell| { {R from ambiguous term} } { {R from other punctuation} } { {R from other capitalisation} } } }

This would be pretty helpful; thanks! Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅  Sandstein   20:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Your closure of Articles for deletion/Julieanna Preston
You just said 'no consensus' without any deeper explanation. Can I ask you to either amend the closure with a rationale or reconsider it? I'll note there are only 2 keep votes and 4 delete (including my as the nominator). And tellingly, two editors who voted keep originally withdraw their votes, being swayed by arguments for 'delete', while no-one has swayed the other way. This, at least, requires an closing editor explanation on why 4:2 vote is no consensus. 4:4 - sure. But when half of the supporters withdraw, and delete votes have a 2:1 power, this is not a clear case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've relisted; see the AfD.  Sandstein   07:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you look at the Lisa Littman AfD again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lisa_Littman You closed this as no consensus. I think there was a consensus that the page should not remain in its current form, with the most popular option by a substantial margin being to redirect it. The close being so tersely worded and leaving us with a lack of direction has resulted in disputes breaking out on the ROGD talk page, while a reconciled outcome could have given us the page merge and retitling to ROGD controversy, or the double redirect to PLOS One. Further, you closed as no consensus for both of them, when consensus was pretty solid for deleting Littman's page altogether.Safrolic (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the article talk page.  Sandstein   21:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I replied to you there yesterday asking if it's possible to re-open/relist the AfD for another week. The discussion is clearly ongoing. Safrolic (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Your threats
Your threats are not appreciated and are antithetical to creating a collaborative environment. I get that you are active in AE, but that does not excuse your behavior at Talk:Borderlands 3 by any means. Threatening someone with sanctions because they reverted you once is excessive, and I will not tolerate it. I provided my reasons for doing what I did. If you disagree then you can either let the discussion continue until a solid consensus is reached or revert my edit. I've no intention of editing the page further. Nihlus 21:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not making threats. I notified you that is particularly prohibited to revert-war about date formats; and that is what you were doing: reverting a revert of your date change without discussion. It is such conduct that is antithetical to creating a collaborative environment. Instead of reverting, per WP:BRD, you should have initiated a talk page discussion - which is what I did, not you. Please reconsider the appropriateness of your actions, or this could become much more unpleasant than it should be.  Sandstein   21:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, end your comment with more threats. I've already said I am done with the page, and now I am done discussing this with you. Your behavior is exactly the reason why I don't do more content creation. Nihlus  21:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Sandstein, and this is not being critical of you, but I believe that the DS for MOS has been modified to only apply to MOS pages/policies (see this motion). TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good to know.  Sandstein   21:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take this as you admitting your error. Nihlus  02:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Home Instead Senior Care
I would like to carry on working on this page. I think I will be able to establish notability in time. Could you give it back to me as a draft?Rathfelder (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't undelete pages, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   17:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)