User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2021/February

Why extended a dead discussion any longer?
Articles_for_deletion/Landspeeder was started 10:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC), the last comment was 26 January 2021 (UTC), and you extended it at 21:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC). I think the discussion is done. Seven believe the coverage is sufficient enough to keep it, four disagree claiming the coverage isn't for the fictional vehicle in the movies, but instead for the development of the prop used in the film, the toys, people modifying vehicles to look like it in real life, etc, that getting long detailed articles about these other things doesn't count for some reason despite it being the Star Wars landspeeder. Should be an easy close.  D r e a m Focus  02:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for this feedback. I've left a comment in the AfD.  Sandstein   10:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for deleted content
Hi Sandstein,

Recently you closed the AfD for Threshold Effect as delete. Now I can't access the deleted content, so I'd like to request a copy of the deleted page and the deleted talk page to my user space or via email, or by whatever method you think best. The reason for my request is explained below.

During the discussion (which was thoughtful, relisted, and as much about alternatives, as to deletion). I though the stub had potential as a broad concept, so I focused on improving it, rather than the AfD discussion directly. I posted fairly extensive comments on the talk page of the article, after which I decided to edit the article itself with some of those ideas to illustrate how it could be fixed. I turned the three sentence stub that was nominated into a much longer, more descriptive four paragraph article that was closer to start than stub (admittedly, my work only promoted it to a much better stub/start than it was before). After my edits, two drive by delete voters dropped the "It's just a stub TNT it" bomb, after which it was closed delete. That is fine with me I'm not trying to debate the outcome. Since the delete rationale literally has "start over" in the name that's what I'll do. If you look at the content I am requesting, I think you'll see why I'd like to look back over my page edits and my talk comments as I embark on the project of starting the page over in my user space.

Thank You. Deleteopedia (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I do not undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   10:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for undeletion
Hi Sandstein, I would like to request for the undeletion of the page Vikram Mastal. I think the reason that is been shown for the deletion of the page is not correct. He is quite a notable actor in Indian Television and has many ventures worth mentioning. I have mentioned all that in the page and cited proper reference against those works of him. There are many pages in wikipedia which contains much less valuable content. I think the page should be restored. Please undelete the page. Thanks
 * Please link to the article and sign your comments. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Link to the article I request undeletion is Vikram Mastal. Thanks Phoenix0910 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I decline undeleting the article because the discussion at Articles for deletion/Vikram Mastal unanimoudly concluded that it should be deleted.  Sandstein   19:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD question
Hi, thank you for your decision in Merging the |T-front article with |Thong. However, I just wanted to raise your attention to the sentence "intercrural cords had a physical ground to protect the most sensitive and unprotected part of the women body" which you called as "cringeworthily bad content" in the AfD page. As it was properly referenced in the original article, the sentence was adopted from Studies in the Psychology of Sex: Volume 1, Havelock Ellis, 1897 (page 79). It is also mentioned by von Steinen, Nansen or Holm works and etnographic documentary pohotographs (I can give you the full references if you are interested). I do not ask you (or other experienced wikipedia editors) necessarily to reconsider the original page and its undeletion, the decision has been already made. However, perhaps I would ask you to reconsider your statement about the above sentence, thank you! Janholyjanholy (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , no. That sentence is not even proper English. If you think it is, you should not attempt to write an English-language encyclopedia.  Sandstein   09:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh so language issue was the reason, I see. Fully understood now. Thank you for your explanation! Janholyjanholy (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

2003:c2:f700:8f73:8c01:fe7:919e:f860
Can user:2003:c2:f700:8f73:8c01:fe7:919e:f860 please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , done. Please use WP:AIV for this kind of request next time.  Sandstein   14:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did, but I knew there would be no response for a while, and this guy was moving rapidly. CLCStudent (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RE: unblockables
Just noting that I did block and topic banned him indefinitely from ARBPIA. Which pained me because I genuinely liked the guy (for years). Unfortunately he has retired from the project as a result. Anyway, I provided some links to the pertinent discussions in my log entry: Arbitration_enforcement_log. El_C 16:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reply. I didn't mean any of the Israel/Palestine or other geopolitical POV warriors (I've sanctioned plenty of these to surprisingly little controversy), but the kind of people who have been a fixture in community dramas over such weighty things as the manual of style or infoboxes for decades, and come with a correspondingly long block/unblock and sanctions log. But whenever they get AE sanctions or even the enforcement of an existing personalized ArbCom sanction, the sanctioning admin gets a five-week dramaboard row with calls for their head. After a few experiences like that I thought it best to let ArbCom do their own enforcement work instead of delegating it to random volunteers. You must have been lucky not to encounter that kind of case so far; let's hope it stays that way...  Sandstein   16:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Still, after all the years of problematic conduct in that area, I did view the indefinite topic ban I imposed on Debresser as having been quite impactful — and, as mentioned, he did quit over it, though I do note that he handled everything consistently politely, without exceptions (whatsoever). Anyway, truth be told, I don't think I've ever seen an WP:ARBINFOBOX2 case on AE in all my years of being active there. For whatever that's worth. Oh, and I fear to even mention this latest train wreck: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Also noting some of my thoughts a few days later: User_talk:El_C. But I'm starting to feel like I'm imposing here. El_C 16:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Bus stop
No objection to the site ban (which you'd expect since I proposed it), but shouldn't appear on their userpage if that's the case? If it's considered gravedancing, fair enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't really have a view about that. I don't know what our usual practice in that regard is.  Sandstein   17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

John R. Craig
Please give me access to the deleted content. As you said at Articles for deletion/John R. Craig‎. Thanks. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The content remains available in the history.  Sandstein   14:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply, Not in the article history you redirected it too. You did not do a REDIRECT AND MERGE. Which in my opinion would have been a better fit.  Maybe I'm missing something.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, here.  Sandstein   15:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 328
Re the AfD which you started. I fully appreciate your reasons for starting it, and agree that at the time you started it that it was a reasonable course of action. However, things have moved on since then. All 777s with PW4000 series engines have been grounded. Overwhelming consensus at the AfD is that the article should be kept. Would you mind closing/if I closed the AfD? Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, and it has now ben closed.  Sandstein   17:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Abusive Deletion of article because of political bias
Sandstein - You have selected an article for deletion with no regard to Wikipedia guidelines and without discussion took it upon yourself to delete an article. The reasons were not only false but also targeted due to aggression towards American politics and elections. As an editor it is unethical to selectively pick an article due to personal political views while simultaneously permitting other articles who are in clear violation of Wikipedia terms and guidelines to remain live and active to promote solely your personal beliefs. Sandstein, this is non-American and unethical what you did and your behaviors are not aligned with Wikipedia regulations / recommendations. You have not initiated conversation, assistance, or any contribution regarding talks and edits and directly and aggressively attacked the govotemiami page. Your reasons for deletion also are not legitimate including basing a decision on what an editor states instead of properly investigating and making your own determination. As an editor wikipedia and users expect fair, honest, and ethical contributions which you intentionally decided to to ignore. Your actions and behaviors need to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonscott239 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see our pages WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Also, since you don't link to any article or discussion, I have no idea what you are talking about.  Sandstein   12:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's Articles for deletion/GoVoteMiami (2nd nomination)., the article was deleted because in that discussion, a majority of people requested it after they expressed concerns that it was impossible to be improved to an acceptable standard. You can challenge the result at a deletion review. I am somewhat sympathetic to the view that the quality of arguments aside for those of the nominator, 331dot, were not particularly good, but the debate had been relisted several times, and it would not be appropriate to do so again. Administrators can only go with the information we're given. 16:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

•Regarding majority of people consists of very few working together in their own interests. It is common that when an editor disagrees with an administrator, other administrators agree with each other and kind of blacklist anything the editor says/does moving forward. The few people who nominated for deletion did not include me or discuss with me before it was deleted and did not reply directly to my statements referring to why the article was compliant. Jonscott239 (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)jonscott239

AFDs
Hi there. Daniel suggested I approach you and Black Kite about this issue. Background. I can give more info/post more links to current afds etc. if it's something you'd be willing to advise on. Thank you. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not clear to me what the problem is. Could you give a brief summary?  Sandstein   16:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I should have been clearer. An editor previously nominated two of my articles (Articles_for_deletion/Jan_D'Arcy and Articles_for_deletion/Annette_McCarthy), both of which were closed as Keep. I didn't mind those noms but the editor then started making weird and untrue accusations about me closing AFD discussions on another user's talk page. I told admin User:Daniel about this and said I was willing to let it drop but was worried they might nominate further articles I created to retaliate. And they did. Not one but TWO more articles within less than three minutes of each other (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Davenport (actor) and Articles for deletion/Erik Rondell) nominated by the SAME user. I understand articles may get nominated from time to time, but I feel more is going on here based on this user's previous actions and comments. I'm concerned that they can't be impartial when reviewing my pages. Can those discussions be closed and brought back to afd by someone else if they feel it's necessary or do they have to run their course now? Daniel said he personally thinks it's an issue and another editor even voted on one of them agreeing that they also think the nomination is suspicious. Could the editor be told to leave reviewing my articles for another page reviewer in future? Can I take this further if it continues or can anything more be done? Thank you. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , after taking a brief look, I don't see anything requiring action. Per WP:AGF, try looking at the matter from the perspective that the other user is not out to get you, personally, but does believe (rightly or wrongly) that some of the articles you created are deficient, and is trying to address this through the appropriate processes, which include AfD. It's not unusual for me to follop up on a user's article creations if I see them creating non-notable articles. Because nobody owns articles here, there's no process for you requiring them to stop reviewing the articles you created. In all ensuing discussions such as AfDs, you should stick to the merits of the articles, such as why you think the topics are notable, rather than questioning the user's good faith.  Sandstein   18:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look Sandstein. It's hard to assume good faith when the other user certainly didn't and made accusations about me (as I've linked to above) on another user's talk page. That more than the noms themselves makes me wary. And now they continue to nom more articles I created despite the first two being closed as Keep, which shouldn't make them think I create articles on "non-notable" subjects. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello can we create a street name together
Hello can we create a steeet together?

Hello can we create a page together More&#38;more-athens (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not interested, sorry.  Sandstein   19:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The other street you have created why would you not create this becouse it’s an American names? 2A02:587:3808:A090:74CE:66B8:B9BE:98E5 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense.  Sandstein   21:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Squad (app)
Hi Sandstein. Would you modify your close of Articles for deletion/Squad (app) from "delete" to "redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter" with the history preserved under the redirect? This is needed to comply with Copying within Wikipedia since I had merged the article's content to the list. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, because otherwise anybody could prevent the deletion of content by merging it somewhere during an AfD. We routinely delete articles even though content from them might have been merged to other articles.  Sandstein   11:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked the community to review this at Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27. Cunard (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)