User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2021/July

Lina Khan
Hi. That url you removed with content from Lina Khan worked ok for me, but the quote was not in it. Thanks for removing the unsourced stuff, JAnnora2 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Maugham Elementary School Adolf Hitler assignment controversy
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Maugham Elementary School Adolf Hitler assignment controversy. 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. The review is based upon additional coverage of the article's subject that occurred after the closure of the discussion was made. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about 1RR
Is one revert, of say, 6 recent separate edits, or 15 separate recent edits, well within the policy dictates? I recently spent two hours, painstakingly trying to restore some semblance of a neutral, encyclopedic tone, to the article, stating my justifications in the edit summaries and citing the specific WP:BLP I was attempting to adhere to. But I was blanked not once, but twice. Not a single contribution of mine stands.

So as long as you delete all of someone's work in one fowl swoop, it's still 1RR? f And this is for a BLP? So all the ludicrous sources and the dubious accusations, labeling.. I mean, it's essentially a giant attack page (I'm talking about the Andy Nyo article, I didn't know about him until.. a couple of days ago or something. Just heard it from the Mumford & Suns fiaso.

But If that's what 1RR entails, that poor article is gonna be an embarrassment to us all for years to come.... 😞 TomReagan90 (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , a revert is not more or less appropriate just because of the number of previous edits it reverts. As to the rest of the issues you refer to, I am not familiar with the situation and can't advise you, sorry.  Sandstein   06:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Left wing fascism delete
Afternoon Sandstein. Just to make you aware that I don't believe that the deleted Left Wing Fascism page was ever tagged for deletion discussion as part of the process. As a result the only people that would have been aware of it are those that stumbled across the AFD some other way. I have no issue with the outcome, but the AFD itself does seem to have been done incorrectly and leaves it open to criticism of the process as the first many watchers of rhe page will be aware is when they get the notice the page was deleted. If I am wrong and it was tagged, then ignore this - I just never saw the notice at the time. Koncorde (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Left-wing fascism was in fact properly nominated and tagged for AfD in this now-deleted diff on 14:46, 25 June 2021 by .  Sandstein   07:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi are you able to provide me with the contents of the now deleted Left-wing fascism so I can grab some of the points and citations for adding into the Fascism article under it's pejorative subsection? --Cdjp1 (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I don't undelete articles.  Sandstein   12:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking Sandstein, no idea how I missed the article being tagged. Koncorde (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Gielgud
Dear Sandstein, you recently closed the AFD discussion on List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud with the decision to redirect to John Gielgud, roles and awards. The editor who created the first article also launched a WP:PROSPLIT discussion on the talk page of the second article, which you can find here. I am writing to ask if you may be willing to close this PROSPLIT discussion. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC).
 * , the outcome is pretty clear; a closure is in my view not required.  Sandstein   14:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this opinion. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Offline explorer
Computer notability says old software's are notable this software is dialup old bi (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , no idea what you mean by that.  Sandstein   07:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Circa
When you closed Articles for deletion/Circa, the change broke over 2,500 links which will need to be fixed by hand. Perhaps you could invite participants in that discussion to help WP:FIXDABLINKS. This is one of those cases which may need a task force. Narky Blert (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links. Narky Blert (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the notification. I trust that the talk page discussion you linked to will come up with an appropriate solution, because it's not clear to me what the fix would be. Probably just delinking "circa" because it's a common word and does not need linking.  Sandstein   16:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The answer will often be circa, as in e.g. c. 2021 - although the discussion I linked suggests that there's currently a bug in it. I agree that it's a MOS:OVERLINK magnet. Narky Blert (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Winbatch AFD
Are you sure the redirect is the most helpful outcome? The very first line of List of programming languages by type says, "This is a list of notable programming languages, grouped by type." Winbatch is listed on the page but there's no link to an article demonstrating its notability, suggesting it can be deleted from the list. Msnicki (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , true, but I'm not seeing a solid consensus to delete in the AfD.  Sandstein   20:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I nominated it but if there was no consensus to delete, I'd have probably closed it as keep given that a redirect would be problematic. But I don't have strong feelings on the matter.  Msnicki (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

London Buses route 278
Hello, While I appreciate this nomination was a controversial one, I don't feel like your close at Articles for deletion/London Buses route 278 addressed the additional sources I added to the article since the deletion nomination, or the removal of problematic sources. All the delete votes were made before I substantially improved the article on 10 July. As for WP:AGF, I don't think it's fair to dismiss all keep votes on the basis of not assuming good faith. I think 's comment citing WP:IDL was a fair summary of 's delete vote, which read "NOTCLEANUP indeed, there is nothing useful here, just a catalog-entry for an insignificant entity". Whether something is useful or not, or whether it is significant or not, is subjective. Would you be willing to take another look and/or clarify your reasons for closing as delete? I am considering opening a deletion review into this, which would be the first time I have done so. I am happy to hear your thoughts first. I really feel there should be a space for bus routes on Wikipedia, and this one has clearly attracted significant coverage. Best wishes, and thank you for your consideration NemesisAT (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're right that you made a somewhat relevant argument at the end by writing that "this article has been improved significantly", but it's still far short of persuasive. You did not indicate how it has been improved, and you did not cite the added sources that would have allowed AfD participants to determine whether they contribute to notability. That's probably why it didn't change any views. It does not change my assessment of the discussion, and neither does AlgaeGraphix's very uncollegial and unhelpful assumption of bad faith, which I feel compelled to dismiss out of hand.   Sandstein   19:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response and going over your reasoning. I had thought allowing people to view the improved article would have been sufficient, and I understand that I did not do a good enough job in explaining how I had improved the article. I still feel that a review would be beneficial, however, as I just don't think most editors have viewed the article in its best state. NemesisAT (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * your reply (You did not indicate how it has been improved, and you did not cite the added sources) sounds like WP:WIKILAWYERING in order to not actually consider NemesisAT's suggestion that your close may have been hasty and/or ill-considered. And be careful about throwing around assumptions of bad faith: that's how I read 's comment, but you obviously have your own interpretation of mine.
 * I would fully support a WP:DRV. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for London Buses route 278
An editor has asked for a deletion review of London Buses route 278. 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. NemesisAT (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Malvi_malhotra Article Deletion
Hi Sir, I just want to know why you deleted Malvi_malhotra Article is already Review &approved by wiki team. I full fill all the requirements of the page. If anything is wrong in my article than please help me with it. She have a lots of media Mention as reference than also you deleted.

Please help me on this 🙏 Renu2007 (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , please link to the article at issue.  Sandstein   09:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Article was deleted by someone Sir. Please help me to available it. Renu2007 (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Article page name was Malvi_Malhotra it's available in deletion log. I will add more News Articles Reference links. But to get it back I don't know. Or I have to create new ? Renu2007 (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Malvi Malhotra was deleted because the discussion at Articles for deletion/Malvi Malhotra decided that it should be deleted for the reasons given in the discussion. There is no "wiki team" that reviews and approves articles. Because you do not address the reasons for the deletion, I will not undelete the article. If you recreate it without substantial improvements, it will be deleted again.  Sandstein   09:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok Sir than I will make new with Substantial improvements. Will you please help me in this please Sir. I am asking my brother to make it new article on Malvi Malhotra please help us. Renu2007 (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you recover Malvi Malhotra it. I will add more Refrence in the Same. Renu2007 (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , this still does not address the reasons for the deletion mentioned in the deletion discussion. It is clear that you lack the Wikipedia editing experience to address these concerns, and therefore any new article by you will very likely not be an improvement. I will not reply further.  Sandstein   09:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Help
Hello, since you are currently active, can you please check Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. The reported user is removing all info from Mahadevi. Despite multiple warnings, he/she is not stopping and I can't revert more. I have tried to talk with the reported user but he/she doesn't have any valid reason. . 245CMR . •👥📜 09:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've addressed the request.  Sandstein   09:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, can you please restore the previous versions of Mahadevi and Adi Parashakti, which were supported by consensus (please see on the talk page of Mahadevi). . 245CMR . •👥📜 09:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , in my role as admin I'm not going to involve myself in a content dispute, sorry.  Sandstein   09:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, can I do that? Will it be considered edit warring (I have reverted the blocked user's edits three times)?? . 245CMR . •👥📜
 * This is now apparently resolved.  Sandstein   07:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Laurel Coppock
Deletion review states:
 * Deletion review may be used:
 * if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;

It further states:
 * Before listing a review request, please:
 * Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer

Hence, this comment on your talk page, since you deleted the Laurel Coppock article.

Articles for deletion states:
 * Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus.

In Articles for deletion/Laurel Coppock (2nd nomination), only one person requested "Delete". Is that really a consensus of the community? I have been a Wikipedia editor for 14 years, and in all other AFD cases that I am aware of, where there were few comments from the community, the article was kept, not deleted. Truthanado (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , well, there were two "delete" opinions including that of the nominator. And no "keep" opinion, given that you declined to express a view. So it was an unanimous consensus to delete.  Sandstein   07:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, even though my comment was clearly for Keep, that doesn't count. FYI, I chose to only make mine a Comment so as not to bias the community; I fully expected many more would voice their opinions. I'm still wondering whether two (out of a community of 41.7 million users) is community consensus. At best, it's a 2–1 vote. Truthanado (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , consensus at AfD is always local consensus, that is, consensus among those who show up. You explicitly decided not to provide a "keep" or "delete" opinion, writing "As an experienced member of the Wikipedia community, I believe in letting the community decide what is notable or not". You have therefore no grounds to complain that your opinion was in fact not taken into account.  Sandstein   18:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)