User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2022/December

Ambassador related
Hi. I was checking the conflict of interest table of requests and there is one related to a German issue. When I noticed that the reference is in German I realized I wasn't ideally suited for the task. Also, I may not say if the reference is reliable or not. Given that you are an ambassador of German, if you have the interest or the time, check it out. It's in the thread titled "Suggestion to add Otto Beisheim to history", in Talk:Metro AG. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't think that I have much to contribute to this issue.  Sandstein   09:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Userfy
A long time ago, this article was deleted as a result of an AFD by you. I was wondering if you could userfy it for me. Thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jose_Landi

BlackAmerican (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but feel free to ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   16:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't want it to be undeleted. I want to use the content and improve the article and try for an AFC. Is that possible at all? BlackAmerican (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's possible, but userfication is also a form of undeletion. Please make the userfication request at REFUND.  Sandstein   09:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI
In case you're unaware, you've been quoted on Vice News. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Beat me to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merging
I think that the Category:Wheelchair users should be merged into Category:Politicians with paraplegia, Category:People with paraplegia, and Category:People with tetraplegia since people in this category always use wheelchairs. Could you please start this discussion for me as I don't know ho to do so so well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, if you want to propose something, you'll need to do it yourself. See WP:CFD for instructions.  Sandstein   14:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation
I don't really want to stir the pot, but I looked at this AfD this morning, and decided I would leave it for the full seven days, and suspected the end result would be "no consensus" or "merge". Do you think "no consensus" would be a more reasonable decision? Also, there were a lot of new and inexperienced editors in that debate, or people with an axe to grind, and many of them gave poor or non-policy compliant reasons to keep the article, which in my view makes those advocating a merge or deletion stronger. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable question. There were a lot of opinions that would need to be discounted in a closure of a full discussion for the reasons you mention. Nonetheless, a "delete" consensus after seven days strikes me as practically impossible, given that most "delete" opinions were offered at the very start of the AfD when the article was very underdeveloped, and that almost no "delete" opinions were provided towards the end. Also, the policy-based reasons for deletion were frankly not very clear, so they wouldn't be able to outweigh the "keep"s, poorly reasoned as many of them were. I've tried to make clear that the closure does not preclude further discussions, and in this respect is essentially a "no consensus" closure; the reason why I wrote "keep" is that I do think that there is a SNOW-level consensus here to not delete.  Sandstein   15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Discussions for discussion still exists, and though presently underused, would be a good space for discussions exactly like this one. BD2412  T 17:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh. Good to know, but if many people (like me) don't know about it, who would show up?  Sandstein   19:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hence the note! BD2412  T 19:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the policy-based reasons for deletion were frankly not very clear, so they wouldn't be able to outweigh the "keep"s
 * But this wouldn't preclude a "merge" consensus, which I think would have been a reasonable read. I also strongly disagree that this was anywhere near a SNOW close, considering the vast, vast majority of keep !votes were obviously canvassed SPAs and empty of any policy-based arguments. Not acknowledging this aspect sets a very dangerous precedent that someone with millions of social media followers can directly influence AfD by shear number of !votes, even when they aren't grounded in WP P&Gs. Also, a merge result would have satisfied the valid CRYSTAL/NOTNEWS/RECENTISM/PAGEDECIDE/POVFORK arguments while allowing article recreation if the topic actually did have sustained coverage. Please do reconsider this, Sandstein. JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, I think a merger discussion is the right way forward, but I do not think that it can be usefully conducted and evaluated in the context of an already very long AfD filled with canvassed IP / new account contributions. I recommend starting a separate merger discussion on the article talk page, possibly after semiprotection to filter out canvassing as much as possible.  Sandstein   22:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The deletion discussion should never have even happened, per WP:RAPID, but that close really strikes me as a bit hasty. If you wanted to close it and just say, "no consensus, this does not preclude a new deletion discussion following a week or so" that would be a lot better than seeming to factor the !votes of several hundred SPAs into this. The AfD was mess, and really needed closing, but that particular close is likely to go to Deletion Review. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I can see the case for closing as "no consensus", but even if one disregards the many canvassed and unhelpful "keep" opinions, I do not think that a consensus for deletion could have resulted from this AfD. The case for deletion (as opposed to merge), especially after the article was developed further, was just really thin as well. You can call the outcome "no consensus" if you want, but that does not change the outcome that we don't want to delete the article outright at this time and that further discussion is needed to determine what to do with it.  Sandstein   22:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd come back to here to say that I had reconsidered my initial position on this close. Upon further thought, this was a good close, and basically, I'd have to agree with you. I do still think it it likely to end up at DRV, but if Musk sends the fan brigades in, semi-protection of DRV is a lot easier than semi-protection of an AfD.
 * While we are here, what do you think about WP:RAPID nominations like this one? Personally, I consider them inherently disruptive, but I don't mind being corrected if you disgree. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 22:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the very prompt nomination for deletion was ill-advised, at least for a topic such as this one that is subject to ongoing coverage and developments.  Sandstein   13:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy decision, Sandstein. The very possibility of the article being deleted was itself bringing shame upon Wikipedia. Actual deletion would have been appalling. Thanks again. Boscaswell  talk  23:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with both of those sentiments. Not that I disagree with the close. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Very ballsy close! I guess it was heading in that direction anyway, although I'm curious why you didn't just let it run out the clock anyway (since the consensus was unlikely to change, and now there is the possibility for people to make accusations of supervoting). jp×g 23:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why don't you update it to no consensus since that's the effect of your close? –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I‘ve addressed this above.  Sandstein   06:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you said the reason why I wrote "keep" is that I do think that there is a SNOW-level consensus here to not delete. But that doesn't really make any sense, because not a single person !voted "not delete". They either said keep or delete or merge. I think what you meant by that is that there was clearly no consensus to delete. In that case, the close should be no consensus. Unless you think for some other reason there was a consensus to keep, but I don't see that you've said that anywhere. –– FormalDude  (talk)  06:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Newly created category
Hi, here's a new category that I created that you can add to your userpage. Category:Wikipedians who have earned the 100,000 edits award. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

God Jul!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Sandstein: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Sandstein. Thank you for your work on Bessie Mae Kelley. User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)