User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2023/January

Happy New Year, Sandstein!


Happy New Year! Sandstein, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 00:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 00:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"Divine philosophy" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Divine philosophy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2021 Salisbury City Council election
Hello. Thanks for closing the AfD, but I think you forgot to delete the co-nominated articles! Cheers, Number   5  7  21:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Your decision seems to me to set a bad precedent, especially as there was a discussion continuing and questions unanswered. There is also the issue that even those supporting deletion mostly wanted some of the information on the pages merged to the parent article, and those against would no doubt want it all merged. I see you have already deleted 2021 Salisbury City Council election. Do you see any objection to the information being merged? Moonraker (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a common outcome with AfDs, in them editors talk about merging content, an admin closes the AfD and deletes the article, so nothing is merged. Something for admins to be aware of when closing AfDs. Moonraker (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The co-nominated articles have now also been deleted. Because rough consensus in the discussion was to delete the articles, there was no reason to merge any of their content.  Sandstein   08:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"CIA activities in Brazil" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect CIA activities in Brazil and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 01:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Zytglogge
Hello there. Your 2008 GA Zytglogge is missing a few citations; as I do not understand the German sources, would you mind adding them in the tagged places? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If I get around to it and can find the printed sources again, sure. I'm not sure that the uncited material is even by me.  Sandstein   15:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Who Wrote That shows that it was by you. I'll open a formal GAR shortly. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Zytglogge
Zytglogge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)