User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2023/March

‎List of largest towns in England without a railway station
Given my comments at the DRV of ‎List of largest towns in England without a railway station: you'd likely seen that I had read the discussion with a mind to close it. I had asked a question since if there was a practical way to attribute the history - and I think S Marhsall offered one on my user talk - then I saw and in fact do see an endorse consensus. While ultimately your close of no consensus doesn't change the outcome versus what I see as consensus, what I think is missing is permission for a REFUND to occur and I do think that substantially misreads the consensus of the editors there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Barkeep49, feel free to reclose the DRV or userfy the content insofar as I'm concerned.  Sandstein   22:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The general drift was to condense the process by doing a simple endorse on the formal DRV side with an extra layer of refund on top, which (isn't truly that but it) resembles a compromise, and provides much more closure than no consensus; I feel like basically everyone would be happier with a non-'no consensus' reclose. People have strong feelings about this topic, so some semblance of closure is healthy. —Alalch E. 22:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added an addendum to the close and moved the restored page to S Marshall's userspace. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandstein isn't usually interested in userfication. I've never observed him to userfy anything, even where userfication comes up in the discussion.  I've never seen him raise any objection to others doing so, even where it would seem to affect his close.  I suspect Sandstein might take the view that the proper business of a discussion closer is to determine what we need to do in the mainspace right now?  If that's his view, then firstly I would have some sympathy with that, and secondly, it means userfication is usually tangential to what a closer does.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see that approach. I have a different approach: find the consensus (if any) reached by the participants as appropriately weighted through policies and guidelines. As long as something is in scope for a given discussion if it's part of the discussion and there's a consensus for it I'm going to include it. In this instance since REFUND explicitly says restoring a page deleted at XfD needs to happen at DRV, this was in scope and per my argument above needed to be addressed there or else it wouldn't have been procedurally possible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @S Marshall, that is indeed my view.  Sandstein   07:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Apology
Hi I want to apologise for my rant last year. Sorry.  scope_creep Talk  12:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I remember nothing.  Sandstein   15:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is gracious.   scope_creep Talk  15:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

podcasts
Following up on this closing statement. Not disputing the outcome, but I'm wary of that RfC you've cited. It seems some folks are saying that poorly attended RfC overrides longstanding consensus about splitting articles (i.e. that when it comes to podcasts, unlike practically any other subject, you cannot split an article unless the resulting list itself is independently notable according to LISTN). Not a challenge of the delete outcome there, but wonder about your thoughts in that regard. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I was a little surprised by the outcome as well. Personally, I think it should be deleted, but the discussion contained significantly more opposition than I originally expected. The first RfC was definitely low participation and I intend to open another RfC within the next few weeks before moving forward with any other deletion nominations of podcast episode lists. If the second RfC leans more in favor of WP:OKFORK/WP:SUBARTICLE rather than WP:NLIST/WP:NOT than perhaps this deletion should be overturned. I'm currently looking for any RfC discussions surrounding TV episode lists. If either of you are aware of any, please let me know. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rhododendrites, I don't have any particular view about the merits of that RfC. But when we do have an on-point RFC, guideline, or other formal expression of community consensus, I expect people who express an opposing view to adress that existing expression of community consensus, e.g. by arguing why it does not or should not apply. You did that, but others didn't, which is why I gave their opinions less weight.  Sandstein   15:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Tishan Hanley
, Before you closed Articles for deletion/Tishan Hanley I had an not finished editing it (I was going to vote keep and was writing a lot of things and sources), but when I pressed save it caused an edit conflict. Would you be able to reopen the discussion? Its not like the discussion had like 5-1 delete votes. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. Because the outcome was "delete", undoing that in order to relist the AfD would need quite a bit of work, and because the outcome was reasonably clear, relisting the discussion would not be warranted. Generally., AfDs can be closed at any time after 7 days are over.  Sandstein   10:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic block imposed on me
Hi Sandstein, I'd like to know why you decided to invoke the topic-block on me. I don't do anything offensive with my edits, and you seem to have bowed down to peer pressure from the other editors. I am a positive influence on darts pages, unlike the others, who seem to be just detrimental to the cause. JRRobinson (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @JRRobinson, I did not make the decision, the community of editors did so in a discussion, unanimously. I only recorded their decision. You did not even participate in the discussion to provide your own point of view. Regardless, your statement that "I am a positive influence on darts pages, unlike the others, who seem to be just detrimental to the cause" indicates an uncollaborative attitude that in my view justifies the topic ban; see generally Etiquette.  Sandstein   09:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened
Hello ,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Mene, Inc.
I've never seen a close which implies that editors are being secretly paid by the topic subject and, much more importantly, uses this as a reason to delete. Please unclose this page per assuming good faith, thanks. Pinging my fellow employees, ah, I mean editors, and. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere on the rationale does it say anything about anybody being paid. That is a bit wide of the mark. The coi entry is closed.   scope_creep Talk  12:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The close includes "I am also taking seriously, given the generally promotional tone of the article and the vehemence with which it is defended here, the possibility that Wikipedia is being misused for advertising purposes here.", what do you think that implies, that I and others just go around advertising companies as a hobby? Since that was used as a reason to delete then the AfD should be quickly reopened. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Replying to the ping, and pinging the other 7 editors who either contributed to improving the article, and/or voted to keep it:, , , . This entire case stirs memories of Jytdog's overzealous hunt for UPEs. Even if is found to be a UPE, which I adamantly oppose, but seriously doubt Moops falls in that category, other editors contributed to the article, and it was properly toned down. I am hard-pressed to believe journalists with the New York Times, Barron's, Vogue, and Architectural Digest have stooped to the level of promo-prostitution. Mene inc. is unequivocally notable because of its founders and product line, which comprises artistic designs with a historic flare that is "worth its weight in gold" (and platinum). The article easily passes all relevant WP:PAGs. Editors are free to improve and expand it, or tag as necessary, but deleting it based on the premise of UPE or that it fails WP:N is a mistake. It left me with thoughts of McCarthyism, or a witch hunt, especially in light of the fact there is not one ounce of evidence to substantiate this claim. I will admit to my own imperfections, but if it Moops is a UPE, I'm a manatee.  Atsme  💬 📧 12:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Moops is a confirmed sock, part of the PapaTakaro sock farm.  HighKing++ 16:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (Responding to ping) I wouldn't go that far. I disagree with the close's result and think other editors hold too high expectations for the type of media that cover fashion brands but I think the close was all in all an appropriate summary of the discussion. The allegation of UPE seems unnecessary but not unsurprising given the topic area the article occupies. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 12:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Using the implication of paid editing as a reason to delete doesn't summarize the discussion, it makes an indirect but evident accusation within the context for deleting. That's why reversing the close seems a reasonable request. And better not be a paid agent of the Picasso gang, or else Atsme will have to survive on seaweed and 59 other aquatic plants. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's my 2c seeing as I had a front row seat for most of this at the AfD in question
 * There was a *lot* of "not listening" at that AfD. On numerous occasions, I and others pointed out that sources failed WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND criteria for establishing notability. Never once was that addressed in any detail by those editors - in fact mostly totally ignored.
 * There was also a *lot* of WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion including sly digs and insults peppered around. Suggestions that the nom, an experienced editor and frequent participant at NCORP-related AfDs should familiarize themselves with BEFORE. Hats off especially to the suggestion (for me) to take a tutorial course at WP:NPPSCHOOL to help "polish some of the rough edges" in my "approach to notability" in order to become a "confident, competent" reviewer.
 * There were numerous attempts to reframe the discussion using WP:STRAWMAN arguments. For example, failing WP:ORGIND (particularly not having "Independent Content" was deliberately and constantly misinterpreted and reframed as "pay-to-play PR" or that the journalist/publisher wasn't "independent". Even towards the end, Atsme claimed the two main delete arguments were 1) the article lacks RS and 2) the article is noncompliant with PROMO. Total nonsense. Nobody even mentioned RS as a reason to delete. And again, no engagement over the primary reasons, failure to meet GNG/NCORP criteria, in particular CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
 * Then we have the WP:CANVASSing off-wiki. Not cool. And of course only pinging the editors at the AfD who !voted Keep to come here, persumably to BLUDGEON sandstein (who they're about to find out needs nobody to rush to their defense) to change the result and/or reopen the AfD - also not cool.
 * Please note carefully. None of the above has anything to do with UPE accusations.
 * Now, I respectfully suggest to certain editors to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Coming here, totally ignoring 99% of Sandstein's reasoning for Delete (which was based on who made the most persuasive arguments based on applicable guidelines) and instead demonstrating yet more NOTLISTENING/BLUDGEONing in saying the close was really based on an implication of UPE, is not a good idea. The conduct at the AfD (continuing here) of a very small number of editors is overly disruptive and should not be tolerated.
 * Should my respectful suggestion fall on deaf ears, then I suggest a short holiday from AfDs is in order, perhaps a topic ban, so as to allow time for these editors to reflect on their conduct - maybe even read our notability guidelines (especially NCORP) and learn to actually read what other editors have actually said, maybe lay off the sarkiness a little.  HighKing++ 13:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Before I can respond to anything here, please link to the AfD this is about.  Sandstein   15:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Menē Inc. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. I have nothing to add to my closing statement and decline to undo the closure.  Sandstein   15:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And I have nothing to add to my bank statement. Maybe at least consider acknowledging that you're not quite sure if I and others are paid by the Picasso's, but that you have your suspicions and actually used those as a reason to delete a page? If someone wants to help spread that Picasso money around for a Chinese lunch, text me. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not accusing you or any other specific editor of receiving money by the Picassos or others. But as I mentioned in the closure, the tone of the article and the AfD does leave me with the impression that pecuniary interests may somehow be involved in this matter, even though I do not currently have proof for this.  Sandstein   15:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading the AfD as a totally uninvolved editor: the outcomes of numerous NCORP AfDs support a consensus that functionally independent authors merely regurgitating what an org has said (whether directly from interviews or indirectly through summarizing info released by the org, e.g. company history or details on particular products) cannot contribute to notability. This critical component of ORGIND was brought up multiple times but was repeatedly mistakenly dismissed by keep !voters (except maybe Tryptofish) citing the functional independence of the publishers; since this didn't actually address the NCORP IND concerns, it was reasonable for a closer to give less weight to those keep arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've debated in my mind whether or not I should reply to that, and have ended up deciding that I should. "Except maybe Tryptofish"? No. There is no "maybe" about that. It's a valid criticism that a significant amount of the keep arguments were superficial, and were shout-y, and I criticized that in my first comment in the discussion. But it's an oversimplification to reduce all of the keep arguments to that description: there were other editors, besides me, who made policy-based arguments that engaged with what the delete arguments said. And let's not treat the delete advocates as having been above criticism. The nominator,, made some very WP:BATTLEGROUNDy edits: , , and has been trigger-happy to assert bad-faith on the part of those who disagreed with him: , . The process has had a significant whiff of virtue-signaling, as per WP:KNIT, with editors and the closer seeking to demonstrate that we virtuously push back against UPE. We should push back against it, of course, but not where it doesn't exist. Just because an editor who is on the autism spectrum responds in a way that reminds some editors of what UPE editors do, does not make him a UPE. And because other editors support him does not make all of us part of some sort of UPE sockfarm. I'm disappointed in the process here, and I'm uncomfortable with the close. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Some new information has emerged at WP:COIN, and I may be changing my mind. I still believe that editors are entitled to a fair process, but evidence matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm hearing the "corporate depth" etc. arguments and didn't bother to take more time to respond because I thought by the way the !votes were going this would close as "no consensus". Now that it hasn't closed that way it may be worth at least a bit of my time to respond. But I'm not sure what the proper venue should be; I don't want this discussion to take over Sandstein talk. But just looking at the first two cited sources in the now-deleted article I see that they were produced by an outfit called Simply Wall St who I was surprised to learn are actually Sydney-based, and were carried by Yahoo! Nobody in the deletion discussion addressed these. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, I participated in the AfD, and I would like to offer a few comments about your close. I think it's within a reasonable range of possible views of the consensus to close it as a delete, as you did, so I'm not going to second-guess you on that. But you made two prominent points in your close, that I would like you to reconsider.
 * You characterized those keep comments that cited the New York Times source as having simplistically argued that the page must be notable because it was in the Times, without critically evaluating what the source itself contained. I personally feel insulted that you would apply such a characterization to my own comments. That is simply not an accurate characterization, not by a long shot.
 * You said that you gave significant weight in reaching your close to the way some editors defended keeping, and saw that as raising a realistic possibility that there was UPE. As I pointed out in the discussion, the editor who started the page is on the autism spectrum, and likely defended the page in a manner that reflects that, rather than any COI. In addition, there is an active (at this time) discussion going on at WP:COIN, where the possibility of UPE is being examined and the evidence is far from conclusive. (Scope creep's claim above that it has been closed is currently not true.) I don't have to tell you, of course, that it is common at AfD for some editors to take the deletion nomination personally, and to be overly prone to arguing with every delete comment, and this is not anything unique to editors with COIs. I suggest that you reconsider this part of your reasoning.
 * I hope that you will consider these points. I do not know whether they would persuade you to change your view of the result, but please at least consider the possibility. Thanks for listening. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish, thanks for your input. As regards your first point, I did not mean to specifically address your comments in the AfD. As regards your second point, what you describe is a plausible alternative explanation for the tone of the article and the AfD, but it is not incompatible with UPE. At any rate, whether or not money was involved somehow must of necessity remain speculative, which is why it was not a determining factor in my closure, but at most a supporting one.  Sandstein   22:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That being the case, you might want to make some revisions to the text of your closing statement. Words matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the assumption that a UPE may exist is a "supporting" reason for the close, the words should either stand as written or the close entirely removed and the AfD reopened. A closer saying that guesswork about UPE actually weighed towards their decision cannot be remedied by a post-close reediting of an incorrect and, with due respect, inappropriate reasoning to close any Wikipedia discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Agassiz's auger
Hi -- I found File:SAM PC 0 - Ice auger of Louis Agassiz and Eduard Desor.jpg on commons and am planning to use it, credited to you/Wikipedia of course, in a paper I'm writing about the early history of ice drilling. By any chance, do you have a version of the photograph that makes legible the text on the wall describing the exhibit? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. Maybe some sharpening could help? Or you could write to the museum.  Sandstein   17:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll write to the museum -- should have thought of that myself. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

ITN Credits
Is anybody getting them? Is there a broken bot that typically has handled this, or is it something that's typically done manually? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 12:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No idea, I never worked with that. Frankly, I consider such credits superfluous, we work for the encyclopedia, not for mutual backpats.  Sandstein   16:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 18:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)