User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:35, 8 January 2022

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant Robotics

Hi Sandstein. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant Robotics, you wrote, "There are valid reasons for both points of view, such that I can't determine whose arguments are stronger. But in terms of numbers, we have 7 delete to 3 keep (including a "weak" keep"). This is above the two-thirds threshold that I use as a benchmark for rough consensus, ceteris paribus." Three of the comments were made before any sources were provided. Two of the "delete" comments were from IP addresses.

From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators:

Administrators must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion.

The IP addresses are indistinguishable from "accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion" as they have no other contributions. As your close is heavily based on a vote count where two of the "delete" comments were from IP addresses, would you change your close to "no consensus"? Cunard (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the IP addresses engaged in a reasonable (if brief) analysis of sources, similar to Deathlibrarian on the "keep" side, such that I can't dismiss their opinions. Sandstein 13:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 1#Elephant Robotics. Cunard (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Input

A closing statement of yours in a past AfD is being used as justification for one administrador's supervote RfD close here. Please consider giving an input, telling whether or not you endorse the interpretation. Avilich (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a copy of deleted page.

Dear SandStein: If you recall, last month (and year) you deleted the article that I created titled ‘Zack: Enfrentamiento Mortal (2021 film)’ I have not come here asking for the undeletion of said page. I simply wish, if possible, that you provide me with a full copy of the writing for the page. I will not post this again, I promise. I simply wish to keep this page for my personal viewing as well as to view the ‘Plot’ section of this deleted page. Thank you, OtherPancakes (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)OtherPancakes[reply]

Sorry, I do not undelete articles. You can ak at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 09:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities by GDP (PPP) per capita

Hi, Sorry, I didn't know I couldn't react below your message. So I copy/paste my message here:

I don't understand why "the result was delete" as in the discussion below we agreed (or at least that's what I understood) with BD2412 (who initiated this process) to "Keep the current name (or rename as "List of metropolitan areas by GDP per capita") but add other sources such as Brookings' "Global Metro Monitor"." Could you please elaborate?

Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that you discussed a solution with BD2412, they did not withdraw their nomination for deletion, and the two other people who commented were also in favor of deletion. Sandstein 14:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift reply.

The discussion with BD2412 was still ongoing as I asked them a precision on Jan 5th and was waiting for their answer.

Regarding the two other people, I answered their remarks and offered to improve the article as they suggested: they complained that the article wasn't up-to-date (it can be updated) and based on one source only (at least another one can be added). So I think their comment are moot.

I don't know the rules of the deletion process: is it a mere vote or a decision based on the soundness of the arguments provided by the participants in the debate? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We determine rough consensus both on the basis of the arguments made and the number of opinions expressed. Both favored deletion. You were the only one in favor of keeping, and I considered the WP:SYNTH arguments convincing. Sandstein 16:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to restoring to draft to permit an opportunity to rework this into something that fixes the problems identified in the AfD. BD2412 T 17:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Warburg Effect

Dear Sandstein I would like to pass on to you a message I had sent to Mr. Haworth yesterday. I have just noticed, however, that he has been “de-sysopped”, as he calls it. Hence I would like you, as an administrator, to attend to this matter. In the light of recent publications, such as "Sex differences in Alzheimer’s disease: metabolic reprogramming and therapeutic intervention" (2021), I would like you to revisit the deletion of the Wikipedia text on the Inverse Warburg effect (2017). Sincerely Cordula (Hasperasperagus)

Dear Mr. Haworth, I would like you to consider resurrecting the Wikipedia article on the Inverse Warburg Effect, deleted 31 July 2017. The main reason given for its deletion was that the phenomenon described was "too fringe". National newspapers in Germany and Switzerland, however, have published major articles focussing on this novel metabolic approach to explaining Alzheimer's Disease, based on the Inverse Warburg effect. (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/medizin-ernaehrung/streitgespraech-alzheimer-heilung-wie-nah-ist-man-wirklich-dran-13722068.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2 / https://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/gestoerte-energieversorgung-im-gehirn-1.18483527) A similar article in English, likewise addressed to the general public, can be found in the Harvard Gazette (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/02/a-new-understanding-of-alzheimers/) The fundamental publication "Alzheimer's disease: the amyloid hypothesis and the Inverse Warburg effect" by Demetrius, Magistretti and Pellerin (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2014.00522/full) has had 30.732 views (This is more than 98% of all Frontiers articles), and so far has received 138 citations. Is that "too fringe"? The most recent publication based on the Inverse Warburg concept is "Sex differences in Alzheimer’s disease: metabolic reprogramming and therapeutic intervention", which came out in 2021 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043276021002198). - The theory is very much alive! In view of the current rejection of the Amyloid model for Alzheimer's disease, the major competing theory of the origin of neurodegenerative disorders, the bioenergetic model, based on the Inverse Warburg effect, would be of interest to Wikipedia readers. Sincerely, Hasperaspaeragus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasperasperagus (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the article at issue. Sandstein 18:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Warburg Effect, follow-up

Dear Sandstein Thanks for your prompt response. Alas, I cannot link the article at issue, concerning the Inverse Warburg effect. It must be in the Wikipedia archive for deleted texts (cf. “The result was delete and redirect to Warburg effect#Alternative models. Consensus is that this is too fringe and WP:COI to merit treatment at the article level, but can be covered as part of a broader article. Sandstein 08:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)”) And since I am not the author, I do not have the text. Sincerely

        Cordula (Hasperasperagus)