User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:27, 9 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

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]

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasperasperagus (talk • contribs) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to link to Inverse Warburg effect or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverse Warburg effect so that I don't have to search for whatever it is you are talking about, which I have now done. I suggest that you use any new sources to improve the coverage of the concept at Warburg effect (oncology)#Alternative models, where it is now covered. Not every term needs an article of its own, and the deletion discussion concluded that this one does not. Sandstein 10:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete request and copy of deleted page

Dear Sandstein, HNY to you. Noticing you deleted the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geire_Kami as discussion was still taking place. Could you please reconsider this, as there is merit to the page, as per the discussion on the suggestion for deletion. Among other things we were considering that the national award was WP:NCREATIVE. Sincerely, MagentaSwann (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't undelete pages. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geire Kami resulted in consensus to delete the article. The discussion ran for the required length of seven days. Sandstein 10:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:DRV. --94.191.152.64 (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per the page: 09:54, 7 January 2022 Sandstein deleted page Geire Kami (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geire Kami (XFDcloser)). Please advise. MagentaSwann (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Warburg Effect - follow-up

Dear Sandstein In Wikipedia there is, indeed, a subsection of the Warburg effect (oncology): Alternative models > Inverse Warburg effect. However, this subjection pertains to the phenomenon in C a n c e r. An analogous, but distinctly different phenomenon exists in N e u r o d e g e n e r a t I v e diseases (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS), and also in Immunology. The description of this phenomenon deserves an article on its own. Its insertion in ‘Warburg effect (oncology)’ would be misleading. Sincerely

               Cordula (Hasperaspaeragus) Hasperasperagus (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]