User talk:Sandstein

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

Nuclear Time Unit

You did not provide sufficient Deletion Reasons These Are Needed Due to the protected status of the review page Please Provide Reason's --Rancalred (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason for closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 8#Nuclear Time Unit (closed) as endorsing the article's deletion is that there was consensus among the participants in the discussion to do so.  Sandstein  19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It Was Proteced so there couldn't have been a consensus --Rancalred (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 8 was never protected.  Sandstein  22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thoughtless Deletions

I am one who is outraged by the thoughtless deletion of many hours of hard work. In particular, the recent deletion of the Comparison of CECB Units is unacceptable. Here are my primary concerns:

1. You failed to give us clear warning of your draconian measures. I just learned about it today, and never once received email notification that you or anyone else was considering such a thoughtless and insensitive move.

2. That article still had relevent information of units still available for purchase. The need for this information does not stop, as it is forever required by the actions taken by government.

3. It is rude to erase so much hard work.

Your actions are unacceptable.

Put things back like they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KitchM (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No article entitled Comparison of CECB Units has existed. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  21:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Kokondo deletion

Hi Sandstein - I wanted to ask your rationale for closing the debate on the Kokondo deletion. It seemed to me that we were at a point where we had two users, Janggeom and Papaursa, who believed the article did not meet notability criteria after I provided additional sources. We also had one user, S Marshall, who believed that it did meet criteria and the notability rules were not being interpreted properly. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it seems like it was 2-2 at that point (if you include me). Your comments on closing the discussion were that restoration of the article was only favored by a minority of the participants. I don't believe that is true. I would echo the argument made by S Marshall that the notability requirement is not meant to purge Wikipedia of informative articles that are written in good faith. No one has argued that this article is anything but that. The sole argument has been that not a lot of people care about Kokondo. I think that if you are going to delete an article, there should be a higher bar than what has been set. I believe Wikipedia is stronger by having that article restored. NJG302 (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can you please provide links to the discussion and article? See WP:GRA. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_10

Please note the comment at the end from Cunard. I believe that that user had confusion about one of the sources and did not realize that Jukido Jujitsu is part of the system called Kokondo and so the Palm Coast Observer article actually was focused on the Kokondo system. (The other part of the Kokondo system is Kokondo Karate). I am attempting to clarify on his user page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cunard#Kokondo_deletion_.E2.80.93_Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2011_September_10

If Cunard is convinced that this is a valid second source, I believe he/she might also be in favor of restoring the article. Worst case, I would like to be able to edit and improve the article privately and then attempt to relist at a later date. NJG302 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

At deletion review, a deletion is overturned only if there is clear consensus for doing so. In the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 10, such consensus is not present. Five contributors endorsed the deletion, while two (you and S Marshall) opposed it. I have no opinion about whether the deletion was correct, but as deletion review closer, any opinion that I might have about that does not matter: my job is limited to ascertaining whether there is a consensus to overturn the closure of the deletion discussion. For these reasons, there are no grounds that would justify restoring the article.  Sandstein  18:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your rationale. Please note that the deletion discussion had a great deal of back and forth and in response to requests of the editors, I provided a number of additional sources to establish notability. The majority of the deletion endorsements came before I provided this additional evidence. Would you consider moving the article to a space where I may edit it and add these additional sources and then submit the article for consideration again at a later time? NJG302 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Common Dead

Sandstein, would you move Common Dead to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator? See the discusison at User talk:Cunard#Debate preemptively shut down. Ridiculous. – Common Dead and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Y OK, done.  Sandstein  09:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. Cunard (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus not reached?

Hi. You closed this vote saying consensus not reached. I certainly agree that there was no consensus if you counted votes. However, according to the relevant Wikipedia guideline, consensus of voters is determined by "evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions". May I ask which opposing arguments you saw in the discussion that balance the arguments of support, basicly, another name is now more common? Filanca (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Most participants agreed that the article should carry the most common name used in modern English-language sources. That is the correct standard according to applicable policies and guidelines, and as the closer I had to disregard any opinion not based on this standard, such as "use name X because it sounds better" or "use name Y because it is the local name". However, there were only a few such invalid opinions, such as that by Tachfin. Rather, the principal disagreement was which name was the most common name in English-language sources, and that is not something which I as the closer can impose my own opinion about (if I had any). People can in good faith, using different and equally valid methodologies, come to different conclusions about this matter of fact. And if - as here - there is no consensus about it, I have to respect that rather than impose my own preference about which google-count method should be used.  Sandstein  10:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I wonder what would happen if people not usually involved in this issue looked at the arguments offered. But maybe the discussion is long enough to discurage other users' involvement. Filanca (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Most contributors (including me) probably don't consider such issues important enough to engage in the extensive research that is needed to resolve them. Unfortunately, the people who do often appear to be motivated by non-neutral motives, such as nationalism, which taints the discussions. We don't have any better method, unfortunately.  Sandstein  12:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)