User talk:Sandstein

Italic text

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

Maximilian von Götzen-Itúrbide

Could you restore Maximilian von Götzen-Itúrbide? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Habsburg-Itúrbide did not voted for its deletion on the article House of Habsburg-Itúrbide. This article should go under its own deletion proposal. Thanks.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The AfD discussion did include the Maximilian article, which was properly tagged for deletion.  Sandstein  10:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A user possibly seeking a deletion review

Following a conversation with a user whose Laravel article had been a CSD G4, I have suggested on their Talk page that they contact you as closing admin on the previous AfD. Thought I should let you know. AllyD (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

National Lampoon's Dirty Movie

On what grounds did you delete the page? Lucyconlon (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please provide an internal link to the deleted article.  Sandstein  21:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Brace Yourselves" meme

Hi Sandstein, I am wondering how to properly cite the change I made to the "Game of Thrones (TV Series)", found at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_(TV_series)>. I added mention of the "Brace Yourselves" internet meme to the Cultural Influence section. I had trouble inserting the template photo of the meme, found here: <http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/537572_10152087113579979_1032374442_n.jpg> . I came back a couple hours later and saw that you had deleted my edit, based on the (understandable) argument that I didn't cite it. How does one go about properly citing such an edit/adding that photo? The meme has become quite popular, and I definitely believe it deserves mention.

Lordskeletor (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for asking. Basically, all Wikipedia content must (if contested or likely to be) be supported with a citation to a reliable source. The policy page WP:V describes this requirement in general. The page WP:RS describes in more detail what we mean by "reliable source". And the page WP:CITE describes how to cite a reliable source once you've found one. Please feel free to ask further if these pages don't clarify the matter for you. As to the photo, that's a separate and rather complicated matter, but the gist is that because it's copyrighted, we can't use it unless it meets the very restrictive criteria at WP:NFCC, which it's unlikely to.  Sandstein  01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons

I'm not sure how you came up with delete given that not a single editor actually attempted to address whether WP:GNG was achieved or not. Personally, I'd like to see some proof that the nominator performed WP:BEFORE before nominating this for deletion, but unless I missed it, no such evidence was presented. Correct me if I am wrong, but WP:GNG was not at all addressed in the discussion, so I don't understand how consensus was reached over an issue that was not addressed. Perhaps you meant "No consensus" or "Relist"? I forget which policy says this, but when in doubt, admins should keep the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GNG was not cited or addressed in particular; rather, other and more specific guidelines were. So I don't see how the discussion's failure to discuss this general guideline has any bearing on my closure. – As to WP:BEFORE, it is not a policy or guideline and at any rate whether it was followed or not is irrelevant to the closure of the AfD: What matters for the closure, in the light of the various policies and guidelines that require that articles have sources, is whether the sources are actually cited in the article or AfD, not who has searched for them at which point in time. If WP:BEFORE has any relevance, it is as a conduct rule: if somebody persistently does not heed it, and nominates many articles for deletion, which are then kept because others easily find the sources, then the nominator can conceivably be made subject to community sanctions. – In the situation as presented, with opinions 5:1 and the article completely unsourced, there was no doubt as to what the AfD's outcome should be.  Sandstein  01:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether WP:BEFORE is a policy, guideline or essay, but it is generally accepted as good practice as far as I know. I re-reviewed the discussion and I could only fine a single editor which attempted to look at WP:GNG and they only looked at Google Books. How did you find consensus when only a single editor examined the core issue and only examined a single category of sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There was clear agreement that the article failed the notability criteria for lists and the requirement that articles be not only plot summaries. Considering that the article consisted only of unsourced plot summary, it was evident why editors reached consensus about this. GNG was not discussed in depth because it didn't need to be. It would only have mattered if there had been any sources whose reliability etc. could have been discussed.  Sandstein 

FLC for Game of Thrones (season 1)

Are you available to help with this if I decide to try and get this promotable? Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, as regards improving the article so that it is more useful to the reader. Though I have to say that I've never been able to motivate myself to make the endless minute adjustments to articles that are apparently necessary to comply with arcane MOS minutiae in order to attain FA status. I consider that sort of thing rather a waste of editing time, because it brings little if any benefit to the reader, and therefore leave it to others.  Sandstein  11:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel the same way about FA as you do. However, TV season articles are featured lists, and have much more reasonable criteria. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Da-Wen Sun

Dear Sir, I am very very sorry to offend you, I edit the page hoping to improve it by removing quotes that may be promotional. I had no intention to affend you, I do apology if I offend you. Please teach me how to creat a proper page, thank you very much.Mayonglan (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)