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

Harvey Weinstein

Hi there, you're right, removing a reference to his activism from the lede is better overall. It just said "activist" which I thought was too imprecise. If I'd checked, I would have seen that that description itself was a recent and untested edit. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

About your reversion of my edit on Code Name Verity

I may be wrong, but I think that having a list of characters is very much relevant to the book and its article. I have seen a characters section on Wikipedia pages for other books, plays, and shows and cannot see why it should not be included for this article.2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:8073:A8FF:655F:7B4A (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. These sections are contrary to our policy. Please read WP:WAF, which summarizes "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." This means that we have a problem when plot content (plot summaries or character lists) are longer than the rest of the article. Sandstein 09:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD

You closed the AfD for Realist Left, but didn't delete the article. Natureium (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Request to review deletion of the article at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing

Hello, Please review deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing.

The topic was called a hoax and claimed to include insufficient or sub-par references. The topic is real and describes an actual discipline that is practiced by many individuals, including myself. As far as references, I'm not sure what is expected from an article about a kung fu style. I did include references to 2 books, 1 of them published by University of Hawaii Press. It is also noteworthy that many other articles of this sort exist for other kung fu styles, and I believe this article to be of higher quality than many of its counterparts.

Thank you for your times and please advise.

Tomehr Ben Johanan

Hi. sorry, but these arguments should have been made in the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zui quan. That discussion concluded with consensus that the sources are not sufficient for us to have an article about this topic. Sandstein 10:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was not around for that discussion. The recent article includes a secondary academic source, and details the primary manuscript that book quotes. How can you judge the recent article according to a discussion about an older one? Does this article not deserve to be judged by its own merits?

What "recent article"? Zui quan was deleted based on the state it was in at the time of the deletion discussion in September 2017. Sandstein 21:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomehr (talk • contribs) 04:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't get it. Zui quan and Drunken boxing are different articles. Drunken boxing is now subject to an AfD; please make your arguments there. Sandstein 07:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts

Hello, per WP:DELREV I would like to try to resolve this issue with you. You did not give an explanation on your closing of this [1] articles for deletion page. The arguments for keep were much stronger. Some of the deletes were even saying the page should be shortened, if not deleted. thank you Subuey (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In numerical terms the outcome is clear: 12 delete vs. 4 keep. The "keep" arguments were clearly not stronger than the "delete" arguments. Only one "keep" opinion argued with sources, the others were "per X", "it has many views" and "the information is appropriate", all very weak arguments. I decline to change the outcome of the discussion. Sandstein 07:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)