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

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Olaf Scholz

On 8 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Olaf Scholz, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary relist

Hi, you really needn't have relisted this. It was pretty clear that this was more a procedural issue than a content one, and all but one of the voters had already agreed that the article could go--the sole outlier having commented before this was pointed out. Avilich (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, the relisting will make it clear(er). Sandstein 18:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bitkub

With the recent barrage of news coverage over its acquisition,[1][2][3] I believe the subject is now clearly notable. Since you closed its AfD from last year, I'd defer to your opinion on whether it would be better to restore and work on the previous version or to start entirely anew. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on that, sorry, as the topic does not interest me. Sandstein 12:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could please you restore the article to draft, and I'll see if it can be worked on? Or would you prefer I try establishing consensus at DRV first? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 13:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure previously AfD-deleted articles are likely to be restored (even to draft) at WP:REFUND, but never mind; I've gone ahead and written a new article from scratch. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Zack Enfrentamiento Mortal

Hello, Sandstein. I recently saw that the page i created, 'Zack: Enfrentamiento Mortal', was deleted. I do not condone the deletion of this page and would like to search for ways to reinstate it. Please, provide me with details so that I can learn how to do so. If possible, please provide me with a copy of the page's information to keep. OtherPancakes OtherPancakes (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't undelete articles. Sandstein 19:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the Line

I'd like to ask you to reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossing the Line (2008 film). You were quite right to point out that an awful lot of people used the rationale "Jackson=notable" and that this is an invalid reason under our guidelines. However, from the point at which I offered sources, there were five further participants, all for "keep". Three of them directly referred to the sources I found and Jamesallain85 might have meant that. Those are valid, policy-based rationales and should not have been set aside. SpinningSpark 16:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Thanks for pointing that out; I've changed the closure accordingly. Sandstein 20:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. SpinningSpark 22:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Breast physics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Breast physics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast physics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Jtrainor (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]