Jump to content

User talk:Sandstein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LT biography (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 22 February 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
  • 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


your opinion please...

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green is based on BLP1E.

Green is dead, killed himself several years ago.

Do you still think BLP applies? Geo Swan (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If not, WP:BIO1E does. Sandstein 11:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was deleted and merged as BLP1E because he not notable and living. He didn't become more notable by dying. As Sandstein points out, BIO1E does apply. I don't see anything in the current version that makes me feel like this should be restored. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is now apparently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green (2nd nomination), rendering this thread moot. Sandstein 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason King (journalist) (2nd nomination)

I think you should look at this AFD again, because I don't think the delete arguments presented (of which there were only 2) were very convincing. There were some reliable sources in the article already and a decent amount of additional ones regarding him and Company Freak also exist. These include the following: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Therefore, I think you should reopen this AFD so that another discussion can take place taking into account these sources, which I think establish notability per BIO, MUSICBIO, and/or GNG. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx, Johnpacklambert, Donald Trung, and Bearcat: Your views on the above as AfD contributors? Sandstein 18:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are notability-supporting sources that help him pass WP:GNG. Three of the five just namecheck his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about somebody else, thus not contributing GNG points because he isn't the subject of the coverage — and the other two are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself, not being written about by a third party. Interviews can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources, but cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves — people can and do make inflated and self-aggrandizing claims about themselves in interviews, and aren't subject to the same degree of factchecking that would apply to third-person coverage, so people can't get over GNG just by talking about themselves in interviews. We're looking for coverage about him, not for coverage of other things which happens to quote him or for instances of him talking about himself. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article for deletion, and agree with Bearcat's assessment of the sources here and on the AfD page. I do not just look at the sources in the article, and check at least the first few pages of search results to see if there is anything else that would help towards GNG. Edwardx (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that he has a claim to notability per WP:MUSICIAN due to his disco band Company Freak. Coverage of this band can be found in the following reliable sources, among others: [6] [7] [8] [9] page 25 I would like to know if anyone involved in this discussion (esp. Sandstein) considers these sources to establish notability. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A person doesn't get over MUSICIAN just for being a member of a band that gets over BAND, either — to pass MUSICIAN, a musician has to also be the subject of coverage in his own right independently of the band as a whole, such as by having also released solo material. So just showing that the band has sources about the band still doesn't mean Jason King automatically qualifies for his own standalone BLP separately from having his name mentioned in an article about the band — to clear the bar for a standalone article about him, he would need to be the subject of coverage about him, not just to have his name mentioned in coverage about the band. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion above, it seems that the new sources would not have changed the AfD outcome. I'm therefore not reopening the AfD. Sandstein 17:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BrowseAloud

There has been a lot of significant press coverage of BrowseAloud in the last few days. Please undelete the article, in order that I may improve it and demonstrate its subject's increased notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to such recent coverage? Sandstein 18:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=BrowseAloud&tbm=nws Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actual WP:N-conferring sources, please, not a Google search. Sandstein 20:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The top half of the first page of that search currently includes numerous such results. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed my reply... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you seem to have missed mine. Sandstein 16:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty to open the top six links in in the search results provided by Pigsonthewing. In the order that google showed them to me they are:

  • "UK ICO, USCourts.gov... Thousands of websites hijacked by hidden crypto-mining code after popular plugin pwned". The Register. Retrieved 2018-02-19.
  • Burgess, Matt. "UK government websites were caught cryptomining. But it could have been a lot worse". Retrieved 2018-02-19.
  • "Cryptocurrency Mining Hack That Compromised Thousands of Sites 'Could Have Been a Catastrophe'". Motherboard. 2018-02-12. Retrieved 2018-02-19.
  • Hatmaker, Taylor. "Cryptocurrency-mining malware put UK and US government machines to work". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2018-02-19. {{cite news}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 67 (help)
  • "UK Government website offline after hack infects thousands more worldwide". Sky News. Retrieved 2018-02-19.
  • Greenfield, Patrick (2018-02-11). "Government websites hit by cryptocurrency mining malware". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-02-19.

I don't see why formatting them into pretty templates is necessary to prove that they're "Actual WP:N-conferring sources", since they're literally just the same thing in a different format, but if that's what you need... Wittylama 17:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, this all covers this software being hacked with cryptomining malware. I don't think that restoring the article on this basis alone is useful; this does not make the software notable as such, but as a hacking target. If anything is notable here, it is the hack or the hackers, and even this is probably a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:1E issue. Probably this is best covered in context at Monero (cryptocurrency), and/or in a list of hacks or similar. Sandstein 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I make no claim to accuracy or quality of these references. I have no stake in the status of this article as deleted or not. I'm simply putting the first six results of the google-search into en.wp reference template format. My point in placing these references manually is that I do not see why the shift in format is necessary to move the discussion from the above "show me proof - I already have - no you didn't - yes I did..." debate, since it's literally the exact same 6 news articles we're referring to. It's just that before they were in a google-search result and now they're in mediawiki templates in the same order. Wittylama 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted per AGF and moved to draft space, where it can be improved and discussed without one admin being the gatekeeper. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction

Hi Sandstein, you recently closed the List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction AFD but didn't delete the article. Mattg82 (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction (2nd nomination)

Hi Sandstein, did you mean to delete the page List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction? I noticed that you closed the AfD as delete, but the page still exists in mainspace. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of BrowseAloud for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BrowseAloud 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/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. KTC (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will see you in court of Law, Please don't hide. My name is Leif Totusek, why did you target a musician. may God bless you... you must have been bored — Preceding unsigned comment added by LT biography (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will see you in court of Law, Please don't hide. My name is Leif Totusek, why did you target a musician. may God bless you... you must have been bored — Preceding unsigned comment added by LT biography (talk • contribs) 12:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will see you in court of Law, Please don't hide. My name is Leif Totusek, why did you target a musician. may God bless you... you must have been bored Please reveal yourself as a real human, What is your name please? What is your Email? Who are you as we report you To Wikipedia

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&oldid=827039375"