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

Zdravko Juričko

Hello Sandstein, just wanted to ask you if I could have that article recreated? It is about a historical Croatian footballer, who passes WP:FOOTYN, and has no controversies at all at any level. It is not a very long article, I think it will not take you more then a pair of minutes to check it out and tell me if you find any problems in it. It is not urgent, so whenever you find time to see if you can do this for me, I will be extremelly gratefull. Kindest regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sandstein 19:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you very much Sandstein! FkpCascais (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning

Your prose is almost invariably impeccably lucid (however much a ratbag like myself might contest its conclusions), but I found the following a non-sequitur because of the idiom used. Perhaps you might rephrase it for clarity?

'the attitude of some veteran contributors and admin that anybody who does good work gets to be a jerk.'

That means, to this reader at least, that in your view there is a lamentable situation in which some veterans, general contributors or admins, consider anybody (=everybody) who do does solid work here to be an imbecile.' That may be what you intended, but either doesn't fit the context or leaves the intended point suspended in obscurity. Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - no, I meant that these people are of the view that those who do good content work have the right to be a jerk. I'll amend this. Sandstein 10:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Sorry for the niggling, but there it mattered. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check Yourself Screening Tool - Deleting Page

Hi, Thank you for your time discussing my article on Check Yourself Screening tool. I'm a recent graduate and my core part of research is suicide prevention tools in North America. Based on my research, I found this tool which has been associated to saving lives in USA, hence decided to put it in wikipedia.

I apologize for my writing that showed signs of advertising, I request that if the advertising tone can be highlighted i can make changes there. Other substance absue tools such as CRAFFT, AUDIT and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_Use_Disorders_Identification_Test are in wikipedia.

Your guidance is much appreciated.

My article is now deleted and moved here https://en.everybodywiki.com/Check_Yourself_Screening_Tool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asargana96 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without a link to the deletion discussion I can't comment on that. Sandstein 14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

???

Since when does a 1-1 vote qualify for deletion???

We don't vote on Wikipedia. I don't know what you refer to. Sandstein 14:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GWFrog: If you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encorps Drum and Bugle Corps, then not only do we not vote, but there were two participants that gave sound, policy-based reasons for deleting the article, and then there was your comment that wasn't backed up by Wikipedia policy. (If anything, it misinterpreted policy.) Even with the low participation, I think Sandstein got this one right. I would endorse this deletion if it went to deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Close

Just wanted to thank you for the close you’ve just done on that sf author. Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Your opinion was thoroughly researched, thoroughly explained, and cogently reasoned, start to finish. I regret that you suggested that the article should be renominated in the future, because it means we'll go through all this again, but that was within your power to suggest. Thanks for your work. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I had long deliberated on closing it myself. My conclusion might not have been the same as yours, but well done and thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for an adept close, Sandstein. The discussion was at times heated and personal. Do you think there's a case for Template:Xfd-privacy? Haukur (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback,everybody. I don't think a blanking of the AfD needs to be considered unless somebody makes a request for privacy. Sandstein 07:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your close is very well reasoned. I oppose making the conversation private. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reviewing our edits?

Hello, we are the archivists at Lombard Odier in Geneva and wanted to improve the article relating to the bank, which is quite sub-par. We proposed a new version on the talk page, and the editor who replied to us kindly suggested we see with people from the Wikiproject Switzerland, where your user name is listed (we since also made a first round of improvements and fixed some formatting issues): here is the new draft.

Unfortunately the project's talk page sees little activity, and I'd like to come back to the editor with a strong consensus on the Project Switzerland side.

To be clear, the very same text has been posted in other languages (French, Spanish, German, and Italian), with editors there helpfully pitching in/editing afterwards[1][2] (as you know, German also implements gesichtete Versionen, so this text had to be reviewed by someone before appearing publicly). We're entirely fine with the article living its own life and being edited by anyone, we understand it and actually like the idea that people can research and improve content (we are big readers too!).

So if you have time, would you mind having a look and telling me if you see anyhing of concern, changes to be done, or if you think the new text is ready to go live here as well?

Thanks a million and best regards, Hello at LO (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]