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

List of Magic: The Gathering theme decks

Hi Sandstein! Thanks for closing the AfD. Would it be possible to restore the history or have it moved to drafts for a bit? While I don't want to try to rewrite the entire thing, I think the sourced parts of the lead (with the few sources that came up in the AfD) could be salvaged into a subsection of Magic: The Gathering compilation sets. If that subsection works, a redirect with the article history might then be good. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete pages, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 16:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

About the Monster Erotica edits

I already send the message in the talk page but it has not yet being received. What happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 01:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don‘t understand what you mean by that. Sandstein 05:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of longest-living state leaders

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of longest-living state leaders. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:AN

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You are mentioned incidentally, and without suggestion of wrongdoing, but you are mentioned nonetheless and so I hereby gift you this statutorily required notice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Tupocracy not reviewed yet after 3 weeks of submisssion

Hello Sandstein

Kindly help look into the possible delay in the approval of my wikipedia article 'Tupocracy'. It is a new body of knowledge worth the inclusion on wikipedia.

I will be glad if you prioritize this.

Niftyrules™ 16:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyrules (talk • contribs)

(talk page watcher) Niftyrules, your draft had not been submitted for review. Using <nowiki> tells the software to display the text as-is without performing any actions that the text may call for. I have removed those nowiki tags and now your draft is in the queue for review. Schazjmd (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

Dear Sandstein,

Your decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is biased. You were not neutral while making the decision and you failed to read the arguments from neutral point of view. You failed to read the arguments of User:Gah4, User:Andrew Davidson, User:Clarityfiend, User:My very best wishes, User:Gidonb, User:Mysterymanblue, User:Tiredmeliorist, and User:Goldsztajn. When Wikipedia is run by admins like you, there is no point of editors like me to contribute to Wikipedia. This is probably my final edit to Wikipedia (outside my User page). Goodbye! Ber31 (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

One final thing. You wrote:The result was delete. By a headcount, the outcome would be keep or no consensus, but we don't go by headcounts at AfD. We weigh arguments in the light of applicable policies or guidelines. Please don't use "we". For most neutral admins, the outcome have been "keep". It was your unilateral decision to delete that page. The arguments on the "delete side" was devastated by the "keep side". You didn't read the arguments of the "keep side" properly because of your bias. I have seen admins making decisions based upon the philosophy of "might is right". Thus, it makes no sense for me to continue editing Wikipedia. Ber31 (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandstein, the keep !votes outnumbered the delete !votes by a ratio of more than three to one, with a very clear trend toward keep. There's room for closers to weight arguments based on policy in their close, but to judge this as a consensus to delete when it ended with 16 keep !votes in a row in plainly inappropriate. Could you please consider retracting your close? You know as well as I do what the chances are of your close being upheld at DRV, and it'll waste the community's time if you force us to go through that process. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

First, I only made minimal edits to the page, so don't feel so strong connection to it. Otherwise, I don't actually know that no-one read my comments, but they didn't say much about them. As I noted, there is: List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_secondary_school_affiliation, and which doesn't seem to have an AfD discussion. Gah4 (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I decline to retract my closure for the reasons expressed in it. Sandstein 08:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not expect a response, this is a comment. Of course, here I thoroughly disagree. But I'm not interested in telling you why (and I expect even more so you are not interested to hear) rather I'm here to comment on the form of your closure, laden with black-letter law and none of the nuance that actually comes with interpretative law. NOR can be an exceptionally complex policy to police, as this AfD demonstrates, but your closure gave no indication why you accepted the claim of NOR. You gave a numerical basis to the assertion. How did you weigh the arguments? What convinced you the NOR claim was correct? You started (rightly) with a rejection of a numerical count for reaching a decision, but then arrived at a conclusion .... on the basis of the numbers. I respect your closures and work because you often are involved with difficult closures. Whether we agree or disagree, the good, nay great, thing about Wikipedia is everything can be redone, reverted and fixed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't "accept" the argument that the article was OR. I expressed no view in that regard. But I noted that among those who discussed the argument for deletion, which was whether the article was OR, there was rough consensus to delete. Sandstein 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, which I was unaware of before its closure, your actions were distinctly high-handed, if not dictatorial. I thought that Wikipedia worked on the principle of consensus, rather than on one person's interpretation of rules and guidelines. A useful comparative article has been lost. Urselius (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)