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

Deletion of Deltek page

Hi there-- We are wondering what steps we need to take to have the Deltek Wikipedia page put back up? I read the article for deletion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deltek

It seems as though it was deleted mostly for being too promotional in nature. Is there a way we can reword it and get it back up?

Please let me know.

Sophie (sophiegayter@deltek.com) 72.83.146.227 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You, can't, actually, because you have a conflict of interest; see WP:COI. Sandstein 17:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BullRangifer

As the admin who recently imposed a formal AE warning to BullRangifer, this recent comment[1] may warrant your attention. I think it unduly personalizes the discussion, and labels editors with a different viewpoint than his own as people who "refuse to accept the evidence" and "only trust fake news and unreliable sources". That's WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory imho. Although I believe the editor who started the thread is misguided, there were certainly better ways to respond to their stance. — JFG ^talk 16:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this warrants arbitration enforcement, please make a request at WP:AE. Sandstein 17:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. I meant this notice as a friendly reminder to BullRangifer. I'm sure he knows how to handle himself. — JFG ^talk 19:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki that combines all Wikia wikis

(I could have asked this question to anyone I wanted to, but I'm choosing you because you surprisingly deleted Chiyo Miyako.)

Is there a special wiki that combines all Wikia wikis?? (For example, if you type Washington in its URL, it will show all pages whose URL is http://anything.wikia.com/wiki/Washington as opposed to simply Wikipedia's Washington article.) (Note that the "anything" is a wild term in this URL; it's like a blank tile in Scrabble or a Joker in card games, meaning that anything with no space in it can substitute it. Please don't click on the URL as if it were literally the URL I'm talking about.) Georgia guy (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Wikia is a different project than Wikipedia and I do not use it. Sandstein 11:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who should I ask instead?? Read the sentence at the top of this sentence for why I chose you as the person to ask. Georgia guy (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Try Quora. Sandstein 12:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako

Your recent close of this AfD seems erroneous. For example, you state that "keep" opinions are almost all variations on the theme of "anybody who is among the oldest persons is automatically notable". This is false because I and others made no such statement but instead based our position upon WP:BASIC, which is a standard part of WP:BIO. Your comments seem to selectively attack the keep voters contrary to the guidance of WP:DGFA, respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants ... When in doubt, don't delete.. Note also that the topic has been immediately recreated as a blue link which has immediately reverted your action. Please reconsider. Andrew D. (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did invoke WP:BASIC, but almost all other "keep" opinions did not and merely asserted the notability of the person because of their age. An assessment of the strength of the arguments made is not a personal attack but an integral part of the deletion policy and closing procedure. For these reasons, I still consider the closure to be correct. The recreation as a redirect is not my concern. Sandstein 10:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two other !votes specifically cited WP:BASIC. The fact that other !voters made some other arguments doesn't mean that that you should pick one and ignore all others. You claim to have considered the strength of argument but seem to have only put one of the various arguments onto the scales. You therefore seem to be considering weight of argument and weight of numbers in a selective way, not considering all points which were made. Please reconsider. Andrew D. (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The users who invoked WP:BASIC did not make any substantial argument as to why the article met these requirements, that is, how exactly the topic "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." As such, these are mere assertions of notability that I cannot give much weight to. What I would have expected are arguments such as "she meets WP:BASIC because she was covered in detail in sources A, B and C." Such arguments would have been valid and helpful, but they were not made. Sandstein 10:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there was coverage of the subject did not seem to be disputed. For example, User:Peaceray said "...the article appears to have the requisite number of citations to support notability" while user:Cullen328 later listed some sources such as TIME and Washington Post. Why have these points not been considered? The issue seemed to be that the nay-sayers found that the coverage was "unencyclopedic", while the supporters thought it was adequate. If you require every !voter to list lots of supporting details, the AfD is going to get even more tiresome and tedious and few !votes will count. Some economy of effort and avoidance of repetition is needed to avoid further decay in the process. Andrew D. (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking everybody to "list lots of supporting details", but merely to make clear (such as by reference to other opinions) on what factual basis they consider a topic to be notable, rather than just asserting "it's notable". Also, even if I had fully counted the three opinions making reference to WP:BASIC, that still wouldn't have saved the article from deletion. Sandstein 11:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. 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. Andrew D. (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ju-52 crash

Isn't the "Bundesanwaltschaft" the Federal Prosecutor's (police?) office? Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prosecutor's office is an agency that's distinct from the Federal Office of Police. It's similar to the relationship of the U.S.Attorney's Office and the FBI in the US. In this case, the Federal Prosecutor's office has jurisdiction because it's an air crash, but it normally lets the cantonal police and the civilian air accident investigation agency do the groundwork. There are no uniformed federal cops, the Federal Office of Police is basically only an investigative agency. Sandstein 19:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Thanks for the explanation. Thought I'd ask rather than undo as you're de and I'm just about de-0.5! Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to more clearly convey in the article what the source reports, according to which the cantonal prosecutor's office is also involved. Sandstein 19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]