User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2020/October

Alison Tellure - Nomination withdrawn

Hello Sandstein

After reading more about the article topic, it's really interesting and the article could be improved along the time. Thanks for starting this nice article, I will do my best to improve it. Charmk (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing an AFD?

I participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vegetarian characters discussion and the seven days have elapsed during which a page is usually closed. Since you closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination), perhaps you could review this one too? If not, I'll just wait patiently until someone comes along and closes the discussion, making a decision in some way or another. That's all. Historyday01 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Historyday01, an admin will close it eventually. Sandstein 17:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope so. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 25

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 25 - Not the cleverest of results. There may be strains of Anti-Indian and Anti-Kerela bias. The options going forward are perverted and stupid. ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED YOU WERE NOT GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT TO OVER-HIGHLIGHTED SIGNATURES AS PERHAPS THAT IS THE WAY TO GO IN DISCUSSIONS! But perhaps you had little option, the lack of experienced admins joining in was ... well let us say disappointing. Can you confirm the scope of the result and do you have suggestions of ways forward. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Djm-leighpark, I have no suggestions. Sandstein 14:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thankyou for taking the time to answer. (People will think I am being sarcastic but it is genuinely useful to be able to quote the closer had no suggestions of a way forward). Even if I give you the grief at times I do appreciate you are a good closer. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  For information: The consequence of this seems to be a WP:SPLITOUT attempt is being discussed and likely initiated at Talk:Kerala Blasters FC#Support section can be expanded as a new article. If you have any issues with this please intervene immediately. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  Djm-leighpark, I have no interest in this topic and therefore refrain from expressing an opinion. Nevertheless, if an article substantially similar to the deleted one is created, somebody may request its speedy deletion per WP:G4. Sandstein 09:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  Given two good faith requests to temp-undelete the previous article were ignored (extremely unusual unless there was a particular issue) it may be challengable if it is "substantially similar" to whatever baseline. Typically G4 doesn't apply to draftspace if the purpose is to improve the article; but not if it is to circumvent DRV. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

GoogleMeNowPlease

is requesting unblock at UTRS appeal #35523. Given block record, I can't see it. Any feedback appreciated. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I can‘t access that request. Sandstein 05:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Maybe if I release it you can see it? Trouble is, it is less convincing than the request that led to unblocking. They were reblocked less than seventy-two hours after unblocking. Also, there is a disconnect between their talk page content leading up to the loss of talk page access and the content of the unblock request. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Likely, I will decline and make standard offer. Would need a powerful rationale to unblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, after looking at User talk:GoogleMeNowPlease, I don't see any particularly compelling reason to unblock, but I have not evaluated the reasons for which this user was (re-)blocked. Sandstein 08:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Rafael Mikhailovich Minasbekyan

Hello. Please help me put the article for deletion. I would like to hear the opinions of colleagues and finally resolve the issue of leaving or deleting the article. Thanks. Namerst (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Namerst, see WP:AFD for the process of how to nominate an article for deletion. Or WP:TWINKLE for an automated version. Sandstein 11:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Artificial moon

Hi Sandstein, I've moved relevant content from Artificial moon to Solar mirror per the AfD determination to merge the article. I'm not sure the protocol for what to do next, whether you delete the article as the AfD closer or if there are other steps to be taken. Thanks, Paisarepa 03:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Paisarepa, please see WP:MERGE for how to complete the merger. The source article is not deleted, but merely redirected to the new target, which you can do yourself. Sandstein 21:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you! Paisarepa 21:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Almost three years ago, you introduced a topic ban on me based on the charge of banned user Icewhiz. Multiple brand new accounts are harassing me for a long time now, among other things that I'll not go into here. I started an inquiry for confirmed and suspected sock puppets' soon to be followed by an examination for new accounts that followed me around. Based on the current WP:BANEX policy, I'm not allowed to discuss issues covered by the topic ban. I'm asking you to temporarily lift my topic ban for that purpose or allow me to unobstructedly address the harassment issues on the related pages since the topic ban prevents me from adequately presenting the evidence. If you are opposed to it, please explain why, either here or on my talk page below. Thank you in advance for your assistance. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, I decline to do so. Asking administrators to take action against harassment is a form of "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" as allowed by the banning policy, as long as your contributions remain limited to what is necessary to do so. Sandstein 21:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

To be clear. I can display pieces of evidence related to WW2 in Poland. Correct? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, yes, if and to the extent necessary to help administrators take action against any actual harassment, not to continue any content or (other) conduct disputes. Sandstein 21:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that’s all I need at the moment. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of the draft

Hi,

It was your considerate decision to delete Aurats @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurats. I do not know why you did not find it right to drftify again.

Any ways I am not aware of the rules so what will it take to create a new draft on the same topic again? are their any restrictions on the recreation of the draft again?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No, but any recreation in main space must address the reasons for the article's deletion. Sandstein 11:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Any solution to avoid some one else prematurely bringing again to mainspace from the draft space? because I don't want change of links given at multiple language Wikipedias for collaborative writing again and again and repetitive deletion discussions on the same topic.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, you can also develop the draft in your own userspace. Sandstein 12:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) @Bookku: There is a draft at Draft:Aurats (word). Please improve that draft and submit it for consideration via AfD. There is a mess of an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word). If you can suggest an improved title please suggest it at Draft talk:Aurats (word) to attempt to gain consensus. Attempts to create a new draft bypassing that existing draft would likely be seen as an attempt to circumvent AFD and seen as disruptive. Per your latest comment you are welcome to develop your own work in userspace but I would expect you not to try to bypass existing draft. Also be aware others will ultimately have the right to gain consensus for any article content.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spinningspark & Sandstein: There seems is a technical discrepancy between the AfD result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) and the draftification by Spinningspark (and now we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurats by Mccapra to add to the pot). I'd like (to try) to tie these together in a discussion at Draft talk:Aurats (word) so there is an unambiguous way forward with no further forks. Can I have a userfication of Aurats plus talk to my userspace in order to to have a peek of it .... alternatively feel free to email me a copy. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Djm-leighpark with due respect I have been failing to understand all intellectual gymnastics of passing premature judgements on the basis of no knowledge or half baked knowledge of the topic @ hand.

I fail to understand fellow human judgements which happily equalizes a development of a word in historical linguistics and a cultural human entity. Some one keeps information together says Coat rack and if some one forks it out then call it by passing, nothing contradictory?

Anyways I have learned huge lesson in human intellect and I may start it again in user space only or any other alternative for inter language collaboration.

Thanks anyways Bookku (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: Many would say WP:TNT might be the way to go; but please point to to previous XfD's on the talk page, go via WP:AFC, ensure you address the points at previous XfDs and ensure you avoid copying without proper attribution (Absolutely no suggestion you would or have done this but there is a risk of people doing this when doing a WP:TNT). In general if you try to slip something in "under the radar" it will likely be detected; if you are open about previous discussions on the topic that would be seen in a positive light. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, I am not interested in the topic and have no further advice I can give. Sandstein 15:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Dragonlance creatures

Dear Sandstein, recently you have closed the List of Dragonlance creatures deletion discussion. Thanks for doing the generally thankless job of closing. Would you please be kind enough to let me know your reasoning, so that I can understand a bit better what the priorities in Wikipedia are in such a case? Thank you very much in advance! Daranios (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Daranios, sure. Consensus agreed with the arguments made in the nomination, which were based in applicable policies and guidelines. You did make an able case for the opposing view, but it came too late to convince anybody else. Generally speaking, Wikipedia now strongly rejects content that only synthesizes plot elements of fiction, especially presented at length and in an in-universe style, see WP:WAF: we now have consensus that such content belongs into fan wikis, not Wikipedia.

But you do have the opportunity to recreate the article as an actual encyclopedia article - taking the perspective of the real world, not the fictional one - based on the sources you proposed in the AfD. That the previous content is now deleted shoudn't be much of a hindrance because it was, as mentioned, inappropriate for Wikipedia in any case. Sandstein 11:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I still don't understand why the improvements made after the start of the AfD (and after many opinions were already placed) should not be considered under Wikipedia's guidelines. But at least now I know that it's wasted effort to attempt improvements after someone decided to nominate for deletion. Daranios (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Daranios, not necessarily, but improvements made towards the end of a 7-day deletion discussion do go with the risk that they will come to late to sway the discussion. Sandstein 16:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. The fate of too little time (personally) and too many deletion discussion with one period Wikipedia-wise. Quite discouraging. Daranios (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Far future in fiction

Since the article has been recreated, maybe we should restore the old talk page? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus,  Done. Sandstein 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Obada Adnan

Hi,

Why did you close the deletion review request? Alex1981march (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex1981march, for the reason indicated. Sandstein 17:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

iPhone 12

Can you unprotect this redirect, as the iPhone 12 has been officially announced? Goose^(Talk!) 17:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

SuperGoose007, done. Sandstein 17:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of Draft of European Training network Of PhD researchers on Innovative EMI analysis and power Applications

Hi, Sandstein, I noticed that you delete this article I created, I need to create a special article with the same title. Please feel free to help me improve this special article until it is ready to publish. Thanks so much.Lu Wan (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Lu Wan, I don't understand what you ask of me. Sandstein 10:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Sandstein, please notice that the capitalization of the title is intended to form the abbreviation ETOPIA，that is why you see 'Of' with capital 'O', and EMI is abbreviation of ElectroMagnetic compatibility. If this is the reason that you delete this article, I would like to propose the normal capitalization in the title and refer the abbreviation ETOPIA at the beginning of the article instead of deletion only with this reason. Thanks. Lu Wan (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Lu Wan, capitalization was not the reason for deletion. Sandstein 10:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi,Sandstein, if it is not the reason, the article will be improved and created again as an encyclopaedic content. Thanks Lu Wan (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi,Sandstein, the new draft of this article is created in a user page, could you help me to review it User:Lu Wan/European Training network Of PhD researchers on Innovative EMI analysis and power Applications? Thanks so much. Lu Wan (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hello Sandstein. FYI the draft has been declined and the Lu Wan has been informed that WP:DRV is the proper process here. (IMHO it is also beginning to feel like a case of WP:NOTHERE). Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

Lu Wan, I am not interested in the topic and will not review your draft, sorry. Sandstein 10:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, :Sandstein and 1292simon , thanks for your advice, I am sorry I did not follow the proper procedure. I will learn WP:DRV and follow this proper process. Thanks again for all of your reply.Lu Wan (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Sandstein,thanks so much for your clarification about the deletion reason. I am afraid that I could not conduct WP:DRV at this moment, since the deletion reason about notability is not solved with lack of independent sources regarding WP:ORG. I could contribute to this article in the future until it is notable enough with many independent coverages to have a wikipedia page. Thanks again for help, I learnt many things in wikipedia. Lu Wan (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

question

hi. what's your opinion about this? was it correct? the admin who deleted my article last sentences was here for drafting article.. the article meets wp:SNG and wp:GNG.how can i overturn it? the article has admin access now for creation! Can you unprotect it? i said there, the solution for wp:SALT is: some one like me create that, to be get rid of vandalism of banned users/Ip's.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mojtaba2361, you should first try to resolve these concerns with the closer, S Marshall. I have no opinion about the matter. Sandstein 13:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

i talked to him here but his answer was not good. i want to know what is your decision for this topic.he isn't admin and can't see the history of articles.what can i do now? help me,i don't know the way to undelete my article.i have no deletion articles in my 80 creations--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mojtaba2361, in my view, S Marshall correctly closed the deletion review discussion. Our deletion process does not provide for a further venue of appeal. You can try to recreate the article via WP:AFC if in doing so you are able to convincingly resolve the problems on account of which it was deleted (i.e., lack of good sources). Sandstein 13:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Greg Scott

How come you deleted his page? Cpqueeley89 (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Cpqueeley89, please provide a link to the page at issue. Sandstein 04:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Refund to userspace

Hello, if possible, I would like to request a copy of 1989 Swiss Army order of battle be sent to my userspace. Thanks,   // Timothy :: talk  19:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 19:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Samuel Paty

I am really disappointed that you removed the statement that "This was despite Paty allowing Muslim students to leave the class before he showed the cartoon.". Leaving that out of the lead implies Paty was thoughtless or careless, when the opposite was true. He was sensitive to Muslim opinions, and sought to avoid any offence to his Muslim students. Please reconsider your edit, and provide Paty with the dignity that his actions deserve. He was not a cavalier teacher, but considerate of all of his students. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, I didn't remove the statement from the article, only from its lead section, which is supposed to summarize only the most important aspects of the article. That is not one of them. Moreover, including it makes the implied statement you mention about Paty's character and teaching methods, which while likely true, is inadmissible original research on our part (WP:OR). It would be better to find a media source that makes this statement directly and include it in the article (though not in the lead). Sandstein 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but...

Exactly why did you close the AfD for Satellite Award for Best Classic DVD as No Consensus? Both me and the other user !voted Keep, with nobody questioning it at all. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Foxnpichu, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite Award for Best Classic DVD, two users advocated keeping and one - the nominator - deletion. Hence, no consensus. Note that no votes are cast in AfD discussion. Sandstein 18:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thomas A Russo page

Hi! You had deleted a page title Thomas A. Russo on April 7th 2018. I wanted to know why, and if you would be able to put it back up? Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_A._Russo

Can you please reinstate it to draft as stated in the Deletion Review: Endorse. The close of the AfD in 2018 was in order. No objections if requester wants the page restored to Draft: space to improve the article by citing independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdr90 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 

Mdr90 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Morgan

Mdr90, please provide a link to the page at issue. Sandstein 20:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Mdr90, the reason for deletion was that the editors participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas A. Russo unanimously decided to delete the article for the reasons they provided in the discussion. Accordingly, I will not restore it. Sandstein 20:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted changes to this talk page that overwrote past contributions. Please do not do that. Instead, add new messages at the bottom and sign them with five tildes. Sandstein 20:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Mdr90, I will not undelete the article because you have initiated a deletion review; that process will determine how to proceed. Sandstein 21:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Personar page deletion

Hi, you've deleted page PerfSONAR and changed it into a redirect to National research and education network to which I object. Perfsonar as a measurement tool used in but not exclusively the NREN/Research community. To test achievable bandwidth see https://www.perfsonar.net/. With this redirect all information regarding it is lost, on the redirected to page it isn't mentioned. And actually you don't need to be a NREN to use it. Therefor I'd propose to re-instate it. FYI i got here in the first place since a followed a link on RIPE_Atlas and had something what the hack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.129.61.17 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You can still merge any relevant and sourced content from the history of PerfSONAR if you want. Sandstein 13:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be merged, a NREN doesn't mean Perfsonar and vica versa. It is a tool which happens to be supported/used by the NREN community but could also be used elsewhere. PerfSonar is a tool like RIPE_Atlas to test the network, where Ripe Atlas focus on reachability using simple probes, perfsonar does thorough tests using for instance Iperf, equaling this to a NREN is just not true. In my view it deserves a page just like Ripe Atlas/Iperf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.129.61.17 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the community decided otherwise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PerfSONAR, so it's not going to happen. Sandstein 17:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay that's an answer. There wasn't a whole lot of discussing and I think the decision was taken to lightly. I'm just trying to raise it, I believe the first step is to contact you. Which I now did. Onto the next step in the process chain. I'm just trying to help out and pointing out the current choose direction elected by the community is really awkward and in my view wrong. Doing a who is right battle isn't useful. The fact is decisions can be wrong recognizing such and acting upon is mostly wise. Just sticking with well it is what it is.... But anyway got this tick in the box — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.129.61.17 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Chico Brenes

Could you revive this article as a draft? Brenes is a significant innovator in skateboarding with significant coverage. I believe I could improve the article to make it acceptable. --Wil540 art (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wil540 art, sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 17:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:REFUND clearly states "Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page." Can you please revert the deletion and make it a draft? Brenes is a legendary figure in skateboarding and undoubtedly deserves a page. --Wil540 art (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

No. You can ask another admin if you want. Sandstein 13:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Wil540 art, The page is a unambiguous copyright infringement of https://aminoapps.com/c/skateboard/page/item/chico-brenes/VBsv_I32Rg0Npl1Wxm0NorJWL5X23E and cannot be restored. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Matriculation in South Africa

You closed the AfD for this recently. My impression is that the consensus was to merge the National Senior Certificate page into this one rather than the other way round, as you have recorded. Please could you adjust the close accordingly. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, consensus was to merge the two articles together, but it's not clear that there's consensus about which into which. I'll leave this up to the editorial process. Sandstein 19:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)