User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/August
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I was wondering if you would reconsider deletion as the AfD had exactly one comment and that was the nominator. How is one person consensus? Shouldn't it be relisted to expand comment? Dammitkevin (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- You're right, I somehow overlooked that the one "delete" was by the nominator. I've relisted the discussion. Sandstein 17:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think it may well still be headed for deletion but I would like to see more discussion in case anyone can come up with something towards notability. Dammitkevin (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion at RfD about DRV
At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#Easily confused words, the closer SoWhy suggested that "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commonly misused English words", which you closed as moved to project namespace, be reviewed at DRV. However, I should ask you first. Do you think that WP:List of commonly misused English words should be moved back to mainspace? Why or why not? --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- That AfD was in 2012. I don't remember this discussion and can offer no opinion. Sandstein 21:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Geneva Water Hub deleted page
A page I maintained was deleted, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geneva_Water_Hub. Is there a way to access an archive to what the article contained? I want to keep working on it, and re-submit later. Thanks. Stephanekluser (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, only admins can access deleted articles. Sandstein 05:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Is this a topic ban violation?
Hi. I don't want to disturb you, but a user who was banned from ARBPIA and insulted you with antisemitic and racist slurs has violated his ban here, here, here, here, here, here, here and many other places. Am I correct or his ban was already lifted? (it doesn't say in the user talk page) Thanks--186.125.226.108 (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Mass killings under Communist regimes
Hi,
I've requested a reduction in the protection level of Mass killings under Communist regimes at requests for decrease in protection level. The protecting admin will not reduce the protection level for the article to extended-confirmed protection until you give consent to modify the restrictions which you imposed here. I'm completely uninvolved with whatever drama had occurred over the article previously and all I want to do is add sourced, neutral content. Please will you consider giving your consent to this?
Thanks,
DrStrauss talk 21:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do not have an opinion on what the appropriate protection level is, and have no particular objection to it being changed. I decline, however, to modify a sanction I imposed as long as I don't see a reason for why I should do so. Sorry for all the bureaucratic hoops... Sandstein 21:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Disagree with closure
I disagree with your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. There were only 5 votes for keep and 6 for delete (including my nomination), it means that there was consensus to delete the article. Let me remind you, that the article is WP:CONTENTFORK and fancruft like all delete votes agreed. As for keep votes, they were nothing more than WP:ILIKE. Meeting notability is not enough, even something like Nose of Michael Jackson[1][2] would also pass notability. But do we really need such article? Same we need to say for Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, that we don't need it when we have List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson. Excelse (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, no. There are no votes, and AfD is not a majority decision. Lack of a positive consensus to delete means keeping by default. Sandstein 14:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Brought this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of AFD closure. Excelse (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 9#Cultural impact of Michael Jackson after recommendations on WP:AN. Excelse (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Brought this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of AFD closure. Excelse (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 29#File:Der Landser by Franz Kurowski.jpg
Hi again Sandstein. You also closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 29#File:Der Landser by Franz Kurowski.jpg as a no consensus stating that "no argument for the deletion of the image here". The argument I made was not to delete the file from Wikipedia, but to remove it from the author's page. The FFD was started by GeorgeHo because he felt the nomination I made for speedy deletion was inappropriate. George's nomination statement was not an argument for keeping or removing the file, it a request for discussion. My response to that was given here and clearly stated that I felt (still feel btw) that the file should be removed from the author's article. I don't see any comments arguing for keeping the image anywhere in that thread being made by George Ho or anyone else, so I'm not sure how you arrived at a "no consensus" for keeping the file in both articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- You're right; on reviewng the closure I have updated it accordingly. Sandstein 07:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Close for FFD about the non-free use of File:Robert Goldston01.jpg
Hi Sandstein. Would you be willing to reconsider your close to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 17#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg per WP:CLOSE#Challenging other closures based upon this subsequent discussion at WP:BLPN#Robert Conroy Goldston? It seems that a (rough) consensus has been established at BLPN Goldston should be considered to be still living per WP:BDP as long as it cannot be clearly shown through citations to reliable sources that he is deceased. The whole rationale for non-free of the infobox image is predicated on the unverifiable claim that Golston has died, while the argument made for keeping the image was more of an argument against BDP than an argument showing how the file's use satisfies WP:NFCCP. If you feel that the claim that Golston has died is credible, then perhaps you could clarify your reasons as to why in the BLPN discussion. Otherwise, perhaps you could advise on how to best proceed regarding the non-free use of the infobox image or as to whether your close precludes another FFD discussion of it's non-free use. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, a XfD closure is supposed to be based on the discussion at XfD, rather than elsewhere. I suggest renominating the file if you think that the BLPN discussion can help in finding a clearer consensus. Sandstein 11:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- If your closure was strictly based upon the arguments made in that FFD discussion, then how you arrived at "no consensus=keep" is even less clear. The argument made for deleting the image was clearly based upon and in reference to relevant policy ( i.e., the WP:NFCCP), whereas the argument made for keeping the image was more of an argument against WP:BDP than it was one explaining how the image satisfies said the NFCCP. It is, after all, the burden of the person trying to use non-free content to justify said use by showing how it satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria, which in this case would mean either clearly establishing that Goldston is dead (so that the file can be used per item 10 of WP:NFCI) or establishing how the image's non-free use might be otherwise justified as an exception to NFCC#1 per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. Are you suggesting that person who argued to keep the image did either of those two things? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do not express a view on the merits of the deletion nomination. I simply note that because only one person has commented on your deletion request, and that person was not in support of deletion, there is not a consensus to delete the image. In the absence of a consensus, the result is that the file is kept by default. Sandstein 15:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- The other person made no arguments showing how the file's use complied with the NFCCP, particulary NFCC#1; their entire argument/opinion was that WP:BDP is unrealistic, which seems to imply that we should assume Goldston has died because he's older thant he average life expectancy. BDP may indeed need some tweaking, but that is a discussion for WT:BLP and not a justification for non-free use. I understand that the closer's job is not to count votes or establish a consenus. Isn't the closer, however, supposed to consider how each argument made reflects relevant policies and guidelines and weigh them accordlingly? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed it is, but I do not think that the arguments for deletion are so compelling here as to mandate deletion in the absence of any substantial discussion. WP:BDP makes an assumption of people being alive for WP:BLP purposes, namely sourcing quality purposes, which aren't the same purposes as those of the NFCC. Particularly, the reason for NFCC#1 is that if a person is alive they could still be photographed. This assumes a certain degree of certainty about the person's vital status, probably more than the BDP's "let's be absolutely sure" assumption of 115 years. Also, it seems doubtful that a photograph of a now 90-year-old Robert Conroy Goldston would be useful for the purpose of this image, which is identifying the person in the context of the time period in which they did notable work. Sandstein 07:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- NFCC#1 does not just mean that a new photograph can be taken; it also means that an existing photograph could be possibly found and such a photo could be released under a free license. So, if an editor's going to claim an exception to NFCC#1, then they need to clarify how the use is an exception which was not done in this case. Likewise, if they are going to claim the subject of the photo is deceased, then they need show that they are truly deceased. The argument you're making about whether a photograph of a 90 year-old would be useful would make sense if, as stated in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, Goldson was primarily Wikipedia notable for his physical appearance, and not for being a writer/historian. What you're arguing could be argued for using a non-free image to show any actor, athlete, or other person person in their prime, which is something that has been discussed a number of times at WT:NFCC, most recently at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#Replaceable fair use for retired/no longer publically active living individuals, and almost never allowed. In addition, your argument would have been better off added to the FFD discussion itself instead using it as a rationale for your close because at least then others would then have the opportunity to respond to it. Would you reconsider relisting the discussion last time and adding what your posted above as a !vote to keep the image? "Please see" templates could then be added to relevant WikiProject pages and policy pages so that others could then respond if they wanted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would have advocated a "keep". I'm only saying that the "delete" arguments do not appear to me to be so persuasive as to mandate deletion in the absence of substantial discussion. As the discussion had already been relisted twice, I won't relist it again. Sandstein 11:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- NFCC#1 does not just mean that a new photograph can be taken; it also means that an existing photograph could be possibly found and such a photo could be released under a free license. So, if an editor's going to claim an exception to NFCC#1, then they need to clarify how the use is an exception which was not done in this case. Likewise, if they are going to claim the subject of the photo is deceased, then they need show that they are truly deceased. The argument you're making about whether a photograph of a 90 year-old would be useful would make sense if, as stated in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, Goldson was primarily Wikipedia notable for his physical appearance, and not for being a writer/historian. What you're arguing could be argued for using a non-free image to show any actor, athlete, or other person person in their prime, which is something that has been discussed a number of times at WT:NFCC, most recently at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#Replaceable fair use for retired/no longer publically active living individuals, and almost never allowed. In addition, your argument would have been better off added to the FFD discussion itself instead using it as a rationale for your close because at least then others would then have the opportunity to respond to it. Would you reconsider relisting the discussion last time and adding what your posted above as a !vote to keep the image? "Please see" templates could then be added to relevant WikiProject pages and policy pages so that others could then respond if they wanted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed it is, but I do not think that the arguments for deletion are so compelling here as to mandate deletion in the absence of any substantial discussion. WP:BDP makes an assumption of people being alive for WP:BLP purposes, namely sourcing quality purposes, which aren't the same purposes as those of the NFCC. Particularly, the reason for NFCC#1 is that if a person is alive they could still be photographed. This assumes a certain degree of certainty about the person's vital status, probably more than the BDP's "let's be absolutely sure" assumption of 115 years. Also, it seems doubtful that a photograph of a now 90-year-old Robert Conroy Goldston would be useful for the purpose of this image, which is identifying the person in the context of the time period in which they did notable work. Sandstein 07:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The other person made no arguments showing how the file's use complied with the NFCCP, particulary NFCC#1; their entire argument/opinion was that WP:BDP is unrealistic, which seems to imply that we should assume Goldston has died because he's older thant he average life expectancy. BDP may indeed need some tweaking, but that is a discussion for WT:BLP and not a justification for non-free use. I understand that the closer's job is not to count votes or establish a consenus. Isn't the closer, however, supposed to consider how each argument made reflects relevant policies and guidelines and weigh them accordlingly? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do not express a view on the merits of the deletion nomination. I simply note that because only one person has commented on your deletion request, and that person was not in support of deletion, there is not a consensus to delete the image. In the absence of a consensus, the result is that the file is kept by default. Sandstein 15:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- If your closure was strictly based upon the arguments made in that FFD discussion, then how you arrived at "no consensus=keep" is even less clear. The argument made for deleting the image was clearly based upon and in reference to relevant policy ( i.e., the WP:NFCCP), whereas the argument made for keeping the image was more of an argument against WP:BDP than it was one explaining how the image satisfies said the NFCCP. It is, after all, the burden of the person trying to use non-free content to justify said use by showing how it satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria, which in this case would mean either clearly establishing that Goldston is dead (so that the file can be used per item 10 of WP:NFCI) or establishing how the image's non-free use might be otherwise justified as an exception to NFCC#1 per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. Are you suggesting that person who argued to keep the image did either of those two things? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia page
Hi,
The Elizabeth Warren wiki page contains a spelling error under:
TARP Oversight
Oversight does not mean she oversaw TARP (like the rest of the article mentions). On the contrary, it means she had lack of overseeing (i.e. she missed overseeing) during her leadership.
Select the ‘oversight’ word on e.g. an iPhone and choose ‘Look Up’ for an immediate dictionary lookup.
I can’t edit the page, otherwise I would’ve corrected it myself.
Please correct.
Thanks, Virgil
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren
- Please use the article talk page to request edits. People there know more about the topic. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi
From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 6. "Interested users may ask an admin to restore the deleted article to userspace or to draft space." Are you interested in doing it? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I don't do undeletions. Sandstein 21:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Too little too late but what the heck
This is about the recent AE concerning EM Gregory. I like others had recommended some action be taken if EM Gregory didn't open their ears and hear what everybody was saying, and they ended up doing so, here, at 21:13, 7 August 2017. I do acknowledge that I lost my cool here. I made a careless, hasty edit, lost it when my hasty edit was immediately pounced upon by Malik Shabazz, then totally lost my cool when he was seconded by GracefulSlick, and Nishidani. And as I said, I lost it in my first two responses here.
Which I take as not at all fake.
However the admin discussion proceeded as though EM Gregory hadn't written that. User:GoldenRing posted a minute and a half later at 22:41, 7 August 2017 and wrote ...I'm rather disappointed with Gregory's response here, too, which does not seem to acknowledge the problems...
and you replied at 07:24, 8 August 2017 and then closed. Nobody took into account their last remark...
Not sure if this was the correct place to post but I wanted to mention this. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- I red it, but it didn't address the quality of the sources at issue, which was the reason for the ban. Sandstein 04:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
How do I get City National Arena unblocked from creation?
- Actually, if you take a look at NetWhiz's continuing edit warring on Vegas Golden Knights, his repeated attempts to create some article -- any article -- based on this practice rink, and what I can only term a near-obsession on the issue, a temporary block may be warranted. Ravenswing 19:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Incident noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Incidents. NetWitz (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
CITY NATIONAL ARENA
PLEASE UNDELETE CITY NATIONAL ARENA!!!! NetWitz (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
- Why? Sandstein 04:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
How do I get City National Arena unprotected from creation? NetWitz (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
- Why should it be unprotected? Sandstein 22:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Deletion review for City National Arena
An editor has asked for a deletion review of City National Arena. 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.
- Greetings, Sandstein. I have added a paragraph about City National Arena to the Vegas Golden Knights article, with appropriate references, here. Whether or not this should be a separate article at the current time is another question. If not, then I would say that a redirect would be called for. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. An anonymous editor has removed what I added, here, with an edit summary of "as per WP:Consensus". Do you know what consensus the editor may be referring to? Perhaps it's related to the deletion of the separate article. It seems to me that the paragraph is quite relevant and appropriate to the Vegas Golden Knights article, and with good references, and so should be put back. Any help or guidance you can provide would be appreciated. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in this topic, and so can't provide useful advice. Sorry. Sandstein 15:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 8
The close stated, "There is very little interest in restoring the deleted history". We know that you don't know that, since objection was specifically stated that it was not appropriate to speculate on hidden edit history, and you have no way to ascertain a level of interest that remains to be expressed. The path of wisdom would be to procedurally close this discussion as not needing a response, which was behind the reasons that the edit history was not revealed. Unscintillating (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
winsocker
I think user:winsocker breaking his topic ban [3], [4]--Shrike (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- If this is an AE matter, please file report at WP:AE with all required information. I don't remember anything about Winsocker. Sandstein 06:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Since you closed this as overturn, I assume you also intended to undo the redirect? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't really intend to do anything myself, but I suppose that any interested editor can do that now. Sandstein 14:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- And here we go again. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations (2nd nomination). Sigh. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Some clean up
A page once titled " List of Monster-of-the-Week characters in The X-Files" has since be deleted. However, in doing so, it created a shit-load of red links in the individual episode pages. Whoever created the page likely did all the editing to create the links (I have no way of knowing, being a non-admin). If that is the case, could they be requested to go an clean up all those pages since those red links won't be turning blue? Otherwise, I don't suppose there is bot that could do it? Cheers - theWOLFchild 22:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yup, see [5]. I can't however automatically tell you who created those links, you'd need to check in the history of the linking articles. Since these have not been deleted, you can do this as a non-admin. Sandstein 06:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- But, you can see who created the deleted page. If he/she is the same person who did all linking, then it should fall to them to clean it up. If you, as an admin, could confirm that for me, then I, as an non-admin, have no problem passing the suggestion along to them that they fix those pages. - theWOLFchild 23:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Change to RfC at NOT
You participated at this RfC; the proposal has changed a bit. Just providing you notice of that. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degree programmes of the University of Groningen -- double relist bug
Greetings. I found this AfD via Wikipedia:Article alerts/Problem entries/Old--the reason it had gone on for over 30 days was because you relisted it on July 24 shortly after TheMagnificentist had done the same. Due to an apparent bug in the automated tools, this caused it to be commented out of the July 24 log and not re-added (diff). If this happens again, please be sure to revert yourself on the log page as well as the discussion page. Thanks. --Finngall talk 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)