Jump to content

User talk:Sandstein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 05:11, 18 July 2018 (→‎As the closer of a RfC: ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
  • 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


Article about deleted articles

Thought this would interest you [[1]]. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalled ... Sandstein 21:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2nd paragraph has the gist. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saul_Klein TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Sandstein 06:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Southern Europe heat wave

Hello, I saw you closed the AfD as delete. I think the decision was premature given that I gave a number of this year's sources (i.e. not contemporary news articles) establishing GNG and LASTING and none of the delete voters after me seem to have taken them into account. I should've pointed out on the AfD page, but I absolutely planned to fix the article up once the British IP was through with his hasty "improvements" (probably caused by the AfD nomination). Daß Wölf 01:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus was reasonably clear, and the discussion did run for the required 7 days. Sandstein 06:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything against me starting that page from scratch? I do believe I can make a useful article based on scientific coverage. Daß Wölf 23:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping? Daß Wölf 18:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. No, anybody can recreate a deleted article if they can address the concerns that led to its deletion. Sandstein 19:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I'll try and draft it some time soon. Daß Wölf 19:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mystery_Case_Files:_Key_to_Ravenhearst&welcome=yes

Thanks to stop the madness in this article that turning in round. But this series is not really «Run-of-the Mill» (except for the recent ones) because it create the genre. You say it is because of prejudice against the casual playing. I hope that one discussion by article than one for all the games. Frapril (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forget to say that I hope it will help to discute of the notability of articles to make one discussion by articles instead of one discussion for all games. Frapril (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just ask if we can made consensus on the talk pages of article. It also say that "Run-of-the-mill" is a Pejorative term, and it'S better to use ordinary because it sound like you have prejudice to casual games. But it'S not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.236.230.117 (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand. Sandstein 19:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider rewording this

Sandstein, with all due respect, do you realize that this warning [2] reads like you are formally warning me of the possibility of sanctions for actions on a page I have never edited, let alone edit-warred? Vanamonde (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - I pinged you because contributed to the AE thread, but if you're not edit-warring in the topic area you don't need to fear sanctions. Sandstein 22:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, it still reads like you're warning me for actions already committed, and the reason I'm being nitpicky is that I'm sure it will be brought up in future conflicts (Vanamonde was warned for edit-warring at AE!) but since you've clarified that that's not the case, maybe that's okay. Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture Choice Deleted Article

Hi, I had an article deleted recently and I would like to work on it in my sandbox and get others in the community to help me to improve it. Is there any way you could give me the info from the deleted page? I put so much work into it but didn't realise if it got deleted I wouldn't be able to access it so I didn't save a copy. I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia properly! There was no copyright violation or anything Chickabiddybex (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not undelete pages, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I found a copy of it! Thanks anyway :) Chickabiddybex (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRV procedural issue

Hi, not sure if you've kept up on this, but per the top of DRV: "If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion)." So I _think_ the normal policy would be to restore the deleted article. At a guess, you won't be inclined to do so. In that case, you should probably update the close to explain your reasoning. Hobit (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have addressed this, but given that everybody who's likely to take issue is going to come here, I'll address it here: Normally a no consensus outcome of a speedy deletion's review would indeed have resulted in overturning the deletion. But this procedural direction (strangely, DRV itself doesn't seem to be policy?) assumes that all agree that normal deletion policy applies. Here, however, the very applicability of deletion policy (including DRV) is contested. As a result, I believe that we'd have needed at a minimum positive consensus to overturn an admin action under these circumstances, to take into account the concerns that we might be overturning a specially protected kind of sanction. As it is, I think a broader discussion will be needed to resolve this matter. Sandstein 21:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty IAR way to proceed. It's pretty clearly not what it says on on tin. There isn't a choice--no consensus of a speedy results in restoration. I get that you don't care for that outcome here, but your closure of no consensus and keeping it deleted isn't a choice that DRV allows for (being listed as "policy" or not). And a discussion on a user page isn't the place for a closure clarification either... Plus you just assumed in your closure that DS allows for speedy deletion, something that isn't listed anywhere I can find. I get that you do a lot at DS, but this really isn't within admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia talk:Deletion review is the place to continue this discussion, as the close directly contracts the main DRV page instructions for "no consensus" results on speedy deletion, supported by a WT:DRV consensus barely over a year old. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: I agree that purely in terms of deletion procedure the DRV no consensus should have led to a restoration of the article, but the problem here is that whether deletion procedure applies is precisely the point of contention. And that's not something I'm comfortable with casting a supervote on, as a single admin, based on a "no consensus" result. There was probably no way to close this DRV and make everybody happy, but I think the current outcome is most in keeping with how our consensus-finding process works. For what it's worth, I've never used general sanctions, and I don't think that this issue has any relevance to WP:AC/DS, as these are ArbCom-created procedures. The problem here is that we have two community-created procedures that are in apparent conflict with each other, and that's something the wider community needs to resolve. I think this resolution is better sought in a RfC than in individual deletion discussions. Sandstein 07:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't completely agree with every aspect of the close, after reviewing it, my conclusion is that Sandstein is well within his leeway as the closer to close it how he did. All of the evaluations that were made along the way to arriving at that close are defensible, and the close itself seemed fair enough. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in light of the non-ordinary situations at play, his closure is perfectly defensible.∯WBGconverse 07:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

access deleted article history?

I see the history of articles is deleted from my contributions page once the article is deleted. Is it possible for me to access this history (without proposing its recreation)? I'm interested what, if any, tags were affixed to this and to other articles when they were reviewed. Jzsj (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, only administrators can do that. Sandstein 19:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Sandstein. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 18:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: I agree with your assessment and your suggestion. Sandstein 20:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of a RfC

I was hoping you might offer some suggestions related to the NRA article and the subjection/RfC on which you helped close a while back. You closed this RfC with the statement that consensus supported a few sentences. I think we had that shortly after the closing. Since then several editors who are active on the politics end of things have pushed more material into the NRA article. I feel this is against the consensus closing but local consensus is currently dominated by numbers rather than much else. Would you offer an opinion on just how much counts as "a few"? What would be the best way to get some independent eyes on this? Thanks Springee (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to what this is about? Sandstein 05:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&oldid=850823263"