User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/July

Request for reduction in protection level

Guten Tag, Sandstein,
I've read through the WP:ARBEE but I am not here wishing further enforcement; I simply wish to bring to light the current issue with the article Mass Killings under Communist Regimes. The article was fully protected by Timotheus Canens (whom I have contacted - he directed me to you) some 4 years ago. I shall repost what I first posted on his page:

Hello, Tim

First all, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to you for your handling of the case at WP:ARBEE. You have assisted in keeping a large part of Wikipedia from being defaced.

Now, for the request:

Quite a while ago, I first noticed that no changes could be made to the page Mass killings under Communist regimes. I saw no reason to complain about what was clearly a necessary and conensus-based decision. The topic is a controversial one. I briefly left a comment on the article's talk page, inquiring how the page was to be maintained. I surprised as I received largely apathetic reactions that suggested no action was planned for the near future. Still, I held onto my conviction that it was a the best we could do, relying on the extensive arbitration case.

And yet, it has now been 4 years since full protection was applied to the article, and 7-8 years since WP:ARBEE was opened. I know "the theory behind the full protection is that it will not stop all progress in developing the article", and I have not changed my sympathetic views on the ARBEE decision (nor am I accusing anyone involved of inappropriate judgment), but progress has left the article little further than it was in 2011. Since then, changes have for the most part been restricted to lay-out fixes, tag adds and removes, and/or source updates - see here. This is perhaps the only political controversy-page in all of Wikipedia that is effectively carved in stone. Consensus requests have been attempted - ineffectively. According to one Wikipedian, his previous attempts to request an Administrator's attention were blocked by one other editor. I fear the article has simply become too vulnerable to stonewalling. I took a look at some of the most (likely to be) vandalized articles on the Wiki (Israel conflict, Russia in Ukraine, Gamergate, Hitler, Muhammad etc.) but found each of these articles under only semi-protection. Furthermore, none of the other articles affected by ARBEE have maintained a full protection.

Finally, WP:NO-PREEMPT argues:

Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Jesus, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism.

Based on the provided rationale, I hereby fervently request a reduction in protection level on the article Mass killings under Communist regimes — from full protection to semi-protection — so we can attempt to restore an article that has become dated with time.

Thanks in advance, Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I know you're very active and undoubtedly busy, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thanks,
Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on T. Canens's talk page.  Sandstein  06:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Borishad

I believe this "editor" is not here to build an encyclopedia but to right great wrongs against the Turkic peoples. This recent ranting personal attack directed at user:Krakkos is such an example. This is not the first time Borishad has posted one of their foaming-at-the-mouth rants.[1][2][3][4] Since I have had dealings with this editor, I will not be posting the typical waving-your-finger-at-them warning. Would you be interested in addressing this issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I'm not working in AE at the moment.  Sandstein  16:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Southerners

Hello. I was just about to post my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Southerners. I had not noticed when I started that you had relisted it.

In my opinion there was enough participation to come to a conclusion. However since I noticed you had relisted it I am happy to toss my closure in the bin. If you have no objection though I would rather proceed. Please let me know how you would prefer me to proceed. Chillum 19:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I've got no objections if you want to close this.  Sandstein  20:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Good to know, did not want to step on your toes. I will pay more attention to relistings in the future. Chillum 20:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthea_Anka

Hi there, getting in touch as noticed that you deleted the following page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthea_Anka

I am not sure how this page qualifies under the criteria for deletion due to the lack of notability of the subject as Anthea Anka, amongst other things, has recently written a film directed by Alison Eastwood and has many writing credits, some example notability links are below:

The Wrap - http://www.thewrap.com/alison-eastwood-casts-hemlock-grove-ray-donovan-stars-in-love-story-battlecreek-exclusive/ Creative Screenwriter Profile - http://creativescreenwriting.com/no-charity-reads-battlecreek-succeeds-on-its-own-merits/ IMDB Page - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4399190/ Showbiz 411 - http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/09/15/robert-redford-clint-eastwood-daughters-each-directing-new-movies Blog De Cine - http://www.blogdecine.com/tag/alison-eastwood Battlecreek Movie Information - http://dokina.tiscali.cz/battlecreek-17268 Battlecreek Movie Information - http://www.filmbaze.cz/film/3445332-battlecreek Alleycats Movie Press - http://film.britishcouncil.org/alleycats Alleycats Movie Press - http://www.screendaily.com/news/alleycats-begins-shoot-with-eleanor-tomlinson-sam-keeley/5085499.article Huffington Post Article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/red-room/parenting-relationships_b_942398.html Huffington Post Article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/red-room/anthea-anka-my-kid-is-a-b_b_1090595.html

Quite possibly the page was not written with the correct evidence and therefore I would kindly request that it be re-instated so I can update the article to conform.

Kind regards,

Christof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christof Caine (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion myself, I was just carrying out the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthea Anka. What we'd need for an article would be reliable sources writing about her, not just mentioning her in passing; see WP:GNG. Are there any such sources?  Sandstein  19:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

concern about the deletion of article para human

sir , why did you delete the article parahuman???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.185.0 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Because that was the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parahuman.  Sandstein  18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Page "CableFree"

Hello,

You deleted our company page "CableFree" which refers to the products and history of a technology company.

Please can you re-instate this page which is widely referred to by our customers and suppliers to reference our company

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjpatrick (talk • contribs) 11:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No. We are not a business directory. We cover only notable companies. The article Cablefree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) did not indicate how the company might be notable as described at WP:GNG. It was therefore deleted as described at WP:CSD#A7.  Sandstein  13:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for responding. We are well aware that Wikipedia is a world-class encyclopaedia. Our company is a world-class and significant company with an outstanding track record, and rich and diverse customer base worldwide. I appreciate that our company page did not include a section on "notability" but as a major telecom supplier we can gladly add a list of notable customer names if that helps. We have maintained our Wikipedia page for many years and would appreciate if you can restore it, and offer any guidelines so that we can ensure we meet "notability" and any other requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjpatrick (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well. We don't measure notability in terms of any commercial merits your company might have, but rather in terms of how it has been covered in reliable sources. This is described in our guideline WP:CORP, which you should read. Do you think your company merits inclusion in terms of that guideline?  Sandstein  18:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for response. Our company and products are referenced by various notable articles including British Telecom (BT) "Wireless Ethernet LAN Extension Services", the Oxford Science Park, and many mentions by partners of ours worldwide. I have put some examples here so you can clearly see that we have notable presence with many leading organisations. The Oxford Science Park journal http://www.oxfordsp.com/downloads/retort%20Newsletter%20Autumn%202014dp.pdf which references CableFree WiFi products deployed for the 1914-2014 "Poppies event" that was covered extensively by international media.

British Telecom reference us https://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/RegulatoryandPublicaffairs/Consultativeresponses/Oftelmarketreviews/2004/Retailleasedlines/annexg.pdf

We are referred to in The Economist, in a significant article covering Free Space Optics. http://www.economist.com/node/9719155

We are connected with many Universities including published articles such as Cambridge University http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~dmh/optwire/poster/fr2.pdf

Another article on http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=18146 with a £365,500 grant from the UK's Department of Trade and Industry. An SPIE published academic paper here http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004SPIE.5614..119W includes mention alongside our partner BAE systems.

The book "Optical Wireless Communications: IR for Wireless Connectivity", By Roberto Ramirez-Iniguez, Sevia M. Idrus, Ziran Sun https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pHPuEGZcv-YC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=cablefree+warwick+university&source=bl&ots=tdHh6cCmik&sig=zz3LAeQMfgo64pybwKE194rctwU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCWoVChMIl9HRla7qxgIVQToUCh2mpQRZ#v=onepage&q=cablefree%20warwick%20university&f=false references CableFree.

Durham University. https://community.dur.ac.uk/g.d.love/downloadable/slodar2005.pdf, a published paper by the SPIE http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=720561

Northumbria University, Dr Soler: http://www.slideshare.net/joapeso/fso-networks-under-turbulence-northumbria-university-2013-research-conference and the PHD thesis http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/59682/1/WRAP_THESIS_El-Yakzan_2013.pdf, and the Optical Communication group http://soe.northumbria.ac.uk/ocr/people/ocrg_members_poster_december_2013.pdf

University of Athens http://galaxy.hua.gr/~thkam/Publications/Rokkas_et_al_FSO_technoeconomics.pdf

UK Knowledge Transfer Network https://connect.innovateuk.org/documents/3327338/3711450/AO_Market+and+Supply+Chain.pdf/22783a4f-9348-4239-8d30-a8cae7cf34a9

An Optics.org published article: http://optics.org/article/7228

and thestreet.com on wireless networking vendors lists CableFree: http://www.thestreet.com/story/13001557/1/the-2g-3g-and-4g-wireless-network-infrastructure-market-2014-2020-with-an-evaluation-of-wifi-and-wimax.html

The above are just a few examples I found in a few minutes searching, and can find more if and as required to demonstrate notability in the most reliable and trusted sources.

I submit to you that our company and products are notable in that they are publicly referenced by major universities in academic research, major organisations such as British Telecom and BAE systems, reputable journals such as the SPIE and published articles in the industry and other press.

Therefore I would greatly appreciate if you reconsider your deletion of our page, and we will gladly ensure that suitable links showing notability in line with Wikipedia guidance. Stephenjpatrick (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've been looking at the first few links, and the Economist piece as well as the BT and Cambridge paper make only passing mention of your company, and the Oxford Science Park newsletter article is clearly promotional, a repackaged press release (as can be seen by the presence of marketingspeak such as "Looking ahead, the Wireless Excellence team is confidently predicting a very exciting period into 2015 with excellent new projects in the pipeline"). So far, so unconvincing, at least in terms of Wikipedia notability. Can you point me to the coverage, if there is any, that is really both independent and substantial as described in WP:CORP?

That's not wiki-bureaucracy for its own sake, but it's really important to us: Without such coverage, we have no material for a quality article about you. We're not going to base an article about you on your own website and press releases, but primarily on what independent reliable sources write about you.  Sandstein  20:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside commercial references: We ask you to consider the large number of universities that have referenced our company in their published work, and the published SPIE papers, as "reputable", "significant", and "notable". The audience for these papers is wide and covers the photonic, wireless, imaging, security and many other communities. If you're not considering commercial mention as "notable", then these academic references and sources are independent and significant. As a result of these pieces of work and the published papers, our company and technology has contributed to major advances in wireless communication and related topics. The major advances in the SLODAR project (adaptive optics) and the novel 2.2um lasers we were core partners to the work. Again, we are happy to include these references on our page showing the independent, substantial and notable nature of our work, published academic papers, and technology. Stephenjpatrick (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry. If these academic references are passing mentions like "Cablefree supported this paper" or "this was implemented with Cablefree systems", than that won't be enough, because such mentions aren't substantial enough to base the content of an article on. We'd need articles about the company in mainstream newspapers, that kind of stuff. Sadly, if you ever had a scandal or controversy, the resulting media coverage is much more likely to make you notable in Wikipedia terms than uncontroversial good commercial performance.

If you continue to disagree with the deletion of the article, you may appeal it at WP:DRV, but the outcome is unlikely to be different unless you can provide sources of the sort described at WP:CORP. Even if the article is restored, per our conflict of interests policy, you as a person working for the company would not be allowed to edit it, only to suggest changes to editors who are independent of the company.  Sandstein  10:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I sense you're not happy that we have sufficient coverage, despite a great wealth of articles. I have only posted the few that a quick google has revealed so far, there are plenty more.

Here is another "Oil Review Middle East", article "from the wellhead to the rooftop".

http://issuu.com/alaincharles/docs/orme_7_2013_final/171

The website for the journal is www.oilreview.me. Alain Charles Publishing. This is a 3 page article, featuring use of the CableFree equipment exclusively by BP, who is one of the most significant energy companies in the world. The editor specifically asked us for this article, based on our high profile client base and the application for our equipment, without which BP would have no connectivity between it's offices. The use of our products, the article and the client are all highly significant and world-class.

Also, "Oil Review Africa" a sister paper with two installments of the article, and clearly showing our equipment, with logos showing, and quotations.

http://issuu.com/alaincharles/docs/ora_5_2013_final/80 http://issuu.com/alaincharles/docs/ora_1_2014_final/88

In Professional Security Installer magazine, a reputable trade press magazine covering the security industry, we have a 3 page article solely about our company and products http://issuu.com/proactivpublications/docs/psi_october_2013/22?e=0/14312620

Previously we have also had coverage in The Sunday Times, a UK major newspaper, in print copy, "Doors" technology supplement. A double page spread covering exclusively the use of CableFree products in the SoHoNet network in London. We can't find this online because there is a paywall but it was up in print for sure, and somewhere I have a copy.

In summary, these are significant articles, not passing references, focusing on our company, products and applications. I submit to you that our company and products have enjoyed significant coverage, of world-class nature, over a period of many years, and our profile, coverage and status in commercial, trade and reputable academic publications and papers therefore warrants un-deletion of our Wikipedia page because many interested parties worldwide will want to make reference to the content there and refer to it in the coming years. We're happy to make any edits or amendments to the page to reflect this content. Stephenjpatrick (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

These specialist press articles do make a better case for the notability of your company, although they seem to be mostly about the technology rather than the company. Nonetheless, I've restored the article in your "user space", not visible as part of the main encyclopedia, at User:Stephenjpatrick/Cablefree. You are now free to improve it to a state that meets our inclusion requirements by citing appropriate reliable sources and establishing the company's notability. Then you should submit it to community volunteers at WP:AfC. You should not recreate the article yourself because you have a conflict of interest, see WP:COI.  Sandstein  13:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Question/request about climate change discretionary sanctions

Hello - I blog about climate change. Earlier today I was looking something up on Wikipedia and came upon this page . I was kind of shocked at how far Wikipedia goes to be fair and balanced when dealing with (what appears to be) climate change deniers. And I mean that in a good way. I have very little patience with them, personally. Wikipedia seemingly goes to insane lengths to be inclusive.

I was wondering if there was anyone I could direct questions to, either by phone, email or however, about how your climate change topics compare to other pages Wikipedia publishes in regard to sanctions, enforcement actions, and other interventions deemed necessary by the editors. Thank you --SchatziesEarthProject (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not the person you want to talk to. The decisions you refer to were made by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. You can find out who they are and how to contact them at WP:ARBCOM.  Sandstein  17:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Generalized_quaternion_interpolation

Hello, the page specified in the title was deleted. The reasons the reviewers were not compelling and the citations one of the referees invoked might not have corresponded to any of the original Wikipedia article or the cited work. Although I do not have the proper resources to initiate a full blown re-edit of this page, the algorithm described in that deleted article is not incorrect. The only negative is aspect is that for a person lacking the specific background, the details are not easy to grasp and the correctness can also be doubted. It is with the intention of protecting a small piece of Science that I kindly ask of you to point me towards a list of procedures that need to be initiated in order to restore that page. As for the mathematical argumentation, the algorithm is merely a particular case of the Mean Shift method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_shift) on a manifold (in this case, the unit sphere of the quaternion space). I also kindly ask the original reviewers to reconsider their decision and to argue against the correctness of this method of generalized quaternion interpolation. Disclaimers: I am neither the author of the article, nor an expert mathematician, but I used to refer to this page each time I was asked to give an example where the Mean Shift algorithm could be generalized on non-Euclidean spaces. Best wishes, 82.76.227.57 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Teodor Cioaca

OK, I believe you, but I'm merely the administrator who closed the discussion and not a mathematician myself. What this would need is reliable sources to establish notability as described in WP:N, and an experienced editor familiar with mathematics to rewrite the article. If you can find both, you're in business. You might ask the other editors who contributed to the discussion.  Sandstein  20:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Slightly random question

This is not a comment on any actions you made, just a general question. On the AfD for Carnism that you closed as no consensus, the previous nomination was closed as "delete". So wouldn't it be reverted to the last consensus, which was delete? Once again I have no invested interest in this outcome, I'm just curious. Cheers. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that consensus concerned a previous version of the article. Policy is such that if there is no consensus to delete, the article is kept by default, but can be renominated.  Sandstein  07:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Kharkiv07 (T) 17:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Jules Jammal

Good day to you

I have couple of points I am trying to make here. 1- Referring to the correction of me using Jules Jammal "was or is" , point that he was a person who lived and died, nothing more than that, using the term is said make it sound that his born and death was not true, what we are trying to clarify his action and not his death and life and if it his death and life then he should not be on Wikipedia page, so it will be more reasonable to speak about his action as "it is said"

2- not sure about the source of the information about his death date being on Oct 29/1956, what I have information about is that he was a naval officer and that the naval fight started as documented by Michael H. Coles in his "A Successful Naval Operation Compromised by Inept Political Leadership from his NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW" on page 108, started on the night of Oct 31 1956

3- using the term activated suicidal bomb, is based on what source of information link 4 is not working at all, the only information available is that he was an officer in the Navy who died in war. so how did we get the information about suicidal bomb and why a Navy officer will use a suicidal bomb on a boat????? please provide with the source of that information and if there is no evidence for this information please edit to present what is known not what is speculated!

4- this file is full with historical mistakes example is the name of the French Battleship is "Jean Bart" which is documented in Coles book that I referred to above.

5- adding the point about the Moufti speech and using that to confirm incorrect information (suicidal bomb) does not help as his speech is not a verifying, or validation point, it represent a personal opinion and it is not supported by a respectable evidence yet, but creates more confusion about the person referred too in this article.

I hope this will help start the conversation and clarify my edit point reasons.

please provide me with the respectable published source for the information in this article. I hope I hear from you and we clarify the points I am arguing about here and update the article with what represent real information and not speculation thanks 06:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jules Jammal (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for responding. I'm going to copy this to Talk:Jules Jammal so that we can continue discussion there.  Sandstein  07:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Jules Jammal (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the response the following link http://www.syrianhistory.com/ar/photos/1021?search=%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%84+%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84 as for the above link then is what is written in Arabic and I provided below the exact translation word to word.

وُلِد جول جمال (1932-1956) في مدينة اللاذقية وتلقى علومه الأساسية وأتم فيها المرحلة الثانوية عام 1952. التحق بالكلية البحرية في أيلول 1953، وأُرسل في بعثة عسكرية إلى مصر لإكمال دراسته في الكلية البحرية في الإسكندرية، وتخرج برتبة ملازم بحار في أيار 1956. في 29 تشرين الأول 1956 بدأ العدوان الثلاثي على مصر، وأعطيت الأوامر للقوات البحرية المصرية بالتصدي للقطع البحرية الفرنسية والإنكليزية والإسرائيلية المهاجمة، واستثني ضباط البعثة السورية من المشاركة في هذه العمليات حفاظاً عليهم. غير أن جول جمال تقدم بطلب خطي للسماح له بالمشاركة في هذه المهمة، و قوبل الطلب بالرفض أول الأمر، ثم تمت الموافقة عليه بناء على إلحاحه، وتم إلحاقه بمجموعة من ثلاثة زوارق طوربيد كلفت اعتراض السفن الحربية المعادية في مياه بحيرة البُرُلّس شمالي الدلتا، وتمكنت هذه المجموعة من إصابة المدمرة الفرنسية جان دارك وتعطيلها، غير أن الطائرات المعادية تمكنت من إغراق الزوارق الثلاثة، واستشهد أكثر بحارتها و منهم الملازم أول جول جمال في الرابع من تشرين الثاني عام1956 -

"Jules Jammal was born (1932-1956) in Latakia and received his education and finished high school in 1952. in Sep 1953 he enlisted in the Syrian Naval academy, he was sent by the Syrian Navy to Egypt to complete his study in the Naval Academy in Alexandria and graduated as first lieutenant in May 1956. In Oct 29/1956 the Tripartite Aggression. Orders was given to the Egyptian naval forced to engage the French, English, and Israeli naval forces, Syrian students were excluded from the operation as they were not Egyptian. Except Jules Jammal requested that he participate in the Naval force operation , which was rejected first , and then was accepted after his persistent request, he was assigned to one of three motor torpedo boats to fight in the Burullus lake north of the Delta, the group was able to hit the French Destroyer Jean D’Arc and sabotage it, except that the attacking flights was able to sink the three motor torpedo boats, and most participating sailors where killed and one of them was the first lieutenant Jules Jammal on Nov 4/1956 "

there is couple of points here. 1- there is no mention for Suicide bomb, so again please provide with respectful source that support that. 2- even in that peace there is another error as I am not sure if there was a ship called Jean D'arc in the French navy, one of the ship that participated in the war was the French fast fifteen-inch-gun battleship Jean Bart, which make me wonder was it a pronunciation error in the Arab media.

again let us have information supported by evidence and not just speculation.

thanks again for your kind respond. I hope you find this helpful to clarify the confusion and remove any information in this article that is not passed on respectable reference.

Hi, please keep discussion focused on Talk:Jules Jammal. I'll respond there later. Please take a look at Help: Talk pages to understand how we use talk pages.  Sandstein  13:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Jules Jammal (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Good Day any update about the discussion we started thanks Jules Jammal (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about that. Will reply.  Sandstein  16:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

You closed the AFD that resulted in the deletion of the article on Soufian Abar Huwari.

CNN, The Guardian, Reuters and various other sources are reporting that two former Guantanamo captives were arrested in Belgium. They report one was "an Algerian identified as Soufiane A." Without looking at the articles on Soufian Abar Huwari and Sufyian Barhoumi I can't determine which of these two individuals. I am going to request userification on both of them. Since you closed Soufian Abar Huwari I am making my request for userification to you. Talk page too please. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian says "Fewer details were given for Soufiane A, whose last name was not released, but Thoreau said he is suspected of having travelled to Syria". That's not enough to BLP-compliantly identify him as Soufian Abar Huwari, I suppose, and the deleted versions of that article don't seem to help much; it identifies him as an Algerian and ends with him being supposedly "repatriated to Algeria on 10 November 2008". The other article you already have at User:Geo Swan/review/Sufyian Barhoumi.  Sandstein  19:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be explicit here, are you declining to userify the article?

You write: "...the deleted versions of that article don't seem to help much". Well, I have spent over ten thousand hours studying the Guantanamo situation, so I think I am in a better position to judge whether the userified history of the document is or isn't going to help me, than you are. If you think you are helping making sure I don't waste my time, I would prefer you didn't do that favor for me.

As with most of the Guantanamo articles, if you confined your examination to the most recent revisions, there is a good chance you were looking at revisions that had been gutted by my most devoted wikistalker, Iqinn. The individuals behind the Iqinn ID devoted over 15,000 edits to reverting my efforts to bring the Guantanamo articles up to the wikipedia's current standards, before they were indefinitedly blocked for edit-warring. Geo Swan (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not userfying the article because I don't see an indication that the subject could become notable enough for an article (unless he is the now arrested person, for which we have no confirmation). Older versions of the article contained copious extracts from US government documents which should still be available outside Wikipedia.  Sandstein  14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, your replies, so far, are phrased as if your decision to decline was a reasonable policy based decision. We are all volunteers. Some administrators reply to requests for userification with replies that boil down to, "No, I don't feel like helping you. Go ask someone else." Or, "I am too busy to help you. Go ask someone else."

Your reply, abov,e is phrased as if userification's sole object is always the eventual restoration of a deleted article back to article space. I suggest, if you think about it, you will acknowledge that an individual whose notability didn't measure up to the 2015 notability criteria to justify a whole article of their own, could nevertheless be notable enough to merit a sentence, or a paragraph, or several paragraphs, in a larger article that described some phenomenon that individual share with other individuals?

US Security officials have been making broad and largely unsubstantiated claims as to what percentage of the individuals formerly held in Guantanamo were "Guantanamo recidivists".

You could userify the article, in order for me weigh whether his arrest merited a paragraph of coverage in "Guantanamo recidivists"

Userification of deleted material is not requested solely so attempts to restore deleted articles to article space can be made.

I have never seen an administrator get sanctioned, for responding to a request by telling the questioner to look elsewhere. I responded to your decision not to userify the article, because you justified that decision with an explanation that seemed to be policy based, and I think that explanation overlooked something important. Geo Swan (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, but the deleted article contains nothing that, in my view, would allow us to clearly link the now-arrested person to the subject of the article, so there's no point in userfying it. My concern is that once userfied this content would just hang around in userspace indefinitely, just like User:Geo Swan/review/Sufyian Barhoumi, as a pseudo-article out of articlespace, and I don't think that is appropriate for content a community decision deemed proper to delete.  Sandstein  14:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• You asserted that User:Geo Swan/review/Sufyian Barhoumi "was just hanging around in userspace indefinitely".

In fact, I moved it from article space (where it was a redirect) to user space on May 19th of this year, ie. less than three months ago. I subsequently made an extensive series of changes to it. This diff shows it has been extensively changed from the version that was deleted. I reviewed it twenty times this month alone. So, I really question the fairness of your assertion that, I left the Barhoumi page to "just hang around in userspace indefinitely".

When you wrote: "OK, but the deleted article contains nothing that, in my view, would allow us to clearly link the now-arrested person to the subject of the article..." It sounds like you are second guessing me. I can accept that you are sure you can't link Soufian A. and Soufian Abar. But no one asked you to try to establish that link. I am a detail guy, where-as your comment on how I handled the Barhoumi page seems to indicate you are not a detail guy, and can actually be quite careless. I am not sure that thinking you could not establish this link, based on your abilities, is a good reason to withhold from me an opportunity to try to establish that link myself. Geo Swan (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to reopen a merge debate

…the one very recently closed on the PBC Foundation. I believe the proponent of keeping the article separate was inexperienced at WP, and therefore did not understand how to argue his case and build a consensus. I believe, however, whatever mistakes he might have made, that he is correct that the article should have remained separate. (There are many foundations with less exposure and mention, and we cannot be biased against organizations just because they are in English speaking parts of the world other than the U.S.) Bottom line, as a retired American biomed faculty scientist, I believe the subject to be independent of the disease condition, and notable as an organization, and the deletion case, which closed quickly, should be reopened. How can I accomplish this review? Cheer. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please link to that discussion?  Sandstein  16:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in a moment. See following. (Look for link to appear as a wikilink in the paragraph above. See also Talk page, there.)

* Quoted by Cambridge University as authority regarding its research publication, see [5]

* Organization as agent relied upon to identify and recruit PBC patients for an HRQOL study, see [6], accessed 28 July 2015.

* Organization as agent relied upon to identify and recruit PBC patients for a study of risk factors in the U.K., see [7] and [8] accessed 28 July 2015.

* Quoted by Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute as authority regarding its research publication, see [9] and [10], accessed 28 July 2015.

* As host of Scottish and broader PBC fundraising events in the U.K, see [11], accessed 28 July 2015.

* As a significant contributor to the UK-PBC National Study, see [12], accessed 28 July 2015.

* As a principle mover in the ongoing name change, recognized by scholarly organizations, see [13], accessed 28 July 2015.

Search foundation in each of these preliminary citations. The fact that it is a stub article in need of improvement does not mean it is not a notable subject. Far poorer articles exist broadly at this encyclopedia. Finally, apart from ethnocentricity, that fact that it is not as notable as the ACS in America, to Americans, does not mean it is not sufficiently notable for an English language encyclopedia. Jrfw's earlier inexperience notwithstanding, the citations I provided here are more than enough to get the renewed page going. Bottom line, keep it, and keep it separate. Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see a wikilink to a merger discussion in the above. You mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBC Foundation?  Sandstein  17:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I Wikilinked to the article whose banner says deletion discussion resolved with intent to merge. I figured if I, as a Wikitech limited editor knew this, you would go straight there as well (via the banner, and after reviewing the Talk page). Here is the direct link you request, [14]. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. So we have a consensus to merge in that discussion. That's an editorial decision. If you go to Talk:Primary biliary cirrhosis and convince the editors there to form consensus that it should not be merged, or unmerged, you're good. Otherwise I can't help you.  Sandstein  17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That discussion is ongoing, and likely will break in favor of it remaining separate. (One opposed stalwart remains.) If we agree there not to merge, then the article deletion tag can be removed? Cheers, thank you for quick replies. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, that discussion consists only of yourself. So, no. You'd need a consensus at least as strong as the one emerging from the deletion discussion.  Sandstein  15:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see my User page when you have a moment, if you think me a fool. I will merge the various threads of, er, the discussion that you are missing, and let you know when the matter is ready for further review.

I would also note that the deletion/merger discussion attracted a total of two editors besides the two initially opposing editors, so that even the appearance of only my single and informed voice—making the voting voice two in favour of merger, one opposed—should be considered significant in the formal statistics of this discussion. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for considering this again. Leprof 7272 has done the improvement work that I should have done when I created the article and has elegantly made the case that this is a notable organization. There was only one week between when I created this and the so-called consensus to merge and two limited views, apart from the initial proposer who did this on a very early draft. Unlike many others, I do not have time to work on WP on a daily basis and am unfamiliar with these protocols. This seems a destructive and ill-informed process which will not improve the disease article. I have quoted the examples of American Diabetes Association and Diabetes before and think our (rarer) disease entry compares very favorably. Jrfw51 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)