User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/August

Crozdesk "no consensus" result

Hi Sandstein,

The only person to !vote "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crozdesk was the article creator, and the citations that he added didn't in any way indicate notability, as shown by my review. Are you sure you made the right decision there? --Slashme (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, and consider your arguments persuasive, but in a 2:1 situation where the assessment of sources and therefore editorial judgment is at issue, I don't think we have the required consensus to delete. Bad luck that not more people participated. Try renominating this a few weeks later.  Sandstein  14:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks! --Slashme (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't discard my information

Why are you removing my information? I have references. Please I'm not here to cause war. I'm Here to just add information that I have. Nivesh500 (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nivesh500: Have you read WP:TVINTL to which you were linked? That's our policy about this.  Sandstein  10:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Blake Fitzpatrick

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Blake Fitzpatrick. 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. Filmfan655321 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Not seeing it. Please do not edit closed deletion discussions.  Sandstein  13:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

[[1]]Filmfan655321 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside (novel)

Hello,

I was hoping to recreate a Wikipedia page for my novel, Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside. It was previously deleted because there weren't enough primary sources, but I believe the reviews the book has received over the past few months should stand up this time. I'm pasting them below. Wikipedia said to contact you before attempting to write the entry again. Thanks for your help!

Previously deleted page:

http://deletedwikipedia.gawker-labs.com/wiki/Up_to_the_Mountains_and_Down_to_the_Countryside_(novel)

New reviews/press mentions:

http://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/chinablog/great-american-china-novel/ http://www.asianreviewofbooks.com/pages/?ID=2633 http://www.wcvb.com/chronicle/chroniclebooks-was-lizzie-borden-misunderstood/40094122 http://heredg.com/2016/07/exposing-pains-of-life-abroad/ http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainment/ci_29400081/books-by-bay-michal-mcclures-cuba-photos-show https://www.bpl.org/press/2016/04/08/quincy-carroll-author-of-up-to-the-mountains-and-down-to-the-countryside-brings-a-captive-audience-to-rural-china/ http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2016/03/83436-inkshares-up-to-the-mountains-and-down-to-the-countryside-dubbed-foreword-reviews-2015-indiefab-book-of-the-year-awards-finalist/ http://bookish.asia/up-to-the-mountains-and-down-to-the-countryside-%E2%80%A2-quincy-carroll/

Qc418 (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Qc418

Hi, you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside (novel)? It's quite likely that the novel is notable now with this coverage, but per WP:COI you should not write about your own book. Instead, wait for somebody else to be interested enough to write about it. Or at most you can make a draft and submit it to WP:AFC for others to review. Sorry, that's how we do things here.  Sandstein  20:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks!

Qc418 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Qc418

AFD close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Black (Magic: The Gathering player)

Hello Sandstein. I have concerns about closures you made at AFD using the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Black (Magic: The Gathering player). I feel that your closure there is an exceptionally tight reading of the BLP policy. There was no information in that article that was controversial, negative, or likely to be challenged. In addition, the policy at WP:BLPDEL does not appear to support your actions. It is rarely appropriate to bypass a deletion discussion for a reason that is not listed at WP:CSD, and I do not think that the fact the subject was a poorly sourced BLP is a sufficient reason. I'm asking you to undo your deletion and allow a different administrator to close the discussion. I'd encourage you to add your deletion rationale as a !vote.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I disagree with your view. BLP requires good sourcing for all biographical content, not only for controversial content (although especially for such content). WP:BLPDEL applies to deletions made directly in application of WP:BLP, and not, as here, to pages that underwent the normal deletion process. What I did was, as the closer of the AfD, weigh the opinions presented in the light of applicable policy, and in doing so I discounted the "keep" opinions for not addressing the sourcing issues and thereby the WP:BLP problems. For instance, your own opinion, in which you made reference to some Wikiproject page which is no guideline and therefore has no community consensus behind it, is completely irrelevant because it does not address the issue of the verifiability of biographies raised in the nomination. I therefore decline to undo the closure.  Sandstein  15:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Flivver listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Flivver. Since you had some involvement with the Flivver redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Powers ^T 17:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Zvi Band Deletion

Hi Sandstein, wanted to pick your brain and see what I need to do differently to publish the page "Zvi Band" without being flagged for deletion. I am slightly confused, as the largest grievance with the page was a lack of credible citations. I updated this, with credible sources, but it seems that it didn't do anything. Any insight/feedback would be greatly appreciated! Kiwi0wl (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you please provide links to the article and relevant discussions?  Sandstein  16:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I republished Zvi Band, but the talk pages have been deleted with it. These are the extra references on top of several other credible sources I already have included. [2] [3]Kiwi0wl (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. I have to ask: are you Zvi Band, or somebody paid or associated by him or his company?  Sandstein  07:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Im involved in the DC startup community and I was surprised someone as big as Zvi did not have a page. I suppose the association would be through common career and interests. Kiwi0wl (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

All right, I took a look at the page. At first glance, it looks very similar to the version deleted on 3 August 2016 via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zvi Band. Which, if any, references are new as compared to the version of the article that was deleted?  Sandstein  15:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Prior issues with the page stemmed from citations from his own site (I removed these). I substituted this with two citation-- one from the New York Times, and the other from the Washington Post. There are smaller local publications that I am hesitant to include because this was a point of contention in the past. I suppose, in general, I am slightly confused as to what constitutes a "public figure". For example, in Washington DC, Zvi is certainly a notable figure however he is probably insignificant to people in Zurich. Kiwi0wl (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I compared your restored version of the article with the most recent one prior to its deletion on 2 August. The only new source in this comparison is this Washington City Paper article, in which Mr. Band is mentioned once in a paragraph about his organization "Proudly Made in D.C". This is not significant coverage about him as a person; at best it's something to help make his organization notable, but not himself. Because the restored article is substantially identical to the deleted version, per WP:CSD#G4, I am re-deleting it. If you want to restore it, please wait until substantial coverage in reliable sources appears, and submit the draft article for review at WP:AFC or WP:DRV. Or you can redirect the page to his company Contactually where he is mentioned.  Sandstein  16:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the feedback. I appreciate the insight and the suggestions for moving forward! 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwi0wl (talk • contribs)

Blake Fitzpatrick

Can this article be rewritten, or are you completely dead-set on its deletion? Oh and i did not notify you nor swister twister because I did not know how, so my apologies. Filmfan655321 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles can be recreated, but may be speedily deleted if they do not address the reasons for the deletion.  Sandstein  17:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepin

...is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 17, which I know you'd see eventually, but maybe not until late in the process. —Cryptic 10:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich AfD

Re [4] - don't deletion discussions which concern BLPs (which applies to recently deceased, as well as this guy's family) default to delete if there is no consensus? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of.  Sandstein  19:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It seemed to me that there was abundant evidence that the media coverage of this event, after the minimal local mention typical for an urban crime, was all due to the self-serving insinuations by Wikileaks and its founder, who have acknowledged a longstanding animus to Ms. Clinton. WP is giving a platform for those unfounded, calculated and libelous insinuations and I too had understood that this was strictly prohibited by BLP. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Why can't that be addressed by editing out any of these libelous insinuations, etc.?  Sandstein  20:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I think various editors have tried to do that, but the same folks who think the event is notable -- including those who mistakenly think this because of the Wikileaks thing -- keep putting it back. I think it's kind of an enforcement issue. Given Arbcom sanctions on both BLP and American Politics, I'm surprised this has been allowed. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately Wikipedia works by consensus, so you'll need to convince others of your view. For genuine enforcement issues there's WP:BLPSE and WP:AE.  Sandstein  03:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Article Talk thread has been opened here Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Deletion_of_rewards SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. I followed your suggestion, but just as I feared an editor pre-emptively undid my removal, skipping discussion and claiming undemonstrated "longstanding consensus" before others could have a voice on the talk thread. This kind of behavior is increasingly evident on articles in any way related to the American election. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a content dispute, about which I have no opinion. Please see WP:DR for further options.  Sandstein  17:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gian Kumar

Shouldn't Category:Books by Gian Kumar also be deleted? Edward321 (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  21:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lin Liangming (3rd nomination)

Could you restore Lin Liangming's page since he has now played in a fully professional league (Segunda División)? AFCShandong (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested in sports; please ask another administrator.  Sandstein  21:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Drowtales

Wow. Deleting such a long article on one of the most accomplished webcomics in existence, Drowtales, just 42 days after deletion was rejected. This is just crazy. So, a few people can just repeatedly come back and demand deletion, and if no one pays attention (because 42 days!), it will be deleted. Can we *at least* preserve the wiki-code, so that the page can be reestablished when the creators drops their insistence on a purely direct market strategy? (Which could be any day.) --Anjoe (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The code of the page has not been lost, but only administrators can retrieve it.  Sandstein  19:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. So I ask you. Anjoe (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll restore the content only if you can address the problem of failing WP:N by providing not previously discussed reliable sources.  Sandstein  20:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The WP:N completely fails the mark in this case. Wikipedia is overflowing with articles on obscure literary works, because some PhD mentioned it in a thesis. All the while Drowtales is deleted. Probably the most comprehensive transmedial franchise centering on a webcomic ever created, with an associated detailed lore, thousands and thousands of comic pages, music, published books, computer games, a wiki, audio books, regular live streaming, spinoffs, role playing games. And with subscribers paying for a 4-7 person artists team through more than 15 years, and a website with traffic dwarfing a lot of the traffic for websites with big Wikipedia articles.

But I accept that Wikipedia apparently is lost in the old paradigm of gatekeepers and top-down media, which of course was not the way media originally worked, nor how it will work in the future. - All I want is the wiki code so I can edit and publish the article myself, and bring it back to Wikipedia the day it meets the entirely artificial and old-fashioned criteria. Could you please send it to my gmail address, andersjoergensen123 ? (Or let me have access to it in any other way.) Thank you. Anjoe (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No, as I said, I restore content only if it can be made to meet Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. Sandstein  21:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want it restored. I only wanted the text. But I now found it via google cache, so no need for you to do me a favor. - An unsuccessful deletion call, and then 42 days later the same thing. Do you really see that as a fair? Does that kind of proces make you proud as an admin? Anyway, later... Anjoe (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Should File:Drowtales.jpg also be deleted? Edward321 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  21:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Healy DRV

This was badly set up, and will not succeed, but it was appealing an AfD: the page had been redirected by WP:Articles for deletion/Matthew Healy. Just before you deleted it, I had fixed the link in this version. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I've reverted the deletion.  Sandstein  19:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please delete the false statement about myself which you posted

Re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich Greetings Sandstein, When you settled the debate over deleting the article on Murder of Seth Rich, you posted the following false statement about myself:

"If one discounts opinions that are not based on the topic's coverage in reliable sources, but consist of conspiracy-theorizing (PeacePeace, DestroyerofDreams, JGabbard) blocked low-editcount accounts (TradingJihadist) or mere votes (184.90.237.3), then one gets a slight majority to delete, but nothing approaching consensus."

1) My opinions are based on reliable sources. 2) My opinion is not that that of conspiracy-theorizing. So please delete my name from your statement. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC))

Nope.  Sandstein  17:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Food for thought

This [5] and this [6] were created by the same editor with largely the same information. It has a better title, just not better content. You were fortunate and unlucky enough to have to slog through both AfD's (though I would have deleted both, the second being a recreation of the first with more cruft). Not sure if the connection would have changed your analysis. I didn't bother to check who !voted in both and whether it would have super-majoritied the second. --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, AfDs are closed based on the opinions expressed in them, not the identity of article editors.  Sandstein  17:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Creation of BrightHR page

I work for BrightHR and would be keen to create a new Wikipedia page for the business. The page used to exist at BrightHR. The page was previously deleted however since this time I believe the business has become much more notable - which should be apparent from searches in Google. I don't want to create anything without having a conversation about it first. Cosmicsqueaker 15:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, per WP:COI, you should not create an article about your employer.  Sandstein  19:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If I persuade someone else that it's noteworthy and get them to write it would that be ok? Cosmicsqueaker 15:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

In theory, but they would need to recreate the article in a form that addresses the reasons for which it was deleted, or it will be speedily deleted again.  Sandstein  17:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016

I do not think that the fact an article is sourced is sufficient reason to avoid deletion. I would be appreciative if you would reconsider your decision or I will post it to deletion review. TFD (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What you write has no bearing on the determination of consensus in the discussion, so it can't be grounds for reassessing my closure.  Sandstein  04:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016. 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. TFD (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

RiskAoA

Hi Sandstein. Point of order. RiskAoA is not a likelihood consequence (LxC) approach, like all other DoD risk approaches. There is no 5x5 matrix, or red-yellow-green, etc.. LxC is used during the AoA process, but it is an inappropriate use of the tool, and yields spurious or, at best serendipitous results. L x C is used for components, like tasks on a schedule, circuit boards and estimates... RiskAoA is used when that level of detail is not known, choosing systems, before they are being built. If the sources don't pan out, the only objection I see so for, I wonder if stubification isn't the appropriate response. Personally, I am finding it irksome, that academic standards have so much favor, but the DoD, simply another institution, gets a hard time!
Thank you for your input, though. GESICC (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Alternatively, I'd be curious what other packages there are out there, can you hook me up with there names? GESICC (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion regarding the deletion and, apart from this, am not interested in the topic.  Sandstein  04:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Gorilla Sandwich

A webpage I was linking a citation to has been put on the blacklist all of a sudden www.(beforeitsnews.com/spirit/2013/03/raw-monkey-sandwich-recipe-2476162)/html This particular page had a neutral description and was depicting the Gorilla Sandwich rather well? Also can you tell me if I should try improving the article or leave it alone until a decision has been made.Vonlandsberg (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please link to what you are talking about.  Sandstein  04:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I can't link to it because it's on the blacklist. Wikipedia doesn't allow me. I have put the link in brackets see above. Just ad the prefix and postfix to it.Vonlandsberg (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, link to the article or deletion discusion, please.  Sandstein  19:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Here is the link to the article [7] I'm talking about.Vonlandsberg (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You can improve the aricle while it's at AFD, but it may still be deleted.  Sandstein  04:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• K thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonlandsberg (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Johannes Eggestein

Hi. An article on him would now pass notability guidelines having made professional debuts in 3. Liga and DFB-Pokal. I would like to request the un-deletion of the page. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in sports, please ask another administrator.  Sandstein  12:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You were interested enough to delete it but okay… Robby.is.on (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, deleting requires me only to assess consensus in an AfD, but restoring would mean reading about the topic, which, ugh.  Sandstein  13:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Aryan Khan Page

Hello,

I have created a page about Aryan Khan. Who is an Afghan Actor, Singer and TV Host. I know I am new here I may have made some mistakes in that page but it shouldn't be deleted, Because he is a living and a well known celebrity. Please help me to make it to the standards, and I apologize for any mistakes. I think it should be on WIKIPEDIA because it was before and now it is deleted. Please help me to recreate it. http://deletedwikipedia.gawker-labs.com/wiki/Aryan_Khan Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeStar1 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Not interested, sorry. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryan Khan resulted in consensus to delete.  Sandstein  11:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Agile Tooling Page Deletion

I do not understand why the agile tooling page was deleted. There were multiple faculty at The Center for Design and Manufacturing Excellence working to complete the page and link it to other sources. Agile tooling is a new term in the manufacturing world that describes a process for making metal pieces for cars/machinery/etc.For more information, please see this link.

Please advise,

Thank you

Hkm1233 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The article was deleted because nobody objected to the deletion request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agile tooling.  Sandstein  20:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gian Kumar (Author)

Hello,

Would request you to undelete the Gian Kumar - Author Page. The page was purely informational. Gian Kumar is a popular Author from India who writes about Spirituality. His work has been published in esteemed and leading National Newspaper of the country - The Times of India. I have read his books and follow him and his work. A humble request to please retain the Author's work. Please let me know, if I am missing something.

Link to the referred page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gian_Kumar

Looking forward.

Thanks, Nidhi Nidhi Arora (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Undulate? Sure:

Undulation

If you meant undelete, then no: You do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted.  Sandstein  14:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few references, about the Author and his books, Author Interview, please let me know if these are worthy:

<ref>http://rakhijayashankar.blogspot.in/2015/11/a-review-of-know-thyself-by-gian-kumar.html/ref> <ref>http://rakhijayashankar.blogspot.in/2015/12/awareness-is-only-total-and-real-life.html/ref> <ref>https://plus.google.com/+JayashankarRakhi/posts/Qtxb17J869h/ref>

References

Please let me know if these help or more are required... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhi Arora (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Please read WP:GNG and WP:RS and then link only the sources that you think meet these requirements.  Sandstein  15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. Will share a list of independent third party references. Nidhi Arora (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gian_kumar

Hi,

Even i see that the author writes in speakingtree column and hence I created this page, But don't understand the reason for deletion even though we have given references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagadeshanh (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is that the community arrived at consensus to delete the article in a deletion discussion.  Sandstein  14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In Regards of deletion of author Gian Kumar's page

Hi Sandstein It is unexpected to not found Gian Kumar's page on wikipedia. He's know personality. As mentioned by other users there are enough references available of Gian Kumar on internet. I llike to add more references: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Know_Thyself_Book_1.html?id=cmK2BgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y https://www.facebook.com/LeadstartPublishing/photos/a.203410253035090.49011.203408936368555/1054477611261679/?type=3&theater

I would request you to undelete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupika2303 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Please see my comment of 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC) above.  Sandstein  14:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

I have reviewed the delete discussion about Gian Kumar's page. The participants do not belong to India and hence, might to be aware about the Author. A humble request to please reconsider the page omission. The links shared earlier are represent decent references.

I have also read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The page adhered to the same.

Looking forward...

Thanks, Nidhi Nidhi Arora (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

AE sanction

Hello, about 3 years ago you gave me a sanction at AE [8]. Per the instructions at WP:AE (specifically the "Important: Appeals and administrator modifications of sanctions" section). I am asking you to lift it per BLOCK and the fact it does not serve any preventative purpose. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Declined, because your request does not indicate how circumstances have changed since the time the sanction was imposed such that it is now no longer needed.  Sandstein  21:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It was one incident, 3 years ago. It didn't happen before and never happened again. Please review the block at the link I provided above. I think it's self explanatory. I am at a complete loss as to what it's supposed to be preventing at this point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Still declined. Your terse statements do not indicate that you understand why the sanction was imposed originally, and how you have changed your editing to make sure that it is now no longer necessary. You do not even tell me why it might now be beneficial for Wikipedia to allow you to edit AE threads related to the topic.

You may make another appeal to other appropriate authorities, who may be better placed than I to evaluate whether or not the sanction should be lifted.  Sandstein  18:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what this block is preventing per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT so I can better formulate my next appeal? My statements are terse because it's obvious to me that 3 years later a block for a one time incident couldn't possibly be serving a preventative purpose, but I'm obviously missing something so please help me out here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It is intended to prevent you from repeating the conduct for which you were sanctioned, as described in the AE thread you linked to. I have addressed your appeal and will not respond further to queries about this matter.  Sandstein  20:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I appealed at WP:AE here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)