User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/September

Abella Anderson AfD

Hello. I am wondering if you would mind elaborating on your no consensus decision for this AfD. I realize that you wrote "the community is clearly still split about what to accept as indications of notability in the porn topic area, and this discussion reflects this." I suppose, more specifically, what are you seeing in the keep votes that have merit? And If you don't mind, I might engage you further in a discussion about this AfD. It's not going to be argumentative. I intend it to be exploratory. But, of course, it is up to you if you are willing to engage in such a discussion. And it can be ended at anytime. Also, I actually think this will be helpful for me. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The sources below have nothing to do with me. They seem to move downward with each new section. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you please link to the discussion at issue?  Sandstein  04:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, here it is: WP:Articles for deletion/Abella Anderson (4th nomination) ----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Steve Quinn; I don't believe this close was accurate, for (at least) three reasons:

• The delete !votes were more numerous, better argued, more accurately argued, and better grounded in applicable notability standards and guidelines than the keep !votes.
• Keep !voters often claimed that meeting any one of the PORNBIO SNG criteria guaranteed or provided "automatic" notability. This argument is explicitly contradicted by the text of WP:BIO, which states that meeting an SNG criterion "does not guarantee that a subject should be included"; !votes based on it should have been discounted or, as appropriate, given no weight at all.
• A majority of the delete !voters argued that the subject's clear failure to meet GNG standards outweighed any technical pass of PORNBIO SNG standards. This argument is guideline- and policy-based, and was barely even addressed by delete !voters. It stands unrefuted, and is more than enough to justify, if not compel, deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Listen, colleagues: personally, I'm quite inclined to agree that we are far too lenient in our inclusion of porncruft, as well as other sorts of fancruft. But the fact is that roughly half of the editors who turn up at discussions like this AfD believe that anybody who gets one of the awards this industry likes to festoon itself with merits inclusion. That is a view one can well disagree with, but it is not without basis in guidelines, and the fine points of how GNG and SNGs interact are so controversial and complicated that I can't just determine by fiat who's right and who's wrong. It essentially becomes a matter of editorial judgment in individual cases. Given that, I don't see how I can undo my closure. And, Steve Quinn, nothing personal, but I'm not really interested in discussing this further.  Sandstein  13:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I really was interested in seeing in-depth what you are seeing in the keep votes that have merit, in the format of a civil discussion. But I can understand your opting-out of it at this at this point. Thanks for at least initially considering it. Ciao :) :) Steve Quinn (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016

Hey Sandstein as far as I know there is no timelimit to challenging a close, and as far as I can see no one asked you about the one above.

Would you please have a look at your close and the arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian? Many of the !delete votes that were made at the AfD above had the same rationale about TOOSOON, NOTNEWS, etc,. But you didn't seem to pick that up in your close this time. Would you please review and reconsider? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is already at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 26; please make any arguments concerning that AfD there.  Sandstein  19:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC) – Er, never mind, I see that the DRV has already been closed.  Sandstein  19:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello how are you?. I have a question, how many nomination is permitted for articles for deletion. Thank you and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no formal limit, but repeated nominations may be disruptive if they do not bring new relevant information or arguments forward. See WP:DEADHORSE.  Sandstein  17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinion on old AfD

The closing admin seems to edit fairly infrequently, so could you give your opinion on Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms))? The AfD is quite old, but the article is basically the same aside from a few plot additions. There have been references added, but they're all useless fluff aside from one interview with the creator. There are a couple cited reviews, but they have nothing to do with the character beyond mentioning the name in the context of plot. I think it's in a state where it should go back to a redirect, but do you think the length of time requires a new AfD? TTN (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that it's been 9 years, I think a new AfD would be appropriate.  Sandstein  21:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@TTN: I've now renominated it myself.  Sandstein  07:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Herp

I don't really agree with your decision in this AfD. One of the delete voters never even addressed notability requirements or the sources, they just claimed the article is PR and that somehow makes the subject non-notable. The other delete voter only addressed three of the sources (and only because I bothered to link them in the AfD itself) and then claimed that interviews in reliable sources don't count toward notability, which isn't backed up by the notability rules at all. Neither of these votes were policy-based or discussed notability requirements. Why was your result a consensus to delete? Silverseren^C 21:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please provide links to discussions you would like me to address.  Sandstein  04:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It's...the section title. Um, here I guess: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Herp Silverseren^C 05:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, you were the only editor favoring a "keep" outcome, and your arguments (reasonable though they were) didn't convince anybody else for three weeks, so that's that.  Sandstein  06:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what exactly? There were only three people involved in the AfD. And, as I already described, only one of the delete voters even tried to address notability and the extent of that was claiming that interviews in reliable sources don't count toward notability. Since AfDs aren't about the number of votes, but the arguments made, what exactly is the policy-based argument for deletion that was put forward in the AfD? Silverseren^C 07:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That the sources are insufficient for notability. That was discussed at some length, and your view did not convince the others. Sourcing quality is a matter of editorial judgment, so I couldn't overrule everybody else even if I shared your assessment of the sources.  Sandstein  07:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I re-read to see if I missed something and, no. It was not discussed at some length. For the first voter, the only comment they made was an inherently contradictory one and was, by their own statement, supporting them as reliable sources.

"Yes, there are some sources and they are from acceptable news sources, but still none of it actually establishes independent notability"

The only case where that statement wouldn't be contradictory is if those reliable news sources were somehow an actual press releases. And they were not. By the voter's own statement, they stated that the sources WERE quality and acceptable sources. Then made claims about PR that they never backed up whatsoever. Silverseren^C 07:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You did engage in detailed arguments about the PR-ness of the article or the source quality with each other editor, and they replied and did not change their mind. That's more discussion than in many AfDs. That's all I'll able to say about this AfD, I'm afraid.  Sandstein  07:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Silver Seren, you've been outnumbered by folks with inferior arguments. Fact is, the two non-nominator votes were from editors who rarely cast a keep !vote, yet somehow they get weighed as if they were impartial participants. The attendance at the AfD was dismal, and it doesn't look like anyone except you and other two bothered to comment, even though the AfD was DELSORT'ed appropriately early on in the process. I suspect that we're reaching the point where AfD is breaking just because it's overloaded and there are not enough participants willing to actually look at and apply policies in an appropriate manner. Alternatively, there is also probably a slight bias against getting involved in anything which even has a hint of paid editing or commercial advocacy, which means businesspeople might be treated more strictly than other individuals. Not sure how to assess if that was what happened, though. I would recommend against DRV, because I don't think you'll find a sympathetic ear there; I'd recommend getting the article userified and finding more sources. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine. *sigh* There were plenty of sources though. But whatever. @Sandstein:, can you please userify it to User:Silver seren/William Herp? Silverseren^C 20:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello? Silverseren^C 23:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I generally do not userfy deleted content, but you may ask another admin.  Sandstein  04:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump

I see you almost closed the RFC. Another admin has offered to close it when the time comes. I don't know if that fact needs to be more prominently displayed or not. What do you think, Sandstein?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh, probably not, these things are normally closed by whoever happens to come across them at the appropriate time.  Sandstein  21:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you please comment here: User_talk:NeilN#RFC_closure_at_Trump_BLP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sandstein, thank you for the detailed close you made on the Trump talk page. There's one issue that I'd appreciate if you would clarify. A minority of respondents expressed the view that inline attribution would be needed for the "false" statement (as opposed to putting it in Wikipedia's voice). An example of this might be writing "political fact checking organizations have singled [Trump] out as having made record numbers of false statements during his campaign" instead of "Many of [Trump's] statements [...] have been false". This position that "false" needed attribution was endorsed both by supporters (EllenCT, Vesuvius Dogg, Tryptofish, possibly MelanieN) and opposers (Crumpled Fire, Snow Rise, Aircorn, Anythingyouwant, DHeyward) and one editor who neither supported nor opposed (myself). The only editor I can find who specifically said attribution was not necessary was User:MrX, though I suspect Dr.Fleishman (who initiated the RfC) would agree.

While you mentioned "the presence of footnotes in the Lead" as a defensible "oppose" argument, as far as I can tell you didn't mention inline attribution in your close. So my question is: does your close lock in the "and false" wording as proposed, or will editors be permitted to try and find ways to add attribution without having to slog through another RfC to overturn a consensus wording? ~Awilley (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that AWilley asks a good question. I inserted the word "reportedly" today to at least avoid using Wikipedia's voice, but was reverted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Reportedly" is not an improvement IMO per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Expressions_of_doubt. (Apologies to Sandstein for the extra talk page posts) ~Awilley (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree it would not be an improvement in the article body, but there are different rules for the lead. The manual of style (at your link) says, "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." I already put attribution in the article body. I am not dead set against putting attribution in the lead too, but it may be more concise to use "reportedly" in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@AWilley and NeilN: I will probably not have time to look at this and reply until later today.  Sandstein  04:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Clarification.  Sandstein  07:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Gian kumar page

Hi, can the page Gian kumar can be recreated? Since you have deleted the page, I was just writing about it, before deleting please put some notice on y the page will be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagadeshanh (talk • contribs) 08:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It can, but you haven't given me any reason to. See WP:GNG and tell me how he meets it in a way not yet discussed in the deletion discussion.  Sandstein  10:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basket of deplorables

I am stunned. I happened on your decision just after I added material to the article form today's front page New York Times story about the impact of this comment, and just as I clicked to add a sentence to the article from a Washington Post article (not an opinion piece, an edited article) that describes the decision to ignore her physician's advice and give a speech in which she made this remark as having, "set in motion perhaps the most damaging cascade of events for her in the general-election campaign." [1]. In other words, even while I had stated at AFD that I was expanding and sourcing the article, it was closed - not allowed to run for 7 days - and meanwhile, in the real world, the national and international media are asking whether, in the words of Piers Morgan "This could be the weekend that cost Hillary Clinton the presidency." [2]. I am stunned. Simply stunned. Not here to request anything of you. I am just simply stunned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Something to discuss in the campaign talk page RFC, I think.  Sandstein  10:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The two Frederick S. Dunn's

Hi. You recently created two articles, Frederick Sherwood Dunn about the international law and international relations scholar and Frederick S. Dunn about the classical studies scholar and Klan leader. As it happens I have been working on articles around the law/IR Dunn's areas and had some material about him for future use, so I have gone ahead and greatly expanded that article (and intend to submit it for DYK, crediting you as well). However, I am concerned that while I think Frederick Sherwood Dunn was correctly located by you at that title, he was often known as Frederick S. Dunn as well. And right now if you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Frederick_S._Dunn, several of the incoming links are intended for the law/IR scholar ... but are coming to the classicist/Klan Dunn instead. This is especially unfortunate given that Dunn's notorious reputation.

I think that when you look at it, the law/IR Dunn is really the primary topic at Frederick S. Dunn. Look at this Google Books search, for example – the first five pages are virtually all about the law/IR Dunn. The same seems to be true of this Google Scholar search. And it's generally true for this Google web search as well. So given this, I think the best solution would be to move the classicist/Klan Dunn to something else, either with his full middle name (if you can find it) or with a disambig, like maybe Frederick S. Dunn (Oregon) or whatever fits the disambig rules best. Then links to Frederick S. Dunn will be more likely to find the intended subject. What do you think? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the law Dunn is clearly more notable. I've redirected Frederick S. Dunn there, and moved the other guy to Frederick S. Dunn (Klansman). Bit of an odd moniker, but professor, etc., wouldn't work, and I think "Oregon" may be a less well-known aspect of his than his Klan activity, for which he has now again been remembered.  Sandstein  10:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've modified the few articles that mention the classicist/Klan one to point to the new title. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrinsic plasticity

What was the point of relisting this? It has been discovered that we already have another article about the subject so no other outcome than merge/redirect to that article is at all possible. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I relisted because we don't yet have consensus.  Sandstein  10:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

But aren't admins supposed to use common sense rather than just count votes? I'll eat my hat, and yours as well, if this gets closed as anything other than a merge/redirect. Why waste another week when the result is obvious? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Patience, young IP. Justice will come in time to this deletion request as to all others.  Sandstein  07:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Frederick Sherwood Dunn has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Sandstein. Frederick Sherwood Dunn, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of List of start pages services without concensus

I noticed you deleted the List of start page services article. Can you please explain to me how 1 vote to delete (which was disputed without further comment) can be considered a sufficient reason for deletion? Considering the amount of time I put into creating and updating this article and the fact it is (contrary to what was suggested) not original research, but based on an external source, this deletion seems spurious. Please reply. Based on that I can decide whether I should dispute the decision (based on lack of consensus).Michieldewit (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please link to the AfD discussion.  Sandstein  10:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I updated my previous comment and embedded the link to the AdD page. Can we now please have an on-topic conversation?Michieldewit (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody opposed the deletion. I disregarded the "Comment" statement because it does not express a clear preference in the form of "keep" or "delete", as is customary, and is furthermore unsigned.  Sandstein  11:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it was rather clear from the "I, however, do not share your opinion regarding deletion" that the comment opposed the idea of deletion. Furthermore, from the writing, I think it was clear the comnment was by one of the page's editors. I feel you have been mainly applying rules, not listening to opinions. This sort of behavior is what makes Wikipedia a very unpleasant environment for new users (like myself) who are not aware of every tiny detail of WP-protocol.Michieldewit (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of start page services

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of start pages services. 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. Michieldewit (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation Controversy AfD

Hello Sandstein.

Thanks for your effort in sorting out and closing this AfD. For the benefit of those who are continuing to work on the article, I wonder whether you could summarize the weight of the arguments on each side of the AfD while it is still fresh in your mind? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In terms of policies and guidelines, genuine spinoff articles (WP:SS) are often not easy to distinguish from POV forks. It takes the editorial judgment of neutrally-minded editors familiar with the topic to do that, and since I'm not familiar with the topic, I'm not able to say whose arguments I find more convincing. Except that there was a disappointing number of nearly pure votes, consisting of little more than "it has sources" or "it is a POV fork". These are unhelpful; editors should examine whether there is a subtopic distinct from the main topic that has received more than WP:NEWS-type coverage such that it is independently notable, and that its contents are neutral per the usual rules of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. That probably needs more talk page discussion, which could result in a consensus to e.g. merge or to keep the subarticle.  Sandstein  21:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Buonaparte

Hi, I saw that you closed the discussion. I did look into Google books, and I was seeing entries in Italian mostly: link. For example, "Le 17 novembre 1708, Sebastiano Buonaparte, arrière-grand-père de Napoléon et plusieurs fois membre du Conseil des Magnifiques Anciens, avait épousé Maria Anna Tusoli, fille de l' Alfièr Carlo Tusoli de Bocognano, riche propriétaire de..." (I read a bit of French and this appears to say: Sebastiano Buonaparte, great-grand-father of Napoleon, a member of [some] Council, married Maria Tosoli, a daughter of a wealthy owner..." link. A bit more on the genealogy: link. Perhaps this could be reopened so that I could add these sources? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind; maybe I'll create a new article :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be better, since the previous source (and hence the previous content) is likely not usable.  Sandstein  12:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion of Blossom Ozurumba

I wish to ask that this page be reviewed again as the deletion is still quite not the best decision in my estimation Nwankwochi (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwankwochi (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please link to the article or deletion discussion, and tell me why you think the page was wrongly deleted.  Sandstein  12:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Sandstein. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Why in the world did you delete my corrective plot improvement for the t.v. show, The Expanse?

Hello, my question is why in the world did you delete my corrective plot improvement for the t.v. show, The Expanse? The other plot before my corrective improvement was full of grammatical and sentence structure errors. Why would you change it back to the original when mine is an improvement? Like his is better than mine? C'mon. So if it is in fact true that less verbose is sometimes better, then my argument is less verbose is not always better, such as it is in this case. Also, it's only tl:dr for those whom are too lazy to read it. I get the feeling mods like yourself just abuse your privileges and because you may or may not like a certain topic. In this case, one of my favorite shows, The Expanse, fell victim to your abusive and intentional antics, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.226.11 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, accidentally posted double.

Any editor can revert content, not just administrators. We should be brief, see WP:NOTPLOT and WP:UPE. Feel free to correct errors without making the text too long.  Sandstein  21:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Merlini

Hi Sandstein. I do not see sufficient discussion of the sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Merlini for a "delete" close. No one responded to my argument that:

This 1,354-word article from The Budapest Sun and this 624-word article from Hetek are solely about David Merlini and contain detailed biographical coverage about him. They are not "routine notices or reviews about an unusual performer". According to a Greystone Books–published book, David Merlini in 2009 set a "world record for assisted breath-holding". That his world record was covered in a book strongly indicates it is not routine.

Only DGG expressed an opinion about my sources. (It is unclear if Appable reviewed the sources.) None of the previous participants returned to the AfD discussion, so nothing can be concluded from their silence. That DGG and I disagree on the sources is insufficient for a "delete" close. I ask you to either reclose as "no consensus" or relist the debate since the AfD had been relisted only once. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You have a point, and your sources do look good. But there was sufficient opportunity for discussion - the sources were available for more than a week, were presumably read by several people, and the only person to comment on them was unconvinced. I see no reason to believe that things would be any different after a relist.  Sandstein  21:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional explanation. I have taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 24#David Merlini. Cunard (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska

Hi, I am confused how a "no consensus" verdict was reached when deletion was becoming the obvious notion among users. Both keep votes were argued and countered by those in favor of deletion. The deletes also gave specific reasons other than "additional sources must exist" without actually finding those sources. I am strongly urging you to reconsider your decision and reflist the discussion so the correct outcome can be settled.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, "countered" is a matter of opinion here. How good sources are is a question of editorial judgment, and not something I can decide by fiat. Also, AfDs are normally relisted twice at a maximum. So I remain of the view that there's no consensus in this AfD.  Sandstein  19:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ultra Monsters

Please restore the Ultra Monsters page. This was the only complete listing of all monsters from the original Ultraman series and has direct links from the Ultraman wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.240.9.4 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please link to the page or discussion.  Sandstein  22:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy Sims Fitch listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Guy Sims Fitch. Since you had some involvement with the Guy Sims Fitch redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sandstein, I know you by reputation and respect your long edit history. I was once accused of being just like you. However, I disagree with your recent editing in regards to Guy Sims Fitch. The toothpaste has to go back into the tube. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Toothpaste? Tube? What do you mean?  Sandstein  16:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a saying about the difficulty of putting toothpaste back into the tube. It's not important. My concern is that there's a lot of conjecture going on and while I'm glad there are better sources being found (which are also probably conjecture) I don't think this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We're supposed to be using secondary sources to look backward. You seem to be grabbing stuff that's not even journalism to just add cruft to pages. I don't think that's constructive, at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Can this page be created now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagadeshanh (talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No. Why should it?  Sandstein  10:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)