User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/August

Covariance mapping redirection

Please continue this discussion on Talk:Covariance matrix. There is clearly no consensus to restore Covariance mapping. Sandstein 12:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Sandstein, A few years ago I wrote a Wikipedia page on “Covariance mapping”. Unfortunately this page has been effectively removed by redirecting the title [1] to a quite different page on Covariance matrix. The discussion on this change tells me that you approved the redirection on 26 September 2018. I think there was a misunderstanding that lead to the redirection and I would like to suggest how the missing information can be restored within the current structure of the relevant articles. The misunderstanding can be pinpointed in the discussion on covariance mapping: “Delete Isn't this just the covariance matrix?”. Well, mathematically this is true, but covariance mapping is not just mathematics – it is a spectrosopic technique. In the same way as a reproduction of Mona Lisa is not just a collection of RGB values. With this hindsight, the covariance mapping page should be clearer about it, perhaps having a title “Covariance mapping (spectroscopic technique)” or something to this effect. There is also a criticism that “A few sentences of mathematical triviality (generalizes the notion of covariance from random variables to random functions)…” I am afraid that the triviality applies only to the simple covariance maps, since the mathematics of partial covariance maps is not trivial at all, and in fact it is completely missing from the current page on the covariance matrix. And the above criticism continues with “… are followed by an unencyclopedically detailed account of a free-electron-laser experiment.” I see it as a continuation of the misunderstanding, because these details explain the spectroscopic aspect of the technique rather than just the mathematical one. However, if you think that these explanations are “unencyclopedic” I am happy to improve it. There is also a comment that “This is nothing but advertisement for a few papers by a small group of scientists.” I disagree – my intention is to describe the spectroscopic technique that is currently used by over a hundred researchers. In fact I have noticed the redirection when I wanted to mention and add a link to a very similar (and in one version identical) technique of two-dimensional correlation analysis. If the article reads as an “advertisement” I am happy to modify the wording. I would like to add that the original page was praised by the reviewer: “Thanks for creating Covariance mapping, FizykLJF! Wikipedia editor JacobiJonesJr just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you: Excellent article. Keep on chugging!” I propose to remove the redirection, restore the original page on covariance mapping with the possible modifications outlined above and link it from the Applications section of the Covariance matrix page. Please let me know what you think. FizykLJF (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC) I know nothing about mathematics, and so can't really comment on this. Asking the AfD participants for comments: @Nsda, Loraof, XOR'easter, and Qwfp: your view? Sandstein 16:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC) I stand by my comments on the AfD page: "Delete as per explanation by nominator: mathematical title, but no notable mathematics; extreme detail on physics experiment is unencyclopedic. Also, content seems to have been written by same person who is author or co-author of all six cited works, hence WP:COI." Loraof (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC) I suggested a selective page merge to 'Covariance matrix' but nobody offered to perform this at the time and XOR'easter pointed out "we could make the page into a redirect first and worry about merging bits of it later", which is what Sandstein was referring to in his closing comment that "content may be merged from history". So you're still free to do that, i.e. take selected bits from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covariance_mapping&oldid=860240346 and add them to 'Covariance matrix'. You'd need to explain that's what you've done either in the edit summary or on the Talk page (required by Wikipedia's copyright license - see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). I'd suggest adding a brief synopsis of the topic is appropriate rather than all the 2000-plus words plus illustrations from your article. Other Wikipedia editors would be free to object to your addition by removing some or all it of course, in which case you'd need to start a discussion on the talk page of 'Covariance matrix'. Qwfp (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Thank you, Qwfp and Loraof for your constructive comments. I have read the new Covariance matrix article carefully and the WP:COI rules and I agree with your suggestions how to merge some of the old content into the new article structure. I will describe the planned additions on the Talk page of the article and declare a possible conflict of interest using the "connected contributor" template. Once the plan is accepted (by you?) I will edit the article. While reading the most relevant section Covariance matrix#Block matrices, I have noticed a couple of minor deficiencies: I think the X and Y symbols, including in subscripts, should be bold and not italic to be consistent with the previous sections. When applied to a dispersion matrix, "conditional variance" is known as "partial covariance matrix", i.e. the part of covariance that is independent of the common-mode fluctuations induced by vector it is conditioned on. (W J Krzanowski Principles of Multivariate Analysis, p. 428). Shall I make these corrections? FizykLJF (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Old but still unenacted AfD decision

Hello, I came across the disambiguation link "Turkish Genocide" in an off-wikipedia discussion about alleged Muslim genocide by Christians. It was being used as proof of genocide. I am surprised it exists given it was subject to a successful AfD request: [2]. You gave the result as "delete". The AfD was NOT about an article with content, it was definitely about getting rid of the disambiguation "Turkish Genocide" from Wikipedia - that is clear from the text of the AfD proposal, as well as many of the deletion arguments. Why does it still exist as a disambiguation link over three years after it was decided to delete it? 92.17.58.100 (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The redirect was recreated, some 3 years ago. I have re-deleted and protected the page. Sandstein 12:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

AfD Bill Goodwyn

Hi, I have tried republishing Bill Goodwyn's page because he meets WP:BIO and has WP:RS but because of previous versions that included too much WP:PROMO content the page was deleted immediately. I'd like to try publishing a stub version of his page with the most notable sources to cut out any of the puffery from the original draft. Are you able to re-open the deletion discussion for his page? Shipmark (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I won't reopen this old of a discussion. I suggest you present your version of a stub article to DGG, the admin who proposed the deletion. If he's ok with recreation, then so am I. Sandstein 13:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Shpmark, as this is the only article you've written, I think it's reasonable to ask you about Conflict of Interest --see WP:COI, and if it should apply, WP:PAID. It's also reasonable to ask about any possible connection with the prior editors. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Encorps

Okay, you got Encorps Drum and Bugle Corps article deleted from the Wikipedia. The corps still exists, however, so why in the hell did you delete them from the list of active corps on the DCI navbar??? What is your problem with Encorps??? There must be one, because you are certainly making it look like a personal issue... GWFrog (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of this specific article, or how this concerns me, but generally: Navboxes are lists of links to articles. See WP:NAVBOX. No article means no link, and therefore no navbox entry. The subject may still have its place in the appropriate articlespace list. Sandstein 22:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

M.k.m2003

Hello, can't you Come back this decision? M.k.m2003 (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Your ban is not my decision, but the community's. I cannot undo it. Sandstein 18:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I create a page with enough resources Like Farahabad Complex M.k.m2003 (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Sandstein 19:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I would just like to send you some appreciation for your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination). It was obviously hard work and likely not too pleasant. Your summary and closure are appeased, careful and well-argumented. I take them as an example of high-level editorial administrator work. Thank you. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK?

Is it OK if I ask you for some directions about problem in dispute resolution, and which is actually more problem of conduct in dispute resolution than problem of content, but it concerns editor you are quite familiar with ? I intentionally don't want to mention any names, and if you are not going to look at it yourself, so if my request isn't quite in line with usual practice we can leave it at this, without any harm inflicted at anyone.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This tells me nothing, so I can't say yes or no to it. Sandstein 20:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to drag you in too deep, or my self into trouble, if it's not proper practice, so I will try again still very carefully - tell me at least how far I can go and disclose here - is it OK if I ask your directions or even involvement in ongoing dispute, which lasts for at least 4-5 days, where I perceive numerous constan breaches on both, conduct policies WP:IUC and behavior guidelines WP:EQ, with WP:CANVASING through Campaigning and WP:FORUMSHOP, and maybe worst of all WP:ASPERSIONS, misleading posts and flip-flop on claims and statements sometimes in one sentence, and some more, but the main reason I am being careful is that you are familiar with editor's behavior, which I see as possibly both useful for the resolution, since I have no doubts in my mind what you encountered that time around, this case is at least extremely similar, or bad in terms of procedure.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

.... No, this doesn't sound good. I'm not a mediator. Try some of the options at WP:RS WP:DS. Sandstein 21:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC) (Edited to fix link, Sandstein 08:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC))

Yes it is bad, and I came to the point where I got too tired in attempting to steer debate from myself and focus it toward content and discussion on sources, it's simply impossible when they throw at you barrage of insinuations and mind readings, when you become a focal point of discussion. I need someone to look at conduct, so I thought maybe someone already familiar with the particular editor would be the best option. However I do completely understand your concerns and I thank you on your time. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sweet Baby J'ai Afd

I disagree with your decision to close the Afd on the basis of "no consensus". I made several points in that discussion that the other side didn't refute or address. What am I supposed to do if the other side doesn't answer questions? That's not a stalemate of no consensus. I made points that they couldn't refute. Doesn't that mean my arguments were correct and the article should be deleted?
Vmavanti (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Link please? Sandstein 17:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Here—Vmavanti (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, another way to look at it is that in three weeks, you did not manage to convince a single other Wikipedian that the article should be deleted. No way I can find a consensus to delete here. Sandstein 19:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That may be one way to look at it, but it's not how Wikipedia works. Fortunately, I am not obligated to try to persuade someone who for arbitrary reasons is against deletion of any kind. Deletion isn't decided by a show of hands. Under "How an AfD discussion is closed" at Articles for deletion the rules say, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments". Based on policy— not on whether one person wants to keep an article for their own selfish reasons. You can judge for yourself which arguments in that discussion are reasonable. You can judge whether there enough sources to write an article of substance about this subject. It's not a close call.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that nobody agreed that your arguments were convincing, I don't need to make this judgment because I don't see the possibility of finding a consensus to delete. AfD is not a vote, true, but a consensus to delete does need to be reflected in some degree of support for the proposition to delete an article. Sandstein 09:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

XfD of Marketing performance measurement

I am currently reading an allegation by Dpleibovitz at Talk:Marketing performance measurement the execution of the deletion at the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing performance measurement was poorly executed. Any comments. If we have issue in process then it is WP:DRV matter. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see grounds for DRV. The issues raised at that talk page can all be addressed by editing or, if need be, deletiñg the other affected pages. Sandstein 09:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No consensus

I weighed in on the Daniel Cameron (lawyer) article. The result of the AfD was that there was "no consensus." Where does that leave the status of the article? The "Keep " clearly appears to violate long-standing Wikipedia policy that candidacy for an office of itself does not equate with notability and I don't believe it met GNG, which was cited lacking specifics, as to how it met the policy criteria. I'm not being critical, and appreciate your efforts to keep the machine oiled. Two brief Trump tweets that were repeated with very brief comments were posted from a half a dozen sources, even though they contributed virtually nothing, but some editors who weighed in were counting the aggregate number of citation sources, apparently without reading them (some of the citations, originating with AP, were identical but with different URLs), rather than whether they had unique content. I'm okay with the process, both in this case and for the future, though I believe the should be deleted, just wondering, since the default position appears to be "Keep." Activist (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hi. Stevanpesic has made two reverts on Kosovo within a few hours, although the page clearly says that not more than one revert within 24 hours is allowed. After they made the second revert, I placed a DNS alert on their talk page and a short explanation on the issue. If they do not respond or continue reverting, what am I suppossed to do? Should I report at AE? Sorry for not providing links because I am on the phone and the process takes time that I do not have rn. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nishkid64: You added the restriction at Template:Editnotices/Page/Kosovo, would you take a look at this? Sandstein 13:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Nishkid64 has made two edits in a year so they might not have time to look at the issue. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: blocked Stevanpesic for 24 hours. Hopefully they will not revert again. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your administrative work! And for daring to make tough decision!--BabbaQ (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Such decisions are especially daring for one so WP:INVOLVED! Congrats! Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

BabbaQ, prematurely closing an AE discussion without even so much as reading it and then blocking that person prematurely is not something to be giving barnstars for,

Why not scroll through Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active and give barnstars to people that actually deserve it. –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein don’t mind the shade, stay in the sun.BabbaQ (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Wearing out the competition"

Hey Sandstein,

I'd appreciate it if you could review this thread and tell me whether the other editor's behavior constituted "incivility" under WP:ARBEE. The other editor repeatedly ignores questions and objections about his sourcing, while continuing to pile them on a single statement in the lead (see here). It's getting ridiculous: after asking that I enumerate my objections in the very thread I opened to discuss my objections, I've posted a 15 point numbered list to which he replied with "Please could you number your statements". This conduct is clearly intended to wear out one's patience, but whether it's sanctionable under WP:ARBEE/incivility or under WP:ANI guidelines is something I'd like your opinion on. François Robere (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a remedy in WP:ARBEE aimed at "incivility". Which remedy do you have in mind? Sandstein 11:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I misread it. The original incivility sanction [3] was superceded by DS [4]. François Robere (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The thread you link to is too long for me to examine. If you think enforcement is needed, please use WP:AE and cite the specific diffs to which you object. Sandstein 11:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, would trying to "wear out the competition" instead of discussing objections be grounds for DS? François Robere (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Depending on the circumstances, yes, but AE is best suited to clear-cut cases where the problem is apparent from one or two diffs. I'm not sure this is one. Sandstein 11:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

And there would be no other venue for raising this other than an ARBCOM case, correct? François Robere (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry that FR feels I was incivil, rest assured I always try to be polite, I will of course answer his questions regarding Nazi genocide of Poles and Nuremberg Trials soon.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: The discussion has been ongoing for 10 days. Do you have a timeline for answering what you've been asked? François Robere (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I'd still like an answer for that: is there no venue on Wikipedia for dealing with stonewalling, trolling and other disruptive behavior, except ARBCOM? François Robere (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:DR. That should cover all our venues. Sandstein 15:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll rephrase: Are you aware of a Wiki-venue where admins actually enforce sanctions for disruptive editing rather than defer to ARBCOM? François Robere (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Mu. Sandstein 18:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Closing of AfD

Sanstein, I wanted to comment on your AfD review closure [[5]]. I think it was missing a critical element, an analysis of the quality of the closing by Randykitty. As I said in my review arguments, this shouldn't be a question of if the AfD conclusion was correct, and many of the endorse arguments were nothing more than that. This needs to be a question of, was the process correct. In this case the process was short changed when the closer decided that numbers didn't matter (NOTAVOTE nor CONSENSUS actually say that) and instead based the closing only on their reading of the arguments. That is within their purview but when the analysis of the arguments are all but devoid of any detail one has to expect problems. I would hope RK would go back and offer a more detailed explanation of their thinking. That both respects the process and the editors who put effort and thought into the discussion and, as it stands, have good reason to feel this was ultimately a supervote by the closer, who may actually have had a bullet proof analysis in their head, when a clear no-consensus was the obvious answer. Springee (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a valid argument, but it didn't obtain consensus in the DRV. For the most part, the DRV did examine the AfD process. Sandstein 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, not a single Endorser actually commented on the sufficiency of the closure notice except to say that they agreed with it - which is nothing more than an AfD argument. In any event, Sandstein, can you help me obtain a copy of the deleted article so I can improve it in Sandbox for a future reinstatement? Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't generally undelete articles. Perhaps you can ask the deleting admin? Sandstein 16:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisting

Why relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yosef Yitzchak Jacobson (2nd nomination) for a second time? The first didn't draw any new comments. In addition, I think the conclusion of the discussion seems clear enough to me that 1. there is no consensus to delete this article 2. there are a relatively large number of sources in this article and many more available, which additionally established notability. Even one of the editors who argues to delete this article has stated that 'you probably have enough consensus for "keep" anyway'. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Eh. I thought additional discussion might yield a consensus. Sandstein 07:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Koavf close on AN

Thanks for your close of the thread on sanctioning Koavf. One thing though - I'm fairly sure there was a consensus to remove AWB privileges as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will look into that. Sandstein 07:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

/* Time To Know */

Dear Sandstein, good day:

I am contacting you about the proposed page: TIME To KNOW which you marked for deletion on Aug 4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time To Know I had compiled the original posting which is in my Sandbox: User:Larryesbee/sandbox

The deletion log shows the following:

• 14:33, August 4, 2019 Sandstein talk contribs deleted page Time to Know (Delete redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time To Know closed as delete (XFDcloser))

The discussion regarding the “Delete” action are recorded on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time To Know and started on July 18, 2019. My question relates to comments that there is no notability and no references, and that: “WP:CORPDEPTH not met - no independent references about this company. I'm not convinced the article isn't a chimera of two (non-notable) companies of the same name. power~enwiki” noted by power~enwiki on July 18.

We hold that this is inaccurate as we listed a number of independent references and believe we met the Wikipedia Notability criteria by virtue of the fact that the company has been quoted and referred to in a number of publications, including Forbes. e. g. :

1. https://www.themarker.com/labels/techstation/time-to-know/1.7135357
2. http://e.forbes.co.il/morris-kahn-i-want-to-make-life-worth-living/Morris Kahn
3. Confessions of a 'Start-up Junkie', Ha'areetz [6]
4. https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-migdal-aurec-buying-frankfurt-building-for-nis-1b-1001197475

We can show additional credible references.

We would appreciate your advice on why you felt the need to delete an article for a 16-year-old company, with a vision to change the way workers and children learn (see TV interviews in the links below). The company was founded and is owned by Shmuel Meitar and Morris Kahn - two of Israel’s leading investors and philanthropists. Two years ago the company split into two separate companies: Et Ha’daat which produces educational content, and Time to Know, which has developed the technology to deliver the educational/training content in the most efficient way. Today Time to Know supports +500,000 users around the world. Included in this user group are such notable companies as: Unilever Brazil, Unilever Mexico, Porto Seguro Brazil, BDO, Howden, Bristol Myers and many more. If this did not come across in the original article, we are happy to amend it accordingly. Other comments were that the material was “promotional” but we went to great lengths to remove any promotional or advertising-type content from the description. If this has not been achieved, we would appreciate your help in identifying such content, which we will amend.

We believe that the article is appropriate for inclusion by virtue of the company's global position in the educational and vocation training sector. Any comments or direction you may be able to give us to get the page restored, would be greatly appreciated as would any other suggestions.

Sincerely Larry Butchins – User: Larrysbee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larryesbee)

TV Interviews:

1. https://vimeo.com/14394296 - Interview Joel Klein, Chancellor, NYC Department of Education
2. https://vimeo.com/15497863 MSNBC video_ Are schools embracing technology – Interview Shmuel Meitar
3. https://vimeo.com/15567439 - NBC Panel - Shmuel Meitar
4. https://vimeo.com/15435979 - NY PIX Morning News Blog
5. https://vimeo.com/15568368 - NBc News Education – Shmuel Meitar in Panel on NBC
6. https://vimeo.com/16497341 - PIX 11 NYC
7. https://vimeo.com/31202745 - Time To Know in action at St-Mary’s school – Bronx12 TV
8. https://vimeo.com/31787526

Larryesbee (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for being forthright, but per WP:COI, you should not be soliciting edits on behalf of your company, and I will not assist you with it. Sandstein 18:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. We in no way meant to solicit edits and apologize if that's how it came across. We are merely wanting to know, in good faith, how to (and if we can) re-instate our page. We need some guidance, that is all. If you are able to point us in the right direction, that would be appreciated; if not, we fully understand and are of course willing to comply with all Wikipedia conditions. With thanks. Larryesbee (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Closure of Deletion Review JK! Studios

Your closure is not a good closure of the deletion review. This was not a good reading and closure of the Janice Yaniv deletion review either. Perhaps someone else should close cases where administrators made a mistake. Just one editor's opinion. Lightburst (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Sandstein 14:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Chet Douglas

Dear Sandstein! Once upon a time you deleted this article. Can you backup it for my own use to user:Doc Taxon/Neil Bzibziak please? Thank you very much, Doc Taxon (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't generally undelete articles. Please ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 18:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I only wanted a copy of the last revision, no undeletion at all. Thank you, Doc Taxon (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

For attribution reasons, I can't do that. Sandstein 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted article WP:Articles for deletion/Breaking Mysterious

Can you provide me with a link to this article, which you deleted? I'd like to save it to my user page so that I can continue to improve it, so that it can eventually pass Wikipedia's tough notability criteria. There are not too many TV series that feature interviews with NSA whistleblowers, former Secret Service agents on JFK's presidential detail, and investigations of CIA mind control programs. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess the Wikipedia terminology is "I'd like to userfy this deleted article". Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I figured out how to make this request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Breaking_Mysterious Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Rumble (website) wiki page

Hi, I'm the owner of Rumble and I noticed our Wikipedia page was deleted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_(website) ). You said there is no recent news, but since its difficult to search for news under Rumble due to our name, I figured I provide it directly to see if it makes sense to restore the page. Here are some major developments that may have been overlooked:

– Rumble ranked 10th fastest growing technology company in Canada in 2018 according to Deloitte: Deloitte Link

– Rumble ranked 75th fastest growing technology company in in United States in 2018: Adweek link

• Note the above Deloitte rankings are based on audited financials by Deloitte (a non-biased 3rd party official auditor which performed an independent analysis and investigation into Rumble) for companies over $5M+ revenue that achieved major growth in Technology.

Rumble is faster growing than all these companies (most have Wiki's): Whistle Sports (107), iSpot.tv (171), AppLovin (205), Kabbage (209), ZipRecruiter (240), GumGum (268), Fuze (290), Cision (301), Malwarebytes (313), Zendesk (338), JW Player (340), Facebook (350), HubSpot (354), 360insights (368), Foursquare (373), Clio (377), Palo Alto Networks (401), Izea (404), Vox Media (415), Innovid (440), Square (466), InfoTrust (480) and Zoom Telephonics (489). Second Adweek Link

– Rumble also surpassed over 1 million subscribers on YouTube, and has become a top 10 channel for Pets & Animals. Social Blade link

– Here is an interview on Live TV, BNN Bloomberg (Canada): Watch on Bloomberg Canada

− Here is me live on the New York Stock Exchange, talking Rumble: Watch on Cheddar

− Verizon interview and case study on Rumble: Verizon Study

− Financial Post article on Rumble and a Rumble creator. They even featured Rumble on the front page of their Business/Entrepreneur section of the newspaper in print. I can provide a picture if that helps?: Read Article

− CNBC article by a reporter on a Rumble creator: Read Article

I'm not a Wikipedia expert but I really do believe we warrant position in Wiki based on other companies I see listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services and believe it serves in interest to the community to see us as an option there, much more than many of them.

Let me know what you think. Any advice would be appreciated, and if you do not agree, any opinion/guideline on when I should reach out in the future again. Chris1983 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't have any opinion whatsoever on this. I'm just the admin who found a consensus to delete in the discussion. It's the other people who had opinions about your company. But see WP:COI... Sandstein 20:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about consensus closing

Sandstein, I wanted to ask your take on something. After the recent AfD and DR [[7]] I still feel that a fundamental issue is that the closing editor both didn't provide sufficient clarity and refused to offer more clarity when asked by several editors. Earlier today I tried to engage in a discussion with RK about the issue [[8]]. This is difficult because I want to respect the result of their closing while trying to start a dialog about my concerns with how the closing was carried out. I was very discouraged when RK immediately archived the discussion without comment. I'm not interested in impugning RK's good faith efforts nor trying to re-litigate the case. However, I do think the process was short changed and didn't follow the suggestions here [[9]]. My understanding of any closing is the closing editor, within reason, should be willing to discuss and support their closing. RK has simply been unwilling to do that. My feeling is I would like to get the views of others on this. Am I wrong in thinking a closing editor can simply refuse to answer reasonable questions about the closing? Is there a correct forum to discuss what level of accountability to editor questions is acceptable? Again, I'm not interested in re-litigating, rather understanding what the process says is reasonable. Thanks Springee (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the standard would be WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed." That said, my understanding is, once they have provided reasons for their actions, they are not required to enter into an extended discussion with you, even if you disagree with their reasons. Sometimes people just disagree, and we have to live with that. The only forum to effectively review admin actions is WP:RFAR, but I can't remotely see how a disagreement over one closure could justify an arbitration request. Sandstein 20:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree this isn’t something that rises to that level. However, RK didn’t reply to any of the requests for further clarification. In that regard I think they haven’t met the requirements of AdminAcct. In this case I thought there was a rule related to the responsibility as a closer. Again, my concern is that it’s clear the logic used to decide the merits isn’t clear and thus the process is undermined. I’ve certainly seen cases where admin closings are disputed even after further discussion by the admin. This is the only case I can think of where such a contentious close was given such a limited reply and the admin refused all civil requests for clarification. Springee (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

United Plankton Pictures

Hi Sandstein! In December last year, you closed the AfD for United Plankton Pictures as merge. Correctly so, as the company is completely unnotable. I proceeded with the merge in February this year, however, an anonymous user now keeps recreating the article (crudely copy-pasted via the Visual Editor, so references are reformatted and categories are lost) against this consensus and our guidelines. Is there a way to delete the redirect completely and then recreate it only as a redirect, so that the history is gone? This would hinder users like this one from recreating older versions. Thanks for your consideration. Lordtobi (✉) 19:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lordtobi: I have semi-protected the page, which should act as a deterrent to the IP editor. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

C.Fred, thanks, this will work in most cases. I've seen people create accounts and pile up 10 edits in the sandbox to get autoconfirmed rights, but I don't think anyone would go that far for something as obscure as United Plankton Pictures. Lordtobi (✉) 08:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: If they did, let me know; there's always full protection. —C.Fred (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)