User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2021/June
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sandstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Trump effect on school bullying
Hi, I'm looking for a backup copy of an article you deleted called Trump effect on school bullying. If possible, I would like to recreate the article in my user space solely for research I'm doing about a related article about the Trump effect. No hurry on this. Whenever you have time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Viriditas, sorry, I don't undelete articles. You can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 18:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
You claim that "The "keep" opinions are weaker because they do not address the sourcing problems." In fact, two of the keep voters said that there was sufficient sourcing to meet GNG, which clearly does "address the sourcing problems". So I fail to see how, given there were two delete votes and three keep votes, this can be anything other than a supervote on your part, ignoring opinions for no good reason. If the intention of AfD was for the closer to just ignore opinions which do in fact address the proposer's concerns then we would not bother having AfDs in the first place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Necrothesp, if there is substantiated criticism of the sourcing in an article (as here, e.g., "That Al Jazeera article mentions him twice in passing"), I expect those with the opposing view to also substantiate their arguments by pointing to the specific sources that they believe establish notability, and outlining how they do so. If that is not done, as in this case, I give their arguments much less weight. Sandstein 14:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- That just confirms what I just said. You are giving greater weight to one side of the argument than the other. Two delete voters say there isn't sufficient coverage. Two keep voters say there is. I see no good reason to give more weight to one side than the other. This was a no consensus, if not an outright keep. In any case, it should default to keep. To close as delete is really not following the result of the debate and appears to be putting your own opinion, despite what was said in the AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Necrothesp, yes, I am weighing the pertinence of the arguments made at AfD, which is my job as closer. AfD isn't a vote. Sandstein 14:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that, but neither is it the closer's job to give greater weight to one side than the other when both sides are effectively saying the same if opposite things (sourcing is good enough; sourcing is not good enough). If a closer does that then it looks like a clear imposition of their own views. It is never a good idea to close as a delete when more editors have gone for keep and addressed the concerns of the nomination (i.e. their views are more than just ILIKEIT); at best this is a no consensus. I shall be taking this to DRV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Necrothesp, yes, I am weighing the pertinence of the arguments made at AfD, which is my job as closer. AfD isn't a vote. Sandstein 14:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- That just confirms what I just said. You are giving greater weight to one side of the argument than the other. Two delete voters say there isn't sufficient coverage. Two keep voters say there is. I see no good reason to give more weight to one side than the other. This was a no consensus, if not an outright keep. In any case, it should default to keep. To close as delete is really not following the result of the debate and appears to be putting your own opinion, despite what was said in the AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Checking the reason of a deleted page
Hello!
You have removed our page on Wiki 'Ucraft', but honestly I wasn't able to figure out what was wrong with it, so that we can improve and resubmit for further processing.
Your answer will be very helpful.
Thank you!
GB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.211.67 (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please link to the page at issue. Sandstein 14:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Here we go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ucraft 141.136.82.16 (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- The reason for the deletion is explained in the nomination on that page. Note that if you represent Ucraft, you must not attempt to edit that article, see WP:COI. Sandstein 12:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I represent Ucraft. Can you please recommend how can we post a page on Wiki? I think a lot of our community members will apreciate that. We need a little help or a hint. Thank you! 141.136.82.16 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I won't recommend how to do that because you should not edit an article about your own company. See WP:COI. Sandstein 20:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I checked the WP:COI, so thanks for sharing that.
I don’t know who submitted that page, but that was not us for sure. We want to figure out the issue and the reason it is removed.
We never submitted to Wikipedia before… 141.136.82.16 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Precedent set for other related articles like this?
Hi Sandstein, I recently noticed that the article "List of tallest buildings in Victoria, British Columbia" was deleted, particularly based on grounds of notability and reliability of sources from what I am seeing on this Articles for Deletion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Victoria,_British_Columbia
If an article like this is removable based on those standards, would that set a precedent for removal of other articles similar to this one? For example, Kelowna BC also has an article for its towers and buildings, yet Kelowna is at about the same level of notability Victoria is and has buildings similar in height to those in Victoria as well. It is also worth noting that the sources on that article are from the same sites used to reference the ones on the Victoria article, and I quote from one of the arguments for deletion from the Articles for Deletion page, "Database listings in Emporis, Citified and Skyscraperpage do not constitute significant coverage." I would like to know what your thoughts are on this.
Thanks! Thedarkempire (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thedarkempire, we don't really have precedents, see WP:WAX. Sandstein 18:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I see; thanks for your response. Thedarkempire (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Improvising
I just saw that you deleted this page as an advertisement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Boehm_(2nd_nomination). Just wondering can you restore it. I will improve it further to make it per Wiki neutrality, seems a notable guy to me. Jaysonsands (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Jaysonsands, I've undeleted the article because I didn't see that there was already an ongoing AfD. The discussion about the spamminess of the article should continue in the AfD. Sandstein 12:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sandstein Thanks for noticing this. I would like to improve the article and remove the promo tunining. I hope its ok with you. Jaysonsands (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi wondering if you came across this https://hollisarchives.lib.harvard.edu/repositories/24/archival_objects/647337. This came after a simple google search, I'm sure there are many more historically relevant documents out there that are accessible directly if you search for "American Board" and "American Missions in Turkey" instead of Tarsus American as the name for this school is relatively new. Tarsus American Highschool is one of the schools founded by foreign missionaries. I'm sure there are relevant references in wiki pages of each school that list Tarsus as a sister school. After all, they were built by the same missionaries. I agree that the references were lacking on this page, but that could've been improved with the right searches and resources.151.203.60.223 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, perhaps it could be, but it wasn't. Sandstein 16:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering if you could see how bad of a state this article was in before it was deleted? Saw the discussion posted on ANI and wandered over for a look. Searching using a Turkish language string seems to demonstrate notability pretty clearly. I've never heard about the topic before now, but I get really frustrated when a topic whose notability comes from foreign language sources gets deleted by editors who search only in English. SportingFlyer T·C 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, it was neither particularly bad nor was it good; it was our usual kind of school article. Sandstein 16:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response - any issues if I ask for it at WP:REFUND? SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, no problem if you want to work on it. Sandstein 18:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response - any issues if I ask for it at WP:REFUND? SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Tarsus American Highschool
Hi, exactly why did you delete Tarsus American Highschool? As far as I can see, the number of keep and delete opinions were almost equal. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nedim Ardoğa, because the "keep" opinions mostly did not address the reason for deletion (i.e. lack of coverage in reliable sources). Instead, they argued with how old and important the school is, but these are not criteria for inclusion. Sources are. Sandstein 16:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
the recent AfD
Dear @Sandstein, first off, thanks for participating in the Zangezur corridor AfD discussion and giving your thoughts. May I ask if you agree with the decision to "keep" the article? I'm going to be honest, the result was surprising to me and the closure comment even more. "Astonishingly little of this discussion pertains to the deletion policy and it seems to have been heavily affected by canvassing on both sides. However, to the extent that policy-based arguments were able to push through, there is a rough, but not unanimous, consensus that this this subject is notable enough for an article."
Let me start by saying "canvassing on both sides" was just a false balance statement and really no examples were provided. I saw one purpose account and sudden retired accounts on the "keep" part of the article, and only one single purpose account stood out on the opposite side.
Was there a "rough consensus for notability"? Not really. Even tho there were a lot of sudden votes recently to "keep" the article, the merits of the "delete" arguments were more convincing to me, maybe that's just my opinion.
I really don' think the closure was correct to "keep" the article, given all the discussion and the merits of the arguments on the "delete" side. And their closing comment kind of surprised me, "Astonishingly little of this discussion pertains to the deletion policy". Really, was that so?
Hope you would be kind enough to give your thoughts as an involved editor and admin. Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, please link to the AfD. Sandstein 09:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I'm sorry, here [1]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, the link is broken. Sandstein 09:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zangezur corridor I don't know why it didn't correctly show up. Sorry for the inconveniences, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, I agree with the closer that "Astonishingly little of this discussion pertains to the deletion policy and it seems to have been heavily affected by canvassing on both sides." This makes consensus very difficult to assess. So I'm glad that the closer attempted to do so, and I don't have the time to read the whole discussion to try to second-guess them. Sandstein 12:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zangezur corridor I don't know why it didn't correctly show up. Sorry for the inconveniences, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, the link is broken. Sandstein 09:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I'm sorry, here [1]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for Christian Saunders
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christian Saunders. 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. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Move/delete request for Draft:Public image of Donald Trump
Sandstein, could you either delete Draft:Public image of Donald Trump or move User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump into its place? The original draft has not been edited by a human in six months. I had created a new draft in my userspace due to an IBAN. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Kolya Butternut, sorry, not interested. Sandstein 14:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 2#Sacred Microdistillery was an appeal of a speedy deletion. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews says:
If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.
As you closed the review of the speedy deletion as "No consensus to take any action", the speedy deletion should be overturned. The deletion review instructions say that "the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion". Please revise the close to be overturning the speedy deletion. The revisions need to be restored to comply with Wikipedia:Copyrights. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cunard, that direction applies in cases where there is disagreement about the merits of the speedy deletion. But in this case, there was not so much disagreement as general confusion as to what happened and why - perhaps also because of your walls of text. In particular, nobody was expressed the view that the deletion should be undone. Under these circumstances, I don't think that the speedy deletion was controversial based on this discussion, which is why I have not undone it. Sandstein 08:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Does your close prevent me from creating a new deletion review for Sacred Microdistillery where I will be more succinct? Cunard (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cunard, I don't know. Sandstein 10:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Will you object if I create a new deletion review for Sacred Microdistillery where I will be more succinct? Cunard (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cunard, I or others may point out that the question has already been discussed. It's then up to DRV participants to decide whether they want to repeat that discussion. Sandstein 10:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I started another deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 12#Sacred Microdistillery. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cunard, I or others may point out that the question has already been discussed. It's then up to DRV participants to decide whether they want to repeat that discussion. Sandstein 10:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Will you object if I create a new deletion review for Sacred Microdistillery where I will be more succinct? Cunard (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cunard, I don't know. Sandstein 10:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Does your close prevent me from creating a new deletion review for Sacred Microdistillery where I will be more succinct? Cunard (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour for a Republic
I realise you do a lot of work at AfD and did not want my disagreement at the DR of Christian Saunders to appear as if I was oblivious to your wider contributions; in particular thanks for your closure at the AfD of Labour for a Republic, a fair and reasonable assessment of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Please put "White Clothing" article immediately back up or it goes to arbitration.
What happened to the "white clothing" article? Can Wikipedia stop being so very culturally racist and close-minded, put it back. I believe the white clothing article was removed due to cultural insensitivity, and against the original poster who showed some innovative cultural diverse initiative to upgrade Wikipedia. And, yes there should be articles on red clothing and black clothing. I had not finished working on the White Clothing article. Wikipedia is backwards n this issue. Using the photos for the White Clothing article to grandstand another article is weird. This needs to go to arbitration because of Wikipedia in the box. Just because Wikipedia did not invent "White clothing" as a subject does not mean it should not be there. It is possible that the White Clothing article is way too advanced for Wikipedia and today's world, but it should remain on Wikipedia anyway. [User:HACNY|HACNY]] (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)HACNY
- HACNY, restoration is declined, because you do not link to the article or its AfD or address the arguments made in the AfD. Sandstein 13:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
2nd request, Please put "White Clothing" article immediately back up or it goes to arbitration.
I saw no discussion of it, I do not know what an afd is. Believe editors that removed "White Clothing" article are racist. HACNY (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)HACNY
- HACNY, I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White clothing. You participated in that discussion, and consensus was that the article should be deleted. I will therefore not undelete the article. You can appeal this consensus assessment at WP:DRV, but with arguments such as allegations of racism you are likely to be unsuccessful. Sandstein 13:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe there is a clear consensus to “keep” in this discussion, and I don’t think a closing ruling of “no consensus” is appropriate.4meter4 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- 4meter4, because two "keep" opinions are qualified as "weak", I don't see a clear consensus. The outcome is the same, though. Sandstein 13:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- It’s a minor quibble, so I can let it go.4meter4 (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
White Clothing redux (header edited by Sandstein)
Where can I find the original formatted coded version of "White Clothing" before it was deleted on the morning of June 15, 2021? If it cannot be posted somewhere, can I receive it by email?HACNY (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)HACNY
- Nowhere. It's deleted. That was the point. I don't e-mail deleted pages. Please learn how to use talk pages properly (don't use the header for your message, use your existing thread), or I will revert and not reply to any future messages. Sandstein 14:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether you'd be willing to restore John Gambril Nicholson to somewhere in user/draft space? I'm pretty optimistic that there's enough RS coverage to at least support a useful stub - but I'd like to see the state of sourcing of the deleted article before proceeding further. Colin M (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Colin M, sorry, I don't undelete articles. Sandstein 06:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Eargasm
Hello, Sandstein. I would like to create the page Eargasm, for the Johnnie Taylor album. It is notable--a US Top 5 album, as well as coverage from multiple reliable sources. It looks like this term was blocked from creation in regard to different usages, in 2008. Will you please "unblock" it? Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Caro7200, could you please provide the WP:THREE best sources for Eargasm? Sandstein 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- It was a Billboard Top 5 album, sold more than a million copies, contains a No. 1 hit, is covered by multiple guides (Rolling Stone, Larkin, Christgau, AllMusic, MusicHound, etc.), Dallas Observer, Jet, Music Week, books like Funk and Night Moves and ones published by Billboard, etc. Coverage from 1976 and the late '70s would involve using periodical databases, thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Caro7200, these are not links to at most three specific reliable sources as per my request above, and therefore I'll not unprotect the page. Sorry. Sandstein 15:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ha, I see, I can inquire at the Teahouse. Again, this is merely about unlocking a term; the previous articles with this title had nothing to do with the platinum album about which I want to write. If the term wasn't blocked, I would have simply created the article. As others have perhaps indicated, it may be time for you to reexamine your deeply childish gatekeeping. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Caro7200, these are not links to at most three specific reliable sources as per my request above, and therefore I'll not unprotect the page. Sorry. Sandstein 15:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- It was a Billboard Top 5 album, sold more than a million copies, contains a No. 1 hit, is covered by multiple guides (Rolling Stone, Larkin, Christgau, AllMusic, MusicHound, etc.), Dallas Observer, Jet, Music Week, books like Funk and Night Moves and ones published by Billboard, etc. Coverage from 1976 and the late '70s would involve using periodical databases, thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Sandstein, I apologize for my attitude and the use of the word childish. You may have followed the Teahouse conversation; I also let those editors know that I would apologize to you. Take care. Caro7200 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Caro7200, thank you. Feel free to provide sources that establish the topic's notability and I'll unprotect the page. Sandstein 17:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Caro7200 To move this forward, I've created Eargasm as a redirect to Johnnie Taylor#Discography, where it is already mentioned. The previously deleted article has nothing to do with Johnnie Taylor. You can now turn the redirect into a full article; however as Sandstein suggests, you need at at least three good in-depth sources that discuss the album specifically (as a general rule of thumb, I prefer at least six if possible), otherwise it may be reverted back to a redirect. Sandstein, while album articles are something I've focused on specifically, having improved several to GA status, I don't think it takes an expert or a significant amount of time to look at the article linked, do a search for "Eargasm", and conclude a redirect is reasonable. Just a thought. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, perhaps I'll come back to this in a of couple weeks, thanks to you both, have a good day. Caro7200 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Caro7200 To move this forward, I've created Eargasm as a redirect to Johnnie Taylor#Discography, where it is already mentioned. The previously deleted article has nothing to do with Johnnie Taylor. You can now turn the redirect into a full article; however as Sandstein suggests, you need at at least three good in-depth sources that discuss the album specifically (as a general rule of thumb, I prefer at least six if possible), otherwise it may be reverted back to a redirect. Sandstein, while album articles are something I've focused on specifically, having improved several to GA status, I don't think it takes an expert or a significant amount of time to look at the article linked, do a search for "Eargasm", and conclude a redirect is reasonable. Just a thought. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Norwich
Hi. You know what I'm going to say. Frankly I'm lazy to write it and you don't need to read it. But, c'mon? Levivich 12:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, no idea what you mean. Sandstein 13:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Your supervote, Sandstein. Your keeping an article which does not even discuss the topic it is intended to. Your succouring of WP:ILIKEIT. Your deliberate failure to uphold WP:ATD. Your creating the impression that certain articles, however at variance with policy they may be, are acceptable. Your circling of the wagons. Etc. ——Serial 13:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- You do know what I mean. For starters, you wrote a one-sentence closing statement. I don't want to take the time to write more than one sentence explaining what's wrong with that. Especially not to you, because you know how to close an AFD. I'm not going to explain to you about not counting votes, local consensus v. global consensus, how articles must meet V, nevermind N. Oops, now I've written more than one sentence. Please fix your close. Fundamentally, please put as much time into this as the participants did, or let someone else close. Levivich 14:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, if you want me to comment about a particular issue please link to the respective page or discussion. Sandstein 14:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I flat out don't believe you that you don't know which of your closes "Norwich" I'm talking about. Stop wasting my time and others' time and either fix that close or revert yourself or respond substantively. I consider this is a serious matter if that isn't clear and I'd appreciate your treating it as a serious matter. Levivich 14:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, please link to any page you want me to comment on. Sandstein 14:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- No. Do you have anything else to say in response to my messages? Levivich 15:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, yes: have you heard of WP:AGF? If you won't tell me what specifically this is about (and I'm not going to search through my contributions list for anything related to "Norwich" on the basis of a vague message like that), I can't respond to any concerns you might have. Sandstein 15:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I've heard that AGF is not a suicide pact. You're lying to me, Sandstein, and it's not an accusation I make lightly. You know which AFD close "Norwich" I'm talking about. You don't have to search through your contributions history. When you pretend like you don't know, you try to set up a hoop for me to jump through in order to get your attention, you are not only lying to me but falling so far below ADMINACCT that it's damn near actionable. Your AFD close "Norwich" is still in your last 50 contributions, from today. It's the only "Norwich" page you've touched in the last two months (at least; I didn't look any further). You're outright fucking with me by pretending you don't know which AFD I'm talking about. Stop it. Don't do this again, to any editor. Only ask for a link when you genuinely do not know which page is being discussed. Levivich 15:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, I close a lot of AfDs. "Norwich" doesn't ring a bell. I could look through my contributions, but after this exchange, I don't want to. Here's a hint: If you want other people to treat your concerns seriously, state them clearly and in a professional, collegial manner (e.g. by linking to relevant pages), rather than dismissively and aggressively. Sandstein 15:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's funny that you're accusing me of being dismissive. You got some balls, Sandstein. Levivich 16:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, I close a lot of AfDs. "Norwich" doesn't ring a bell. I could look through my contributions, but after this exchange, I don't want to. Here's a hint: If you want other people to treat your concerns seriously, state them clearly and in a professional, collegial manner (e.g. by linking to relevant pages), rather than dismissively and aggressively. Sandstein 15:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I've heard that AGF is not a suicide pact. You're lying to me, Sandstein, and it's not an accusation I make lightly. You know which AFD close "Norwich" I'm talking about. You don't have to search through your contributions history. When you pretend like you don't know, you try to set up a hoop for me to jump through in order to get your attention, you are not only lying to me but falling so far below ADMINACCT that it's damn near actionable. Your AFD close "Norwich" is still in your last 50 contributions, from today. It's the only "Norwich" page you've touched in the last two months (at least; I didn't look any further). You're outright fucking with me by pretending you don't know which AFD I'm talking about. Stop it. Don't do this again, to any editor. Only ask for a link when you genuinely do not know which page is being discussed. Levivich 15:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, yes: have you heard of WP:AGF? If you won't tell me what specifically this is about (and I'm not going to search through my contributions list for anything related to "Norwich" on the basis of a vague message like that), I can't respond to any concerns you might have. Sandstein 15:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- No. Do you have anything else to say in response to my messages? Levivich 15:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, please link to any page you want me to comment on. Sandstein 14:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I flat out don't believe you that you don't know which of your closes "Norwich" I'm talking about. Stop wasting my time and others' time and either fix that close or revert yourself or respond substantively. I consider this is a serious matter if that isn't clear and I'd appreciate your treating it as a serious matter. Levivich 14:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, if you want me to comment about a particular issue please link to the respective page or discussion. Sandstein 14:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
It was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-urination devices in Norwich. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, thanks. Now, Levivich, what exactly is your problem with that closure? Opinions were largely to keep, with no explicit "delete" opinion except the nomination, and I closed as keep, so...? There are also merge (edit: or move) proposals, but not enough for consensus. A merger (edit: or renaming) discussion can still take place on the article talk page, however. Sandstein 11:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- You think now that someone dropped a link we're going to discuss this? I like playing games on the internet with strangers, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Levivich 13:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I guess your point, Levivich is that there wasn't a clear consensus to keep, instead of merging to Urine deflector, right? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, all right, I also don't like playing games. So I'm asking you to only contact me in the future if you have an actual serious question or concern. After all your verbiage above I still can't discern what that might have been in this case. Sandstein 13:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I already only contact you with serious concerns. It shouldn't take more than a one sentence complaint to get you to expand your one-sentence closing statement into a real closing statement. Levivich 14:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- You think now that someone dropped a link we're going to discuss this? I like playing games on the internet with strangers, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Levivich 13:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I think Levivich's point is that I managed to find the AfD he was talking about, and understand what his issue was with it. I'm going to guess that Levivich and Sandstein have clashed elsewhere on ANI or something, and this is framing the debate in such a manner. My advice to both of you is to chill out a bit. Sandstein, it doesn't take too much effort to work out what's going on, and having an "I can't be bothered to research your issue" isn't necessarily the best solution for an admin to take, as it breeds resentment. Levivich, I understand you're getting frustrated with what you think is Sandstein's stonewalling, but getting angry and frustrated over it isn't going to resolve the issue, as people can just throw that back at you. Now, may I humbly recommend clicking here and going "aaah" for a second. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, I take your point, but I can't respond to concerns if I don't know what the concerns are or which page they are about. And, sure, I could try to find out both for myself, but I don't think it is too much to ask that people who come to me state clearly what they want from me and why. It saves everybody the time for discussions like this one. (By the way, I don't particularly recall any previous interactions with Levivich, but who knows, maybe they once had another username.) Sandstein 14:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Ritchie but while this may seem like the latest episode in some long-running feud, it's actually exactly to the contrary: I thought Sandstein and I were "wiki-friends" and it's particularly because we've gotten along well in that past that I take such exception to being treated like some common vandal complaining about my autobiography being deleted and being given the old "I can't discuss this if you don't link to the article" treatment (for a close a few hours old and still on the first page of Sandstein's contribs!). Even if he genuinely forgot he closed an AfD about anti-urination devices in Norwich a few hours prior, the suggestion that looking at the first page of his contribs is somehow too much to ask... in the context of a one-sentence closing statement... is infuriating. I spent far more time on this than anyone should have had to. And then today, it doesn't fly that on the one hand, an admin is so busy closing that he can't be bothered to remember a close from a few hours ago or look at the first page of his contribs, yet that same admin sees no problem with that one-sentence closing statement and just can't imagine what I'm complaining about. That is not genuine. Sandstein is trolling me here and that pisses me off because I think I've been nothing but nice to him for years. And now he's pretending like he doesn't remember me (and yeah I noticed the socking dig, too, very cute Sandstein). Must have the worst memory of any admin. Levivich 14:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, well to paraphrase the Wise Woman, three paths are open to you. Three plans to cure thy ailment. The first is we can send the AfD to DRV and get it reviewed. The second is we can drag Sandstein to ANI (but be advised the odds of a bent bit of wood whacking you on the noggin are non-trivial in this case). The third is we can forget all about it and look and pictures of kittens. So, what option interests you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- No offense Ritchie I know you're trying to help but I was already on option 3 yesterday before you revived this today :-) Levivich 14:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, I have a very poor memory for people generally. It's helpful on Wikipedia because it helps me focus on content, not contributors. At any rate, if you just take the time to write: "Hi, I think you should have closed WP:AfD/Foo as "delete" instead of "keep" because..." you'll get a hopefully prompt and to-the-point response. But I'm a volunteer here, like you, and don't want to spend my time guessing what people might want from me or why. If that's what you expect from me, I'll continue to disappoint you. Sandstein 14:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, I did not mean to accuse you of socking, but there are many longtime contributors who change their usernames for whatever reason. As ever, a dose of WP:AGF is helpful. Sandstein 14:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- What I want is for you to not volunteer your time to close AFDs unless you're going to do it properly. Like I said, I shouldn't have to spend more than one sentence to get you to expand your one-sentence closing statement (of course now I've wasted over a cumulative hour on this and written a damn book). That was why my initial message was short and explicitly said I'm not going to take the time to write, or ask you to take the time to read, some lengthy explanation about why that one-sentence close was inadequate. It should be obvious to you and anyone else with even a moderate amount of experience with AFD. I shouldn't have to say anything like "you need to summarize the discussion and apply policies and guidelines" to a closer with your experience (which is probably as much or more experience than any other person in the world). If you were an inexperienced closer, I'd have approached this differently. W can't even begin to evaluate "keep" or "delete" outcomes until you at least write a proper closing statement. You still haven't even responded to the substance of my complaint (that the closing statement is inadequate), despite my having repeated it several times now. Levivich 14:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, if the substance of your complaint is that the closing statement is inadequate, you should tell me why. Many AfDs have no closing statement. What would need to be explained better in this case? Sandstein 15:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Um ok the closing statement in it's entirety is:
The result was keep. Evidently considered an important topic by many...
Sandstein you really want to publicly state that you believe this closing statement complied with our policies and guidelines about closing AFDs? Seriously, seriously, you're not trolling or wasting my time, you genuinely believe this to be a 100% good closing statement with no problems, and you actually need someone to take the time to explain to you what their concerns are with that closing statement? Levivich 15:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)- Levivich, we are still talking past one another. You still haven't told me what in your view the outcome of the AfD or the closing statement should have been, and why. So I'm calling it quits now; I've got other things to do. Sandstein 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Um ok the closing statement in it's entirety is:
- Levivich, if the substance of your complaint is that the closing statement is inadequate, you should tell me why. Many AfDs have no closing statement. What would need to be explained better in this case? Sandstein 15:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- What I want is for you to not volunteer your time to close AFDs unless you're going to do it properly. Like I said, I shouldn't have to spend more than one sentence to get you to expand your one-sentence closing statement (of course now I've wasted over a cumulative hour on this and written a damn book). That was why my initial message was short and explicitly said I'm not going to take the time to write, or ask you to take the time to read, some lengthy explanation about why that one-sentence close was inadequate. It should be obvious to you and anyone else with even a moderate amount of experience with AFD. I shouldn't have to say anything like "you need to summarize the discussion and apply policies and guidelines" to a closer with your experience (which is probably as much or more experience than any other person in the world). If you were an inexperienced closer, I'd have approached this differently. W can't even begin to evaluate "keep" or "delete" outcomes until you at least write a proper closing statement. You still haven't even responded to the substance of my complaint (that the closing statement is inadequate), despite my having repeated it several times now. Levivich 14:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, I did not mean to accuse you of socking, but there are many longtime contributors who change their usernames for whatever reason. As ever, a dose of WP:AGF is helpful. Sandstein 14:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, well to paraphrase the Wise Woman, three paths are open to you. Three plans to cure thy ailment. The first is we can send the AfD to DRV and get it reviewed. The second is we can drag Sandstein to ANI (but be advised the odds of a bent bit of wood whacking you on the noggin are non-trivial in this case). The third is we can forget all about it and look and pictures of kittens. So, what option interests you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
In my view, you should write a closing statement, which you did not do (your one sentence remark is not a closing statement at all... "Evidently considered an important topic by many..." does not explain why the outcome is "keep," and if you think that "considered an important topic by many" = "keep" then you lack the competence to close AFDs, but I know that is not the case, I know you know what a real closing statement is, which is why I'm upset that you're pretending you don't understand my complaint here). Don't ask me to write a closing statement for you (stating what I think the close should be and why) as a prerequisite to get you to write a closing statement. Either write a closing statement or revert your close so someone else can. Those would be the reasonable options for resolving this. Levivich 17:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, I will not write or rewrite a closing statement only to please you. What matters to readers and editors is the outcome of the AfD. If you agree with the outcome but disagree with the closing statement, then I could not care less about that. But if you disagree with the outcome, then tell me why and I will address that. So far, you've blown a lot of hot air and wasted a lot of my time just by making vague, aggressive and impolite statements about closing statements, but I still don't know whether you disagree with the actual result of the AfD. Sandstein 17:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- So to summarize, you closed the discussion as a keep, but you will not explain your reasons for keep, unless I first write an argument for why keep is wrong? And this, you believe, complies with your obligations as a closer of an AFD? Levivich 18:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- My reason for why I closed the discussion the way I did is self-evidently that I believe my closure reflects the rough consensus of the discussion. It's up to you to convince me otherwise, or failing that WP:DRV. But given how successful you've been at that so far I wouldn't quit my day job if I were you. And that's now really enough going in circles; I won't respond further. Sandstein 18:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
It's up to you to convince me otherwise, or failing that WP:DRV. But given how successful you've been at that so far I wouldn't quit my day job if I were you.
So you remember that I unsuccessfully took one of your closes to DRV in 2018, but you don't remember who I am. Right. Levivich 22:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)- I assume Sandstein is referring to your failure to convince him of anything in this discussion, not a 2018 DRV, which I highly doubt he remembers. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- My reason for why I closed the discussion the way I did is self-evidently that I believe my closure reflects the rough consensus of the discussion. It's up to you to convince me otherwise, or failing that WP:DRV. But given how successful you've been at that so far I wouldn't quit my day job if I were you. And that's now really enough going in circles; I won't respond further. Sandstein 18:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- So to summarize, you closed the discussion as a keep, but you will not explain your reasons for keep, unless I first write an argument for why keep is wrong? And this, you believe, complies with your obligations as a closer of an AFD? Levivich 18:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
"Userfied or draftied?"
Hello Sandstein! You left a note on Solita (company)'s discussion saying that it can "be userfied or draftied on request for improvement". Could you tell me what it means? So can I create a draft by myself or do I need to make a request to get a permission to create it? And what does userfy mean? Thanks in advance! Jjanhone (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Jjanhone, you can ask at WP:REFUND for an admin to move the deleted article to your userspace or into draft space so that you can work on it. Your request should also outline the specific improvements you intend to make. Sandstein 08:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! Jjanhone (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)