User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2022/April

ITN recognition for Bucha massacre

On 4 April 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bucha massacre, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SoWhy 17:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't delete my Switzerland LGBT controversies, Because i'm trying to be a new member, Because their homophobic controversies in it so i need to leave it on there.

Please don't delete my Switzerland LGBT controversies, Because i'm trying to be a new member, Because their homophobic controversies in it so i need to leave it on there. I'm autistic anyway.

Please don't delete my Switzerland LGBT controversies, Because i'm trying to be a new member, Because their homophobic controversies in it so i need to leave it on there. I'm autistic anyway. Gng1999 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gng1999, please use Talk:LGBT rights in Switzerland to discuss this. Sandstein 20:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

UFC 27

Hi Sandstein, Good day. I understand you have G4 the article above - see here and here. My understanding is that the page has been in main space and the first/only AfD was 9 years ago. The editor requested for reduce protection but the page was G4 instaed. Could this page be placed back on main space. Pls ping me and let me know. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 00:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No. I've speedily deleted the page per WP:G4, as it was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 27 and the reasons for the deletion do not seem to have been addressed. Sandstein 05:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, That was 9 years ago. Could I request for Refund (I am not the original creator, but I would like work on the article). Thanks in advance. Cassiopeia talk 22:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia, I do not undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 18:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

OK Sandstein, Thank you and will do so. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The results of events like UFC 27 are notable in themselves (participants, length of fights, method of finish,...), even if there is nothing remarkable about the event itself. It's part of the historical record of the UFC. It is cumbersome to have to switch to Sherdog.com to find the results of this one event, when the rest of the events are just a click away. I'd appreciate it if the page were restored. Thanks for your consideration. InvaderZim62 (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No, because the article was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 27 and the reasons for the deletion have not been addressed. Sandstein 18:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Using the precedent established by those that argued for the deletion, the full list of UFC events would be marred with red links, because it's just not reasonable to expect every single event to have something of historical significance, however that may be defined. Is server space really so dear for Wikimedia that they'd prefer incomplete catalogues for culturally significant institutions in order to save a few KBs of data? Justinw303 (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

UFC 27 was the last UFC event to take place in an "unregulated environment," meaning it was the last UFC event that took place in a state that had no regulatory commission for athletics and/or did not sanction/regulate mixed martial arts prizefighting. An example of something that was legal at UFC 27 but not at any future UFC events, kicks and knees to the head of a downed opponent were allowed. So that's notable. Justinw303 (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia has decided to have articles only on topics that meet the requirements at WP:GNG. The considerations you mention are not relevant in that regard. Sandstein 18:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jorge Vargas González

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jorge Vargas González. 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. Bedivere (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Just a general thank you for your continuing, consistent work at AfD (especially dealing with difficult closes); it does not go unnoticed. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ScoMo Veracity deletion

Re your closing of the AfD for Veracity of statements by Scott Morrison I thought the arguments from experienced editors for deleting were stronger than those for Keep. Nevertheless, once the discussion was closed, I sighed, and went to work on the article.

On closer examination, most of it is trivia, there are very few actual statements from Scott Morrison, and a lot of it is synthesis. The reader is required to connect the dots because no reliable source has actually claimed that a given statement - where one is actually provided for examination - is false. Most of the false statements were apparent miscommunications of some sort and quickly corrected.

Some claims were over-egged by having three paragraphs say the same thing, along with multiple sources all pretty much copies of each other. Generally for Australian politics a single article from a reliable source such as a non-opinion piece on the ABC, SMH or similar suffices.

I've deleted most of it, keeping those statements that are well-sourced and untrue. It amounts to a handful over a political career of many years. I've made notes on the talk page and I trust other editors will review my work.

In about a week's time I'll see what other editors contribute but I expect to be asking for a deletion review, because by and large this sort of routine political stuff is not in itself notable enough for a separate article. --Pete (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Please link to the AfD at issue. The article Veracity of Statements by Scott Morrison does not exist. Sandstein 09:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You're now changed the link above. Please do not edit earlier messages by yourself, see WP:REDACT. I've taken note of your comments. Sandstein 09:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed the redlink by changing one letter where I had mistakenly typed Veracity of Statements by Scott Morrison where I should have typed Veracity of statements by Scott Morrison. I'm not perfect. I had no intention of causing confusion. I assumed - correctly - that you would notice the change marked as minor. --Pete (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Corn Pop deletion

Hey, just letting you know that you forgot to also delete Corn Pop (group leader) alongside the Corn pop redirect as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corn pop. The "Corn pop" article got redirected to "Corn Pop (group leader)" while it was being proposed for deletion. Jurta talk 11:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jurta, done, thanks! Sandstein 11:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

On a CFD you started

I saw from bot edits the results of this CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_29#Category:Video_games_scored_by_Garry_Schyman, which I see you say may be a test case for all the cases in Category:Video games by composer with some exceptions. There's definitely good reason that we don't need cats for every random composer, and that only a handful create notable soundtracks (I'd actually argue that Schyman was one but that's not the point here), but to that end, I would consider the larger issue with other media and composers such as Category:Film scores by composer and Category:Compositions by composer eg where there are definitely clear standouts but not all entries are DEFCATs. I can say problem in the VG area that we likely had overzealous editors identify any notable VG soundtrack composers and made a category regardless of significance and thus the excessive number, and I agree there's only a small handful that should be kept. --Masem (t) 11:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Sandstein 13:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Barefoot Catalogue

I request that the history be restored under this redirect. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barefoot Catalogue on 19 May 2021. John Barefoot was created almost immediately afterwards and the deleted page redirected to it. I think preserving the history is uncontroversial, and potentially useful to an editor in the future. Especially as no one in the AFD discussion, except the nom, actually called for deletion. SpinningSpark 14:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 15:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Review a draft Article

Hello review this draft Article Draft:Tonni Laha Roy Tanvirnahid565 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Not interested, sorry. Sandstein 20:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A note regarding the DRV

(If you do not know what I am talking about, please ignore the following.)

While I remain indignant at your remark for the April 13 Soroka DRV (not that I thought it was personal), I have decided to not retire during the cooldown period that I gave myself. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ioma Rajapaksa

I don't entirely agree with your close as I think that the first relist was procedurally in error. On the merits, I cannot quite object because the official website of the government of Sri Lanka was unavailable when I looked (my broader feeling is that if a subject serves in a capacity that would meet a SNG, we should be more flexible in evaluating sources [even "trivial" ones like I pointed out in the discussion] as the position the subject holds is verifiable and there is no prohibition against using official publications in articles). My concern, though was that the first relist should more appropriately have been part of the discussion, as the comment was an opinion of the sourcing (and more appropriately should have been a delete comment in the discussion). I think relisting comments should only suggest what is missing in the discussion that would help determine consensus. --Enos733 (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)