User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2022/November

List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction

Why would you delete the List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction page!! c'mon man!! :( Chara Violet (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Please link to what you refer to. Sandstein 06:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Request to edit closing summary for "Site ban for User:Johnpacklambert", to list all topic bans

During this discussion, Floquenbeam said the closer needs to "clearly list all of the active topic bans that are still in place in the summary, so in future discussions they are easy to point too." Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive346#Site_ban_for_User:Johnpacklambert

There are four topic bans, listed at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions. I have to say that his editing is good for now, however, and I hope it stays that way.

(User:Yleventa2, password scrambled and don't want an account for now). 2620:8D:8000:1054:8F2B:FBEF:2E26:A552 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what you want me to do. Sandstein 17:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion reivew

For your info, I think circumstances have changed since this was closed, i.e. there is new coverage. So have asked for a review. This isn't a critique of your decision, just noting more coverage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_November_4 CT55555 (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion request

I believe that your 2008 deletion of 2008 West Palm Beach Wendy's shooting can be rescinded, as sources have been found that suggest the article meets WP:PERSISTENCE. See Wikipedia:Teahouse#Notability of event. MelatoninEmbryo (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend following the advice at the Teahouse thread. Sandstein 15:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It says at WP:REFUND that "if you believe that the deletion was handled improperly or that circumstances have changed, please contact the administrator who deleted it." I believe that circumstances have changed, so I contacted you. MelatoninEmbryo (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I see. Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you are free to ask another administrator. Sandstein 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Suman Sen

Hello, An article I have created few days ago(Suman Sen), has been deleted. I found out the the article was deleted two years ago with a discussion and closed by you (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suman Sen). Then the article had lack of reliable sources. But now I have provided many reliable sources from around the world. I want to bring back the article. So, I need your help with that. Some sources from top row media coverage I put here below,

1) https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/suman-sens-eka-selected-for-la-fabrique-cinema-programme-as-part-of-cannes/article34962094.ece 2) https://bengali.news18.com/news/entertainment/suman-sen-feature-film-debut-eka-slected-in-la-fabrique-cinema-de-linstitut-francais-2021-pbd-637926.html 3) https://www.financialexpress.com/entertainment/showtime-in-cannes-festival-rejigs-schedule-to-return-as-a-much-anticipated-physical-edition-this-year/2279089/ 4) https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/suman-sen-eka-selected-for-cannes-la-fabrique-cinema-programme-7374251/ 5) https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/features/hopes-on-indian-filmmakers-in-cannes-2021-277935 6) https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/anurag-kashyap-produce-solo-cannes-170828732.html 7) https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/bengali/movies/news/kolkata-filmmaker-documents-the-decaying-social-economic-and-cultural-conditions-of-our-society/articleshow/84400483.cms

You will find more reliable sources if you review the article, which has been deleted. GreyWorm6 (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@GreyWorm6, please read WP:THREE and indicate the three best sources. Sandstein 18:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ces Ciuhrii

Hello. I believe this AfD is already seriously tainted.

We have three legitimate editors participating: myself, S0091 and Oaktree b.

Then we have the article creator, DP Reekers, who mysteriously vanished when I pointed out he might not be quite on the level.

Next we have three novice IPs who just happen to be closely familiar with Wikipedia procedures and jargon. The last one notified the Article Rescue Squadron as well.

Last, we have Tysska, who was later blocked indefinitely. The newest IP struck this user’s vote; I’m not sure if that’s allowed.

Let’s be honest about what’s happening here: an especially desperate paid editor is trying all he can to save the work he did for his client. The question is whether we’ll be taken in by this blatant manipulation. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: That's as may be, but arguments related to an ongoing AfD should be made in the AfD, not elsewhere. Sandstein 21:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

A bit disappointed

Hello. I saw the closing decision you made on the Deji review. I’m not mad or angry at you, but I am just a little disappointed in the community’s stance right now, as I heavily dissent the decision. For one, the two prior AFD’s from years ago resulted in deletion on grounds that, had I been present at the time, I would have agreed with at the time, but now, as a long-experienced Wikipedian, genuinely believe that there’s been a material change of circumstances involving notability. However, that’s been completely undermined by the community’s annoyance with poor behavior of the individual’s fans. I strongly do not vibe with the fact that had the person who mainspaced the article wasn’t a banned sock, that the article would still be up right now no questions. It’s to the point where I wish I did so myself instead of him. I’m kind of beating myself up hard over that fact now. I hate how that was the final straw when that could have been avoided entirely by a non-banned user mainspacing it. Things like this is why our co-founder Larry Sanger is so critical of Wikipedia. He never wanted us to use bitterness and annoyance to decide that something is not notable, when it otherwise would be considered such in the absence of the causes of said bitterness and annoyance. “And the band plays on” makes me think of how that would have turned out if the said band was The Jonas Brothers before they were notable or Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate before he was notable enough for his own article. If KSI had an AFD, it would be snow closed quickly. Deji, even though he has the exact same fame, accomplishments, and achievements as his brother, cannot have a BLP on Wikipedia like his brother does solely because of fans that act more annnoying than Bandwagon Golden State Warriors and New England Patriots fans. Their fans haven’t caused their sports team’s articles to be deleted, right? That would have been “and the teams played on” if such an example existed for an obscure team that suddenly and somehow went pro in a major league but can’t have their own article because of their annoying fans from before they were pro. See the flaw in logic? That example shows that incidents by fans on Wikipedia who are not caused or encouraged by the subject itself affects their article chances negatively because of community bitterness rather than factual, sufficiently published notability. This is a serious problem on Wikipedia, and Deji is the inadvertent fall guy here who gets unfairly treated here because of annoying fans doing behavior that he hasn’t condoned, canvassed for, and has even called them out for their behavior on other fronts unrelated to Wikipedia. It’s quite sad. Anyways, I just had to rant, from one Wikipedian to another, I hope you at least understand where I’m coming from in spite of your closing decision. Be smooth. DrewieStewie (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you link to what you are talking about? Sandstein 18:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 15. Apologies for the confusion and for just coming here with that rant. Just was a little disappointed that some professors at my university’s history department are notable enough in academia for a Wikipedia article despite not having mainstream recognition, but not a celebrity like Deji solely because of fanboy behavior. Even if you disagree with my rant, I truly appreciate you hearing me out. It means a lot, and there’s absolutely no hard feelings. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your comments. Sandstein 06:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree completely the deletion of the Deji article had no merit. There was no reason for deletion of the article. The individual is FAR more notable than several people who’s articles are intact. Please restore the article. Blahwikiblah (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No, because consensus in the DRV was otherwise. Sandstein 06:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The deletion did have quite a lot of merit in the past as many of the previous versions were riddled with unreliable, primary, and/or non-independent sources, if they weren't stacked to the brim with original research. Based on those, community consensus was perfectly justified in deleting the article.

However, looking at the recent versions that were created by blocked users, it was clear that there were plenty of reliable and significant coverage of Deji between his video content, his boxing career and personal life. I was going to post my two cents on the article at the deletion review too but it closed before I got a chance to do so. But basically put, there were reliable sources that significantly covered him even present in some of the AfDs (this one for example), that were dismissed because they were "trivial" even though they did explain significant aspects of his YouTube career and life that could've flashed out the article. Not only were sources like BBC and The Daily Dot present that covered Deji, among others from Business Insider and The Independent, but recently Deji's boxing match received coverage from Sky Sports, ESPN and Bleacher Report. Even considering the poorly made attempts at creating this article in the past, I think even the most cynical Wikipedia editor can't seriously dismiss all of these sources as trivial coverage. From a quantitative standpoint each source covers him in multiple paragraphs as opposed to passing mentions. And at best, saying the topic of these articles is insignificant is merely subjective skepticism that doesn't change the fact that reliable media outlets consider him significant enough to report on him. And at the end of the day, isn't that all that should matter? PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur here with @PantheonRadiance: Guess it’s just frustrating that “and the band plays on” applies when not only the subject has reliable source coverage demonstrated above (unlike the hypothetical band), but didn’t canvass for an article the same way that the hypothetical band did. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I should also mention that Patheon has successfully, through the AFC process, made articles of YouTubers who are notable and reliably covered, but are not on the magnitude of crossover fame that Deji appears to have achieved. Only difference is that they don’t have the same annoying fans that deterred Deji’s article and encouraged deletion and salting. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@PantheonRadiance, that's a valid point of view, but it appears that people at DRV felt otherwise. Sandstein 06:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Thanks; I only wish I posted this in DRV when I had the chance. Also @DrewieStewie: sorry that there may not be a chance that Deji goes into mainspace anytime soon. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@PantheonRadiance: No worries brotha. At the end of the day, the bureaucratic struggle sometimes require patience. I love Wikipedia, but sometimes get frustrated with the community. In the meantime, we can continue this conversation on either of our talk pages to figure out some recourse; our next course of action about this. I won’t back down just yet. Even though the community is disgusted about certain people (and rightfully so), this isn’t the correct consequence of that, as an essay is being about improper Wikipedia etiquette is being used to override policy, and the consensus isn’t consistent with policy in this situation. Perhaps Wikipedia:Village Pump/Policy can be used to circumvent this consensus? Because bad faith should never override verifiability. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Scratch the village pump; not appropriate place to resolve. Somewhere else might be good though, like maybe an RFC on the subject's notablity on Wikipedia Talk: WikiProject YouTube. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)