User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:TheSandDoctor. 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. |
Your draft article, User:Mansee Bal Bhargava/sandbox
Hello, TheSandDoctor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac:@Boomer Vial: Judging by the logs that I can see as a non-admin, I moved it to Draft:Urban lake (which now qualifies for G13) at 06:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC), before declining it during the same minute. At the time, I did not have the page mover user right/group though so a redirect was left. I assume that they then edited the redirect & added some sort of content? (I know that this is not an issue and was going to just revert the edit/remove this notice as I did not create the sandbox draft of another user per se, I am just genuinely curious.) All the best, --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I used Twinkle to leave the semi-automated, though I'm not sure why it left it here, and not on the talk page of the article creator. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 23:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Stern Sandbox entry
Dear SandDoctor, Thanks for your comments on my draft Wikipedia piece. It is the first one we have tried, and we have a lot to learn. I do have stronger indications of Arthur Stern's notable-ness, and I'm glad you flagged this as an issue. I'll collect them and attach them to a revised draft as soon as possible. Thanks again. Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.81.249 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Sand Doctor, I've added several quotes and sources that help the entry meet the criteria for being notable. I may be able to find others, but please let me know if this is enough for the purpose, if I'm on the right track, etc. I look forward to hearing your judgment. I should add that I've had a lot of difficulty formatting the footnotes etc., but I hope there will be a way to fix this once I have an acceptable entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stern (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello there Paul Stern! Thank you for bringing this draft to my attention. You are definitely on the right track. If you could find additional reliable sources though, that would definitely improve it. For the moment, don't worry so much about formatting the footnotes, once the sources are added I would be happy to assist you with that. With that said, if you are curious about footnotes, information on them can be found here. Hopefully this helps! Please do keep me posted as to how this all goes and do let me know if you have any questions. --All the best, TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar
I believe you have not summarised the relevant polices adequately at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar and have failed to judge the strength of the arguments. I'd like you to reverse your close, or would you prefer me to take the close to deletion review? --RexxS (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- I also think your decision was flawed. I agree with @RexxS: (who, please note, I firmly disagreed with in that discussion) that it should go for review. In future if you are doing non-admin closures, at least attempt to engage with the process and the things that have been written in the discussion - otherwise it is entirely pointless in us having it. JMWt (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- eta - as it was a non-admin closure, you are not able to reopen. Hence I'm now simply notifying you that there will be a deletion review. JMWt (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- JMWt, I'll take a look at the AFD in a second, but any NAC can re-open their own close if requested. Why would you say that they can't do it? Primefac (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Primefac WP:NACD: "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. Editors reopening discussions are advised to notify the original closer." - this was a non-admin closure. JMWt (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'll be honest, I've never seen that "only" enforced, and have seen dozens of NACs overturned by the closer upon request. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- JMWt, I discussed the matter with another admin, and we're not really sure why that exception isn't in there. The policy has been updated. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh well. I followed instructions and have begun the review process. If the page was wrong then it should have been updated when the policy was updated. I'm not sure it really matters anyway, this was always going to be a difficult and contentious close which should have been done by an admin. JMWt (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't particularly have an opinion on the close, as I haven't really dug into it, but I understand your concerns. My point was only that SandDoctor does have the ability to re-open the close should they feel so inclined. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I've now started the review process because I read the non-admin policy (which you say has now changed), let's just go with it. No? JMWt (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed; that train has definitely left the station. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I've now started the review process because I read the non-admin policy (which you say has now changed), let's just go with it. No? JMWt (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't particularly have an opinion on the close, as I haven't really dug into it, but I understand your concerns. My point was only that SandDoctor does have the ability to re-open the close should they feel so inclined. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh well. I followed instructions and have begun the review process. If the page was wrong then it should have been updated when the policy was updated. I'm not sure it really matters anyway, this was always going to be a difficult and contentious close which should have been done by an admin. JMWt (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- JMWt, I discussed the matter with another admin, and we're not really sure why that exception isn't in there. The policy has been updated. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'll be honest, I've never seen that "only" enforced, and have seen dozens of NACs overturned by the closer upon request. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Primefac WP:NACD: "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. Editors reopening discussions are advised to notify the original closer." - this was a non-admin closure. JMWt (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- JMWt, I'll take a look at the AFD in a second, but any NAC can re-open their own close if requested. Why would you say that they can't do it? Primefac (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS:@Primefac:@JMWt: Apologies for my delay in responding (most of this took place in middle of the night in my timezone). I am sorry that you believe the close to be in error and, based on the above, have reverted it to allow for further discussion. If you like, I can reinstate for the purposes of the deletion review. (courtesy ping:@DGG: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Nah, you're good. I've closed the DRV. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Primefac Thanks. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Deletion review for Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar. 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. JMWt (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Rolling Stones
The article The Rolling Stones you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Rolling Stones for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Rolling Stones
The article The Rolling Stones you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:The Rolling Stones for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
This draft has been resubmitted for review, and I was wondering if you could take a look at it for me, please? Thank you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Boomer Vial:
Done. At best, it is borderline in its current form and, with all articles, could use/benefit from additional sources. I have left a comment on the draft. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome Boomer Vial! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Mick Jagger
The article Mick Jagger you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mick Jagger for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Tumbling Dice
The article Tumbling Dice you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tumbling Dice for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Mick Jagger
The article Mick Jagger you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mick Jagger for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
|
The Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Mick Jagger (estimated annual readership: 2,615,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC) |
Rechecking articles
Hallo, could you please recheck the articles Draft:Kommando Territoriale Aufgaben der Bundeswehr and Draft:Landeskommando? Thanks a lot! --Stubenviech (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there Stubenviech! Sorry for the delay in my response. Both of the drafts would benefit from any additional sourcing that is available. The topics/subjects are definitely notable, we just need some more references. Hopefully this helps. If not, please feel free to let me know. -- All the best, TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi TheSandDoctor, thanks for coming back to me. Every article has two sources by now. I googled and checked other articles as well. They do not contain additional information to the topic. I could add them, but the articles would not benefit. In opposite: In a possible extension of the articles in the future it would be harder to find out, what source is proving which content. According to my experience in the German Wikipedia (ca. 4.500) edits I do not see a reason to decline the article. Please tell me, in case you have additional points. Thank you for your support. --Stubenviech (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there Stubenviech and sorry for the delay in my response. SwisterTwister has accepted Kommando Territoriale Aufgaben der Bundeswehr (tagging it for cleanup) and left a comment on Draft:Landeskommando. As for comparing the German and English Wikipedias, the different language Wikis tend to have their own standards for what is required to be a reliable source/prove notability. Unfortunately, I do not know the answer as to why their standards mostly seem to be somewhat lower than the English wiki standards. In short, what is acceptable on one language Wiki may not be on another. Hopefully this was helpful in explaining that. If you have any more questions, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi TheSandDoctor, thanks for coming back to me. Every article has two sources by now. I googled and checked other articles as well. They do not contain additional information to the topic. I could add them, but the articles would not benefit. In opposite: In a possible extension of the articles in the future it would be harder to find out, what source is proving which content. According to my experience in the German Wikipedia (ca. 4.500) edits I do not see a reason to decline the article. Please tell me, in case you have additional points. Thank you for your support. --Stubenviech (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
17:55:30, 27 November 2017 review of submission by Rileyhoergrenier44
Scientific Explorer Disgusting Science Kit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rileyhoergrenier44 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Rileyhoergrenier44: What are you asking? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)