User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Lenerd resumed

Lenerd (talk · contribs) was apparently away for a few days, but has come back and has stated that he will be more cautious in the future. See WP:ANI#Block review for User:Lenerd part 2. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

please restore

Could you please undelete 2008 measles outbreak in California so that I can preserve the content and edit history while making it part of the larger 2008 measles outbreaks in North America, as was suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 measles outbreak in California. Thanks! — Reinyday, 16:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That second article does not exist.  Sandstein  17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm going to make it, as was suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 measles outbreak in California. — Reinyday, 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please inform me once you have done so. I will then restore the deleted article for merging.  Sandstein  18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to move the undeleted article to the new name, to preserve the edit history. Could you please just undelete it? You can always redelete it later today if the outcome is not what you expected. Thanks. — Reinyday, 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Reinyday/2008 measles outbreak in California.  Sandstein  21:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy of K2GXT

Could you post a copy of the deleted article K2GXT on my talk page or where deemed appropriate (email)? I would like to have a copy of the content in case there was some information posted on there that I do not currently have. KB1LQC (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy provided at User:KB1LQC/K2GXT.  Sandstein  21:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

need email of deleted articles

dear sandstein, I need a couple of articles I've written that has been deleted as I have no copy of, would you please send me a copy on my email (on my user profile setting) ?
Deleted pages was ( correction posture posturology) and postural disorder, thanks --Paoloplatania (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't use e-mail. Please provide wikilinks to the deleted articles.  Sandstein  21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my user page would be fine, could you please restore on Posturology and Postural disorder ? thanks --Paoloplatania (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I need the wikilinks to the deleted articles, or I can't restore them. Please see also the box at the top of this page.  Sandstein  06:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks are posturology and postural disorder --Paoloplatania (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please let me know something concerning my request ? --Paoloplatania (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding J.R. Writer

Would you be amenable to me re-creating this article if I can find some decent sources? Writer is a pretty central member of the Diplomats, I'm sure there are sources about him. GlassCobra 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure; the best thing to do would be to start a draft stub in userspace with the necessary sources.  Sandstein  20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I intend to do; I've done it for a few articles in the past. I'll bring it by for your review before moving it to mainspace. GlassCobra 20:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Something I'd thought I'd never read...

See this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh - deletionist attitude, indeed.  Sandstein  14:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First time for anything I guess. Of course, I did actually nominate something else for deletion a few minutes ago. By the way, given that you don't seem opposed to a redirect of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wraith Squadron to Wraith Squadron (novel), would you please undelete the edit history and then redirect (even if it's a protected redirect) as as far as I recall there was no copy vio or libel in the article the necessitates the edit history being deleted, but by contrast I think there may have been some mergeable content to the novel article and possibly even to the articles on some of the characters listed there. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Consensus was to delete, not to merge or redirect.  Sandstein  17:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Even though a number of editors had the bold deletes, their comments really didn't seem that opposed to redirects with the edit history undeleted or at least didn't offer any compelling reason why not to do so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not in the business of mind-reading. "Delete" means "delete", not "merge" or "redirect".  Sandstein  18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see your logic in closing "The result was delete. Any subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter." Once it's deleted, it can't be merged or redirected. if what you intended to close with a finding that the material should be merged or redirectd and the details left to be an editorial matter--a perfectly reasonable conclusion in my opinion-- wouldnt that be "keep. the appropriate subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter." ? DGG (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See my reply a few sections below.  Sandstein  05:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Delete" was not their only comments, though, and in their full comments, that didn't seem to be what they firmly wanted. Anything that is redirectable should be done so without deleting the edit history. Edit histories need only be deleted when there is no redirect location or there is something libelous or copy vio esque in them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No. According to our current deletion policy, pages (and their edit histories) are deleted when there is consensus to delete them in an AfD. If you disagree with this, you would need to get the deletion policy changed. I consider your continued messages about this issue to be querulous and may no longer respond to them.  Sandstein  17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I will do what I can with the deletion policy, because as it currently exists, it is illogical and anti-encyclopedic in many ways. But the deletion claims in the AfD were just not true. One arguing to delete has never (for real, never) argued to keep and said he never would. Another claimed that it didn't have independent sources, but later a couple were indeed produced. Another relied on the failed WP:FICT, claimed original research (no thesis presented and use of both primary and secondary sources does not constitute original research). The other two on the deletion side were for Delete or redirect (the "or" suggests not be opposed to a redirect without deletion) and the last one wasn't opposed to moving the articles. All I would like to do is use some of the reviews I had added to the article during the AfD to augment what is currently at Wraith Squadron and possibly also use in the individual articles on the characters listed there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-Admin closure

Thanks for pointing that out. I never realized that was supposed to be done. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, but you still need to remove the AfD tag from the article.  Sandstein  05:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding, I thought you meant the tag in the AfD that is supposed to be removed. I removed the tag from the page now. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination)

Hello, you closed the above discussion with a result of delete, and then had a discussion with one of the article's primary editors, User:Jclemens, about restoring some of the deleted content in other articles. (The discussion appears to be archived here.) Jclemens proceded to include 3 paragraphs about Acharya S at Jesus myth hypothesis#Recent_proponents, which to my eye looks like restoring deleted content. Would you mind looking at it and giving your opinion? Thank you. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the issue with the content I added? The text that I added to the article was substantially different (and improved, in my opinion) from the content that was deleted. Check the revision history of User:Jclemens/Acharya_S to see the article as it was AfD'ed. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If this content is substantially different from the deleted article, it's still problematic, because it's based on a bunch of websites that don't satisfy WP:RS. If a person's article is deleted because they're not notable (and a lack of reliable sources adds up to a lack of notability), we shouldn't have a major section in a different article devoted to that person: it's a way of evading the AfD result. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's take the discussion off of Sandstein's talk page and to the article page, shall we? I think it's clear that the content should be accepted or rejected by the editors working on the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is previously deleted content (I haven't looked at it), it needs to be considered on its own merits, unless it is so extensive that it makes the whole article eligible for deletion per WP:CSD#G4. If it is not verifiable, it may be editorially removed for that reason, for instance.  Sandstein  05:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wraith Squadron

I fail to see your logic in closing "The result was delete. Any subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter." Once s deleted, it cant be merged or redirected. if what you inteneded to close with a finding that the material should be merged or redirectd and the details left to be an editorial matter--a perfectly reasonable conclusion in my opinion-- wouldnt that be "keep. the appropriate subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter." ? DGG (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was: The consensus is to delete. Editors may then decide to move the novel article to this title, or create a redirect to the novel article.  Sandstein  05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart / World Music Chart

Hi
Can you check of World Music Chart is the same thing as the one that you deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart? I'm suspicious because of this.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)