Jump to content

User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Sandstein | Archives

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 12 October 2018 (Archiving 4 discussion(s) from User talk:Sandstein) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


In Win Development

Would it be possible to email me a copy of the article prior to deletion? I think it may potentially be appropriate for Wikipedia if rewritten from scratch. feminist (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Feminist: At https://pastebin.com/4HMjEUKc. Expires in one week because of copyright. Sandstein 10:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. feminist (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Deleted: Duke Greenhill

I was saddened to see this article was deleted. I felt I made a compelling argument on the talk page for preserving the article, although it appears that argument may never have made it to the talk page.

The subject of this article is "notable," as defined by Wikipedia (significant and reliable coverage). The subject has appeared as an "expert" and/or "thought-leader" in reliable external publications like Fast Company, HBR, The Telegraph (U.K.) and many more. His marketing and advertising bio is captured in numerous reliable sources and his film work is backed up by IMDB.

Furthermore, the article had been revised recently to be even more objective. There is no question that the article is non-promotional.

Why should it have been deleted? What are the steps to having it restored?

Thanks for your time and consideration, Sandstein.

Cheers, Iago Iago1608 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Duke Greenhill was deleted because of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Greenhill. What are the three best sources that in your view make him pass WP:GNG? Sandstein 20:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the best three arguments (including sources) supporting WP:GNG for a :Duke Greenhill article are the following: (1) THE TELEGRAPH[1]: A top-circulated daily newspaper across the U.K. features the topic as a contributing and quoted expert. The Telegraph is RELIABLE; the content is SIGNIFICANT, and it's INDEPENDENT. By publishing feature articles in which the topic is an expert source, The Telegraph is endorsing the topic's notability. (2) WP:GNG states: the "availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." A collection of links exist supporting the topic's notability as a filmmaker. The topic (or his work) have been covered in three of the top entertainment industry publications, Variety[2], Playbill[3] and Hollywood Reporter[4]. The topic's work is available on AmazonPrime[5]. There's also a Wikipedia article about one of the films[6] the topic executive produced. (3) This collection of links supports the topic's notability as a marketer and writer. The topic is a contributor to Fast Company [7], Mashable[8], HubSpot[9], MarketingProfs[10], Luxury Society[11], and the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review[12] — all INDEPENDENT, SIGNIFICANT and RELIABLE, and all publications that by choosing to publish the topic's content are also endorsing the topic's thought leadership and notability. Iago1608 (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Iago

TL,DR. Just the three best sources, please, in the form of hyperlinks or {{cite news}}. Sandstein 07:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

In that case: (1) https://blog.hubspot.com/agency/author/duke-greenhill (2) http://www.playbill.com/article/tony-winner-cumming-joins-cast-of-indie-film-shifting-the-canvas-com-150297 (3) http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG9694181/Burberry-entrenched-in-the-digisphere.html Iago1608 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Iago

@Iago1608: I decline to restore the article. (1) is self-published, (2) is the most minimal of passing mentions, and (3) is also not about Greenhill, but about the fashion label Burberry, and Greenhill is quoted a few times in the story. This is clearly not the kind of substantial, independent coverage that could be the basis of a well-sourced article about Greenhill, see WP:GNG. Sandstein 10:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG9694181/Burberry-entrenched-in-the-digisphere.html
  2. ^ https://variety.com/2011/film/reviews/zenith-1117944315/
  3. ^ http://www.playbill.com/article/tony-winner-cumming-joins-cast-of-indie-film-shifting-the-canvas-com-150297
  4. ^ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/zenith-film-review-30131
  5. ^ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004W3L54Q/ref=atv_feed_catalog
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenith_(film)
  7. ^ https://www.fastcompany.com/3019721/slaying-the-dragon-and-other-ways-to-create-killer-content
  8. ^ https://mashable.com/author/duke-greenhill/
  9. ^ https://blog.hubspot.com/agency/author/duke-greenhill
  10. ^ https://www.marketingprofs.com/authors/1107/duke-greenhill
  11. ^ https://www.luxurysociety.com/en/articles/contributors/duke-greenhill
  12. ^ https://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/The_Gay_%26_Lesbian_Review_Worldwide_(2007)_-_Art_Memo:_Rebecca:_How_a_Lesbian-Inflected_Movie_Got_Made

Topic Ban Question

Please excuse my bumbling Good Faith errors. I simply have no idea how to approach this Topic ban. The last edit I made to the Su-25 article was almost one year ago. I changed the engine type from "R-195" to "Soyuz/Tumansky R-195". The edit wasn't contested, and is still in place. It didn't connect to the WP source properly, and I'd still like to fix it. The next edit I was trying to make (one year later) caused some differences of opinion, so I spent quite a bit of time searching for consensus on the Talk page. All in Good Faith, and with respect, as anyone can see when viewing the page. Several editors agreed, and some disagreed. So I didn't make any edits to the article. Was I banned for joining the discussion on the Talk page? I always thought that's what the Talk Page was for. I'm not sure how my discussions required such an extreme Topic Ban, and since you endorsed the Topic Ban, I'm appealing to your advantageous position to help me understand the reason for such a wide-ranging Ban, with a view to setting things right. Since the reason for the topic ban wasn't provided (other than not understanding), I'm at a disadvantage when appealing. Santamoly (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There has been ample discussion of your ban and I have nothing to add to it. Sandstein 20:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your brief reply. Since you were at the center of the discussion, and nothing was discussed. I was hoping that you could shed some light on the ban. I've never heard of anyone being banned for a Good Faith, civil, polite, Talk Page discussion. Since nothing was communicated to me concerning mistakes or errors or lack of Good Faith, I was hoping that you might have some insight. It would help me in formulating an appeal. Santamoly (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any insights to share. Sandstein 10:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Baseball?

Are you a baseball fan, Herr Sandstein? User:Germanboi87 is working on a draft. If you have any books on your bookshelf about the history of baseball in Germany, I'm sure he'd love to have those titles. (I came here because I borrowed the code of your Babel box to put on his user page; he's from Neuenburg am Rhein but I don't know if, like you, he speaks French and/or Schwiizertüütsch.) Dr Aaij (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing about baseball, sorry. Sandstein 21:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/October&oldid=863640556"