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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 February 8

I'm not sure why this was declined – could you just restore or recreate it? 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what you refer to or why it concerns me. Sandstein 17:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't notice that @Stifle, who closed the discussion, was also an administrator. If it can't be restored via WP:DRV could it be restored under WP:REFUND? 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As per the advice in the DRV, you can recreate it if you want. Sandstein 18:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes it unnecessarily harder compared to restoring the content that was there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

ITN Recognition

Hi! I just wanted to know whether I would receive ITN recognition for the nomination for the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah article or not? Thank you for your time! Ornithoptera (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi,@Ornithoptera, I am indifferent to such things, but thanks for asking. Sandstein 17:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not entirely sure whether you implied I would receive it or not, is there anyone I could ask to receive it? Since you promoted it I thought it would be ideal to ask you for that. Ornithoptera (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe the people who updated the article? Sandstein 18:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Smith (underwater search sonar expert

Yet again, you make a bad decision just because of your long-standing animosity to me personally. WP:INVOLVED much? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I make AfD decisions based on the quality of the arguments presented, and where necessary, I explain why. It was necessary here because had your opinion been taken into account, it might have contributed to an impression that there was no consensus. If you want to avoid such situations in the future, you should make arguments in AfDs that address why an article should be kept or not based on our applicable policies and guidelines, and I'll be happy to take such arguments into account for assessing consensus. Sandstein 15:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm also unclear why you think I have a "long-standing animosity" to you personally. I do not know you and am not interested in what you do on Wikipedia or why. See, generally, WP:AGF. Sandstein 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Why did you close a discussion on improperly deleted maps?

You have closed a discussion on whether a speedy deletion that was clearly incorrect as a matter of wikipedia policy. On what grounds?

Map 1 was allowed for many years. IT WAS DELETED FOR NO REASON except that it was the same as map 2.

Map 2 was redundant. IT WAS DELETED FOR NO REASON except that it was the same as map 1.

Both maps were deleted speedily without discussion. The sole consensus is that it is improper to delete BOTH of two redundant maps on the grounds they're the same as each other. No NFCC issues were ever properly raised.

If you disagree with this point, I propose arbitration. But I know you know that that would be a ridiculous reason to delete an entry. If that were true, I could create redundancies throughout wikipedia and then delete every single image!

So on what grounds do you close discussion?

I ask you respectfully to reopen the discussion and to restore one of the maps (preferably the older one). If you then want to delete the older map, you can make your NFCC arguments and we can have a full and complete discussion on the issue.GreekParadise (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion you refer to. Sandstein 06:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Telegraph RFC

Thanks for closing the RFC. Do you intend to update WP:RSP with the details of your close? It was a point of contention in the prior close. If not I'll open a discussion on WT:RSP about how it should be updated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, thanks for asking - I'm not a regular editor of RSP, so I leave any update to those more familiar with that page's practices. Sandstein 14:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again Sandstein. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

		The Closer's Barnstar
		I promised one of these as an incentive on WP:CR, and, in slaying this beast after two separate unsuccessful attempts, you have certainly earned it. Enjoy!--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to reiterate the thanks above, but I'm a bit confused about the close. AFAIK when closing a discussion vote-counting is at most a supplement to the more important assessment how arguments are supported by PAGs. Near as I can tell, you haven't commented about the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines (WP:CON). Would it make sense for you to amend the close to include, at the very least, an explanation of why vote-counting was the only way to decide the discussion? Sincerely, Dilettante 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

(watching) A cast of characters bigger than Ben Hur has already commented on the "quality of arguments"; we needn't hear them again. The important thing is that the hydra was ousted discussion was closed. SerialNumber54129 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

In my view, this RfC was not amenable to or appropriate for an assessment on the basis of the strength of the arguments presented. This works where there are well-established policies and guidelines establishing broader community consensus on matters that are often in dispute, e.g. the inclusion guidelines often cited at AfD. They provide a basis on which a closer can assess the strength of individual arguments (e.g., by discarding "delete because I don't like it" types of arguments). But when it comes to the application of WP:RS, the arguments are very fact-specific: based on their prior reporting, their corporate structure, etc., do we trust a source to reliably report the facts? I see no basis on which I as closer could assess whether somebody makes a good or bad argument about this, except by imposing my own view, which I must not. So, yes, vote-counting it is. I don't really see a need to amend the closure to spell this lout, though. Sandstein 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)