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

Restore deleted AfD article as draft

Hello, I saw that the Japan national under-23 football team results (2020–present) ended up being deleted in the recent AfD. Would it be possible to restore a copy as a draft? I imagine that with more in-depth research in Japanese sources it would be possible to restore it with time. Svartner (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but please ask at WP:REFUND, I don't normally undelete articles. Sandstein 15:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Svartner (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined at REFUND, now at WP:Deletion review/Log/2025 September 11. Left guide (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 18 § Template:Digwuren enforcement

Templates you have created have been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 20:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Empire-United States diplomatic missions

I was in the process of improving it when the article was deleted. Could you draftify it or email me the contents, please? Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 14:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, since the AfD came up with no sources that might make the topic notable. Sandstein 16:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 September 7

Hello! Please undelete all pages.

_ruASG⁺¹ 21:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Sandstein 06:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the results of the discussion. _ruASG⁺¹ 11:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussion? Please link to things you want to talk to me about (see also the notice at the top). Sandstein 17:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 September 7 _ruASG⁺¹ 17:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was common discussion for several articles. User_talk:RuASG#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_International_Investment_Agreements_of_the_European_Union _ruASG⁺¹ 17:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But you did not request deletion review for these articles, and they were not discussed at DRV. I can't therefore undelete them. Sandstein 18:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you okay? First, I clearly requested this and "other articles". Second, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. _ruASG⁺¹ 21:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you did not specify the "other articles". While somebody else took a guess and listed them, they were not otherwise discussed in the DRV. I am not satisfied that there is a basis to undelete them. Please talk to the deleting admin to try to find a solution. Sandstein 08:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revision for ITN

I usually don't get into ITN due to it's messy nature but | this revision is odd because I can't seem to find any proposal to specifically demarcate the Gaza genocide article whatsoever. The talk page has been empty for ITN, unless it got archived, which it shouldn't have as previous ITN discussions from earlier this month are still up. Please link to it, I find it rather... odd that we'd link that but not the Russian Invasion of Ukraine's page about wartime atrocities or the Sudanese Civil War. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 02:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by that or why it concerns me. Sandstein 08:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I'm asking why you added a link to the page on ITN without consensus, because you added the link. I'm asking you for the proposal to add that because the only one i've found remotely close wasn't consensus. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 14:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted to ongoing) Gaza genocide. —Cryptic 14:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks, Cryptic. Sandstein 15:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment

Hello,

Thank you for your work at AfD, which I generally appreciate and value.

Your relisting comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daria Massey reads as follows- That block of of text by Eva UX is WP:TLDR. Be concise.

I've opened the link and fully read the page- that acronym in capital letters leads to an essay that includes the following recommendations: "Being too quick to pointedly mention this essay may come across as dismissive and rude"; "Avoid ad hominems. Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter initialism. When illumination, patience, and wisdom are called for, answer with them."

That block of text is a quote, a documentary evidence, that was asked from me: the plot summary of a film, coming from a reliable source, whereas the nominator was basing his/her question on what is generally considered a non reliable source. The full quote seems to be a good way to show how significant is one of the roles that the actress had played and it could have not be edited without the risk of passing for non-neutral or being overlooked. 755 words is less than the essay you are citing -874 words of "readable prose size"- and is the normal size of a plot summary. If users cannot endure reading a full edit summary, then perhaps they should not edit pages related to film or notability of actors. The links on the American Film Institute website, as you probably know if you opened the one I added there or are familiar with American film articles, do not allow to make sure the reader will have immediately the full information in front of their eyes. Hence the full quote.

I wish I could remain concise all the time, and would if only I could trust AfD nominators, participants and closers to have the patience to check all the sources extensively, or at least the ones identified, or even presented. But, as a matter of fact, a lot of them don't and favour dismissive formulas. Faster to write, faster to read. Not everyone spends hours improving an article at AfD.

Was that comment really all you wished to add in the concerned discussion anyway? What about something like "Editors are invited to verify whether the subject meets Wikipedia's specific guideline regarding the notability of actors and if the numerous sources added to the page after the nomination was initiated allow to verify that."? For example? Thank you for your attention to this matter! --- E.UX 09:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sandstein 10:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]