User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2022/June
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Why would you be able to edit anything from anyone’s history without that person’s permission?!?!
Why is it allowed to edit a person’s history without that person’s permission??? 50.25.249.247 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- (by talk reader) Wikipedia is like any encyclopedia: no one written about gets a say in how the book is written. This isn't Facebook and you don't "have a page". Chris Troutman (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, technically, we do each have a page: our own User: page. And anyone can modify at as they want. Now, there are rules on what they are supposed to, and not supposed to do. They are convenient for writing messages to a user. If one fakes someone's signature, that would be against some rule. They are meant for having discussions toward improving WP. But like most of WP, if you don't like it, revert it. Gah4 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Request
Could you please copy the contents of this (1) recently deleted article into my sandbox (User:Ficaia/sandbox12). I want to work on some of the contents there. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't undelete pages, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 14:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Could you please take another look at this close? I don't think a WP:BEFORE search was properly done for the bulk nomination, so I do not see grounds for finding that none of these groups warrant an article. It seems a search was only done for Guatemalan Canadians, which were one of the smaller groups (17,000 as of 2016) under discussion. Using Guatemalan Canadians "as a proxy for the whole group" does not make a lot of sense when these groups vary quite widely in their size, and the suggestion that these groups "are all either notable or not" should not have been accepted at face value. Common sense would suggest that the group of 500 Puerto Rican Canadians is not likely to be as equally notable as the group of 80,000 Mexican Canadians or 70,000 Colombian Canadians. Cobblet (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's a valid argument, but it didn't persuade enough people at the AfD, and that's what matters. Sandstein 21:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I thought what would've really mattered is that standard procedure be followed. I do not understand why you would close a bulk nomination that wasn't even stale yet when a search for sources was only done for one of the less notable topics in the group, agreement to delete that one topic was hardly unanimous (although I agree with calling it a rough consensus to delete that one article), and none of the other topics were substantively discussed at all.
- I reached out to you because I was originally considering asking for deletion review at least with respect to Mexican Canadians, Colombian Canadians and Salvadoran Canadians, the three largest of these groups. But I'm not interested in raising a big fuss when I could be spending my energy actually rewriting those three articles with better sources. I think I'll do that instead, unless you think it's better that I go through the deletion review process. Cobblet (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the discussion was open without being relisted for 13 days, that's more than stale. I agree that rewriting the potentially viable articles with convincing sources is the best path forward. Sandstein 05:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Tye (3rd nomination) as "delete" on 2 July 2018. I created a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 20#Matthew Tye regarding restoring the article using a new draft I wrote. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Names AfD
Here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverie (given name) did you mean to delete all four nominated articles, or just one of them? Avilich (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)