User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2006/December

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sandstein. 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.

Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 21:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done! You must be pleased with the result of your RfA. Please ask if you have any questions about using the admin tools as I am sure that I would like to find out just what they do as well! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 21:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do this. Sandstein 07:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations !

Well, I have already congratulated you in the co-nomination, so for now I'll just say that I know who I will ask from now on if I need any admin help... he he... Schutz 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, and do feel free to ask for any assistance, of course. Sandstein 07:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well. Happy to have you as another great addition to the admin crew -- Samir धर्म 07:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks about the birthday, and I'm happy to see your RfA was a success! DVD+ R/W 10:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the DYK (I have already given one to BigHaz)

Thank you for the DYK on the Food Technology (magazine) article. I greatly apprecaited it. Chris 14:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"The"

Thanks for your work in editing a stub of mine.

Is there a WP rule regarding the need - or lack thereof - of "The" when it is a part of an actual expression in use?
- Also, what's the WP practice regarding #REDIRECT?

Is it necessary to make a REDIRECT so that a WP search will find the article lacking this article ("The . . .")?

Best wishes, Dear Wikipedian, Ludvikus 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I assume you refer to Berne Trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yes, there's a Manual of Style guideline on not using "the" at the beginning of articles. It's called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). As for the redirect, it was automatically created when I moved the article "The Berne Trial" to "Berne Trial". It's not necessary to create such redirects otherwise, but it's not harmful either. See WP:REDIR for the details. Bye, Sandstein 18:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning of User:72.10.124.202

Hi there, I notice you did not block this user User talk:72.10.124.202. I don't understand this decision, as they have now had three final warnings. TimVickers 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but back in October. This is a school IP, so we mustn't expect it to be the same person. I'm not comfortable (yet - I'm a brand-new admin) to block someone who didn't vandalise reasonably shortly after a final warning. Sandstein 19:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They did do eight vandalism edits today, so some more will proabaly come soon enough! TimVickers 19:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll be happy to block them. But I guess recess is over now, and the kid will have forgotten about it after class. Sandstein 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves

I've added third party sources to the article The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves from the local historical society and from several newspaper stories. Though the existence of the Society in the 21st century is humorous, it is not a hoax. Would you please remove the box you placed at the top of the article? Thank you, Briancua 08:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but statements such as having presidents and popes as members need to be sourced by reliable sources, urgently. You're not prohibited from removing the box yourself afterwards. Best, Sandstein 08:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Sinclair (United States)

It was transcluded in the next nomination up. Why, I have no idea. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well... Thanks for looking into it! Sandstein 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. --stephenw32768^<talk> 22:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am 99.9% sure

I am almost posotive that that is vandalism because how the ip adress increses the number one number at a time Natasha 22:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Image - Thanks

Thanks for the info on the use of images on Wikipedia. I'm always a bit confused by the license section of the upload process. I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to get the hang of things. I love the whole idea and I'm trying to figure out how I can contribute. It's always good to get feedback from a veteran. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethicalhacker (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

GetWiki

Re: your redirect here, as far as I am aware, section redirects don't work, and I'm not aware of any on-going effort to make them work, so that redirect will just dump readers at the top of Wikinfo. Cheers, Chris cheese whine 11:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - it worked for me just fine, but that's because I manually clicked on it. Fixing this now. Sandstein 11:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill

Hi. Thanks for letting me know about closing the above AfD debate. I think your rationale for closing the debate in the way you did makes good sense, and I'm glad that we've reached what I believe is the most helpful conclusion. I shan't be merging or redirecting any of the articles myself, but I'm sure that other people will. Overall, a good discussion, I think. Thanks for acting as closing admin. WMMartin 16:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary header

you requested a speedy deletion of one of my pages. I'm kind of new to this and I just created the page to add info to it later which I have now. So can you remove the request of the 'speedy deletion' of my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian145sr (talk • contribs)

If you mean People Pound Productions or People pound productions, they were both deleted because they were not suitable for Wikipedia, per the criteria for speedy deletion. Please read these links and then decide whether you want to recreate this article in a form that is suitable for an encyclopedia. And please note that no pages here are "yours". Sandstein 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulations

Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded and I have joined the admin ranks. And congratulations on your own RfA. You're no longer the admin with the lowest seniority. ;) Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Masts

Very helpful and correct way to close the AFD.Obina 23:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Productions

Since you mentioned that this was your first AfD submission, I'm pleased to report that it was correct in every regard, and that it was successful. Thank you for your help in keeping Wikipedia free from advertising. Sandstein 10:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for thanking me, Sandenstein. Thank you, also, for closing the discussion and deleting the articles. Good luck in all your endeavours, Geuiwogbil 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Decline reason: "Yes, here on Wikipedia, you do have to resolve disputes with people if you want to contribute. I suggest you spend the rest of your block time learning how to do so - start with WP:DR, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA. -- Sandstein 22:15, 2 December 2006

Thanks for your kind note above. Bear in mind that I do not have any disputes to resolve. Fighting falsificates sold here as knowledge can be only of a great benefit to Wikipedia and the readers.

To pay you back (for your advice above) the same way - I suggest you spend some time in order to learn the difference between the words 'dispute' and 'falsificate' - just at the level of plain English language. Recommended reference - Merriam Webster Online Dictionary--GiorgioOrsini 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Giorgio, don't be a dick. Nishkid 64 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

w00t!

Bah! In all the kerfuffle I missed this pivotal moment in Wikipedia history. Welcome to the cabal :-) Guy (Help!) 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess I'm still salmon-pink for the moment... Sandstein 19:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-Help / Personal Development

Hi, I saw your recent redirect of PD to Self-help but I'm puzzled - on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal development the vote appeared to be Delete: 4, Redirect: 3 and Retain 6. This pattern also appeared on the talk page for PD. Where did the decision to redirect come from? Thanks. MarkThomas 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello - I'm happy to explain. A common misconception is that AfD is a voting process. It is not. There are no votes in AfD, and one should not describe AfD comments as such.

What AfD is is a discussion process, after which an administrator decides about the article's fate based on the consensus that has emerged, based on the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. In this case, the core problem was that the article had no sources at all, let alone reliable sources, which means it was in violation of WP:NOR by default. None of those who proposed to keep the article even remotely addressed this problem or sought to produce sources for any of the content. As violations of Wikipedia's core policies WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR cannot be overridden by any consensus, the content could not be kept. I decided to close the AfD as a redirect, because this seemed to best reflect what consensus the contributors could come up with within the abovementioned core policy constraints. Also, it appeared most appropriate, as the article had many incoming links.

If you disagree with this closure, you may appeal it at WP:DRV. You may also - and that would be my recommendation - recreate the article from scratch, taking care to cite reliable sources for what "personal development" means and how this term is used. Best, Sandstein 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Logged in....

Thank you for your contribution to my pages on Louise Lidströmer and Studio L2. You seem very experienced with Wikipedia - may I ask what I should do to satisfy everyone, and so that the "debate-labels" from the pages disappear? What shall I do? Sincerely, Nike GeorgeNGL 22:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You should edit Louise Lidströmer and STUDIO L2 so that it is apparent that these articles clearly meet our notability guidelines, which are WP:BIO and WP:CORP, respectively. You can do this by, for examples, adding links to reliable sources that discuss these subjects in detail. Then you should mention these changes at the deletion discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Lidströmer, and hope to influence consensus in that way. The details for all of this are in the links I just provided. (PS: Please sign your name by typing four tildes: ~~~~). Best, Sandstein 22:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A request for unblock

Sir, listen if you will to what I want to say. A conflict occured between me and user Lcnj over the article list of Lebanese people. As you may have seen, this is my version of the article [1] and this is Lcnj's [2]. Lcnj and Rockpocket considered what I was doing as vandalism. I have been contributing to that article long before Lcnj intervened, and the article was in perfect form before this person started editing it. After a long conflict, I decided to leave Wikipedia and allow Lcnj to do whatever he wants with the article. After I left and he knew I decided to retire 3, Lcnj decided to provoke me by adding a citation needed next to a politician's name whose article he knows I am the main contributor. I informed Rockpocket and told him to tell Lcnj to stop povoking me 4. I later told Lcnj before I expressed my anger towards him 5. This person was much more uncivil to me than I was to him. What I tried to do I make the article look better. He provoked me in order to prove to administrator Rockpocket that I have not retired and that I will be back to insult him. I ask to be unblocked because I want to leave in peace and with a clean record because I am not a vandal nor am I of bad faith, and I want to reserve the right to maintain and to contribute to the articles I created. I told Rockpocket, but there is flagrant bias against me. Rockpocket and Lcnj have been friends for some period of time, and Rockpocket has stood next to him during what has happened and intervened under Lcnj's request. Rockpocket also keeps on reminding me that I was previously blocked, but he does not know the circumstances which also permitted me to be unblocked. I want to leave quietly as I wanted to do before I was blocked. Please consider my request. Jaber

I have already considered and rejected your unblock request; see your user talk page. Do not edit anonymously to circumvent your block, these IPS will otherwise also be blocked. Sandstein 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Report

Hi Sandstein, noticed you are an admin, you might want to check out User talk:169.232.125.176. Despite several warnings (one of them final), this anon has been vandalizing my talk page and issuing personal attacks in his/her edit summaries. Thanks for checking it out, cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 06:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I someone has dealt with it already. If you want to be sure to get a quick admin reaction, I recommend posting a vandal report at WP:AIV, which gets read a lot. Sandstein 07:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried listing (not this person) on there, but I've found things get done quickly if I just let a couple of different admins know personally. I have a problem figuring out exactly what WP:AIV is for, there seem to be rules about what they do and don't deal with. For example, I listed User:Breannarox on there for constant strange vandalism in the Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County article. Uploading images that have been deleted, constant POV edits and edit warring, ignoring multiple warnings by different users, but for some reason it doesn't seem to be being dealt with. Not that I expect you to deal with it; the user has slowed down her previously frantic pace of vandalism to the point where I can pretty easily just revert what is going on, but it's a bit puzzling how no one has checked it out. --Tractorkingsfan 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - just pass me a note again when you need more help, but depending on the circumstances it may take half a day until I am able to respond. If listings on WP:AIV are not dealt with satisfactorily, I'd ask the admin who removed the listing about it on their talk page. Sandstein 21:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dwain (talk · contribs)'s Userpage

Dwain (talk · contribs) is obviously unwilling to keep the polemic content off his userpage, given that he keeps reverting comments regarding it on his talk page. I'm going to delete the quotes from his userpage and, if he persists in re-adding them, I'll protect his page. What do you think of this action? -- tariqabjotu 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; such a protection should last until he agrees not to re-add the inflammatory content. Sandstein 22:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Baldwin-Jenkins Hall

If you wish to delete a dorm that seemingly has no value to you admins, then may I assist in more cleaning up of Wiki, by suggesting another "non-noteworthy" dorm. McMillan Hall, at the same college even, should also be deleted by your standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMillan_Hall —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CallistoX (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

You mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin-Jenkins Hall? I was just the closing admin executing the community's consensus in this case, expressing no opinion on my own. Sandstein 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad link

Not sure if you use an automated tool for this or not, but you missed a letter in the deletion reason for this page [1]. I thought I'd point it out incase you used a tool that was making an error.--Crossmr 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no, the tool was I, and it's indeed a typo... Thanks, Sandstein 05:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"List of very special episodes" afd article deleted

First of all, congrats on your recent administrative duties. Hope you do a good job. Anyhow, you were apparently the editor who agreed to delete the afd article "List of very special episodes," and there was a talk page related to the votes cast for or against the article's status. My question is, is the afd discussion page still available? I understood (perhaps incorrectly) that those were archived as a record of the afd discussion and to help people understand why the page was deleted, and perhaps it was a mistake that the afd discussion for said article was deleted. Just checking to see what's up and if the afd page can be restored (not the article, for goodness sakes; I mean, except for perhaps one or two examples, I think very few of those examples that were listed could actually be verified or actually were "very special episodes"). Thanks! [[Briguy52748 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)]]

A postscript (and an embarassing one at that) — I found the afd page has indeed been safely preserved. I clicked on a redlink which perhaps was pointing elsewhere. Sorry for any confusion I may have created. [[Briguy52748 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)]]

Yes, I'm to blame for the confusion: I made a typo in the deletion log, the AfD page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of very special episodes. Sorry! Sandstein 05:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the AfD on John Paul Morrison!

Thank you for closing the AfD on John Paul Morrison! I understand and totally agree that I should not modify this article, but it was suggested by several people that I should put more citations for Flow-based programming into Talk:John Paul Morrison, which I have now done, to strengthen the notability issue. I guess my question is what should be done with them now...? There are also a bunch of citations (different ones) in Flow-based programming - is there some clean way to relate the two sets of citations - assuming that someone (not me) can do this. Clearly the citations in Talk:John Paul Morrison won't show up in either of the articles. Thanks in advance. Jpaulm 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:COI suggests that you put material that you feel would benefit the article on its talk page - you could do this with the citations in Flow-based programming as well. Then you can wait until somebody adds the material or you can ask another (reasonably neutral) editor to consider adding it. Sandstein 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy the citations in Talk:John Paul Morrison to Talk:Flow-based programming, and the ones in Flow-based programming to Talk:John Paul Morrison...? Did I get that straight? Thx. Jpaulm 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to the extent that they are suitable for both articles, of course, e.g. as references for the article content. Otherwise, a "see also" link to the other article usually suffices. I know too little about the subject matter to assess this in this case. You may of course also just refer to one article's references on the other article's talk page rather than actually copy the references. If it's just about notability, you can always bring them up in the case of another AfD discussion. Sandstein 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jackhamm

I noticed you placed a block on 68.163.222.28 and User:Mandelbug. Looking at the history, it seems User:Jackhamm was also created by this user. Something strange is going on: an IP and an account vandalizing, that account creating a dummy user-page under a different name, and that dummy user-page being used to request a third user name (Neuro2112,[[2]]). Certainly this person's use of Wikicode seems to contradict their claim to be new to the Wiki. Michaelbusch 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, but I don't quite follow you - what exactly is the relationship between User:Jackhamm and Neuro2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Sandstein 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that Jackhamm was upset at me for the AfD of his article and called me a douchebag. I also know that the only edits that Neuro2112 made were to slap a delete prod tag on an article I created and claim it didn't meet notability standards...the same notability standards that were a problem with Jackhamm's article under AfD. I also know he has another IP address, 64.61.49.70, (admitted to here [3]) which he has recently used to try and get his article recreated. IrishGuy ^talk 00:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave these accounts alone for now as long as User:Jackhamm observes his block, but I'll be happy to block them in case of further sockpuppetry, vandalism, personal attacks etc. Sandstein 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

He returned under the IP address 64.61.49.70 and even signed it [4]. While he was only editing his own user page, my point is that he has now admitted to having another IP address which he did use to vote (and lied about doing so) during the Filiz emma soya AfD.IrishGuy ^talk 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, but he says he's leaving - what would you like me to do, block the IP? What for? Sandstein 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking for a block. Not at all. I just wanted to bring it to someone's attention that he did use sockpuppetry in an AfD before changing his username. If he leaves, he leaves. But if he doesn't and he pushes to recreate that article again, I just wanted someone else to know about the sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 01:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Smark (Professional Wrestling)

I would like the deleted article put into my namespace so I can add the proper citatiions NegroSuave 15:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, at User:NegroSuave/Smark. Sandstein 21:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref conv

Sorry for the downtime. References converter is now back up and running. About a week ago the hard drive in my server crashed. Luckily it stayed together long enough to allow me to pull all the data off onto a new hard drive, but I still had to go through the process of installing Linux on the new hard drive, installing all the necessary programs, and loading in all of the old data from the server. I got all of my essential services up within two days (CVS, Apache, Wiki), but I kind of forgot about web scripts, which I finally got around to fixing today. Everything should be fully functional again. If you see any bugs, just send me a message. You are receiving this message because you are on the spamlist. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, simply remove your name. --Cyde Weys 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

7 Days a Skeptic

Sorry to weigh in on this after the afd discussion has closed, but this game is part of a series, all of which have been afd'ed by user Andre. I have added notability references to the other two, and their afd discussions seem to be weighing on the keep side. If you could reinstate the page, or let me have a copy to improve (put it on my user page, if you wish) I am sure i could improve it enough to meet the software notability requirements of multiple non-trivial thingyamajiggers. e.g. a quick google gives: this review, a list of awards won by game, another review. --Amaccormack 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, there you go: User:Amaccormack/7 Days a Skeptic. Just remember that recreated content substantially identical to what has been AFDed can be speedy deleted, so it would be a good idea to clearly establish notability this time around. Reviews on noncommercial, non-mainstream websites are not counted as reliable sources by many. Sandstein 06:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being helpful. I've updated User:Amaccormack/7 Days a Skeptic now, so please take a look and decide if it is good enough yet. I have also added a template (which doesn't quite work right when its a subpage of my user, but should do once its back in the main namespace) for merging with 5 Days a Stranger and Trilby's Notes as I think the series deserves one article perhaps rather than 3. --Amaccormack 10:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I don't know - in an AfD I'd probably say weak delete, because the references seem all to come from fan-run sites, not professional media. But that's not for me to decide, I won't be nominating it for deletion. A merger with the other similar games would probably be a good idea and would certainly save it from a {{db-repost}}. Sandstein 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll do the merge, then --Amaccormack 10:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Instead of the threats. Thanks. // Laughing Man 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this refers to thisvandalism warning that the user removed. Sandstein 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record it wasn't vandalism, you just are not assuming good faith. Go recheck the images. // Laughing Man 12:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

question

Hi Sandstein, it looks like you helped with my entry for online health communities - can you help with one more thing? I added a reference but I could not get my last name to appead, only my first. Could you please tell mw what I did wrong? Thanks so much, Lisa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lisaneal (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm replying on your talk page. Sandstein 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Tara (Kim Possible character)

The page fits the criteria for speedy deletion. All the info in the page has be merged with List of minor characters in Kim Possible. I checked all the pages that linked to the page and made all the necessary wikilink changes. I highly doubt people will search for the character as "Tara (Kim Possible character)", so it does not serve as a valid redirect. Thank you for looking into the matter. Please reply on my talk page (I prefer not having to watch other user's pages)! I'll see you around. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanxs for the prompt reply! I believe it meets general criteria #6 and redirects #3. Jumping cheese

^Cont@ct 06:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That fair enough. I think I'll leave it alone. It's not anything significant so it's not worth the time fighting for it's deletion. ^_^ Jumping cheese

^Cont@ct 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks

hi sandstein -- thanks for moving my user warning to the talk page of User:NoCarrier -- I didn't mean to put it on the main page, I'm just really loopy with a head cold today. Tx for catching. --LQ 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome... and get well soon! Sandstein 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ceyockey RfA

A generic but nonetheless warm "thank you" for your generous words of support in my RfA. I'm glad that you affirmed Radiant's nomination and I'll be measured in my use of the cleaning closet's contents. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Haley Starshine's Translation Page

I strongly want to transwiki the content of this page. Which wiki forum do you feel would be a more appropriate place for it?--ttogreh 14:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea - all I know is that Wikipedia is not it. There are a number of wiki projects that accept all sorts of content. You may want to take a look at List of wikis to find an appropriate place for this content. Sandstein 14:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Sandstein/Archives/2006/December, thank you for participating in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted; I appreciate the various comments re lack of experience in some aspects and I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience and I should welcome your feedback on any Admin tasks I become involved with. Again, many thanks for taking the time to consider my RfA and add your kind neutral comments. Feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 03:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom St Denis

In your decision to delete this article, you say you found a consensus for deletion. I counted six people for deletion, six people for keep. You said that "contributors wishing to keep the article are not addressing this issue from the point of view of the pertinent guideline WP:BIO". I argued my initial keep based on WP:BIO. I don't have to specifically reference the guideline to employ its language, which I did in my argument. Please do not misrepresent my argument in order to delete an article that many editors wish to keep. There are reviews out there of St. Denis's work--crap reviews, perhaps, maybe not rising to the standard of reliable sources, but independent nonetheless. Look, I think that deletion may have even been the right call here, but nobody argued against my WP:BIO-based reasoning on the merits, for five days--and then, after one person did, you closed the debate with a delete, and said that I ignored the guideline. That sucks. Darkspots 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On review, you are right: you did refer to the criteria of WP:BIO (although you didn't cite or link to the reviews you mentioned), and to this extent, my statement that no one but Mus Musculus did was incorrect. Sorry - that was an oversight on my part, and if you would like to, I can append a correction to that effect to my closing statement.

However, I'd like to emphasise that I didn't intend to misrepresent your argument, and neither did I intentionally close the AfD after the last "delete" opinion in order to get the result I wanted. The time just happened to be up and I happended to come along to close the AfD at this point. Best, Sandstein 07:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You took an AfD that was a clear no consensus and decided that it was a delete based solely on your "discretion" and the opinion of an editor who made a recommendation that could not be refuted because it was made right at the close of discussion, and you decided that that that editor's recommendation represented a consensus. You made this decision on the merits, not on the basis of consensus. Not only did I refer to the criteria of WP:BIO, my argument was directly seconded by another editor, and a third editor argued for keep on the basis of publication and reviews. I was not eloquent, and I didn't cite anything, but that mattered in the discussion. To you, the closing administrator, that should matter a lot less than the fact that other editors concurred with me that the subject was notable, based, roughly, on WP:BIO. You seriously need to follow Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators if you're going to close AfDs. There was no reason for you to completely discount the six people arguing in good faith to keep the article--arguing a lot more about notability than, say, the several people arguing to delete solely out of respect for the wishes of the article subject. You are not there to decide the case on its merits. You are there to try to see if a rough consensus evolved, etc.--you have to close the AfD that actually happened, not the one that should have happened. When in doubt, don't delete. Thanks, Darkspots 02:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is duly noted, and I think is not without merit; however, in close cases such as this one, I believe there ought to be room for treating the subject's wishes as determinative for consensus. You are free, of course, to pursue this matter further at deletion review. Sandstein 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article deserves a deletion review. Thank you, Darkspots 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I decided to end it; more time is needed, and I probably need a bit more experience. From here, I think I'll look at community discussion, AfD and the like. I will try to improve in the areas of concern, and thanks to everyone who supplied feedback. -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RFD aftermath request

Could you please provide me with a link to the remains of the article recently deleted? There may be some things I could salvage. Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people (ethnicity) P0M 15:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A link to the AfD goes like this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people (ethnicity). Anyway, there you are: User:Patrick0Moran/Black people (ethnicity). Please remember that reposting this content will get it speedily deleted. Sandstein 15:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Alpha Mu

Can you summarize your reason for closing the AfD as keep in terms of my nomination criteria? Alan.ca 14:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My reason was that there was an overwhelming consensus, among the AfD's participants, to keep the article. According to the closing guidelines, the specific arguments advanced by the participants or my own opinion are not relevant, except to discount bad-faith contributions, or unless the overriding policies WP:NOR/WP:V/WP:NPOV mandate deletion (as opposed to mere cleanup). This, in my estimation, was not the case here.

Please also stop re-adding your comments to the closed AfD. This is disruptive editing. Edit conflict or not, the comments were not present at the time I evaluated and closed the AfD (6 min after your post), and no new comments may be added after closure. To allow for exceptions would give the false impression that the comments were present at closure time. You may put them on the AfD talk page if you want to, or reply to Alkivar directly. Sandstein 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the comments on that AfD were votes, not counterpoints. Further, how can you say that the article doesn't mandate deletion when they clearly never addressed the points of NOR, and V. My greatest concern about the article is the associations with living biographies. In all of that debate they have not verified a single notable alumni member. This was the reason I originally nominated the article as they had associated themselves with Justice Rothstein of Canada. I can only imagine the kind of revert warring that is going to take place on that article when I continue to remove all of the uncited associations. I hope this isn't the beginning of a movement to include every student club in wikipedia. As for your remarks about the closing afd, despite the fact that I feel I did not have an opportunity to respond to the remarks posted I will let it go as I see your point about perception of points considered. Alan.ca 15:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to your general argument with respect to AfD being a debate, not a vote, but even assuming I agreed with you on the merits of this article, there's just no way I could justify finding a consensus to delete in this AfD. That would be an abuse of power. As to NOR/V, what matters is that at least the basics such as the club's existence, its founding date, mission etc. are NOR and V, so consensus-breaking deletion is not mandated. You are of course free to delete any content in this article that is not NOR and V. Sandstein 15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I know I can delete the content in the article, I was trying to avoid a revert war by using AfD, as at once the content is deleted, there isn't much left. Alan.ca 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pablo Ganguli

why have you locked the Pablo Ganguli page? He is a leading cultural impresario in britain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeouspom (talk • contribs)

Because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Ganguli, and if you keep reposting spam content, I will block you as well. Sandstein 19:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to salt the article when I saw that you had already done it. I have recreated the article in his userspace per this. I am willing to give John a chance to see if he can find some sources claiming notability. I will keep an eye on the temp. article and delete it if I see Zeouspom not working on it. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads-up, although I'm not overly optimistic about getting ourselves a neutral biographical article of a notable person here... :-) Sandstein 19:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you prevent Dennis Stamps page from being recreated? I haven't seen anything that would indicate to me that you are familiar with Mr. Stamp or the situation itself. He should be allowed to be added back to Wikipedia, due to his popularity among the internet wrestling community. Many less-prominent people have pages on Wikipedia. What is with this rabid Dennis Stamp deletion craze I have noticed on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.37.146 (talk • contribs)

Department Store Article Vandal

Hello Sandstein! You said to let you know if the vandalism to Lord & Taylor continued... and it has. He/she is using the other IP, 141.150.233.178 (Talk), and I gave him/her another verror4 warning this morning. However, the last time he/she used this IP was on Friday, so I'll be sure to let you know if he/she makes more edits today. Thanks again so much for helping us out on this! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all, blocked 48h this time, let me know if it continues... Sandstein 17:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Department Store Article Vandal

He/she started at it again as soon as the block on 72.82.212.127 ran out. Gotta' give him/her credit for persistence! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 03:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, blocked for 1 week, let's see whose patience runs out first... Sandstein 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Zawodny AfD

Hi, I'd like your opinion on the recent AfD of Jeremy Zawodny. I think that an article should be deleted if it's subject does not meet the explicitly-stated notability guidelines, but I suppose others may think differently. Would you care to add your thoughts? cacophony ◄► 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the article itself, I'm inclined to agree with the opinion you expressed in the AfD, i.e., that he's non-notable because he is not the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works. That was not, however, the consensus of the AfD debate, and the article can now only be deleted through a re-nomination on AfD, which probably shouldn't happen immediately but after some months. Sandstein 06:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sylvester Mubayi on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sylvester Mubayi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 08:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to the article on his son being deleted - truth be told I fear I jumped the gun a little on that one (although I'm also starting to find that number of Google hits, when it comes to the art of Zimbabwe, doesn't necessarily mean much). But Sylvester was definitely an important figure in the development of early Zimbabwean sculpture. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 08:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Marshmallow vandal at it again

The person whom you blocked a few hours ago for persistent vandalising of Marshmallow seems to have started doing it again with another IP address (88.118.1.191). Whenever I have warned him, he has attacked me personally, and reinstated his vandalism of the page (sometimes with bogus sources). Would it be possible for some action to be taken against him to prevent this from continuing to be a problem?

Many thanks,

Joseph Sanderson 00:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lord and Taylor

The anon you blocked for (as I understand it) persistently adding out-of-date info to the Lord and Taylor articles? He's an autistic 15-year-old who genuinely thought he was doing the right thing; I've been in correspondence with his mother via OTRS.

As you can imagine, the 15-year-old is quite upset about his block - he's fixated on department stores throughout America - and so his parents were asking what if anything could be done.

What I have proposed is that iff his parents feel that they (and the staff of his school) have been able to properly explain to him how to behave on WP (for instance, the importance of accepting that some sources can become outdated or otherwise unreliable), I will unblock him early, and encourage him to register an account so that we may more easily communicate with him in times of need.

I will only do this if you are in accordance, since I don't want to do a wheel war or anything like that. Okay? DS 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I have no objection at all to what you are proposing, if you are willing to closely supervise this editor's behaviour; I'd be glad to help out too. But it might be necessary to tell his parents that Wikipedia is not therapy. The requirements of the encyclopedia come first, and if he persists in adding wrong information to Wikipedia, he'll be mercilessly re-blocked. I'm frankly not very optimistic that we can get a 15-year-old autist who appears to be unable to communicate with other Wikipedians to be a productive contributor, but who knows? Maybe he'll change his fixation to something useful, such as article cleanup. Best, Sandstein 07:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A Recent Deletion

I am the so called "otaku" who created that page of translations for Haley of Order of the Stick. I just want to be clear that I am still relatively new to this site and haven't contributed much outside of a few football updates and one band page. I am by no means obsessed with that comic. I just read it regularly and was having problems understanding what Haley was saying, and uncoding her speak was taking me forever. I figured other people whould have the same problem and that's why I spent an entire night going through the comics and decifering the quotes to made that page. I didn't know how to put it on the Haley page once I created it, so I just linked it. Sadly, this lack of knowledge was its downfall, as one "expert" saw it, decried it, and started a rally to have it deleted. Unfortunately I was unaware of this battle and could not contribute during the exchange of words that occured and defend what I did, and it was deleted, by yourself in fact. I just wanted to explain my case, and hope that maybe I could convince you to add it back, under the correct page, sort of like the merge that was proposed. I put a lot more effort into that then I do most things of my life (which is pretty sad), and I know other people thought enough of it to edit it as well. I'd hate to see all that effort go to waste. NeoAC 05:41(?), 23 December 2006

Can you please provide a link to the deleted article or to the AfD? I can't seem to find it. Sandstein 07:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have spent about 20 minutes desperately searchign wikipedia for that exact article. Trust me, people will want to have it back. I don't know if my opinion counts for anything, but I wanted to know what Hayley said in the last stip, so I've been searching for it. Eventually a google-english-wikipedia search revealed this page. So, if my opinion counts, bring it back! :) Disco 11:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen, people, I can't help you if you don't either provide a link to the deleted article or to its AfD discussion. Sandstein 11:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I'm sorry. Here is the link to where the article was. There was no "rough copy", as my decision to create it was pretty spontaneous. [5] NeoAC 27 December 2006

Okay, in cases such as these it's usually easier to provide an internal link, Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick, or a link menu: Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've restored the content in your user space, User:NeoAC/Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick. You may do with it as you wish, except to recreate the article in its previous place, which was ruled out by the AfD discussion. You may for example transwiki or merge this content, or re-use it (under the terms of the GFDL) on another website. Please direct any new discussion to my main talk page, as this page is now archived. Sandstein 18:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer

This article has been RE-REcreated, and I can't figure out how to get it deleted again, it's all crystal balling. ThuranX 17:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, someone has already re-deleted Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). All you need to do in such cases is add {{db-repost}} to the article. Sandstein 17:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lord & Taylor

72.82.167.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is damaging the Lord & Taylor article as 141.150.233.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 72.82.212.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) had been in the past. I suspect all three of these IP addresses belong to the same person. Can you block? Clipper471 01:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, 48h block, see above for more background. I'll try and concentrate discussion of this case on Talk:Lord & Taylor until this person has an account. Sandstein 07:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Seraphimblade's RfA

Thanks for your comments and advice in my recent RfA, which failed. If you have any further advice it would be quite appreciated! Seraphimblade 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for restoring the article, Sandstein. I will just post it under the Haley page if that is OK. There won't be much need to edit it anymore, so this should be final. Again, much obliged! NeoAC 30 December 2007

Karl Zinsmeister

I'm new to this, but why did you remove this section:

Much controversy also surrounded Zinsmeister’s claim to have founded The American Enterprise. On his resume and in the official White House press release, Zinsmeister claimed to have “launched,” “conceived,” and “founded” the publication, even though the magazine had already been around for four years when he took over in 1994.

From Karl Zinsmeister's biography? It was prominently featured in the Washington Post article that was referenced, and "resume padding" is generally deemed a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.34.148 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your message. With biographies of living persons, we must be extra careful not to make any mistakes (please read the link for the important details!). In this case, there was no specific source given for the claims that there was "much controversy" about this issue and that the magazine predated his contributions. However, now I see that the latter is indeed referenced in the WP article, so I suppose re-adding this material is OK. But unless some other reliable source has described the whole issue as a matter of "much controversy", we must not do so. Rather, we should limit ourselves to the facts, such as: In 2006, the Washington Post reported that Zinsmeister claimed in his resumé to have founded The American Enterprise, even though the magazine had already existed for four years when he took over in 1994.

I've re-added the content in this form; feel free to edit it further. Also feel free to ask me if you have any questions. I'm copying this discussion to the article talk page; let's please continue article-specific discussions there. Sandstein 23:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)