User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2006/June

Camelot

I just double checked: the link works for me. The url doesn't change, and the contents are meaningful. Google doesn't seem to have the page cached, but the begning is the the same ([1]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: I checked it in Mozilla and IE, and it opens the correct page. Also the main page (<deleted because of spam filter, Sandstein 04:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)>) seems to be meaningful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That site has useful info relevant to the article, I'd rather we keep it. It is really strange you are redirected to http://wikipediareview.com . Have you tried other browser? I wonder if it is a browser, IP or your comp issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

LostMagic

This is an article aid, not a game guide. Jesusfreak 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, what is an article aid? I didn't know articles needed help, particularly not on how to play video games. Sandstein 04:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I appreciate your willingness to help filter wikipedia but Jesusfreak's article should not be deleted, as it is simply a list of spells found within the game. There are plenty of other videogame related lists similar to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.1.154 (talk • contribs)

Sir: I recommend you offer your arguments related to the deletion of LostMagic Complete List of Spells at the place designated for this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LostMagic Complete List of Spells, where they may influence consensus on whether or not it should be deleted. I by myself cannot influence this now, it's in the community's hands. However, I think the article violates WP:NOT, and it is generally accepted on Wikipedia that the fact that there are unfortunately many unencyclopedic articles is not a reason to keep any particular unencyclopedic article. Sandstein 14:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Roger C. Ambrose

FYI: I have posted a comment: [2]
Roger ambrose 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; your message is duly noted. It appears you do not object to the userfication or deletion of your autobiography. Be assured that this is not a personal matter for all involved; we've all seen a lot of articles like that. Sandstein 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

An FAQ was deleted as having no encyclopedic context under CSD A1, not as patent nonsense. Hopefully this is an uncontroversial deletion, as it fully meets this criteria and is in no way going to become an entry. See Family law system in England & Wales instead. Harro5 10:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Please mention the language(s) in which the Swiss Federal Council members comminicate with each other at the concerned page.Cygnus_hansa 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Swiss Federal Council. Sandstein 15:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It has come to My attention...

Dear Sandstein, let me first adress that I am an admirer of your work on swiss stuff. But I am afraid that I must protest some of your decisions of late. It was brought to me by a student of mine that you deleted a page on a certain Infidel Iggens. I must protest this, it is a true article and should not have been deleted. I have also spoken to over this system of mail to others in league with you and your anti-Iggens cause. I have spoken also to (in person) the writers of the original article, a certain John Pape WoodDaver and Isaac Burgess Von Halburg JizzyJonII. I told them not too post any such article without my checking it. However now having seen the original essay I say that these students should be unblocked and their article reposted.

Yours-- Prof. Jones

cc Alexis Wright

--Gene Chris Jones 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Referred to sockpuppet investigation. Sandstein 04:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Stasis of Tichondrius

Hello Sandstein,

I am actually a member of the Stasis guild on Tichondrius that you removed. I just wanted to say that entry was something we were all pretty proud of. Since none of us were responsible for making it. We joke about the exploiting thing, it all started with the creation of a video about walking through walls in a buggy instance. All in all, I thought it was pretty remarkable we got a wikipedia entry from some random person on the server during all the drama and well I was wondering if we could get that post re added. I could get you a copy of the video if you would like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.165.6 (talk • contribs)

Hello. I am not an administrator and cannot therefore delete any articles. In fact, I do not remember interacting with such an article at all (although I suppose it's possible I did vote for its deletion at WP:AfD or put a {{prod}} tag on it and then forgot about it). Are you sure you are talking to the right person?

At any rate, I cannot undelete any article because I am not an administrator. If you think the article was deleted in error via WP:AfD, please make your case at WP:DRV. However, articles on gaming guilds are regularly deleted because they are usually not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT for more); and your petition will thus most likely fail. If it was deleted via {{prod}}, you can just recreate it, although it will likely get deleted again for the reasons noted above.

I cannot help you any more. However, an administrator from Category:User undeletion may be prepared to honor your request if you provide a more coherent reason for undeletion and provide a link to the exact article name at issue. Best, Sandstein 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WoodDaver

I am very glad to say that this case has been dealt with quickly and promptly! The result was that all of the accusers have been blocked. The case is accessible by clicking on the above link or going directly to the June '06 archive page. If there is anythign else I can do to help, please let me know! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable POV Behavior

Sandstein, from the previous comment and your numerous misstatements and activities to mimize relevant content, you appear to be on some sort of personal vendetta to eliminate all references to the wear of any clothing other than pants by males. While I appreciate and respect your POV, I ask that you stop using your POV as a criteria for content removal.

I've repeatedly discussed the relevant issues with innumerable references with the few (about five) of you who appear to be similarly motivated, to no avail. Wiki policy continues to be violated. I've elevated the issue, and received several quite supporting and well qualified comments. Still to no avail.

Result: Page reverted.

Any further personal attacks, abuse, illegal manipulation/control/threats will be submitted for arbitration. Wiki is NOT a forum to be used to further your own POV by deleting content contrary to your POV. Dr1819 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Note for the record: The above comment is presumably relating to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. Sandstein 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello... again (sigh). First, please let me note that I have no bias (that I am aware of) on whether men should wear pants, kilts or whatever. I don't care. My involvement in the abovementioned AfD is solely to help Wikipedia content to conform to the basic policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS.

In particular, I think you should stop to construe any attempt to stop you flooding Wikipedia with neologisms such as "Male Unbifurcated Garment" and "Men's Fashion Freedom" as an attack on you or your beliefs. It's not about you. It's just that no one but you and some other bloggers and forum posters seem to use these terms for issues involving men wearing skirts. As such, these terms do not belong into an encyclopedia.

I am not aware of having committed any "personal attacks, abuse, illegal manipulation/control/threats". If you have any objections to any particular edit of mine, please provide a link or a diff so that I know what you are talking about. Then we can discuss the matter further on the related talk page. Note, though, that repeated serious allegations such as these may be grounds for disciplinary action under WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Sandstein 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr1819, you seem to be suffering from an acute case of m:MPOV. As someone noted of another person with strong opinions on the mailing list recently, you don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing The Truth. You percieve your biases as neutral, and anything conflicting with them as bias. You are attributing motives, without benefit of evidence. All these things can only get you in trouble on Wikipedia. Do take the time to read WP:TIGERS some time. Just zis Guy you know? 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JzG, these are useful links... :-) Sandstein 18:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG, I've made significant contributions to articles on [RAID], [Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles] (which I authored), ]Joint Precision Approach and Landing System] (again, I authored), and others. I'm a long-term (3 years) active member in good standing of one of the most demanding logic-based discussion websites online. As a sysadmin for 20 years, I apply very strict criteria to ensure that everything I put forth is factual, verifiable, and qualified. I put forth the same effort to ensure that MUGs and MFF met the same criteria as JPALS, HLLVs, and my other edits. No one has made any negative comments to work anywhere else in Wiki. Only in the area of men's fashion choices and variants have my contributions been hammered, in ways that violate Wiki policy, rules of debate, logic, politeness, and civility. Again, I used the same care in authorship and to the same standards for all my articles, but received vastly differing responses for articles involving male garment wear than the others. Why only this narrow range of topic and not my many other contributions?

Simple - The dichotomy in responses is a function of the biased POVs of the four main individuals providing the comments, due to the nature of the content, and not due to the clarity, verifiability, or truthfulness of the article itself. No other conclusion logically fits the facts mentioned above. Dr1819 18:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dr1819, would you mind taking your insights to another forum than my talk page, insofar as they do not concern me? Thank you. Sandstein 18:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Already answered at his Talk. Some people have difficulty understanding that WP is not like web forums. Just zis Guy you know? 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I appologize, Sandstein, truly. Perhaps if you could enforce others to stop their personal attacks and demeaning comments, this unfortunate content wouldn't drift onto your page. Dr1819 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

m:MPOV and WP:TIGERS

Thank you, Sanstein, for your endorsement of the resources - they were excellent. Thank you, JzG, for providing them. I've added them to my growing list of Wiki resources covering Wiki policy, rules, and recommendations. Ciao for now! Dr1819 19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dr1819

An RfC has been opened concerning Dr1819s behavior surrounding men's fashion articles. Since you have been involved in discussing his behavior on these articles, you may wish to certify the dispute or add your thoughts on the issue. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Clothing

To be fair, the articles for deletion discussion was about whether these terms deserved entire articles, not about whether they deserved half a sentence each. Let's see what new evidence Dr1819 comes up with for the notability of the movement and term. Stephen B Streater 08:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but my reasoning stands: these appear to be neologisms used only by Dr1819 and maybe a few dozen bloggers and forum posters. Pending sources to the contrary, they are not really suitable even for a passing mention. If Dr1819 comes up with good sources, I have no problems with their inclusion. Sandstein 08:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)