User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/July

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burn rubber

I think you forgot to delete the article in question? I assume that is what happened, and have deleted it. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so; thanks!  Sandstein  06:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Tundale"

Oooh, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Acharya S deletion

Sandstein, you may or may not have noticed that I was citing material in her article 6 minutes before you performed the deletion and closed the topic. With all the other bickering going on, you may have overlooked that. At any rate, I believe in good faith that the article is citable, notable, and meriting inclusion. I respectfully ask for you to reopen the deletion discussion for a day or two so I can continue working to improve the article, or failing that, to restore a copy to my userspace so I can work it there. Note that I had not previously edited the article before the second deletion discussion. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, restored for improvement at User:Jclemens/Acharya S.  Sandstein  20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Shall I let you know when I think it's been improved sufficiently for re-review? Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You may, if you want to, but, well, I'm not in a position to decide authoritatively on this - all I can do is say whether or not I would delete the improved version per WP:CSD#G4. If you want definitive advice about whether or not the article may be restored, you can ask for its review at WP:DRV.

The DRV documentation said to engage with the deleting administrator first, so I didn't want to be going around you or the process for no good reason. I'll go ahead and file a DRV once it's been improved, then. Thanks again! Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Justifiable Insurrection"

I wonder if you would be so kind as to explain why this article was deleted? Martel,C (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article at issue.  Sandstein  08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cuno Amiet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Albert Anker

On 2 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albert Anker, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you withdraw your nomination

For my reasoning, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online encyclopedias. The Transhumanist 19:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Should I ever feel like requiring a recommendation by you, be sure that I'll ask for it.  Sandstein  19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No need for you to ask. It's a service I provide to you freely and gladly. And apparently sorely needed. By the way, the page no longer fits your description of it in your nomination. The Transhumanist 22:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I don't usually participate in RfAs, but I remember that I used to wonder why a prolific and experienced user such as you would fail all of yours. It's much clearer now.  Sandstein  06:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing your nomination. The list currently looks pretty good in a shape and form compiled by collaborations after your stimulation anyway. However, the above mention of RFA is inappropriate.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Dietrich

On 4 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adolf Dietrich, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR (alleged) case and ban

Hi, it's been some time since this incident but I wanted to get some distance from it in order to see things, perhaps with a "cooler" head. Unfortunately some 13 days later, I still have some concerns regarding that whole incident and I would like to discuss them with you and if possible with other involved parties (e.g. the blocking admin) or indeed anyone who can provide us with some insight. So, if it's not too much to ask, please have a look, on these two mini-threads here and here and tell me why did you think that I have not addressed the reason for my blocking (Block log "Edit Warring" and the allegations and 'orignal' case as presented by User:BalkanFever, here) as violation of WP:3RR? I think that I did provide clarifications that presented my intention of countering a (gross IMHO) case of Sneaky Vandalism. By multiple-users --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Care to comment? I had presented evidence in my talk page of this systematic removal of sources (which were treated in accordance of our policies as WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, WP:NAME, WP:RS etc plus specific-for-the purpose-guidelines as WP:MOSMAC or WP:NCGN) before your re-evalutation of the "ban". I would appreciate your input. Thanks --157.228.x.x (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, is there any pressing reason for me to get involved in the question whether a now-expired block (not a ban) that was not issued by me was correct? I see none. With respect to my declining your unblock request, I don't have anything to add beyond noting that I declined it for purely procedural reasons; you did not provide a clear explanation how the block violated blocking policy. See User:Sandstein/Unblock. I have no opinion about the merits of the block.  Sandstein  11:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "pressing"? I came to discuss in good faith two whole weeks after the block, plus a week'after my initial message (i.e. all-in-all three weeks) so I would kindly appreciate some input. Yes, it makes a whole lot of difference for me (and IMHO to the project itself) to review the incident and discuss some specifics. At the end of the day I was accused for something (violation of 3RR, "edit warring") but, IMHO, there were exceptional circumstances, as already present in the WP:3RR itself, in so not to be considered as such. The user (and later on users, plural) that got involved with my edits that day was removing reliably cited text, he was incivil to the point of spatting around personal attacks, and on top of that he was gaming about claiming that I was not providing edit summaries and other colorful nonsense! I was not given a chance to respond to that 3RR report, and minutes after the alleged accusations I was blocked. I though that there were good solid reasons to re-evaluate that block so I've tried to present evidence (clearly and in a consice manner IMHO) in the only place I could; my talk page. (Mind you there many more examples to this whole systematic removal a.k.a. "Sneaky Vandalism" according to our WP:Vandalism policy than the ones I chose to present).

• In short, accoding to WP:3RR, WP:Vandalism edits are "agreed to be unwanted and may be reverted without counting towards the 3RR". I had warned, twice User:BalkanFever for this type of Vandalism (see here and here that same day, before the supposed "3RR violation" brouhaha. (In fact I have tried to advise in a civil and friendly -and when persisted not-so-friendly manner, using standard wiki-templates, many users, with or without an account, for this, countless times. And evidently he knew it). So, please, if you would be kind enough, I would appreciate some insight. Thanks --157.228.x.x (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I decline to involve myself in what appears to be a dispute between you and that other user. I see no reason to, have no time or inclination for it, and don't see what practical purpose it would serve.  Sandstein  12:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) With all due respect I did not asked you to be involved in this alleged dispute. You were involved from the minute that you deemed that I had not "addressed" the reason of my blocking ("edit warring"). Some obvious reasons for this discussion, in practice and in principle, might be:

1. To take some lessons for future similar cases, and there would be myriad of that, I hope you would agree.
2. More effective prevention, identification and ultimately solution to systematic POV attacks that on top of that, violate numerous of our policies as WP:VAN, WP:NAME, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and so on.
3. To clear up the slate, to see where we were wrong and what can we do about it in the future
4. To help a fellow editor and firm supporter of this project to clear-up his name; why on Earth anyone has to live with this "edit-waring" stained reputation especially when there is so much compelling evidence that it wasn't?

Please remember we are a community here and communities are build on trust. --157.228.x.x (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I did tried to get some insight from the other involved admin too (User:Yandman). Unfortunately, he does not seem to be very active these days.

As I said, I have no opinion about the merits of your block. If you think your block was in error, you may pursue dispute resolution with the blocking admin. I'll not comment further on this.  Sandstein  12:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm the blocking admin did not knew, at that point all of the above. You were. And you judged (deemed) that my responce did not addressed "edit-warring". Is this some short of a blame-game? Please, I do not wish to blame anyone. --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the delay, I haven't been very active this year. To be honest, BalkanFever does not seem to be the blatant vandal that you make him out to be. The disputed material was neither "Simple and obvious vandalism", "Addition of copyright violations" nor "Addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons". And you were clearly warned of the impending 3RR violation. You overstepped the line in an editorial dispute between yourself and several editors who appear to be working in reasonably good faith, hence the (short) block. yandman 09:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Acharya S deletion

Could you delete the talk page too? Thanks. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  20:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, why delete the talk page too? It is almost inconceivable that an article on a historian, lecturer, and author of three books would be deleted. Until you think about it: Christian WP contributors are offended by her books, and act in CENSORSHIP, just as Christians did in 391 CE at the library of Alexandria (not just burning books, but also murdering the librarian and dragging her body through the streets), and just as the Catholic Church has done over millenia. Your thoughts? Your opinion is valuable to me and appreciated. -- Geĸrίtz (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What is it you object to, the deletion of the article or of its talk page?  Sandstein  16:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry - I should have been clear. Deletion of the article is outrageous. So that's my first concern. But why not leave the talk page there to show history of the discussion over deletion? Again, I find it terribly hard to believe it was deleted in good faith, and that it didn't meet notability guidelines. -- Geĸrίtz (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As concerns the article, could you tell me how exactly my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination) was, in your opinion, in conflict with which applicable Wikipedia policies or guidelines? As concerns the talk page, it was deleted in application of WP:CSD#G8.  Sandstein  16:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for example, see "Unwanted - New articles in wikipedia" [1] Writers often feel frustrated, disempowered, and victimized after creating or contributing to an article, only to see it disappear for reasons they feel are wrong. If the Acharya S article was not cited sufficiently, how about leaving it there with FACT tags, and giving writers some time? Wikipedia's goal is "to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available..." Regarding notability - see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative professionals and [[Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). Acharya S meets enough of the criteria to be notable. -- Geĸrίtz (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This does not address the question of whether my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination) was correct under applicable policies and guidelines, i.e., whether I correctly assessed community consensus based on that discussion. If you think I did not, you may appeal the closure at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I did go to WP:DRV before, and couldn't find anything there, anywhere. Can you point me to the Deletion Review discussion on Acharya S ? Thanks ... Geĸrίtz (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is no deletion review discussion on this subject, you must start a new one, according to the prcedure outlined at the top of WP:DRV.  Sandstein  17:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe I'll find time to get around to that. Have a great weekend. Geĸrίtz (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to butt in, but I have User:Jclemens/Acharya S available to work on. If you'd like to look at the current state it was in when deleted, and work on it collaborately in my user space, please feel free. I'd like to finish polishing the article in userspace, make sure it clearly meets notability with sufficient RS's, and THEN take it to DRV. Want to help? Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI comment - endorse ban

Hi. I noticed that you wrote "endorse ban" on the Giovanni report. For sake of clarity, given a suggestion has been made that his ban be extended to indef, could you indicate whether you were endorsing the 1 month ban or the idea of an indef ban? Otherwise Giovanni's supporters may kick up a fuss later on the technicality that some people did not make it clear enough. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC).

René Victor Auberjonois

On 5 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article René Victor Auberjonois, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not an American, but I count myself as a friend of the United States, so: Happy Fourth to you as well!  Sandstein  06:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and I too count myself a friend to many nations! --Happy editing! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected Request

Please see Talk:Pristina#Republic_of_Kosova_to_Republic_of_Kosovo. I have explained it to you in a little more detail. If you have further questions please feel free to come to my talk page. Beam 15:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at anything I said? I'm feeling kind of disappointed that you didn't read what I linked. The consensus has already been built. I was part of the consensus building process at Kosovo (which you'll notice that Republic of Kosovo links too, which I was also a part of that consensus). I hope you won't mind if I get an administrator who is already familiar with Kosovo related consensus, or willing to take the time to see what is consensus, to make that edit. Thanks, and if you have questions please come to my talk page. Beam 03:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote. The consensus you refer to was not immediately apparent to me, and for protected edits, it needs to be. It's fine by me if you ask other admins.  Sandstein  05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Current issues in Buddhism

As an editor I'd likely have voted delete, but in this discussion you closed with only two responses, one for delete and one for merge, and the closure result was a regular rather than a speedy delete. I would suggest waiting for several comments to appear before closing, particularly if the first two are contradictory. Otherwise, the deletion discussion process is circumvented and an administrator is acting based on the administrator's own opinion rather than the community's consensus. Note that a merge is considered a kind of keep rather than a kind of delete because the original article redirects to the target article and its history is kept. The only reaon to circumvent the regular discussion process would be to close as a speedy delete based on one of the speedy delete criteria. If you are doing this, suggesting identifying that a speedy delete is happenning explicitly, and stating which criterion is being used. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted.  Sandstein  21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bridget Mary Nolan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bridget Mary Nolan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Assize (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Carter (English novelist)

I think your decision to close this as delete was fair enough, since sources hadn't been added to the article. However, several commentators did manage to substantially verify its contents. In current form it seems to be essentially a book-cover biography, which I've found floating around in the net in multiple languages on various fantasy literature sites. There are certainly enough more reliable sources to recreate a fully sourced article. In your decision you placed lack of sources over lack of notability (I think there was a consensus in the discussion that the author is notable); would you have any objection to recreating the article if I can build a fully sourced version in my userspace first?

If that is alright, could I have please have the article and its history restored to my userspace to make rebuilding more straightforward? I know that controversial revisions should not be restored, but I notice that at least some prior versions of the Wikipedia article have been mirrored and apparently translated across the net, and having easy access to the definite list of prior versions in usperspace would make it easier to identify which other sites are simply restatements of unsourced Wikipedia revisions. None of the material in the biography as it stood when deleted was controversial or libellous in its claims - even the parts that I could not find restated in reliable sources were at least supported in e.g. an interview the author gave (to a small online bookshop, the website of which I would probably not class as a "reliable" source). So long as these claims are not restated in the "live" version of the article, I can't see the harm of them lying dormant in the article history. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 20:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, at User:TwoMightyGods/Robert Carter (English novelist). If it is reliably sourced, I think restoration to main space is admissible (or at least not grounds for speedy deletion; the notability issue might be raised again in a new AfD).  Sandstein  21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Midway Swiss Days

I added "Midway Swiss Days" since other fairs were on Wikipedia. This was not advertisement, though for some reason you think it was. So, I am now asking that you delete my user id from wikipedia since you seem to think that you have all the answers. Oh, and you might want to remove all other fairs, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerfest, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_Street_Art_Exhibition, and so many others like that.Jazernorth (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User accounts cannot be deleted; see WP:U#Deleting your account. See also WP:WAX.  Sandstein  06:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

=Zytglogge

I am a "Heimwehberner" living in New York and a clock expert and will try to improve some of the text on the clock as wellHorology (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines in popular culture

Regarding the above, if userfied, I would be willing to see if I can make something on Airlines in Popular Culture instead. I am somewhat encouraged by the successful effort regarding the Cheshire Cat one that came from this discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/United Airlines in popular culture. You'll need to ask at WP:DRV before restoring it to main space, so as to avoid a G4 deletion, unless you can very clearly address the AfD concerns with your rewrite. Finding an on-point secondary source covering the specific topic of "United Airlines in popular culture" would help.  Sandstein  07:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; what I'm thinking though is useing some of this information with other information to instead create an article on Airlines in popular culture, Airplanes in popular culture, or something similar, rather than just on United Airlines as it seems that sources are more apt to exist for the topic in general. The main sources I am thinking of are the books Imagining Flight: Aviation and Popular Culture and The Airplane in American Culture. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a much more promising approach. Best,  Sandstein  17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed

I was browsing one of the logs at AfD (I think it was July third) and I noticed that the archive wasn't working. Then I figured it out. A botched cquote. Of all things! :) — _Maggot^Syn 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that there was a problem, but thanks!  Sandstein  17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian Mare Nostrum

Hi. Despite this: [[2]]

The result is: [[3]] - [[4]] - [[5]] - [[6]] - [[7]] - [[8]] - [[9]] - [[10]] - [[11]] - [[12]] - [[13]]--87.28.126.85 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What would you like me to do about Italian Mare Nostrum? I've protected it for now to stop the edit warring. A "keep" outcome at an AfD does not rule out a merge or redirect, if there is consensus for that.  Sandstein  17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I participated in the AFD discussion, but this is not my specialism. Some one else has drawn my attention to this warring, which appears to be the result of some one not accepting the outcome of the AFD, claiming the consensus was Merge rather than Keep. The proper whay to dispute the closure of an AFD is a deletion review, but that is not what has been done. Having decided that the outcome was to Keep, you should be protecting the full text of the article, not the redirect, and I would therefore suggest that you revert to the full article and protect that. During that period of protection, discussion can take place on its talk page as to what should happen. That is difficult while it is a redirect, becasue of the automatic transfer to the redirect destination. I know how to get around that but others may not. The addition of a paragraph to Mare Nostrum is also appropriate, but this should be linked by a "main" template to that on Italian Mare Nostrum. That is a much fuller article, dealing with the Italian Naval War in the Mediterranean suring WWII. I am copying this to its talk page, which is a much better forum for the discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, articles are always protected in the m:Wrong Version. No way around that.  Sandstein  22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockfight (human)

My comments were half-serious. At some point, a real stub may be written, but the one there was not a serious attempt. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

why have you deleted "Shri Ramakrishna Kshirsagar Swamiji""?

We have created that page, to share the fact of him, to the world by means of wikipedia.

what was the reason behind deletion of the page????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.30.134 (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The community of editors decided to delete the article Shri Ramakrishna Kshirsagar Swamiji. The decision was arrived at in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Ramakrishna Kshirsagar Swamiji.  Sandstein  07:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read the link mentioned above, about deletion log, but was not able to understand, what were the reasons of deletion.

Could you please explain, me the bullet points, because of the action have been performed? If we want this link to be appearing on wikipedia for considerable long time, what is the mandatory requirement for the same?Can you guide us please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.30.134 (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YHWH Aleim

Hi! You appear to have deleted the YHWH Aleim article without closing this AfD. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It was also listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YHWH aleim, YHWH's Council of Elohim, that's why. Closed now.  Sandstein  17:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Since you've been dealing with other AfDs in the series, note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plural verbs with Elohim as God and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Levite Scribes the Sopherim are still open. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll close them tomorrow, unless someone is faster than I. They've technically still got a day to run, although the outcome is not much in doubt.  Sandstein  20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Chrises and AN/I

As I pointed out on the AN/I thread, I did not remove the section again after the last time but instead commented on it. I would like to point out, however, that ChrisO did not bring this up with me directly, as the AN/I board encourages; neither did he nor anyone else discuss the issue on the relevant talk page. Perhaps you think I acted rashly, and I can understand why you might think that; but there are other issues at work here. --Leifern (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I don't come to discuss about your decision.
I just want to point out that just before you closed the case, this modification of the chronology was performed : [14] and Ashley wrote personal attack versus me (at least in contradiction with WP:AGF...
Would you mind revert her modifications just before you close the case ?
Thank you, Ceedjee (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, closed AfDs are not edited, and the edit you refer to had no effect on the outcome. The edit was disruptive, though; next time a WP:AIV or WP:ANI report might help.  Sandstein  18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

• I now it didn't influence : you closed this in 6 minutes.
• I aksed "would you mind ?" and you answered "No". You should have answered "Yes, I mind..."
• I am insulted there and you decide to leave this that way "because a close AfD cannot be edited" even if the edit "ha[s] not influence".

I assume now you will just expect me to insult you so that you can block me or warn me ?

Well. What could I add ? Nothing.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Sandstein/Unblock

Hello Sandstein! I ran across your unblock page and thought it was very useful. I made my own version of it here and linked to it from my user page; I hope you don't mind. Thanks! GlassCobra 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Process Physics

I don't want to comment on the Process Physics page which was deleted, however Process Physics is an established area of research, so I think there should be a page on it.

Here are some references.

An article on Process Physics in New Scientist Magazine, February 2000 http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/NS.html

Kirsty Kitto, who now lectures at the Queensland University of Technology has made this recent paper available. Process Physics: quantum theories as models of complexity http://www.users.on.net/~kirsty.kitto/papers/ppQTmodelsComplexity.pdf

Here is an extract from a recent post to sci.physics relativity in relation to: "Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect" http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0406121

<Start extract from> http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-05/msg00180.htm

From reading the above, it is obvious that Dr. Cahill know his stuff. His mathematics is immediately clear right from the start, based on first principles. But if the stronger-than-Kerr frame dragging effects are significantly bigger than Kerr, to me they should have been seen by now. I believe the researchers are having a difficult time right now in quantifying any significant frame dragging effects due to unanticipated determinsitic errors. But since the above equations predict different-than-Kerr frame dragging effects, if the researchers attain the level of precision and accuracy they think they can, the GP-B data should show if Cahill is correct or incorrect. Right now, I bet on Kerr, but we will see.

I've read a lot of Cahill's work now and I see what he is getting at. He describes full blown gravity as containing the usual Lorentzian specially relativistic effects plus a velocity vector field of space itself. A test particle in free fall in this velocity field is coasting along a geodesic, but with a generalized definition of what a geodesic is as compared to classic GR. This vector field can flow, and it is this flow effect of space that is actually frame dragging. This is a very interesting approach towards gravity, and is a strong competitor to any other well formulated theory I've seen. If GP-B comes up with numbers in agreement with Cahill, then I'd say this guys is on his way to recognition, and justifiably, so if the predictions agree. Of course it's a natural question of what exactly it is that's "flowing," and I'd imagine Cahill would say space itself. This smacks of an aether, but in truth, in classic GR, space itself get curved, which is just as "aetheristic" to me.

Steve Bell

<End extract>

Hope above is useful.

Regards, Peter Morris (Iwamori) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwamori (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please read WP:WWMPD to see what you can do about the deletion of Process physics, which was done according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process physics. In short, to have an article on that subject, you must present a draft article in your user space (at User:Iwamori/Process physics) that addresses all problems identified in the deletion discussion.  Sandstein  15:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Shri Ramakrishna Kshirsagar Swamiji

About deletion of Shri Ramakrishna Kshirsagar Swamiji article

I have read the link mentioned above, about deletion log, but was not able to understand, what were the reasons of deletion.

Could you please explain, me the bullet points, because of the action of deletion have been performed? If we want this link to be appearing on wikipedia for considerable long time like dozen of years, what is the mandatory requirement for the same? Can you guide us please on the same?

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.30.134 (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please read WP:WWMPD to see what you can do about the deletion of Shri Ramakrishna Kshirsagar Swamiji, which was done according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Ramakrishna Kshirsagar Swamiji. In short, to have an article on that subject, you must have an user account and you must present a draft article in your user space (at User:Your_Username/Shri Ramakrishna Kshirsagar Swamiji) that addresses all problems identified in the deletion discussion.  Sandstein  15:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:SmiJO13

Hiya - thanks for your message. To be honest, I'm not hugely inclined to WP:AGF. I have gone back through all the contributions of the various accounts contributing to the various (now deleted) pages in question, and I do think that there's clearly some sort of meat puppetry going on - the similarity of the format of the usernames, the fact that the first edits were to clearly hoax pages, and the like do incline me to think that he's part of some sort of meatpuppetry to have a bit of fun on Wikipedia. That said, I'm not going to wheel war over it, so will meet you halfway - I don't think that there's grounds to grant the unblock request, but if you decide that the account should be unblocked I won't object. _GB^T/C 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see how the discussion on his talk page plays out, I think.  Sandstein  06:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:86.134.54.54

You reviewed one of this user's other unblock requests, so I figure I should keep you in the loop about this. I've briefly discussed things with the user, and am actually leaning toward unblocking, but don't want to take unilateral action. Since many of the involved users seem to have gone offline since the block was made, I've opted to take the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#86.134.54.54. Any comment would be appreciated, if you're up for it. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably moot; block's expired by now. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks nonetheless!  Sandstein  06:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Ro

hi! where can i access the text of the Lars RO page i assembled (which ended up deleted)?

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsro (talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot. Only administrators can view deleted pages. See WP:WWMAD for more information.  Sandstein  07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

right. so can you or another administrator please post the text from the deleted page somewhere where i can access it, please? (this has been done for me before for me with another page - see my talk page). thank you! Larsro (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to do with it?  Sandstein  13:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

GAB

I just read the GAB you pointed to, which I had not seen before. Really nice. Simple and to the point. Well done. -- Alexf⁴² 00:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama

I just read your conclusions to the above. I'm impressed. Thank you for going through the arguments and coming out with the right decision. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.  Sandstein  21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your work as an admin. I disagree with your decision, however, I also think it was perfectly prudent given the debate. Again, muchos gracias.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• I too think it was reasonable enough in light of the debate, although I disagreed. Just slightly curious on a point of order; after you started the close, but had not finished, I (discourteously) added a last comment, for which I apologize to you. I hope you pardon me for not checking the closing was starting on this very long debate; it hadn't when I began writing. Another user deleted it. Is this proper procedure? Should it be reinserted?John Z (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• The deletion of the comment wasn't very well-considered, I think, but I'd rather you'd not re-insert it. Closed AfDs should reflect the state of the discussion at the time of their closure, and your comment was not part of the AfD when I placed the "closing" tag. Best,  Sandstein  22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks again for putting thought and good sense into your work. Was mainly just curious about proper procedure.John Z (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even though I sat that AfD out, I do also appreciate when admins take the time to fully explain their rationale in such a clear and extensive manner. I think User:Jerry, if I recall correctly, has similarly provided some good analyses and explanations of many of his closes as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Do you feel my removal of the post-"Closing-in-progress" comment was out of order? I was simply doing what it seemed was pretty explicitly stated in the tag. If I was out of line, I apologize both to you, and to User:John Z. I meant no harm by it. S. Dean Jameson 22:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think either you or John Z need to apologise. You did what you thought was right, but removing the comment would not have been necessary. I'd just not have considered it in the act of closing the AfD (and would have said so in my closing remarks). But that's not self-evident, and I think we need to rephrase {{closing}} to address the question of what should be done to comments added after the {{closing}} tag.  Sandstein  23:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't completely broken protocol or something. And for the record, I too was very impressed with your reasoning at the AfD. As a participant who moved from delete to merge during the course of the discussion, I really felt that you did a great job in discerning "best action" in this case. S. Dean Jameson 01:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also came here to say that while I disagree with the conclusion of the close (notable things are notable) I think you did a great job on the closing comments. I wish everyone managed to have such well-written thoughts when closing such important AfDs. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

help?

Kalindoscopy again requested the block be lifted. I responded, with a no and advice. But I screwed up the formatting somehow and either his request or my denial doesn't who up. Could you take a look at fix the formatting/ thanks, [15] Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I think the pipe character in your signature screwed up the template formatting.  Sandstein  22:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Gonzo

Fine. But keep him under supervision, and I recommend zero tolerance. If he starts screwing around, he's out again - no warning this time. DS (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot

hey,I did not start making my bot-- [+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌◄■► 13:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:U, "your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not ... end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts." You do not have the permissions required for a bot account; see WP:BOT.  Sandstein  13:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Afd/sandbox

MCB says Template:Afd/sandbox no longer is needed. If you agree, please delete it. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Input request

Could I get your input on a minor issue at Gabrielle Giffords?

It's regarding her former occupation and amply discussed on her talk page. Another user has reverted edits by two users (me and Tvoz). Thank you.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughtful input at Giffords. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Pristina

Just fyi, failing to see any grounds to your claim that "the edit you request is not clearly uncontroversial" at Talk:Pristina I've made the requested edit. Republic of Kosova was clearly not the article intended by the link. If there is the opinion that Republic of Kosova should redirect to Republic of Kosovo, and the current Republic of Kosova moved to Republic of Kosova (1990-2000), that's a case to be made at Talk:Republic of Kosova, and has nothing to do with the protection of the Pristina article. regards, dab (𒁳) 07:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. I know nothing of the subject matter, but I know that the Balkans are a volatile editing area, and as such, I think any edits to protected Balkans pages should have express consensus.  Sandstein  07:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A request for the arbcom to examine the Guideo den Broeder situation

G'day - I'm dropping this note in to you because earlier today I responded to a request to file a request for arbitration. My examination of events led me to believe that there may be some use in the arbcom examining this matter, and perchance resolving an issue or two, and you have been named as an 'Involved Party'. As such, your thoughts would be most welcome at the Request page.

Yours rather nervously to be wearing a clerk-ish hat for the first time,

PM - Privatemusings (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon Hoggart

I'd be interested in your opinion/advice on this matter: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  11:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Obama family

I have nominated Obama family, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama family (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Loonymonkey (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create this article, but thanks.  Sandstein  13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Reactions/Celebrations of the September 11th attacks

Hello Sandstein. You recently closed and archived this AfD with the result being keep, and merge Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. User Jaakobou has today objected to this conclusion, arguing on the talk page here that "AfDs are about deletion/keeping, not merging", consequently all editors can freely ignore the outcome. Is this user correct - is the result meaningless? Would you kindly share your thoughts on the matter, however briefly, at this location. Thankyou. — eon, 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  11:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. — eon, 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Flight Training Europe.

Dear Sandstein,

Why have you deleted the article titled "Flight Training Europe". It was deleted in the past, and restored after complaint. Did you read this information before you deleted it? This is very disappointed. Please restore the article.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.46.104 (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you read WP:WWMPD?  Sandstein  14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have read that guide and have started another Deletion Review. The reasons for deleting this article are flawed since none of the moderators which have commented on the article seem to understand civil aviation and the role of this company within that sphere. I have previously described my reasons (in some length) as to why this article should remain on Wikipedia. I'm sure you can track those down if you really are that interested. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.46.104 (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Paulwelbeck

This user has responded to his second chance that you gave him. My policy on second chances is to ask the one who allowed the second chance to reply. Usually, I don't look at the contribution, but I did this time, and it seems to me the article is better without his changes. But like I said, up to you. Mangojuice^talk 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your assessment...  Sandstein  00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article rewrite

I'm interested in rewriting a recently deleted article, have read the deletion discussion, and am wondering if it's possible to read the original (now deleted) article as well?

If this is somewhere in a help or FAQ file, please accept my apologies. I've made a few minor corrections to articles here and there, but have not tried writing one (which I also plan to do), or as in this case attempting to rewrite one.

Thanks,

Joseph G. Buchman, Phd (Indiana University, 1989)

Tengerguy (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If there's any chance of a rewritten version addressing the reasons for which the article was deleted, I can restore the article for your improvement in your "user space" at User:Tengerguy/Article title. Once it is no longer substantially identical to the deleted version, you may then move it back to main space. (However, if the article is about yourself, or about something you have a stake in, you should not be the one to rewrite it; see WP:COI.)  Sandstein  07:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lightening-quick response. I've read the WP:COI (wonder if I made that link work by cutting and pasting from your post to me above . . .) It's an area in which I have some academic interest, related to a conference where I have spoken and to materials I have published elsewhere (so I have an academic and perhaps emotional "stake" in it), but in which I have no current or likely future monetary interest nor any professional or personal relationships with others with monetary interest.

I'll be unable to begin work on it for at least a month. Should I ask for the specific deleted article openly here or by email? (I think reading the original (which I've not yet seen) would help explicate the deletion discussion; and don't want to fuel the acrimony or restart the past discussion about it here (most of which I find regrettable and unproductive.)

Tengerguy (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Then there should be no problem. You can ask me here on my talk page (or you can ask any other administrator) to restore the article to your user space as soon as you think you'll be able to work on it.  Sandstein  07:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could put the currently deleted "exopolitics" article into User:Tengerguy/exopolitics for a couple of days I'd like to look it over. That would help me decide if I want to try a rewrite when I get back to work this fall, or decide now that it's not worth my effort, or perhaps that it would be best to rewrite it from scratch with some help. I'll start thinking about it, but probably won't post anything until October, after I've had a chance to get up to speed on the process here, and see if I can make the subject matter both fit and be at least somewhat useful to others.

Thanks,

Tengerguy (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. The article may be deleted again if it is not edited within a few weeks or so; you'll have to re-request it in October, then. For this article to be restored, one would have to show, through references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, that this specific topic (i.e., "exopolitics", not just hypothetical contact with aliens in general) is notable in the terms of our inclusion criteria. You might also be interested in the prior discussion at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/June#Exopolitics.  Sandstein  08:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

thousand sons

hi there i was just wondering if u could shed some light on the deletion of the above article as i could not find a reason or desuccion for deletion if u could shed any light on it could u please let me know thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobol (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the title of the deleted article.  Sandstein  20:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban of my account

Dear Administrator,

I am writing in regards to my account in hope that you may help. Another wikipedia editor who I knew personally was seriously abusing sockpuppetry. One admin did a checkuser that showed we had different accounts but said it is likely we are the same person. The admin said we are in the same geographic area, which is true, but we are one hour apart! We did both go to a Buddhist festival at the same time as well. We were still on totally different ISPs.

I was using a second account when I first started on wikipedia, but stopped completely after I learned about sockpuppeting. I would like to request for you to look at this that my account be unbanned. I have not edited since I was banned.

Here is the checksuser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wisdombuddha

My account is wisdombuddha and the one I stopped using was wikilama. Fourthdragpa was another person at the residential Buddhist Center where I work from. I have no idea about flowerlover67, maybe someone from my corporation. The user who abused sockpuppetry was Wisdomsword and used Geoffduggan, Helen38, Helen37, Trudy21, ect.

I do not think it is fair that I have been banned indefinitely and all the sockpuppets are put on my account. Thanks wisdombuddha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.243.60.154 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A plausible explanation, but why didn't this user explain the situation to me in his e-mail? He failed to mention his relationship with the other editor. The editing pattern of all accounts is quite similar, and all engaged in POV pushing. I don't think the project benefits from allowing Wisdombuddha to edit. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, I did email Nishkid64 on June 13th and told her that the other user accounts were not mine. If you look at the talk page on the articles I was on, I worked with and discussed side by side with the other editors. I was trying to make the article neutral and introduced new content mentioned by the editor Tkalsang. Please reconsider this indefinite ban. It was a misunderstanding as I said in the email and I have not edited since then besides this request. Thank you Wisdombuddha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.193.243 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Although your explanation appears plausible, we cannot verify it. In view of the positive checkuser result, I will therefore not unblock you. You may continue to appeal your block to the blocking administrator or to the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  11:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

wisdombuddha

I saw your message in the user talk page of someone that I also wrote to. You were asking about wisdombuddha's unblock request.

The big omission that I see is that there is no description of what edits are objectionable. I looked at two edits at random and they seem perfectly acceptable, though I am not an expert in the field. Have you examined this more than me?

Chergles (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw another edit that seems to be POV pushing. So 2 ok, 1 not. Chergles (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look, most of my edits improved the articles. I cleaned up the references, added new content, and even got it protected when a bunch of ip vandalism occurred. I did have some disagreements with another editor, but I tried to come to an agreement. I have not edited for over a month now so show that I am willing to cooperate. Thank you, WB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.37.51 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See my comment in the section above; you would need to make this proposal to the blocking administrator.  Sandstein  11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein, I am a busy person but I also know how mean Wikipedia can appear to be if one is wrongly blocked. I am willing to devote some time to personally work with this person IF he also agrees. I would then ask him to edit slowly at first. If you don't want that, then something shorter than an indefinite block encourages cooperation. Indefinite blocks discourage cooperation because it's no different from the electric chair or beheading, wikipedia-style. Chergles (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Chergles, contact Blnguyen about this. He's the one who first brought my attention to the POV pushing on the Dorje Shugden. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Can you please review the edits of Funguy06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- he is disruptively (and systematically) adding people to an invalid category and not responding to messages on his talk page. JBsupreme (talk)

Already blocked, it seems.  Sandstein  18:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mana World - thank you!

Just a quick note to thank you for closing the AFD of The Mana World as delete - I had the unfortunate fear that it was going to be kept due to the weight of voices claiming that nomination for an award, a large userbase etc actually meant passing WP:Web (which was never actually mentioned in the AFD, strangely enough). Good to see common sense does still prevail here, for that I thank you. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.  Sandstein  06:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that the conclusion was that The Mana World is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia now, did the article at least get archived somewhere so that it can be restored when we ARE notable? For example when a magazine review would be found or made? --Bjørn (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In principle, it can be undeleted. The best way to go about this would be to write a brief article in userspace that establishes notability (with links to the required coverage in reliable sources) and then to request its move to mainspace at WP:DRV. The previous article can then be undeleted and made accessible through the "history" function. However, people associated with the subject should not do this; see WP:COI.  Sandstein  09:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, I can't believe I'm about to say this .. but what kind (~bad words and insults deleted by editor at the last moment~) of use of WP:CONSENSUS is the deletion of this article? It was very obvious that consensus to delete was not reached, and as such the article should remain (for now). Hundreds of thousands of computers with the game installed is notability. Please reverse this decision that was obviously contrary to Wikipedia standards. You know, I knew nothing about this "game" before I found the AfD and even the minimal research that I did easily showed notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Your request for me to reexamine and reverse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mana World is declined, because you do not indicate how, exactly, my closure of that AfD was in conflict with applicable policies or guidelines. A mere assertion of notability is not sufficient to show that the AfD was closed in error. Any arguments to that effect should have been made in the AfD itself. You may appeal the closure of the AfD to deletion review.  Sandstein  11:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, it wasn't a request. It was a statement ... I'm doubting you even placed a cursory glance at the AfD. You certainly did not have a consensus to delete - even under creative accounting rules. Plus, if you used a "rule" that was not noted on the AfD as reason to delete, then you were required to add that reason to the AfD, and not close the AfD yourself, as you effectively entered new evidence. BMW(drive) 17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are incorrect on both counts.  Sandstein  17:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Consensus was reached - verification of WP:WEB failed, and nobody on either side (myself included admittedly) mentioned that despite it being the dominant notability guideline - including for open source projects. Nomination for an award does not count, it must have been won. Also, the fact that WP:Web was not cited in the AFD is due to ignorance or laziness on the part of the contributors (again I do not exempt myself from criticism) and neither of those is due cause to simply ignore WP:Web. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Have you ever actually READ WP:WEB? "Wikipedia should avoid articles about web sites...". Well, The Mana World is not a website, it's an computer application resident on the most common releases of Linux, just like Inkball appears on Microsoft Vista - and Vista has far less distribution around the world than those versions of Linux. Therefore, WP:WEB cannot be used in this specific application. Um, next? BMW(drive) 17:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Mana World

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Mana World. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BMW(drive) 10:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

South Asia

Hi Admins Tiptoety and Sandstein,

I want to thank Tiptoety for affirming that my edits were non-vandalism. BTW, if possible could you please urge user:Thegreyanomaly to show me ASAP, in black and white, which "chunk of reference" were removed(not "move") by me.

I would like to show you that user:Thegreyanomaly repeatedly made false accusations on me, here are the examples:

• "IP vandal....It didn't quite read like this"[16]

(He senselessly removed the citation I added[17] and made the above nonsense comment, I later showed and let him read the exact quote from M. Goldstein account[18], I never stop him from adding more text from the same book. For example, I clearly told him "I raise no question on your edits"[19])

• "(removing) tonne of citation", and

• "removing large chunks of references"[20]

After I urged him[21][22] to point it out what chunk/tonnes did he refer to, until this moment(19 July 2008) the user still shows no evidence/weblink/screenshot how I removed "tonnes of citations"

Moreover, I can read even arrogant, and of course sophomoric, comment like this:

• "I am a CAL student"[23]

Is he/she discrminating anon users which are not CAL students? I am not sure

On South Asia's talk page where this user failed to respond, I have repeatedly warned that all edits shall come with citation per WP:CITE [24], and further urged more editors to come to this messy South Asia. I have shown you above (or here) how this user removed other's citation while hypocritically accusing other editor(s) as vandals "per Wikipedia rules", now it is his/her turn to show me how I remove chunk of reference.

I myself all along edit wikipedia per WP:CITE, WP:BOLD and WP:COOL. Please kindly review my case and provide assistance in my future edits on wikipedia articles including South Asia. Have a nice day! 219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific administrator action that you would like me to take?  Sandstein  09:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115)

With respect to the article about USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115), I noticed that you made the page a redirect to Naval Station Great Lakes, but did not then merge the articles. Doesn't this amount to a type of deletion? Should the content therefore be restored until it is moved to Naval Station Great Lakes?

On a related note, another editor changed the redirect to United States Navy Boot Camp, I suggest that the content still be merged to Naval Station Great Lakes since that is the facility where both the building and boot camp are located. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The redirect was a temporary measure and is not a type of deletion, because the content remains available through the article history. It is up to the community of editors to determine the target and scope of the merger and then to carry the merger out, as described on WP:MERGE.  Sandstein  15:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But the merger guidelines say that the first thing you do is copy the contents of the page being merged to the destination page of the merger, then you change the source page to a redirect. The way you did it the information is just gone to the average user. Only an advanced use, or an editor would think to check the page history for essentially hidden information.

I also noticed that the guidelines say anyone can do this, but I thought only an admin could do it properly so that the page histories are also merged. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I assume the users who are interested in the topic and want to perform the merger are those who were involved in the AfD and are thus able to find the article history and the merger guidelines in order to perform the merger from history, as it appears you were. An admin is indeed not needed to perform a merger; see the section entitled "Full-content paste merger" in WP:MERGE.  Sandstein  06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the guidelines, page blanking (to a redirect) is only supposed to come after the merge not before. Also, I read your edit summary as implying that you were going to do the complete merge. I did not make any changes because I did not want to complicate what I thought you were in the middle of doing, but it was taking a long time, hence my comments here. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 09:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Do go ahead with the merge.  Sandstein  09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical pederastic couples

If you're not already aware of this, you may want to look at this discussion:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unusual action by admin FCYTravis

about FCYTravis's deletion of Historical pederastic couples following your closure of the AfD.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Historical pederastic couples

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Historical pederastic couples. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein - this was a tricky close and I agree you had no other option, but I figured 24 out of 000s was pretty small - this should get a clear consensus one way or the other and needs more eyes on it. It is a much more serious debate than the usual AfD...sorry Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article insolvency law of Switzerland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad

User:Gulmammad is asking for an unblock, and has pointed out that the diffs cited in the WP:AE discussion don't actually add up. I've checked them and he is correct about that. -- Ned Scott 01:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Numeridex Deletion

Please, I respectfully request that you reconsider undeletion of the Numeridex article. The intention in creating the article on Numeridex was certainly not to promote the products sold by the company. If it appeared that way, I, the author, certainly apologize. I have taken the following steps to correct the situation: First, I deleted most of the listings naming the products sold by the company. Second, included a verifiable notable classification of Numeridex as one of the fastest private growing companies in America. Third: added some additional independent links to verify the above. Numeridex, although a small company, I believe has made a contribution to computer related technologies, especially by the authoring and publication of two desktop guides now added to the article in reference. I will certainly welcome and implement any additional suggestions to improve this article. Thank you for your consideration.--Colmirage (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The article Numeridex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted as a consequence of the following deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numeridex. Under deletion policy, I may not unilaterally restore it. To have it restored, you have two options:

• If you think that a procedural error was made in closing the discussion, you may appeal for the reversal of the closure at deletion review using the procedure outlined there. Note, though, that just disagreeing with the outcome is not sufficient grounds for an appeal, and in the normal course of business, most appeals are declined.

• If you think that a new version of the article that addresses the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numeridex can be written, please do so in your user space, e.g. at User:Colmirage/Numeridex. Once you are done, you may move it back to "main space" at Numeridex using the "move" function. However, if the new article does not in fact address the concerns raised in the deletion discussion, it may be speedily deleted by an administrator. I you do not want to take this risk, you may first want to ask the community of editors for confirmation that the new article may indeed be moved to main space. You may make such a request by opening a deletion review and posing a question such as the following:

"I have written a new version of the deleted article Numeridex at User:Colmirage/Numeridex. I believe that this new version addresses the concerns raised in the deletion discussion because (insert your reason here). I'd like to have confirmation that I may restore this new version of the article to main space."

Thank you for your understanding. Additionally, please note that if you are associated with Numeridex, you should not write an article on it due to our conflict of interest policy.  Sandstein  06:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Unblock: Dubcrazy

Yes, he is one of my friends. I was not online when he made the edit, so I didn't even know about this situation until just right now. I think he deserves a second chance. Scholastic Opponent (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Eaters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khorne

Eight and six different comments posted in the respective discussions are hardly "boilerplate", especially when the nominations are nearly word for word in nature as they were across several AfDs and a number of the deletes are themselves virtual copy and pastes across multiple AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are only so many ways one can say "non-notable subject, has not received significant coverage in reliable sources". That's acceptable boilerplate, if it's true. But if such issues are raised, the only appropriate response is a specific one: "Yes, it's notable because there's substantial coverage in X Magazine (link), Y Newspaper (link) and Z Review (link), all of which I've now added to the article." Boilerplate responses to such issues are unhelpful and will not be taken seriously, at least not by me. That's even more the case if the boilerplate responses represent a viewpoint that is very strongly divergent from community consensus as represented in guidelines such as WP:N. AfD is not the place to change guidelines; the respective talk page is. Frankly, if you continue to contribute to AfDs in the way you presently do, you're more likely than not to face sanctions at some point. And you're going to change the opinion of very few people in the process.  Sandstein  21:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some in those discussions seem to ignore even when coverage in reliable sources are presented to them, which is why I find so many of these nominations and "per nom", "nnotable" comments unhelpful and why it's hard to take them seriously. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I do attempt to give less weight to comments that do not address substantial, specific, policy-based arguments made in favour of the opposite outcome. That would be a good reason to make such arguments.  Sandstein  21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

When I see repetitiously worded nominations, especially when I have seen those doing the nominations make such comments elsewhere as this or this (scroll down further on this userpage for another gem of a section heading), it just diminishes my impression of the validity of these nominations, i.e. when I see them or delete comments from those who never argue to keep and in fact have expressed in some cases that they never would (yes, I predominately argue to keep, but I have probably nominated or argued to delete at least 50 times by now). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to address each nomination not on the perceived merits of the nominator, but on its own merits: are the arguments for deletion, viewed in the light of community consensus as established in policies and guidelines, valid? If I see ten articles that are copyright violations, it's appropriate to nominate them for deletion with the rationale "Copyright violation from [link]." That's not repetitious wording, but appropriate brevity. Either way, even if you think a nomination or a comment is unhelpful, the appropriate response is not a patently unhelpful comment of your own. That's WP:POINT territory. I'd rather you'd make a specific, policy-based comment. It might make the difference in an AfD, and it might instruct the other side.  Sandstein  22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Copywright violations, yes, I can understand, but some of these fiction articles vary quite wildly in their quality and potential, which is why so many copy and paste nominations are a concern as is when there are a number of deletes posted by those who are unwilling (as they have outright said) to switch their stances even if sources are found. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, nominations should be evaluated on their individual merits, and boilerplate comments should be countered by strong arguments. That's a much better approach to solving these perceived problems than posting boilerplate comments of one's own.  Sandstein  23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I hope that admins will take note of accounts like those I mentioned above who will tendentiously ignore even evidence that does demonstrate notability as they have outright stated, their focus is on removing the articles, not considering whether or not they can be saved. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update: The nominator has just been determined by a checkuser to be a likely ban evading sock account. Could you please relist or close as no consensus? In neither of the above was there a "clear consensus". And we absolutely should not humor ban evading, single purpose socks. Therefore, I strongly urge you to either close as no consensus and let an untainted discussion occur or at least relist striking the sock account's comments or linking to the checkuser. Whether you feel the articles should be deleted or I think they should be kept, we absolutely cannot be okay with questionable nominations made by block evading accounts that should not have been making the nomination in the first place. Besides, don't we usually speedy close such discussions if it's apparent that it was made by a sock account? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by that checkuser. "likely" isn't defined and doesn't offer me any good reason to treat alle any differently than before it was filed. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to that checkuser request, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles?  Sandstein  21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

rfcu for fred day. SSP for allemantando. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Allemandtando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not currently blocked. Even if he were to be blocked as a banned editor later, I would decline to overturn the AfDs, because his edits did not decisively influence the AfDs, and I have no reason to believe that an AfD started by someone else would have reached a different result.  Sandstein  21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a quick update, JzG has indeed blocked the account in question after Lar did his own checkuser and posted in agreement with the first results. By the way, although I argued to keep, I think your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reptilian humanoids in fiction (2nd nomination) was reasonable. Also, could you userfy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor's Children? In addition to the now blocked sock account's participation, another in that discussion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:T-rex trolling AfD. Finally, the term itself seems a legitimate search term given it's only a "the" away from The Emperor's Children. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you want Emperor's Children userfied? You may certainly create a redirect to The Emperor's Children in that place.  Sandstein  07:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to work on it in userpace as possible disambiguation purposes when I have some time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This does not require restoration. For a dab page, you only need the lead: In the fictional universe of Warhammer 40,000, the Emperor's Children are a legion of Chaos Space Marines that worship the Chaos god Slaanesh.  Sandstein  19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If we need the lead, then we need to restore per the GFDL, i.e. to attribute whoever wrote that lead. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination)

Just as a quick note, see for example, this, which is about various "Pokemon types are discussed and their correlation to users in an academic environment." They are discussed here, here, and here. I would be willing to use these and other sources to attempt a revision of the article that would be more based on such secondary sources with out of universe commentary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, but these sources should have been provided in the AfD (and cited inline in the article). They're of little use if they're provided two minutes after the AfD closes. You may, of course, rewrite the article from scratch based on these sources. I assume you are familiar with the relevant procedures; otherwise see User:Sandstein/AFDResponse.  Sandstein  18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence of why AfD as currently exists just doesn't work, especially the idea that after five days the discussion on a volunteer project just stops. I looked up those sources this morning with every intention of adding them to the article and then mentioning them in the AfD only to find it deleted when I came to the discussion. Thus, please consider relisting the discussion so we can take these new sources into account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Every discussion stops somewhere, if only on account of entropy eventually destroying the universe. Looking at your sources, I don't think they would have greatly influenced the outcome. They basically say that Pokémon is a children's game in which the monsters have various types. This is superficial coverage, not enough to make the deleted article verifiable or its subject notable under our current rules. Therefore, I won't relist the discussion.  Sandstein  18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's coverage in multiple secondary sources and as such demonstrates notability and can be used for sections indicating reception and coverage in academic sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Superficial and hence inadequate coverage.  Sandstein  18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just not true, considering such sources as this, this, or Blown Away By Shane Gericke, which mentions "Modeled on the Pokemon types so popular with kids, the wallet-size police cards displayed an officer's photograph, career highlights, vital statistics..." Collectively these sources demonstrate potential. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, nothing prevents you from realising this potential by writing an article in userspace and submitting it to DRV for restoration.  Sandstein  18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to userfy it, okay, as I'll certainly work on it, but it just seems more effective to restore the article, add the sources, and continue the one discussion than starting on all new discussion at DRV. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisting declined for the reasons laid out above. I'm not keen on userfying it either, because your userspace appears to be already full of undeleted cruft that seems to be going nowhere.  Sandstein  19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not call things "cruft". Also as seen at User talk:Keeper76/Archive 9#User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.2FCassie_Keller, I do work on my userfied articles eventually.--Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir (or ma'am), I will call cruft – and AfD-certified cruft no less! – cruft whenever I bloody well feel like it. I've no objection if another admin bothers to userfy the cruft for you, but my impression is that you are hoarding all that apparently random cruft in userspace for no clear purpose. There is no scarcity of similar cruft for you to work on that is not currently deleted.  Sandstein  21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, your impressions are of course mistaken, and I am not going to reply further to unconsrtructive and inaccurate comments. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pokémon types

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pokémon types. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Khorne

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Khorne. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your question on Milk's Favorite Cookie's RfA

Sandstein, I'm a bit disappointed by your question at MFC's RfA. It comes off as extremely insulting and accusatory. This is a good faith contributor who has made tens of thousands of contributions, and you're asking him questions to which there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. This diff shows that MFC nominated that article for DYK, very clearly stating that it was authored by another editor, not trying to steal credit in any way. I personally was unaware of a template that was analogous to the standard "which you created or substantially expanded" template for noms, though I was able to find one; but it's not fair to essentially accuse MFC of stealing others' work merely for not knowing the proper template. GlassCobra 01:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, I would be glad to hear so. Milk's Favorite Cookie has yet to provide it, though. On the same page, there are many of the "which you nominated" templates that would seem to apply in this case, and I would be interested to hear why he has not used these.  Sandstein  06:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Roblox Redo?

Hi. Ive been wondering some things lately after I wanted to start the Roblox Article again.

Why is it that the many online game pages I looked at all rely on themselfs, while Roblox was deleted for no 3rd-party info?

And hows these for 3rd party info? Is it good? The 2nd one might not be good, but I think the first one is.

[25] [26]

P.S: I know your not supposed to base your arguements on why other articles exist, but I am just a bit mad.

Edit: Also, I cant make a new one. There is a block in place. So now this becomes a request for an Un-Block.

--Briguy9876 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The first source is indeed good, the second is not reliable. To have the protection lifted, proceed as follows: Create a well-written, well-sourced draft article at User:Briguy9876/Roblox. Then, add an unprotection request to WP:RPP and request that the title be unprotected, making reference to your draft article. If the request is then declined, you may appeal this to WP:DRV.  Sandstein  11:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Hopefully I can get the article back up. Then I might be able to get some more sources --Briguy9876 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you dont mind, how does this source look to you?

[27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attantion this. Even angles could violate the rules not only me! Cheers, Gülməmməd ^Talk 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected redirects and Zanpakuto.

I'm just curious, on the AFD for the Soul Reaper and related articles Bount and Hollow, you closed with a protected redirect. Why not do the same for Zanpakuto, since a merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach was proposed on the AFD? Again, I am just curious here. Sasuke9031 (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that also crossed my mind, but this "protected redirect" idea is something of a new idea of mine. I don't want to do it on too many AfDs at once before I see how the community reacts to it. Also, judging from the AfD and the article, it appeared to me that the probability of a useful merger coming out of the Zanpakuto article is lower than with the other three articles.  Sandstein  07:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, the information about the Shikai and Bankai might be able to go to the Soul Reaper list so that people new to bleach don't go, "Bankai? WTF?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasuke9031 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any specific, well-sourced information that you think is merge-worthy? If so, I'll restore the history as soon as consensus for such a merger has been demonstrated on the target article talk page.  Sandstein  08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I am afraid we have run into a little snag. See, I would need to actually look at the article in question to see what sourced information would be valid, or if I felt that information could be better sourced, userfy it and work on it a little bit, but I can't, unlike the other articles which you protected, because it was actually deleted, and since I am not an admin (and would not like to have that added pressure at this time) I cannot see it. Sasuke9031 (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried the Google cache?  Sandstein  09:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. In fact, I am going to link that to mhy user page to get the ball rolling on a potential merge. Thanks a lot. Sasuke9031 (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review: Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas

Dear Sir, I kindly ask you to review the deletion for the (Norwegian artist) article entry of: Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas. I have collected many more information sources which includes magazine articles, reviews and links to various membership organizations that she is a member of. (As listed below.) I would like to have another review of these together with the original already mentioned sources (from the original article). There is also a number of Blogs (see google search) that mentions/reviews her work, but these I have not added to the list above, although they should be eligible references according to WP:N. In addition I would like to call your attention that some of the criteria used to remove the article were neither satisfied by a number of other Norwegian and Swedish artists on the English, Norwegian and Swedish wikipages... (If you like a list of a few of these, I can add these separately upon request.)

---

Member of these organizations:

---

Kunstnernes informasjonskontor (KIK) - (Membership organisation) http://www.kik.no/ http://www.kik.no/person.jsp?id=T11184819

Landsforeningen Norske Malere (LNM) - (Membership organisation) http://www.lnm.no/

Unge Kunstneres Samfund (UKS) - (Membership organisation) http://www.uks.no/

---

Additional Relevant Articles and material

---

Article in "Fine Art" magazine : http://www.fineart.no/kunstner/779/Braanaas,%20Edvarda

Collaborative Exhibition by "Kunst på Arbeidsplassen", ([NO] Tr. "Art in the workplace"): http://www.kpa.no/utstilling_mer.asp?AId=313

Culturenet (The Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs): http://www.arkivnett.kulturnett.no/personer/person.jsp?id=T11184819&lang=en

Maddox Arts: http://www.maddoxarts.net/works/viewworkart.php?id=108

Norway Culture (Collaborative Exhibition Reference to "Viva Lolita" at Maddox Arts): http://www.norway.org.uk/culture/contemporaryart/edvardabraanaas.htm

"Sound Art" (Collaborative art and music project ny Toni Castells): http://www.tonicastells.com/BuyMusicGetArt.html

Article in "Kunst for Alle" art magazine (2008,No.2): http://www.kunstforalle.no/redaksjonelt.asp?meny=6,173,324&act=read&RecNo=1946

Mentioned in "Artreview" magazine: "Viva Lolita" (May, 2008) http://www.artreview.com/magazine http://edvarda.no/_/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/vl_reviewssmall-1.jpg

---

I hope you can help me in this regard or in the worst case give some specific details on how I can improve that article to make it suitable for wikipedia. Best Regards,
--Jahibadkaret (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The article Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted as a consequence of the following deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas. Under deletion policy, I may not unilaterally restore it. To have it restored, you have two options:

• If you think that a procedural error was made in closing the discussion, you may appeal for the reversal of the closure at deletion review using the procedure outlined there. Note, though, that just disagreeing with the outcome is not sufficient grounds for an appeal, and in the normal course of business, most appeals are declined.

• If you think that a new version of the article that addresses the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas can be written, please do so in your user space, e.g. at User:Jahibadkaret/Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas. Once you are done, you may move it back to "main space" at Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas using the "move" function. However, if the new article does not in fact address the concerns raised in the deletion discussion, it may be speedily deleted by an administrator. I you do not want to take this risk, you may first want to ask the community of editors for confirmation that the new article may indeed be moved to main space. You may make such a request by opening a deletion review and posing a question such as the following:

"I have written a new version of the deleted article Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas at User:Jahibadkaret/Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas. I believe that this new version addresses the concerns raised in the deletion discussion because (insert your reason here). I'd like to have confirmation that I may restore this new version of the article to main space."

Thank you for your understanding.  Sandstein  06:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have started another user space article taking all this into consideration. I will then ask the admins for suggestions. However, I would appreciate to have a copy of the last version of the article before it was deleted. That would help me on the way. Could you add it to my user space under another name? (Or put it in a place where I can copy it?)

--Jahibadkaret (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I have merged the history of the old deleted article with your new draft article. You can access the old article through the article history of your draft article by clicking on one of the dates of the old revisions.  Sandstein  06:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. No, I am not her, and I only know her by sight. But I like her stuff and compared to some other Norwegian contemporary artists already on wikipedia (EN), I find her equally qualified to be here, to say the least... --Jahibadkaret (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

* The previous post contains a lie: jahibadkaret has been this woman's lover for a longer period. --Kazandhra

Palestra.net The College Network

I recently set up a Wikipedia page for Palestra.net The College Network. When I went to search for it, it was deleted on the Wikipedia site. The page was not an advertisement of any sort, and simply explained the background of the company. Please email me at barga.sarah@gmail.com to explain to me the protocol so that it does not get deleted again.

Best Regards,

Sarah Barga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palestra (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a wikilink to the deleted article, so that I can find it.  Sandstein  18:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Link for the Palestra.net Wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestra.net_The_College_Network —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.18.203.11 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it did not assert notability, see WP:CSD#A7.  Sandstein  17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K

Hello,

I've noticed that lately there are a lot of pages about Warhammer40 being deleted...

Might I ask why ? These pages were a great source of information for the many fans of the game.

pages I have noticed :

the Dark Angels Space Marines [28] the Imperial Fists Space Marines [29] the Cadian Imperial Guard [30] the Catachan Jungle Fighters Imperial Guard [31] the Black Legion Chaos Space Marines [32] the World Eaters Chaos Space Marines [33] the Thousand Sons Chaos Space Marines [34] the Emperor's Children Chaos Space Marines [35] the Iron Warriors Chaos Space Marines [36]

the above are all important factions in the game but what shocked me the most was the deletion of probably the two most important characters in the entire game !

The Emperor of Mankind [37] and Warmaster Horus [38]

Also the deletion of nearly every Primarch is very disturbing.

Lion El'Jonson, Fulgrim, Perturabo, Jaghatai Kahn, Rogal Dorn, Konrad Curze/Night Haunter, Sanguinius, Ferrus Manus, Angron, Magnus the Red, Vulkan

and their respective legions as found here [39]

I find these actions very disturbing and would like to have an answer as soon as possible.

regards,

swartsengagger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swartsengagger (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the individual deletion discussions for these articles to find out why they were deleted. These discussions are available through links in the deletion log, which is displayed in the box appearing in the pages that you have provided links to. To find out how and why pages are deleted in general, please read WP:DP and WP:WWMPD.  Sandstein  20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

where can i find those deletion logs ?

swartsengagger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swartsengagger (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained in my comment above how to access the deletion log. You can also access it through Special:Log and entering the article title in the "title" field.  Sandstein  21:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lenerd

User:Lenerd is asking for an unblock. I'm trying to figure out what on earth he did to warrant a block (without warning) in the first place, let alone an indef block. There seems to be some miscommunication here. -- Ned Scott 09:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I have explained my reasons for the block at User talk:Lenerd#You are indefinitely blocked, and at least one administrator has agreed with me. I find it particularly troubling that the blocked editor insists that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the edits that led to his block. Making useful edits is what we expect of every editor; it is not an excuse for a persistent pattern of disruption.  Sandstein  09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't see the difference between some simple mistakes and a content dispute with vandalism? Finding drive-by admins to agree with blocking users isn't hard, which is why I take the time to check out the unblock request category from time to time. An indef blocking like this, without any warning, is over kill and should be to be undone. -- Ned Scott 23:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, WP:ANI#Block review for User:Lenerd. I'm sorry, but you just seem to be making him jump through hoops at this point. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of K2GXT

I would like to know why you decided to delete the article for K2GXT without participating in the afd discussion? This seems like an action without justification, there was active debate on the article and progress was being made to prove notability. KB1LQC (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Only administrators who have not participated in the deletion discussion are allowed to close it; see WP:DPR.  Sandstein  17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Barn Owl Award

Slakr's Barn Owl Award Who needs a barn star when you can have a barn owl? The star just sits there and looks pretty. The barn owl, on the other hand, helps prevent excessive rodent infestation, since it's one of the most active rodent pest killers. Now all we've gotta do is train it to deal with vandal pests and we'll be set. Anyway, just a general thanks for your dedication to making the encyclopedia better. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 06:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  06:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Excessive_block?

Hello, Sandstein. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein,

Not sure ANI was really necessary. I'm going to reveiw the contribs of User:Jkliajmi in more detail, but based on a quick review,I think there's a decent chance it wasn't vandalism, rather ill-advised but good-faith mistake. If that's what I end up finding, do you have a problem with me removing the block? --barneca (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on current knowledge, yes, I do. See my comment on ANI and Ed Johnston's comment on the user's talk page.  Sandstein  18:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw your comments there; I guess I'm still not 100% convinced, but your clarification is compelling enough, (and Ed Johnston's comment too) that I'm no longer willing to unblock without a firm consensus to do so. Thanks for the additional explanation. --barneca (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Our hopes and expectations..."

You might want to full-protect Exopolitics, given that it was salted before it was recreated as a redirect. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right; done.  Sandstein  19:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldar Gods (Warhammer 40,000)

Don't worry, I'm not asking you to do anything with this one as my stance was clearly in the minority this time around, but just so you're aware, please see this regarding the last editor to "vote" in that discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text of deleted Lars RO page, please

hi! where can i access the text of the Lars RO page i assembled (which ended up deleted)?

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsro (talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot. Only administrators can view deleted pages. See WP:WWMAD for more information. Sandstein 07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

right. so can you or another administrator please post the text from the deleted page somewhere where i can access it, please? (this has been done for me before for me with another page - see my talk page). thank you! Larsro (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to do with it? Sandstein 13:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

i would like to keep it, thanks. i put a lot of time & sweat into it. could you do me a favour & just put it in a sandbox somewhere or on my talk page or somewhere? like i said, this has been done for me with other pages without any hassle, so be a friend, allright? cheers, Larsro (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not your friend. Nonetheless, I have restored Lars Ro as your user page.  Sandstein  22:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My block

I am here to ask an explanation for your action against me. Still I can't accept that block as it wasn't justified. To me, that block violated my user rights. At the last point when it appeared all other claims were unreasonable, the block was kept for my reverts to User:Zinvats uzher's 1 and 2 disruptive editing. I considered them to be pure vandalism and a user for the sake of whom you blocked me by saying "you are welcome to make useful edits after your block expired " is being discussed here. I did those reverts according to official English Wikipedia policy, to maintain the article that I created and had been working on. And also, you didn't take into account the fact that an admin who was supervising us had already warned me (and I understood it) but still you blocked me. I am asking to show my useless edits compared to who reported me and give an explanation to the action that has been performed.
Such blocking brings lack to an editor and administrator ought to feel administrator responsibility when blocking users. Administrators are expected to be the trusted members of the community, but after my block many things have changed in my mind about this statement. Gülməmməd ^Talk 02:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My explanation is as follows: You were blocked because you violated restrictions imposed on you in consequence of an Arbitration Committee decision, as outlined at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive23#User:Gulmammad and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive24#User:Gulmammad 2, and you were blocked in accordance with the enforcement provisions of the respective Arbitration Committee decision. The violation of a restriction imposed in consequence of an Arbitration Committee decision is sufficient grounds for a block, because Arbitration Committee decisions are binding and must be obeyed. If you think the restriction as such violated the terms of the Arbitration Committee decision, you must take up this matter with the administrator issuing the decision, not with me.

The reverts you made to Aghbulag were, viewed objectively, not reverts of vandalism as defined as WP:VAND. What you considered them to be is irrelevant. They were therefore reverts in terms of the restriction imposed on you. WP:IAR may not be invoked to disobey Arbitration Committee decisions because of their binding nature. The other issues you raise above, such as the merit of your edits, a warning given by another administrator and the conduct of another editor, are irrelevant. Because of this, your unblock requests were declined by other administrators.

I have no further explanation to give. I note, though, that because this is a privately run website, you do not have any "user rights" that can be violated (and neither do I) – you only have the revokable privilege of editing Wikipedia. Should you decide to continue to disobey Arbitration Committee decisions, this privilege may be permanently revoked.  Sandstein  06:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying everything is irrelevant, would you tell me why is this irrelevant. Again I'd like to remind you that I haven't disobeyed what Arbitration Committee meant except obeying this rule but simply there is something not okay going on around. My rollback rights revoked(and granted back) because of Poco's report, I got first time blocked because of Poco's report, and the last time you blocked me again because of Pooc's report. Isn't there anyone around except Poco who can see my "disobeying of Arbcom decesion"? Would you give one more explanation that what does this mean?
All this happened because he failed to push his POV into, neutral, well sourced articles that I created. The frustrating is that when this user disobeys Arbcom decesion, no-one asks but when others even go close to disobeying, immediately get blocked with very "superficial" reasons. Gülməmməd ^Talk 14:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what I have said above. I am sorry that it is not to your satisfaction. If you obey the restrictions imposed on you, you will have no more trouble.  Sandstein  15:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Steel 2

The title is now confirmed by the publisher, any issue with lifting the protection? –xeno (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Thanks for asking!  Sandstein  17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Cheers, –xeno (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my account!

Thanks for unblocking me! NitrogenTSRH (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists, episodes, and characters

Well, I think I have actually come across two lists and lists concerning episodes and characters at that that I may actually support deleting. See User talk:Narutolovehinata5#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FYin .26 Yang: Might and Magic School. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Edwards and BLP

I am curious if you read the so-called source articles, Sandstein - do we now consider National Enquirer unconfirmed and uncorroborated stories as a reliable source? The articles quoted use the Enquirer as their source. No mainstream media have confirmed these speculations - I don't understand the rationale of including. Thanks for any enlightenment. Tvoz/talk 07:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are not using the National Enquirer as a source to claim that Edwards engaged in untoward behaviour. Instead, we report the assessment of reliable sources of the impact that the National Enquirer's allegations may have on his vice presidential bid. I don't see the problem, really, and neither did the 20 or so people commenting on the talk page.  Sandstein  07:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I just would encourage you to read the source articles if you haven't - I am not at all sure these sources are reliable. Doesn't look like any kind of reliable assessment - just speculation of the writers. Nothing from any campaign or anyone's staff. No interviews of anyone saying that they have knowledge that this tabloid story has hurt him. And I think that including in the sources the titles of articles that do specify the unsourced tabloid accusations (words like "love child" and "mistress" appearing in the footnotes) is problematic and possibly politically motivated. If there were some corroboration from anyone that he had been considered for VP and this has hurt him, that would be one thing - but I have not seen anything like that, and note the lack of US mainstream media coverage. Anyway, I won't belabor the point - but I want to go on record as being concerned about this and wonder why the recent Arbcom concern about BLP is not being applied here. Cheers Tvoz/talk 07:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted, but in my view, this is a straightforward issue of applying a clear consensus solution to an editorial dispute. WP:BLP prohibits us from including unsourced or poorly sourced contentious content about living persons, no more and no less. The Independent and the Times are pretty clearly reputable mainstream newspapers, i.e., sufficiently reliable sources. In this case, therefore, the issue is not whether the content we include is taken from reliable sources, but whether it merits inclusion at all on account of being speculative and recent news. That is not a BLP issue, but an editorial issue which must be decided on by consensus, as here.  Sandstein  08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK -I think including tabloid accusations in text and footnote is more than an editorial matter, and I do not understand how this gossip column can be considered even remotely reliable on its own or in its sourcing. I believe this whole thing is political - I do not mean your action, which I don't agree with but I think was done objectively. But the insistence by some editors on this being added at this particular time is what raises my concerns about political motivation. I hope you'll keep an eye on the talk page and the article. Now that the temporary protection was removed, your advice that only additional properly sourced material be used to change what you added, via the normal editorial process, has not exactly been followed. The article should probably at least have semi protection again as I believe it had before all of this happened. Tvoz/talk 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Paperbroke1

Someone declined this user's unblock, instead offering a {{2nd chance}} template, and he made some pretty decent change. Thoughts on unblocking? –xeno (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I just noticed he still used that opposingviews as a reference! heh. –xeno (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied at his talk. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Digitally Imported

Hi.

I was wondering if you could possibly make a copy of the deleted Digitally Imported article to a user subpage for me (say User:Twinzor/DI. I realize the page has been deleted via AfD twice already, but I believe it's a notable enough website to deserve an article (having an Alexa rank of 6386 as DI.fm), and I was hoping I could find something salvageable from the deleted content, and use whatever there is as a base to build on. If I manage to make an article I think would be good enough (and of course well enough sourced) to be included in Wikipedia I will go through RfC before moving it to main namespace. Kind regards, Twinzor (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  05:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)