User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/May

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sandstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bill Ayers

"I agree with some of the people commenting here that consideration should be given to this: the smaller the number of individual articles we use to cover the election, the less time we spend on maintenance, discussion and general drama; and the more eyes we have on the articles that matter." Terrific. So now I have to watch a few dozen separate articles (do you HONESTLY think this material will be allowed in existing articles?!) instead of just one. All the trolls are out in force, vandalizing with made-up facts - and you're spreading their work all over Wikipedia. Well done indeed. I'm trying to create articles for all elected officials, and now I'll have time for nothing but 24X7 vandalism patrol. Are you also going to delete each and every List article in Wikipedia as well, on the basis they require too much maintenance and time? You may as well delete all of Wikipedia. Flatterworld (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect a reply to this? Sandstein (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gigi Mon Mathew

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gigi Mon Mathew. 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. Sorry I have to keep putting these here, but it seems they're sometimes missing. For the record, you're doing a great job. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Scandinavian Immigration to New Zealand in the 19th Century

Hi, I see you closed the Scandinavian Immigration to New Zealand in the 19th Century AfD. I never had a chance to see what the article looked like, could you please put it in my userspace as I'd be very interested indeed in taking a look at this topic to see what can be done to make it in to a proper article (probably with a better name, like suggested at the AfD). Thanks! Mathmo ^Talk 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK; done at User:Mathmo/Scandinavian Immigration to New Zealand in the 19th Century. But since it's a primary source, I daresay you'll never be able to make an article out of it. Sandstein (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chatsworth Stadium

Hi, I'm wondering if you can give me some help with this--I'm in over my head. I closed this as keep and move, and I'm pretty sure that was the right call to make. Chatsworth Stadium should be moved to Kings Park Soccer Stadium. Kings Park Soccer Stadium is the correct name of the old stadium that stood on the site of the planned Moses Mabhida Stadium. The problem is that Kings Park Soccer Stadium is currently a redirect to the MMS article, with an edit history. I didn't realize that was the case when I closed the discussion--it's my mistake, that.

I'm not entirely certain how to get this sorted, but I've noticed that you're an experienced AfD editor. Thanks for any help, Darkspots (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To implement your closure, one must must perform a history merge of the history of Kings Park Soccer Stadium with the newer history of Chatsworth Stadium. This requires admin tools, so I've done it for you. Sandstein (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking care of this. Next time, I'll check a little more thoroughly before diving into the pool. Darkspots (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Chatsworth Stadium move

Hi there. Thanks for moving the Chatsworth Stadium page to Kings Park Soccer Stadium. I saw that the article now redirects to Kings Park Soccer Stadium. Is there any way to delete Chatsworth Stadium completely or to at least remove the redirect? I'm hesitant to remove it because it will result in blanking the page and I realise that it probably goes against the consesus of the Article for Deletion discussion. The initial problem with the article was that Chatsworth Stadium is a different stadium to Kings Park Soccer Stadium. The redirect reinforces misconceptions that the two are linked. Danke! GetDownAdam (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can either write an article about Chatsworth Stadium if you think the stadium deserves an article, or you can nominate the redirect for deletion at WP:RfD. Sandstein (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Theory of Natural Systems

This was deleted WHILE an extensive edit was IN PROGRESS! Please explain how to delete what is yet to be read fits Wikipedia policy.

After 4 hours work on day 4 of the discussion period, the almost-complete re-writing was interruped by a messge from Wikipedia "Sorry could not save your edits: system data loss"

However most of them were saved but I was too exhausted to do more than check this fact (with considerable relief)

I left a message explaining all this, saying "I will return tomorrow and assess the damege to this extensive, unfinished re-write.

Then, neither having read this, nor the new edit, at midnight day 4 of the discussion the article was deleted - thus preventing my rewrite. This rewrite deletes all sentences hitherto wrongly assumed (by some!)to be mere opinions of the author. All those that remain are referenced to their sources.

I wrote as above to the person who deleted on day 4, but as yet have received no reply.

I now see that after the correct 5 days you are given as the deletor.

I may add that as a complete newcomer to Wikipedia, I find matters extremely difficult as regards HOW to do things. It is like the leaves of a forest CONCEALING the "obvious-to-others" fact that to remove the leaves you cut down the very branch that has the leaves that are hiding the branch you need to cut off. As a specific instance of this please tell me where and how to contribute to any further discussion you wish to take place. Will Geist (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Theory of Natural Systems. You should have participated in that discussion. Sorry, but we discuss articles in the state they are in, not in the state they might attain later. You can appeal the deletion at WP:DRV, if you want to, but this will be very likely unsuccessful, unless you can provide the community with a version of this article that is compliant with WP:NOR and other relevant policies. Sandstein (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request

76.102.193.102 I would like to thank you for unblocking me. I also just wanted to check in to see if I have made some mistake that got me blocked. Please tell me what to do differently so that this does not happen again to me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.193.102 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I can't help you there. I can only determine that there was no reason for the IP block, as far as I can see. Please ask the blocking admin. Sandstein (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(Section header inserted by Sandstein)

Thank you for pointing it out :). Regards, Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sandstein (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Armstrong-Jones children

The result was actually more like "no consensus". Can you adjust it accordingly? People use the previous "keeps" as an argument at times so it is misleading at best. Thank you. Charles 11:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the AfD. Sandstein (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Armstrong-Jones. It was 50/50 for keep versus merge. Thank you for your attention in this matter :-) Charles 14:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of AfD, a "merge" is equivalent to "keep". In other words, AfD only decides whether the "delete" operation should be applied to an article, removing it from the user-visible database. If there is no consensus for that, the article is kept and the community may decide through other processes whether it shold be merged/redirected or not. Accordingly, I see no need to modify my closure; if at all, it could be rephrased as "keep, no consensus for a merger". Sorry. Sandstein (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was told to take a contested merge to AFD. The people who voted wanted to merge, they didn't want the default keep. How could there possibly be consensus for keep when "merge" before has been done in AFD? Charles 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. As I said, merge is a form of keep for AfD purposes. See Wikipedia:MERGE#How to merge pages, it says to discuss mergers on talk pages. if you disagree with the closure, you can take it to WP:DRV, but you'll likely be told the same thing. Sandstein (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Theory of Natural Systems

Please take a second look at what you deleted.

It was NOT the long article that was judged to be OR. It was a totally revised article, saved but as yet read my nobody at Wikipedia!

After 4 hours work on day 4 of the discussion period, the almost-complete re-writing was interruped by a messge from Wikipedia "Sorry we could not save all your edits: system data loss" However many of the edits were saved. The door to completion was thus not closed.

You thus deleted WHILE an extensive edit was IN PROGRESS! Please explain how to delete while a major rewrite is in progress recorded in Wikipedia and yet to be read fits Wikipedia policy.

I was able to check that most of the revisions were saved but I was too exhausted to do more than check this fact (with considerable relief)

I left a message explaining all this, saying "I will return tomorrow and assess the damege to this extensive, unfinished re-write".

Then, neither having read this, nor the new edit, at midnight day 4 of the discussion the article was deleted - thus preventing my rewrite. This rewrite deletes all sentences hitherto wrongly assumed (by some!) to be mere opinions of the author. All those that remain are referenced to their sources.

To complete this major re-write I need access to the latest version referred to above. Will Geist (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I decline your request to restore the deleted article because it appears to be unsalvageable original research. To prove me wrong, please provide multiple references to reliable sources that are not related to the originator(s) of that theory and that provide substantial coverage of the theory. Sandstein (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, do not start new sections on this topic. They may be deleted without reply. Make any replies in this section, please. Sandstein (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I am now in what you call "this section". There are so many!

Please tell me where to find the article after the 93 edits. Did you read that one? Then I can finish eliminating all the OR aspects via many more edits.

Your phrase "the originators of that theory" is very strange. When Einstein made his very late-in-the-day contribution to Relatuivity HE was then the originator of those contributions. He was preceded by both Ernst Mach and Henri Poincare, BOTH of whom were "orginators" of THEIR contributions. And every child is aware of the fact that all observations are relative. Everyone studies Nature, and thus Natural Systems, and has since the origins of Mankind! Will Geist (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC) So WHO are the originators?

Please read my above messages, to which I have nothing to add. If you disagree with the deletion on grounds of process, you may contest it at WP:DRV. Sandstein (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rant (3rd nomination)

Hello. I have reverted your closure of this discussion and have explained why I did so in the AfD. Please be more careful to adhere to WP:DPR#NAC in the future. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have left a comment on the AfD page in which I have suggested that if people feel my closure was inappropriate then my other non admin closures should be reviewed, and I would provide a list of them to anyone who asked. Would you like me to supply you with that list?

Meanwhile: This may look like some petty tit-for-tat thing. But it just happened that out of curiosity, as I had not encountered you previously, I had a quick look at your recent edits to get a feel for your editing style. While browsing I noticed your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade missions of Vanuatu (2nd nomination). It would appear to be a consensus for a merge to Foreign relations of Vanuatu, but you explain your decision to delete with this statement: "As noted by Kransky, Vanuatu does not appear to have any actual trade missions". I'm not sure if you noticed there is a link in the article to this source: [1] which indicates that there was a Trade Mission being organised in November 2007. Perhaps it's worth looking at that one again? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I've no reason to believe that any of your previous closures were in error, or else an admin would most likely have already undone them. Supplying me with a list will not be necessary, and I do understand that your closure was done in good faith and with the best of intentions.

About the Vanuatu close: yes, I did see the link, and its contents seem to confirm Kransky's impression: this was not about an actual permanent trade mission, but about a one-time event at a trade fair, or an invitation to participate in the establishment of a mission that may not necessarily have accomplished anything. I'm amenable to changing my opinion if there are any other sources that confirm that there is an actual permanent trade mission of Vanuatu in any country; in that event this should be noted at Foreign relations of Vanuatu as suggested at the AfD. Sandstein (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Undeleting Bigger Than Cheeses

I must disagree on the purported lack of notoriety of Bigger Than Cheeses. It has been listed on the aggregate Web comic site, Buzzcomix, regularly for at least the last five years. It is currently at 49 out of thousands. It has more than 700 strips (currently at 742), and is listed in Buzzcomix' Hall of Fame. Just because you think it isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia entry (but Lolicon and Lightsaber combat are), doesn't mean hundreds of people don't find the entry useful. It isn't like we're running out of space, here. Bderwest (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article at issue. Sandstein (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Bigger Than Cheeses Bderwest (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was not deleted because it lacked notability (I have no opinion on that), but because it did not assert notability. Please read WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, about 90% of the articles on Wikipedia do not assert notability in any way. Many are stubs that linger for months, if not years. The ones that eventually do reach the status of a true article are usually just as note-less as any other article. Deleting articles because they supposedly lack notability goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. I was under the impression that Wikipedia is (or was)an open source, free encyclopedia and as such a repository of all knowledge - relevant or otherwise. I fail to understand why a well documented and researched article about an established webcomic is not accorded the same status given other, even more useless articles (for example: Ristorante Cooperativo or Union of the Theatres of Europe). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.39.24 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted because the policy I have referred you to directs that articles about web content that do not assert notability are to be speedily deleted. If you disagree with that, you need to seek consensus to change that policy. Sandstein (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned exemplifies my point exactly. I understand, Sandstein, Wikipedia's stated criteria allow for deletion in this manner, but I believe the spirit of Wikipedia goes quite opposite to that. I will seek to change the policy. I understand why the policy exists: maintenance is a high priority, and on a volunteer basis the problems only escalate when you have too many articles, but I cannot fathom a digital, collective encyclopedia turning away people simply because the information they want to share isn't long enough, or "notable" enough (a supremely subjective descriptor, ut humiliter opinor) Bderwest (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tanegashima knife re-created

Hola, you were the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanegashima knife I believe. Lo and behold, Tanegashima knife is blue again! User:Kauchin has recreated it, I will drop her a line. WLU (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; deleted again. Sandstein (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Salted the earth? I love a good earth-salting. Note that in my message to Kauchin I directed her to your talk page in case she needs/wants it userfied. WLU (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not quite ready for salting yet, I think. Sandstein (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't know how do I discuss with you about it. I don't understand why "Tanegashima Knives" as traditional handicrafts must be deleted. I would like everybody to know Tanegashima knives and the traditional technique as one of tanegashima knife user. If the word is changed "Tanegashima knife" to "Tanegashima edge tools" or "Tanegashima hand crafts", is it accept ? Please reply.--Kauchin (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No. We have decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanegashima knife not to have this article. You may not recreate it, no matter what the title. If you think you can build a version of that article that complies with our rules about verifiability and notability, create it in an user subpage and ask at WP:DRV for permission to move it to article space. Sandstein (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Christian mission trip opportunities in America

Along the way this article was renamed, to Christian mission trips in the United States. Not all of the redirects seemed to have worked and this article is still up, but linked correctly to the deletion debate for Christian mission trip opportunities in America. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - deleted. Sandstein (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Just a quick question

I know the article Roblox was deleted, but cant we not use the sources stated in the discussion to create a stub article? I mean, a game with 300,000 users should have at least a stub article. I just want to make sure, so that it just doesnt get deleated again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to be sure that you fulfill the criteria listed at WP:N and WP:V before you do it. That means you must cite reliable third party sources that provide substantial coverage of the game and that support the facts asserted in the article. Also, read the "delete" opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roblox carefully and make sure that their concerns are addressed. If you do not do all that, the stub may be deleted quickly. Sandstein (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Doing that shouldnt be a problem. The only reason the article was deleted was for having no 3rd party sources. But many sources were stated in the article, and many seem reliable. Briguy9876 (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There, Ive re-made it. Do you think thats good, or will it be challenged for Speedy Deletion? --Briguy9876 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted again per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. Also G4; the cited source was not a third-party one. To prevent this, try to recreate the article in userspace and ask at WP:DRV when you think it is ready. Sandstein (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Darn. Well, I would of mentioned the 300,000 players, but there was no refrence to that, so it would be challenged..so yeah. As for the refrences..Roblox is still unknown for 300,000 players, that why theres no good 3rd-party sources.--Briguy9876 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Force lightning

Could you userfy this to my userspace? Thanks, JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, at User:JoshuaZ/Force lightning. Sandstein (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, per the GFDL that should include all the previous history. To userfy one should undelete, move it to userspace and then delete the redirect. In this case since I've modified the page you'll could then undelete the resulting edits (since they will be redeleted when you move it over User:Joshua/Force lightning). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, GFDL? Is this going to be dealt with? I can't really work on this until the history is there... JoshuaZ (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I didn't notice your message at first, and I don't usually do this unless people indicate that they want to reuse the content on Wikipedia. Sandstein (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Incidentally, you should do this always if the content had any significant editing beyond the person requesting userfication otherwise GFDL will be a sad panda. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi - why wasn't the page retained as a redirect to Force powers or Force (Star Wars)? "Force lightning" is a term that people may search on. It is probably linked to from a lot of articles. It would seem most practical for it to be a redirect, especially as that would explain to Star Wars fans and other interested users where it has gone and lead them to the correct article. I think that a lot of the users saying "delete" or commenting that there was nothing to merge would have still been happy with a redirect, as nobody objected to the idea. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

AfDs are primarily about delete or keep, not about merging or redirection. Feel free to create a redirect, though, as the AfD outcome does not prohibit it. Please provide a link to the AfD next time so as to facilitate the discussion. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, have created a redirect. I've heard before that AfD is not the place for a redirect decision. I'm not clear on the reasoning. Surely there is less work involved in just redirecting than both deleting and then redirecting? Also, if it proves that the admin's judgement that there was nothing worth merging was incorrect, then isn't it better to have the history still available? Wouldn't creating a redirect and leaving the history be less work than responding to requests to userfy? Decisions whether to merge are made in AfD. So why not redirect and disambiguation? According to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion, redirects should only be deleted in a limited set of circumstances. So why delete an article that should clearly be a redirect? Thanks for your consideration, not trying to be demanding just looking for ways to improve the process. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP:Articles for Deletion page says at the top:

Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.

Note the "merged and/or redirected". So perhaps the consensus at present is that decisions to redirect are an appropriate outcome from AfD? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, AfDs can result in redirects, but the outcome of the AfD was to delete, not to redirect. If you think this closure is in error, you can appeal it at WP:DRV. Since you have now created a redirect, however, I don't quite see what the problem is. Sandstein (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem mate, just trying to understand the reasoning for your decision to delete rather than redirect. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Move of Falun Gong and live organ harvesting

I would like to contest the above page move to Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, on the grounds that there is no consensus for User:Dilip rajeev to so do, and that it was done in breach of WP:NPOV. Dilip, who is a Falun Gong practitioner with an agenda to denounce the Chinese Communist Party, has a history of unilateral reverts and edit-warring. The "reports" are in fact three articles published in The Epoch Times, a journal without credibility which fails WP:RS, and the use of the word "reports" would lend the allegations legitimacy. As this page was moved, I cannot move it back without clearing the 'Falun Gong and live organ harvesting' namespace, and must therefore ask you to undo it like you helpfull did it for Dilip. For now, I have used the C&P method of moving, to the detriment of article history. I would like you to do the job properly. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not perform copy and paste moves. This violates our licencing requirements and may lead to a block. I have undone this operation. Also, I am not authorised to enforce a page move without consensus; please use WP:RM to request and discuss that move. Sandstein (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing that to my attention, I will not do it again. I however, have a problem with how you phrased that rebuke: you were helpful to and spoke nicely to Dilip rajeev, and I feel that perhaps you may have been a little less than even-handed in your criticism of me. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems I told him just about the same thing I told you: User talk:Dilip rajeev#Move of Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. I recommend you focus on getting consensus for your move. Sandstein (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to your point about the requested move- you mean he didn't need consensus to move it and now I need his agreement, amongst others, to put it back where it was? Shome mishtake shurely! Ohconfucius (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, theoretically every move needs consensus, just like every other edit. The practical difference is that as soon as you need the assistance of admins to do something, you must show that such consensus exists, because the admin probably won't do it otherwise. Sandstein (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

material for encyclopedia

You have made a wise comment on your talk page. WP is an encyclopedia. There are many, many articles that don't really qualify. Click "random article" on the left and chances are you will find fluff, garbage, stubs, and not a nicely written article.

What should we do? Massive AFD? People will get mad. JerryVanF (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We already have many AfDs, and some people do get mad about it. If you think the inclusion of an article is in violation of pertinent policies or guidelines, feel free to take it to AfD. Don't do mass nominations, though, they usually lead nowhere. Sandstein (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon

I removed the notability template. Please take a look at the article again. Let me know if you think it needs further work or if you are convinced the subject is not notable. Thanks. Mhym (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawker hurricane bd707

Please explain your rationale since it appears that there was no consensus. Your action immediately followed my recent additions to both the discussion and article and seems pointy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was that nearly all participants thought that this incident does not warrant an article per WP:NOT#NEWS. Your own contribution to the discussion, "obviously notable", was not among the finest examples of persuasion that I have come across in AfDs (see WP:ITSNOTABLE). As to your POINT comment, it's best if I refrain from replying to that, because I think you would not like my reply. Sandstein (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there really wasn't consensus to delete. The numbers might suggest as much, but it's not a vote and the deletes were essentially WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN in nature. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Time and fate deities in popular culture

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Time and fate deities in popular culture. 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. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Satele

You closed this discussion as delete, which I agree with; however, the article (see Salomon Satele) does not appear to have been deleted. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, done, thanks. Sandstein (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking admin

Don't worry about that. Wknight's already been informed by myself and he doesn't think I should be unbanned, but other people suggest a community vote or something. I've admitted my past mistakes and apologized about it. I've grown up. Vampire Warrior II (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello. Thank you for your resolution of the issue on Protestant views of Mary. I would like to ask for your help in a related matter. The same user who started the deletion request there, and who had baffled everyone there, has been (in my opinion) causing havoc on the page for Blessed Virgin Mary after he lost a vote to merge and rename that page. Several people have commented that they are at a loss for words for his actions and logic. Since I am not an expert on Wikipedia policies, and you are an administrator, could you please clarify this situation and avoid the huge wasted effort that goes into the logic-free debate there? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to be more specific. Can you please provide the diffs of the edits you object to, explain why they are in violation of which policies or guidelines, and tell me what you would like me to do? Sandstein (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Its about me. Funny, I also just asked him info on the edits he objected to & why. --Carlaude (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Karina Pasian

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Karina Pasian. 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. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 02:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Who have you unblocked?

I looked through 2 of Avineshjose's edits. They are reasonable. Granted, 2 is not very thorough research.

How many people have you unblocked who have put in an unblock request? 0, 2, 50? JerryVanF (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy, if you come here to talk to me about a page or an user, please provide a link to that page or user page. Sandstein (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Avineshjose is a link. Out of curiosity, I was curious if you unblocked anyone. I did see rude comments by others but your denial of unblock wasn't rude, just perplexing. However, since the block is over and was short, no need to research the guy and provide an explanation. JerryVanF (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For a list of my blocks and unblocks, see here. Users are only exceptionally unblocked, see WP:APB and also User:Sandstein/Unblock for my approach to unblock requests. A user is not unblocked because some of his edits are deemed reasonable; he is only unblocked if he can show that the block is in clear violation of an applicable policy. In 99% of all unblock requests, this is not the case. Sandstein 17:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary is the best English Wikipedia, the world will be.

I saw your great Flickr blog. I am Japanese. Appreciated Wikipedia articles in a very good future. A happy day!

--Wikimania1989 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Wikimania1989

Sorry, I do not have a Flickr blog. Sandstein 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you reply .*__*

Germany is a beautiful country.

I am pleased to know through English Wikipedia!

--Wikimania1989 (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Wikimania1989

Legal Threats

Thanks for your help. Just so you know this person has been using multiple IP addresses to avoid the block. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, you can report them here (as {{ipvandal|...}}) or on WP:AIV. Sandstein (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Nilges is back as 116.48.168.154. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the previously blocked account (s) for comparison. Sandstein 11:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently blocked as 203.218.232.185. Previously blocked as Spinoza1111. Identifies himself by name (Edward Nilges) in all cases. Thanks. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New IP blocked. Sandstein 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but he's back yet again as 203.218.80.144 and 12.111.29.12. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are now blocked. Sandstein 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain

I just noticed this debate, but too late to contribute. I have to admit that from the Google cache, it didn't look great, but I think it could have been improved to the standards we demand. I've improved similar pages before (see the list of bestselling vehicle nameplates and the list of automobiles by sales), so would it be possible to restore the page (and its previous revisions) to my userspace? It might well be the case that I decide it's not worth it, but I'd like to give it a shot first. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well sourced?

You stated that the article on Aegean Macedonians is 'reasonably well-sourced'. If you know the topic well, then I probably fail to understand something vital about those sources and I am open to your explanation. If you are relying on your experience as an administrator, then I also look forward to learing for the reasons of your opinion. To me, most of the sources seem at the very least 'interested parties'. I think this was a hasty decision that was made. As I mentioned, the article deals with a subject that is obscure (though not to myself) and for all the good will, prone to include serious mistakes. Correcting those mistakes and redressing the (probably unintentional) bias can only generate much heat and unecessary invectives. You may like to read my reasons for my choice. Thanks. Politis (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not the closing administrator; my opinion is not controlling. You need to talk to User:ChrisO. Sandstein 19:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but your opinion would still be most welcome; I do not want to keep you and argue the case, just that I would find your comments usefull. Thanks. Politis (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually have no opinion about the individual quality of the sources; I just noted that there were many of them and as such a WP:V deletion despite lack of consensus to delete did not appear to be required. Whatever the quality of the sources may be, the fact remains that no policy-based argument for deletion has been made. Sandstein 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jects‎

Greetings. I see you closed this AfD as a delete, and the main artist article is gone. But the nomination also included two articles for his records, and those remain. Would you be so kind as to clean these up as well? Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done; thanks for the reminder. Sandstein 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i

No offense, but I have concerns over your closure of Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i

I am concerned over your reliance on arguments made in previous {{afd}}s -- when you seem to have discounted the counter-arguments made in those discussions. As I pointed out in this afd -- and I think your conclusion should have been based on arguments and counter-arguments in this afd -- my challengers have made arguments, I made civil counter-arguments, which they were unwilling or unable to respond to.

I am concerned that you seem to have based your conclusion on serious misconceptions. You wrote:

Everybody who is detained under a modern legal system has a lot of government paperwork generated about him, but our consensus (both as reflected in WP:BIO and in these deletion discussions) is that such paperwork is a primary source and does not suffice for notability, or else all prisoners would be notable just for having a government file.

May I point out that the captives in Guantanamo are "not detained in a modern legal system". They are not detained in a legal system at all. None of them have been charged in a court of law.

Ordinary felons, and ordinary criminal suspects, are not notable, because modern criminal justice systems are well understood. Suspects have predictable legal protections, like the opportunity to hear all the evidence against them, and the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against them. Ordinary felons aren't notable because there is nothing exceptional about them. When there is strong evidence of a breakdown in the criminal justice system, as in, for example, the case of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, then Carter merits coverage here, where other felons don't.

The paperwork generated for ordinary felons is not exceptional, because all they show is that those ordinary felons went through well understood, predictable, unexceptional steps in the well understood, predictable legal system. I suggest that the documents generated for the Guantanamo captives are exceptional, are totally unlike those generated for criminal justice felons and suspects.

I've written about this in greater detail in Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs.

I have other concerns about the explanations you made for your closure. Should I record them here? Geo Swan (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a European jurist, and I understand that the current Guantanamo system is regarded by many as severely deficient with regard to the level of due process afforded to detainees, the legal basis of their detention and so on. I generally agree with that assessment, but it is not relevant here. The Guantanamo records are functionally similar to normal criminal records in that they are files created in a routine process by a government about persons detained by it, and, as primary sources, do not by themselves confer notability on these persons. Rubin Carter has an article because he has been covered by secondary sources, not just by the government files about him. It is true that the Guantanamo detention process is exceptional compared to normal criminal justice or POW systems, but that is an argument for the notability of the Guantanamo detention process (or for the type of documents it produces), not for the notability of the individual detainees.

If you have more arguments that you think could make me change my mind about the AfD closure, you are of course welcome to make them here. Sandstein (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I started a reply to you yesterday, and then my browser crashed, twice. So, I am going to respond in stages this time. Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous {{afd}} closed as "keep" and "no consensus"

You wrote:

...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (2nd nomination), also about a generic detainee, which in retrospect I probably should have closed differently. (GeoSwan asserts that several similar AfDs have resulted in "keep", but he provides no links, and I can't find such AfDs on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp/archive.)

One interpretation of this passage is that you now have doubts about your earlier closure because you have doubts about my credibility. In case that is what you meant I spent time yesterday trying to track down the articles I mentioned.

These articles on Guantanamo captives were closed as "keep".

Jalal Salam Bin Amer
Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar
Jamil al Banna
Shaker Aamer
Rasool Shahwali Zair Mohammed Mohammed
Abaidullah
These articles, related to the detention of Guantanamo captives were closed as "keep".
List of Guantanamo Bay detainees
Spc. Sean Baker
List of high value detainees
The dark prison
Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism
No-hearing hearings
These articles on Guantanamo captives were closed as "no consensus".
Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i
Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani
Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli
Walid Said Bin Said Zaid
Brahim Yadel
These two articles on Guantanamo captives were closed as "no consensus", but I don't understand why they weren't closed as "keep".
Hisham Sliti
Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli

It is not a complete list. As you noted, someone deleted the history of the archive. I thought this was because someone thought the archives were unnecessay. I thought they deleted all the archives. The delsorting thing wasn't created until the summer of 2006. The first deletion nominations occurred in September 2005.

More to follow. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Detailed explanation of AFD is to be commended. A "result is keep" or "delete" would have been too mindless. There are nameless terrorists that have articles and would meet similar delete criteria. Would you be willing to make a ruling. (This is not to say that all terrorist and detainees are all not notable). JerryVanF (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(This is to Geo Swan, because I can't figure out what JerryVanF means to say with his statement.) I did not mean to imply that I have doubts about your credibility, only that I cannot take into account discussions that I cannot access. The detainee AfDs you cite are from 2005 and 2006; only two "no consensus" keeps are from 2007. Consensus and policy change over time (it seems that WP:N was only created in September 2006 and did not become a guideline until much later). This means I cannot in fairness take these discussions into account when determining today's consensus. Also, several of these detainee articles seem to have multiple references to secondary sources, which means that they might even today pass WP:N more easily than al Marwa’i. That's why I won't overturn my closure on the grounds you have provided here. Sandstein 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I recognize that Consensus can change. Thank you for informing me your decision was not based on concluding I was not credible.

I actually have other concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You obviously spent time looking into the articles that had been closed as "keep". I didn't thank you for making that effort. So, thanks! I appreciate it. Geo Swan (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I can't take my time

Some of my other concerns centers around your use of arguments made in previous {{afd}}s.

You are the administrator, and I am not. And, while I have read the deletion guideline for administrators, I want to be properly deferential to your experience of implementing policy.

I wanted to take my time in expressing this concern. I am afraid I don't feel I can. One of the participants in the {{afd}} you closed has referred to your comments in this particular conversation to bolster his or her arguments in a new {{afd}} they filed. And I feel I have to rush, to put on record some of the points of concern I have with your closure, because I briefly summarized some of them in that {{afd}}.

I wrote there:

Regarding the comments of that closing administrator... In the interests of brevity I only provide counter-arguments in an {{afd}} to arguments other participants actually made in that {{afd}}. We entrust administrators with considerable authority. We authorize them to delete articles they think meet the criteria for speedy deletion, on their sole judgment. But, when they conclude an {{afd}} I believe it can be a mistake to base their concluding statements on arguments that were not made in that particular {{afd}}. I think doing so can be unfair to those making a case for "keep", because it does not allow them an opportunity to make a counter-argument.

I'd like to have had more time to phrase my concerns tactfully. Geo Swan (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. When closing AfDs, administrators must determine whether there is community consensus to delete an article. Evidently, the comments made in the AfD at issue are the most immediate (and most often the only) basis for this determination. However, WP:DP and WP:DGFA do not forbid administrators to also take into account the outcome of other recent AfDs that concern very similar articles. Doing so is advisable because such AfDs are also representative, to some degree, of the community's consensus about the inclusion of the type of article that is at issue. Moreover, as AfDs are not a vote, administrators are asked to take the strength of arguments into account, and they will generally do so by considering the arguments that have been made in the light of applicable policies and guidelines, as well as applicable recent precedent.

This is a necessary step in the determination of consensus, I think, especially in AfDs that concern one article out of a class of similar articles, as here. That's because looking to precedent allows us to develop a more coherent approach to the inclusion of this class of articles. This approach is not per se favourable to advocates of deletion, because applicable "keep" precedents may be taken into account in the same manner as "delete" precedents. Sandstein 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

more advice?

You have been patient with my requests for advice and clarfication. As you noted a lot of this material is being challenged under policies that did not exist at the time the material was contributed. As you may imagine the material being challenged represents considerable effort -- well over a thousand hours of effort. I know some people would tell me, "It is just one {{afd}}. Let it go. You are making a nuisance of yourself. You win some. You lose some. Live with it."

I am grateful you have considered my questions. I do not mean to suggest that you have a disproportionate obligation to stay involved. But I do think it is reasonable for me to continue ask questions. I found some of these recent closures simply ignored what I saw as valid counter-arguments. It seemed to me that some of the administrators making these closings shared the same unfortunate misconceptions as the challengers.

One administrator continued to assert that the article in question did not comply with "the current BLP climate". Well, which counts most -- policy, or consensus?

Yes, I understand that "consensus can change". But then, eventually, the policy should be brought into line with the new consensus. I know how to comply with a policy. I don't know how to comply with a "climate".

As I think you hinted in your closure some of the challengers made totally invalid arguments for deletion. Challenging the verifiability of the American allegations was an invalid argument. Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that you are frustrated by having your hard work undone. Have you considered userfying the contested articles so that you can restore them once the persons at issue become more notable, once policy changes, or to transwikify them?

I think it's fair to say that the U.S. files about the detainees are reliable sources to the extent and for the purposes that primary sources can at all be relied upon (see WP:PSTS); this wasn't really contested in the AfD. Sandstein 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There were some terms you used I have questions about, if you don't mind...

What is a "generic detainee" please?

One phrase you used was, "generic detainee". I don't know what a "generic detainee" is. I am committed to being a good, compliant contributor. If other contributors are going to quote the precedence of your closure I hope you can see I need to know how to distinguish between "generic" and non-generic captives, so I can say -- "that is not what Sandstein meant." Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant to use this term as a shorthand for a detainee who is notable (if at all) only for being a Guantanamo Bay detainee because he is covered (if at all) by others only in that context, as opposed to people who might be otherwise notable. Sandstein 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You referred, above, to "the current Guantanamo system"

You referred, above, to "the current Guantanamo system". I'd like to clarify, if you don't mind, that there are, depending on how you count them, at least two separate and distinct systems.

Maybe you already know this. But to prevent confusion I am going to briefly spell out the most basic differences.

At total of nineteen captives have faced charges before one or more of the three attempts to set up Guantanamo military commissions. Controversially, these are claimed to be a kind of legal proceeding.

At least 572 captives had their "enemy combatant status" reviewed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. And the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants convened over a thousand of the follow-on Administrative Review Board hearings. To clarify, the Tribunal Presidents and Presiding Officers, of the OARDEC proceedings regular told captives that they were not entitled to legal counsel because those proceedings were "administrative" proceedings, not "legal" proceedings.

Now, maybe you already knew this. But a lot of my challengers labored under very considerable misconceptions. They thought the captives weren't notable, because they were no different from any other convict -- when none of the captives had then been convicted of any crimes whatsoever. Others thought the captives weren't notable, because they were no different than any other Prisoner of War -- when it is the official position of the Bush Presidency that none of the captives is entitled to POW status.

Okay, thanks again, for having the patience to read and respond to my questions. Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the overview, but did you mean to ask a specific question? After briefly reviewing the AfD again, it seems to me that most "delete" opinions did not argue that al Marwa’i was not notable because they thought he was an ordinary criminal or POW. They did, though, argue that he was not notable because he was not the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, as is required by WP:BIO. Sandstein 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mazanderani Page

Hi, Sorry for the delayed response, I'm talking about this article, I requested to the current version of article this version, Many of sources, details, infos, ... deleted and non-senses that i defined in the article's talk page about it added, Thank you --Parthava (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you want me to do, and why. Sandstein 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a dispute on the question whether the Mazanderani language is at all a language or not. The only source available online that so far has been provided says: Mazanderani is mutually unintelligible with respect to Persian. A few editors agree that the source says so, one single editor, 68.5.250.146 (talk), claims that the source is WRONG.

(68.5.250.146 (talk) sometimes is making use of another account (Nyisnotbad) and of other IPs (like 71.140.200.127), as he has done before in a long, long edit war at Amir Taheri, but they obviously are one single person.)

Because he was asked to come up with a source for his claim that Mazandarani is a dialect of Persian. No question about it but could not find one online, he started to claim that a couple of offline sources prove his point. He came up with them here. Two of them are German, and as a speaker of German you will agree that he can't even spell them correctly. His all in all four misspellings/misspacings (nord- ouest / l, Iran / Wiesbadan / Geselaschaft ) happen to be exactly the same misspellings/misspacings you can find on this list of scholarly works on the Mazanderani language. 68.5.250.146 (talk) took his 'sources' from there via copy & paste.

I understand that it is this what is making Parthava (talk) so angry. 68.5.250.146 (talk) knows that he cannot even spell his sources; I pointed it out to him on the talk page. He simply does not care, though, and so far he has prevailed. --Ankimai (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My take on mazandarani language. It is a very simple issue and all linguists agree on that. Mazandarani and Standarad persian are both West Iranian languages. However, as Mazandarani is a north-western Iranian language, persian is a south-western Iranian language. So one cannot be t adialect of the other. Intelligibility is another issue: Iranian languages are all to some extent intelligible with each other and to some extent unintelligible with each other. Luri and Bakhtiari are largely intelligible with standard Persian but this is not the case with Mazandarani which stands further away in the relationshiop with all three of them.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azalin Rex (2nd nomination)

Mind if I ask why you relisted this? A relatively good number of people participated in the discussion. Graevemoore (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there was no clear consensus to delete or keep the article, and relatively little actual discussion. Sandstein 06:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re True Scotsman

Thanks Sandstein for keeping watch over the journey of a first article -->AfD -->DYK, all happening in the nick of time. True Scotsman's team thanks you so much, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best, Sandstein 06:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination)

Would it be possible to restore the article to keep contribution histories public, but redirect to the list that you said it was redudant to as a compromise? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but to what purpose? The point of deletion is to remove content from the publicly accessible database. Sandstein 06:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has been viewed 64,368 of time in the most recent month alone, which suggests that editors and readers are using it as a search term. Nine or so editors in good standing in the AfD argued to either keep, not to delete, or merge, so it was not a unanimous or snowball delete, coupled with the previous AfD in December '07 closing as an unambiguous keep. If the contents of the article are not hoaxes, libelous, or copyright violations, then there is not a pressing concern to keep it deleted and by contrast good faith editors' contribution histories get to remain public, which is helpful when considering editors at RfA as non-admins can't see deleted contributions and many non-admins participate in such discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that "List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters" is a very likely search term, but nothing prevents you from creating that redirect. However, you've not convinced me that there is any practical need to restore the history of this particular article. Your arguments are equally applicable to most other deleted articles, but it's not currently our policy or practice to leave the histories of deleted articles accessible. Sandstein 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply; however, I see a difference between non-hoaxes with redirect locations and "most deleted articles." Therefore, I have opened a deletion review to see what others think. Respectfully, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread regarding unblock decline

Please see this ANI thread, where I've criticised an unblock review (a decline) that you performed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Sandstein 06:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

deletion of UBFS

"...because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service...". I don't see it, because UBFS is not a company, nor a product, nor agroup or nor service,... Besides, you could simply inform me first before deleting. Now i am not sure whether i can find the old copy of the article. Further, to be realistic, any articles about universities in Wiki can be regarded as a kind of "indirect advertisement"!(any article is marketing, if it meets the "wants and needs" of readers) I do regret your decision and doubt the fairness of Wiki. At least "UBFS article" doesn't deserve "speedy deletion"...2wo (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article at issue. Sandstein 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I though you deleted the article... How can i now provide you the link? there were two articles, one called "Ubfs" which redicts to "University of Business and Finance Switzerland". Thanks for your promt answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2wo (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You must provide the wikilinks. Enclose the title of the article(s) in two square brackets, as per the instructions at the top of this page. Sandstein 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

University_of_Business_and_Finance_Switzerland and Ubfs(is a redirect to the first article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2wo (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted per our policy Wikipedia:CSD#G11, because it was written in the style of an advertisement. I will not restore it. Before you write a new article on this topic, review WP:COI and WP:ORG, please. Sandstein 17:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Without restoring it, makes it more work for me to rewrite anything. As said, there was no warning about "speedy deletion" before writing my article. Also, I used the content strucutre as other univeristes like ETHZ and University of Zurich, etc. I never thought that the article would be deleted due to violation of "style of writing". It the article is restored, i can simply delete those parts which are seen as "advertisment". I don't think that the whole article about UBFS is advertisement...2wo (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A warning is not required by our rules. It is your responsability to make sure that you are contributing approprate content. Sandstein 17:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

it seems that it is about who can better make arguments, like politics and law issues. That's why i prefer natural science, where you see exact why it is wrong, what can be proved or disaproved, and everything are reasoned... Regulations are not science, and people make judgment according to regualtions, however how well is the judgment, what is the measurement space of the judgment, is it biased?

I will study all the regulations you recommended and try to rewrite an article about UBFS when i have time. Thanks anyway. 2wo (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD Closure

Hi - I was wondering what led to your closure of this AfD as no consensus. I used the same justification for deletion of this article which you closed as delete, providing a clear decision based in policy. When that was questioned, you explained your decision here on your talk page. I don't see any difference in these AfD's (other than the outcome). All lack significant secondary coverage (as you clarified in your decision) and are based solely upon primary sources. Why the difference in outcomes? I realize that either way you close it, you're going to catch flak from someone. I don't mean to put you on the spot with this, but if you see a significant difference in these AfD's, I wanted to get your input. BWH76 (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference was that the second AfD was a nominations of two articles, not just one, and that several comments did not indicate which one they were talking about (such as DGG: "on the basis of the lawsuit"), which complicated the assessment of consensus with respect to the individual articles. AfD closers may not just impose their judgment on articles. They must determine consensus based on the strength of the arguments that have been made in the discussion, and I could not come to an unambiguous conclusion in this dual nomination. I recommend re-nominating these articles individually after some time; this will make it easier to assess whether these people are notable or not. Sandstein 19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien)

There are some discussions underway outside of the AfD with its limited participation to have merged some of that content. Considering that it was hardly a unanimous AfD anyway, I request that it be restored and perhaps relisted as the merge discussions and efforts continue. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. Consensus was to delete, not merge, and I'll not restore content that has been found to be original research. Any merge discussions (to which you provide no link) should have occurred before or during the AfD. Sandstein 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was not really that strong to delete and Wikipedia does not have a deadline; AfDs are not an endall to merge discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are, because you cannot merge what is no longer there. Sandstein 20:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the article should be restored. After all, out of universe secondary source information does exist. Consider: "The actual job of restoring the derelict, as well as creating The LA Effects Group reconstructed the derelict alien ship from the first film for scenes..." from Frederick S. Clarke, Cinefantastique Vol. 37, no. 9 (winter 2006). Or "The look of the film too is extraordinary, thanks to the brilliant design, both of the creature and the derelict alien spaceship, by the Swiss surrealist..." from James E. Gunn, The New encyclopedia of science fiction (Viking, 1998), which by the way further demonstrates that the article is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction as it's in fact covered by published specialized encyclopedias. Or "DERELICT EXTERIOR 5 March 1978, London In Scott's office in Lexington..." in H. R. Giger, Giger's Alien (Morpheus International, 1994), 22). In other words, plenty of reliable sources exist from which the out of universe coverage can be expanded upon. Plus, the ship does not merely appear in the movie, but even as [ http://cgi.ebay.com/Micro-Machines-ALIENS-DERELICT-SHIP_W0QQitemZ150243448107QQihZ005QQcategoryZ16483QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1638Q2em118Q2el1247 toys]. Now granted I found these after the AfD, but all that goes to show is a sort of problem with AfDs in that sometimes even just as they close sources turn up. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

These are mentions of the ship in secondary sources, not the sort of substantial coverage that one would need for an article. And the toy miniature is not a source, it is a physical object (a primary source, if you want). Anyway, if you are convinced that this is now article-worthy, the proper way to go about it is to write a brief, well-sourced article in userspace and petition DRV for permission to move it to the main space. If permission is granted, the history can then be undeleted. Sandstein 20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They are nevertheless mentions in reliable secondary sources and even in a specialized encyclopedia, which Wikipedia is, at that. They along with the primary sources lay the basis for an article on a topic that can be presented with both in and out of univserse coverage. The toy minature is only one such toy or model (I didn't want to flood you with sources and examples) and shows that it was not merely in the movie. What has not been done yet and what I suggested in my last comment in the AfD was for checks through science fiction and now maybe even toy magazines that could reasonably expand on the reliable secondary source coverage. In any event, why not restore the article, allow me to add what sources I have found, and maybe relist it or something to see what others have to say? After all, we are a community of thousands of editors of which about a half dozen commented in the AfD, not all of which argued to delete. Of those using shortcuts for their arguments, one says it fails the still not yet policy FICTION guideline, whereas another says it passes that guideline. Regarding the claim of original research, if I use even those I mentioned above, as they are secondary sources, it would mean that the article would not be original research and they also address the verfiability concerns, too. The ship appears in the extended version of Aliens as well as in Alien. So, it has multiple appearances in two unquestionably notable films, the novelization of the first film, as a toy, etc. and has at least some out of universe coverage turned up in online searches. I think that is sufficient enough to justify keeping it around for those who have access to sci fi and toy magazines to come along, discover the article, and expand it even further. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, these arguments do not cause me to change my mind about the outcome of the AfD. I do not have anything to add to what I have said above, except that the mere mention of the ship in sources does not constitute sufficient sourcing for most of the article to stop being OR. Sandstein 06:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M41A pulse rifle and elsewhere, ongoing efforts are being undertaken regarding possible mergers for the Alien related articles. There's no harm in restoring the article while these discussions continue, because maybe we'll be able to improve other articles in the process. Out of our thousands of editors, only five of them wanting to delete an article should not trump every other discussion underway when we have the chance to improve our larger coverage on the series. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake

I have in good faith initiated a deletion review of Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — C M B J 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not doubted your good faith, but I note that you have made no effort to contact me prior to initiating your DRV. Sandstein 06:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary Jo Kopechne page redirected

I am not a registered user of Wikipedia.

On the morning of May 20, 2008(PDT), I read the Mary Jo Kopechne page. Later the same day I again went to that page and read something completely different. It is because you have redirected the Mary Jo Kopechne page, as I learned when I went here:

[[2]]

I disagree that the pages are substantially the same, they are, in fact, completely different. I have been advised by a wikipedia editor that you did not play by the rules when you did this redirect without any discussion.

I would ask that you undo the redirect, or at least engage a discussion about it. Thank you. 154.20.4.19 (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, no, the rules tell us that we're supposed to take bold action to improve the encyclopedia; see WP:BOLD.

About the redirect: one of our rules, WP:BLP1E, advises us not to write an article about a person if that person is generally known only for one event. In that case, we're supposed to write an article about the event, not the person.

That's what I did here: Mary Jo Kopechne is only known to the general public because she died in the Chappaquiddick incident. Unsurprisingly, that means that the article about her was almost only about her death in the incident. That's redundant; we should have only one article about the same topic. That's why I redirected the article. If there is any notable fact about Mary Jo Kopechne that's not already in the other article, we can add it there. What do you think? Sandstein 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Chappaquiddick incident reads like the National Enquirer, it is filled with unproved allegations. Whereas the incident as described on the Mary Jo Kopechne page is reasonably factual, and now it is inaccessible to the public. I think it's just plain wrong that people should be redirected from a reasonably factual account to a tabloid trash page. 154.20.4.19 (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case, I suggest that you edit the Chappaquiddick incident article to make it conform better to our policies on verifiability and neutrality. Our rules (WP:POVFORK) say that we should not respond to a bad article by creating another article about the same topic; rather, we should try to improve the existing bad article. Otherwise, we'd soon have thousands of articles about, say, George W. Bush or any other controversial topic. Sandstein 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD Closing Comments

I just realised I hadn't said thanks for your kind comments in the close of this AfD. Many thanks for your kind words! Gazimoff ^Write _Read 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Federal administration of Switzerland

On 22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Federal administration 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters. 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. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: One of the participants of this AfD listed above has just been blocked as a ban evading sockpuppet of arbitration committe banned editor Eyrian. He commented at least three times in that discussion as well as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with city names in the title. As I do not think it appropriate that we should humor banned editors, I recommend relisting these AfDs and perhaps at least striking his comments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

For the Avatar article, that's up to the DRV to decide. For the other AfD, no. Discounting Graevemore's comment would not have changed the outcome. Sandstein 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is we do not know what impact his comments had perhaps not on you, but on others who saw that AfD. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's idle speculation. The AfD result was quite clear enough. Relisting declined. Sandstein 16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Audio Barnstar

		The Audio Barnstar
		You're getting the Audio Barnstar for adding the world's oldest recording, Au Clair de la Lune from 1860, to the wiki. Channel ® 14:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Sandstein 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of songs with city names in the title

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of songs with city names in the title. 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. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hotel Bellevue Palace

On 25 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hotel Bellevue Palace, 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) 10:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

General comment

No, I am not in the habit of taking things personally (or so I hope), and I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I do think, though, that you exercised bad judgment in initiating your recent DRVs, especially the most recent one. Your argument that various trivial content should be kept because it is consistent with a specialised encyclopedia on the topic is a defensible one, even though I disagree with it. However, you seem to be in a minority of one with this argument, while most other editors do seem to think that we should not about WP:EVERYTHING. You may try to convince them otherwise, of course, but please do not do this by means of patently meritless requests, or they may come to be viewed as disruption. Sandstein 18:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Anyway, the fact that so many editors create these articles and continue to edit them and that some also do argue to keep in the AfDs suggests that an actual majority is for the articles rather than against. The problem of a banned sock account participating in that particular AfD and it ending on a question leads to legitimate concerns. I see no harmful reason in having allowed the discussion to continue to see how others would have responded to the nom's suggestion. I have participated in a number of AfDs that started out as looking like snowball deletes or snowball keeps, but then all of a sudden the article is drastically improved and the tide of discussion shifts from snowball delete to an outright keep, or in the later case someone discovers the article to be a copy vio and the AfD that originally looked like a keep closure is instead deleted. The list of songs one ended with a question by the nominator and so we don't really know if it would have continued as a majority delete or if in fact the discussion would have resulted in something else as editors discussed and reacted to the nominator's question. I do not thinking Wikipedia should be about "everything" per se and I have not only argued to delete hoaxes, but also clear "how tos", but I do think that a paperless encyclopedia constantly gaining new users that relies on a community effort of contributors and donors with diverse interests, whose founder said to "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing," the First pillar of which asserts that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs", and that does not have a deadline has no really good reason not be incredibly inclusive. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Heise

I see that you were the deleting administrator for Ryan Heise which I gather from the archived discussion seems to have been deleted because it was associated with Human-Thistlethwaite algorithm the subject of the nom. Ryan Heise is well known amongst Rubik cube solvers (fair number of Google hits). The Thistlewaite algorithm is a well known computer program solution of Rubik's cube. A humanly do-able version of Thistlewaite seems to me to have at least the potential to be notable. Heise's own (non-Thistlethwaite) solution, at least to my eye, appears to be novel and radically different from any other solution (bears no resemblance at all to Freidrich, Singmaster etc) and this in itself must at least be potentially notable.

I have never seen the deleted articles so have no idea exactly how bad they were (apparently they thought it was cool to cite You-tube as a reliable source), but could you please put them both in my user space so I can see if they are salvageable. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, at User:Spinningspark/Ryan Heise. Sandstein 18:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism. 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. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD Closure

You recently closed an Afd about an article regarding Beyonce's third studio album. I believe this article is a duplicate. Is it covered by the same debate? Thanks. TN‑X-Man 00:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's already deleted. Sandstein 06:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I always appreciate the detailed explanations that you provide with your AfD closures on controversial topics like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that. It was very well done. Thank you.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Another AfD closure and possible recreation

Hi! You closed the AfD for Electronics Engineering Services a couple of weeks ago. Is Electronic Engineering Services: Engineering Services Outsourcing a recreation of that article? I didn't see the first article, but from the AfD discussion it looks like it might be the same thing. Cheers! --Bonadea (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Deleted now, thanks. Sandstein 08:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot approved: dabbing help needed

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. PLease also pass on the message to anybody else who you may think might be willing to help. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hello. You recently reviewed and rejected an unblock request by myself with the reason "This request is too long. Please be more concise". Quite frankly I find this attitude rude and entirely unhelpful. Nowhere is there any stated limit on how long an unblock request should be, and thus if I feel I need that much space to explain myself then I will use it. Please explain to me why you decided to decline this request, rather than just leave it for someone else to deal with. Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are volunteers. They are not required, and frequently not inclined, to read long and complicated requests. If you request something from an administrator, including an unblock, you will tend to be more successful if you write as briefly and clearly as possible. See also User:Sandstein/Unblock. Sandstein 08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, however surely it would be more fair that if you do not want to read it then you leave it for someone else, rather than declining it without having read it...Nouse4aname (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. On the other hand, declining it gives you the opportunity to write a briefer and perhaps more successful request. Sandstein 09:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Allopathic usage controversy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Allopathic usage controversy. 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. Bryan Hopping ^T 16:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry if I'm not following procedure. I am trying (perhaps poorly) to say in my Deletion review request that I do indeed want the content undeleted. Is that not the appropriate method to request this? I am also trying to say (separate request) "if the content can't be undeleted can we merge it?" Thanks for your help. Do I need to change the wording of the deletion review request? Bryan Hopping ^T 16:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You were asking in the wrong place. Consensus was to delete, so a restoration and merger also needs consensus. You'll need to demonstrate that consensus (for instance, by asking on Talk:Allopathic medicine, and then you can ask any administrator to perform the undeletion. Sandstein 16:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for directing me. Bryan Hopping ^T 21:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)