User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/February

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.

Military Assault Command Operations (MACO)

Hey Sandstein!

Why are u deleting that page?? You should be concentrating on more important things!!

Sincerely, Master DaVinci (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the page you speak of. Sandstein 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

They are talking about Military Assault Command Operations (MACO). — neuro^(talk) 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That content was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MACO. If you restore it without addressing that discussion's concerns, it will be re-deleted and you may be blocked from editing. See WP:WWMPD for more advice. Sandstein 23:01, 31 J

{ImageUndeleteRequest}}

Sincerely, Master DaVinci (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Groubani

Greetings, Sandstein. You may remember User:Torb37, but if you don't: you blocked him nearly two years ago because he was creating nonsense pages and refused to talk to other users, myself included. I applauded that move, and I'd like to complain about a somewhat similar individual, User:Groubani. Like Torb37, his grasp of English is poor, and he also has a penchant for creating articles that are only slightly less inane. His "specialty" is articles on diplomatic relations. The trouble is, they're either absurdly irrelevant (Thailand–Ukraine relations, Ireland–Kenya relations) or, if there's a lot to say about the subject, he says nothing about it (eg, Israel–Romania relations omits the fact that Romania was the only Communist country to maintain relations with Israel after 1967, and is silent on the decades of Jewish emigration; Hungary–Slovakia relations neglects to inform us of, say, this).
At the top of his talk page, there's a big sign telling us he won't respond to messages. The fact is, these nonsense articles are rather bothersome -- it's up to other users to either take them through endless AfDs or expand the few that actually make sense (which isn't really happening, anyway).
So: any advice? Like Torb37, he's clearly acting in good faith, but a combination of factors (poor English and a refusal to talk, sheer volume of nonsense articles) makes this case worthy of your attention. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. His articles are not nonsense (for instance, Israel–Romania relations is perfectly intelligible), and we don't sanction people just for being incompetent or writing incomplete articles, but it seems that the problem is that his articles are generally not notable. Could you please give me links to more AfDs of the Peru-Romania type and a diff of him being warned to stop creating them or else he will be blocked? If he continues to create such articles despite a clear warning, I'll block him. Sandstein 08:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, the Peru-Romania one is the only one AfD'd so far, and while I've warned him in the past, it's been quite a while. I'll nominate a bunch for deletion and, provided they're deleted, will then leave him a message. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Study skills

Ok. Fair enough. I'll heed your advice, and refrain from such early closures in the future. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, unblock on hold from weeks ago

Hey, you put this guy: [1] on hold for an unblock request over 2 weeks ago. Could you either resolve it somehow or do something? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Sandstein 07:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NO, thank YOU... :) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

hello, doesn't Sandstein go against the rule I before E. It sounds german. Also weird is the same way, its weird. Thy Wall (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I heard It was german for sandstone. If not, it still sounds german. David the Dogman (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Sandstein is the German word for Sandstone. Sandstein 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Request clarification

Hello, Sandstein. I am requesting clarification of your comments on ANI here: [2] ie "Please specify the arbitration remedy or arbitration-based sanction that you think this is in violation of." I am new at this business of making reports to higher-ups but I think this one deserving. Looking at the section on discretionary sanctions: "... with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. " Also: " Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators." Mostly my thinking was that accusations of this type "poison the atmosphere" and make it difficult to collaborate. If one was to re-submit under these grounds, would that address your concerns? Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

These comments were not made on ANI, but on AE. AE requires reports to be submitted in the format described at WP:AE#Using this page. I'm sorry, but your report above does not include the information specified there. Sandstein 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to look at my own article ban under the I-P sanctions here [3] and explain if you would if that one was correctly submitted at this board as well? I am trying to understand the difference. Thanks very much. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was not, but it seems the enforcing administrators were still able to process it, probably because they were familiar with the case at issue. Sandstein 21:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

request

For Morton to be placed in my sandbox ("wpdeadline" might be a nice name) so when he gets in the papers, material can be aded. Thabnks! Collect (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll userfy the article once you find new material on him, but until then, there's no point in having an unneeded WP:BLP hanging around. Sandstein 08:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few cites were deleted already -- I wish to ensure that no one blanks/salts the article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The article Morton Brilliant is already deleted. What do you mean? Sandstein 09:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, admins can delete-delete articles so they are not recoverable -- am I wrong in what I had understood? Collect (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no such admin capability, but see WP:OVERSIGHT. Sandstein 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

possible fallout from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination)

User:Collect, who seems to have taken my AFD nomination personally, has followed me to BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant, an article he never participated in before the AFD closed, where he's pointedly disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. If there's nothing to be done about it, there's nothing to be done about it, and I'll just leave the page to avoid the tsuris of dealing with him, but it sure seems like WP:HOUND to me. THF (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I ask you to redact this charge -- I happen to follow Politics (there was a new RfC on the article) (gosh -- didn't you look at my contribs before accusing me?) and what's more I SUPPORT you on the Oscar Grant article. (saying I disagreed with him on Oscar Grant is absurd) Gosh -- why call a person who supports your position a stalker? Collect (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, what do you want me to do? Sandstein 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. Collect has persuaded me of his good faith, and I apologize to him. THF (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Roblox Deletion

Hello,

You deleted the Roblox page back in June of 2008. The page is also protected against any new articles. Since the deletion several articles have been written about Roblox that could be used to support its notability. I don't want the old article to be put back up, but I would like to be able to write a new one.

Tysondude (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)tysondude

Please create an adequately sourced stub article at User:Tysondude/Roblox and we'll see. Sandstein 06:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I added the article, please let me know what you think.

Tysondude (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Tysondude

Good work, though I am unpersuaded that the level of coverage by independent, reliable sources rises to the level of WP:N. I recommend that you submit your draft to WP:DRV and ask for a community consensus to restore the article. Sandstein 06:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for ROBLOX

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Roblox. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tysondude (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Tysondude

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

I noticed that you have recently used this enforcement against an editor. Would you please define more precisely what you consider to be "pages related to Armenia and Azerbaijan". Does "related to" mean something different than simply "about" or "concerning". For example, would you consider an article about the South Ossetia war involving Georgia but containing no material mentioning Azerbaijan or Armenia, to be "related to Armenia and Azerbaijan" because Georgia is located next to Armenia and Azerbaijan and edits to the article could thus fall under the remedies of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2? Meowy 17:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Sandstein 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that "related to" must be limited to "about" or "concerning"? Meowy 22:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but broadly interpreted; generally, anything related to the area of conflict as outlined in the RfAr. Sandstein 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But what is the "area of conflict"? It is not defined. Is it a geographical area? Is it a subject-matter area? Or is it both. Would an article, say, about an iron-age culture within the Caucasus (and in which Armenia or Azerbaijan is not mentioned) be "related to the area of conflict" because it occupied a geographical region now occupied by Armenia or Azerbaijan. Or would an article about Kurds in Turkey (and again in which Armenia or Azerbaijan is not mentioned) be "related to the area of conflict" because Turkey is located next to Armenia or because Turks and Kurds have had past influence on Armenian and Azerbaijani history. Sorry if this seems overly pedantic! Meowy 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is the purpose of this line of questioning? Sandstein 06:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am wanting to know what you think is meant by the words "related to" and "area of conflict"? Shortly after the original AA2 Remedies and Enforcement were drawn up I asked the editor who did the drafting of it to clarify these points. I did not get the clarification. I also asked the 6 or so persons who decided on the remedies to clarify it. None of them did, and only two replied, one said something like "we seem to have messed up there" (but the "mess" was never fixed), the other just said that he was happy about the wording. Meowy 17:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any point in discussing this here, absent any actual controversy over this remedy's application. I assume we will consider the area of conflict to be established in analogy to later arbitration cases, such as the Israel-Palestine case. Sandstein 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are the admin. to have most recently applied the AA2 restrictions, so I had hoped that you would be able to express an opinion and try to define what you consider should fall under "related to" and "area of conflict". Meowy 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

AnnHelen unblock

Hi! I agree that her reasoning sounds plausible and I've unblocked the account. Thanks much for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ukufwakfgr

Hi, thanks for reviewing the block request at Ukufwakfgr's page. I saw that you'd protected the talkpage because he was abusing the unblock template. I concur with your action, but I did take the liberty of decreasing the length of protection, since it was lasting longer than his block. So everything should be okay now, since his block has expired and his talkpage is now unprotected as well. Normally I'd check with another admin before reversing one of their actions, but this seemed straightforward enough. I did want to let you know though. I hope Ukufwakfgr will now take advantage of his unblocked status, and that further action will not be necessary! --El on ka 18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Recent contribs to ANI suggest otherwise, unfortunately. Sandstein 21:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

A thread which may concern you has been started here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin abuse of tools. best, –xeno (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dy yol

The block was justifiable. He was in a clear content dispute and was not reverting vandalism of any kind (obvious or not). I could unblock him if he stays away from the article for 31 hours, but other than that, I don't see anything wrong with a standard 3RR block. Khoi khoi 20:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that I didn't see a clear promise not to continue edit warring. The user actually seems to think that they were fighting vandalism (although not obvious, some form of it nonetheless). If I get a promise on Dy yol's part to stop edit warring and stay away from the article until the 31 hours is up I can unblock. Khoi khoi 21:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yezidi kindly unprotect and add section on the Indian origin of the Yezidi faith

I Yogesh Khandke had requested to revoke edit protect for Yezidi or to include section Indian origin of the Yezidi faith, there has been a syntax or procedural error in the composition of the request as you as an administrator have remarked. I am trying to understand the error and will try to modify the request accordingly.

To see the discussion kindly check the following links, as a summary the views are:

Content arguments collapsed by Sandstein

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In favour of non-inclusion Ogress the sources are not to the standards of Wikipedia.

In favour of inclusion Yogesh Khandke Verifiable sources carry a strong bias against the Yezidi like calling them devil worshippers, there is a fresh understanding of the faith and it should be reflected in the Yezidi wikipedia page.

Hi. To request an edit to this protected page, you don't need to convince me. You need to obtain consensus on the talk page, and then you may make a request describing what should be changed. See WP:PER. Sandstein 07:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look at WP:PER. You are right, that my edit request is not as per norms and so you are not looking into it. I wonder though aren't there similar norms for going for edit protect, it looks like in the persent case edit protect is used as a stick (by the requesting user) who is more Wikipedia savy to beat some one who is not without merit of the actual case.

In real life something like this happens, consider the situation; I know the law, I am familiar with the police, and I have an argument with you, what I do is I beat you and then lodge a complaint against you which is then accepted as I am an expert on this, when you, my victim go to the cops to lodge a complaint, you there find that you are the accused in the first place as I have beaten you to the post, and there are loads of paper work and procedures to follow, and you are in a difficult position including your collar in the rough palm of a burly cop. (Just a little joke, don't take it personally)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! But the status quo, that is write protection is not a consensus as it does not reflect an agreement or representation of both sides, actually history and archeology is more about speculation (the scholars call it interpretation) than any thing, there are a few theories about the Yezidis which find place in the article including devil worshipping which has 13 instances of appearance, the Indian origin theory looks no worse to me as an Indian. The Bene Israel were first recognised because their practices were found familiar by other Jews. I claim no other expert knowledge which anyways is not a criteria for posting(?), the article is almost entirely made up of quotations which are referenced, including those from Yezidis of some standing. The edit protect is a verdict against the Indian origin theory, a verdict from you as you are the protect administrator, so I request you to reconsider the write protection and/or include the section on the Indian origin of the Yezidis. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, admins don't make content decisions. What you need to do is come to an agreement with other editors on the talk page. Once you agree what the article should say, you can request unprotection at WP:RPP. See also WP:CONSENSUS for general information. Sandstein 06:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Jin Moon

I see you closed this as Merge to True Family, but it appears that nothing has been added from Young Jin Moon to the article True Family ? Cirt (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just closed the AfD. The actual merger can be done by any editor. Sandstein 09:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you perform the merge, as closing admin? Cirt (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. Sandstein 09:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban/Arbitration Request

Re: topic ban Prem Rawat [[4]]

As my user name has been placed at [[5]] I'd appreciate your acknowledgment that my participation there prior to 21/02/09 would not be in breach of the enforcement.

Thanks, --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RFAR on Prem Rawat

Hi, the Prem Rawat issues at AE have moved to RFAR. Bainer suggested inviting the uninvolved admins to comment. The thread is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem_Rawat_2; your input is welcome. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Moorhuhn

Hi. I've nominated Moorhuhn, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. My hook calls for reference(s) for Moorhuhn being "an advertisement for Johnnie Walker whisky in 1999..." May I ask that footnote(s) be added there, please? Alt. hooks are also welcome. Thanks, PFHLai (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Sandstein 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein, for your quick response. --PFHLai (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Armand Bombardier

Hello, I was just looking up Bombardier on wikipedia, and discovered how bad the page really is. The Page talks about one of Canada's most famous inventors, yet it is unorganized, holds no information about his family life, and has no references. I have started a user sub page where I am trying to recreate the article. I was wondering if there is anything else that can be done to get a good article as soon as possible. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! WP:1ST has a number of suggestions about what you can do to make an article better. The best thing you can do would be to get hold of a reliable source about Bombardier's life, which you will need for providing the article with citations. Sandstein 06:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Article

Hey Sandstein, the Moorhuhn article seems very advertorial to me. Is there a reason to have so many images of the different games and a whole section listing all the games sourced to the publisher? It doesn't seem like that stuff belongs in an encyclopedia. Let me know what you think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add all these images and do not object to their removal; one image should suffice. With respect to the list, I think that an article about a game series should have a list of all the games, and a primary source such as the publisher seems to be adequate for such uncontroversial information. Sandstein 06:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the reply. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for inappropriate use of Block review template

Hi Sandstein, just wanted to apologize for mis-using the block review template yesterday. I was being blocked but as I wanted to notify and ask another editor about another action I wanted to take, that was the only way I thought I could do so. Everything is clarified now, and I'm really sorry you got dragged into it. No hard feelings? Zhanzhao (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. Thanks for your message, Sandstein 06:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow

I think you set his expire time equal to the point in time where he was blocked earlier, i.e. it would already be expired. Or am I misunderstanding? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I've fixed that. Sandstein 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists

I believe that you said that you would be willing to act as a neutral admin on this article. Perhaps you could take a look, if you wouldn't mind. Despite much discussion and explanation over a very long period of time User:AzureFury continues to edit in a troublesome fashion: he shows in my view clear signs of a disruptive editor including edit warring, refusing to accept consensus, ownership etc. Thanks very much. --Slp1 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I was an atheist for awhile, but I gave it up. No holidays. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What I'm mainly seeing is an edit war, and edit wars are generally not the fault of one individual editor. Action taken. Sandstein 07:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think if you look again, you'll see that one editor has been arguing against the policy-driven arguments of multiple (10+) editors for more than a month, ignoring polls, etc and even suggesting that WP:IAR be invoked to allow some of the disputed material be included.[6] The situation is muddied by the occasional appearance of User:Zorodius when AzureFury is reaching the 3RR limit. Meatpuppet? Certainly, AF's first ever edit was to support Zorodius on a page Z was actively editing at the time,[7], and interestingly AF immediately denies that s/he and Z are the same person, though with wording that suggests knowledge of Z's motivations.[8]. And Z has also appeared out of nowhere to help AF during other edit wars: see November 17 on here [9]--Slp1 (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, admins don't intervene, in their admin capacity, in content disputes, and if you say that AzureFury is "arguing against the policy-driven arguments of multiple (10+) editors", then we are still looking at a content dispute, not an actionable conduct issue. Meatpuppet investigations are best handled at WP:SOCK. What action would you like me to take? Sandstein 18:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't admins intervene against long-standing disruptive, tendentious editing against consensus and against policy? This editor has already been blocked twice for edit warring on this very article and continues to use the same approach, restoring disputed (often original research) material repeatedly despite the opinion of multiple other editors that it is not appropriate. What would I like you to do? Watch carefully? Give out some official sounding warnings and then block if appropriate? I leave it up to you. --Slp1 (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look once I have time. Sandstein 06:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Moorhuhn

On February 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moorhuhn, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Swiss Pass

Just wanted to give you a heads up: [10]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Sandstein 06:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bahjat Muhyedeen

Hello Sandstein: You have marked two of my pages for deletion, I believe the biggest concern you have is that my user name Hegaldi is in fact the Professor. This is not the case, I am English and live in England. I am the publisher of the article on Prof. Bahjat Muhyedeen. I have edited the article on the Professor in a manner that I trust will now be acceptable. The other page, Frequenton-Photon, is now marked for "rescue", with some minor edits carried by others. Please can you communicate your thoughts if it is acceptable in it's current format as I had a more radical edit now ready for uploading. Thank you. Hegaldi (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Both pages still don't establish the notability of their subjects, per our guideline WP:N. Sandstein 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was awaiting your comments before publishing the edit made to Frequenton-Photon. Reading your comment on waking I went directly to the page to publish the rewrite as suggested by those who voted to "keep" only to find the page deleted early. I trust the same will not happen with the other page before I have time to rewrite. This is a Professor who has put forward original work that should be of interest to other senior academics as well as the general public. As an encyclopedia, I would suggest worthy of entry - but accept that I have a bit to learn on the way to write in this environment. Thank you. Hegaldi (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Chimpanzee

Feel perfectly free to remove my editing rights; I was lazy to have just deleted the whole passage, but the fact is that that whole portion of the chimpanzee page that I removed is quite disgraceful. It is entirely lacking a neutral point of view. Every citation is taken from the same 2 pages of one book, and the author clearly has a bias against treating chimps as "childlike companions" in "limited roles" on television. The fact is, chimps are not human, but in fact very much childlike, and the roles they can play are very limited. Some of this television is described as "timeworn, low comedy" and suggests that the chimps are "amusing as chimpanzees and not as individuals". Can you honestly claim that this is at all neutral? I will not delete the section again, but I will be editing it thoroughly. Headbeater (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's from an academic book about science in popular culture; a reliable source. The author treats the coverage of various subjects in culture and I don't believe he has a particular agenda against chimpanzees. You are free to disagree with him, of course, but you are not free to replace the section with your own opinions; that would be original research. Any additions you make must likewise reflect opinions expressed by someone else in a reliable source. OK? Sandstein 06:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to continue to discuss this, I suggest we copy this thread to Talk:Chimpanzee so that others can weigh in. Sandstein 06:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Where?

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Ongoing_DRVs Ikip (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived now, I guess. Sandstein 12:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya

Hi mate, i was just wandering; do you know sarekofvulcan? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushey001 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I know he is a Wikipedia editor. Sandstein 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel-Switzerland

Thanks for clearly that up. You can see I was doing a large number for a certain user. While I didn't look anything up for this particular one, the link to History of the Jews in Switzerland should have been an indicator. Sorry. Grsz¹¹ 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the message. Sandstein 22:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)