User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/September

Darryl Foster

Hi Sandstein! Foster had one solid source, Augusta Chronicle, and 2 sources referred to as not neutral: Lifesitenews and Charisma. Which is debateable. Anyway I just found another solid source: Tri-state. One more and Foster will pass WP:BASIC, and with recent attention on ex-gay issues thanks to Marcus Bachmanm, that source could come any day. I'd like to have the article restored to the WikiProject Conservatism incubator here. It's within the scope: Foster is referred to as a "conservative blogger" by Tri State. Thanks!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 06:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Darryl Foster.  Sandstein  21:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 08:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Add. Undo: the lead is not the place to give these views WP:UNDUE weight; poor references; poor grammar and reference formatting

Pls. explain at article talk page your undo in detail. I opened a topic there devoted to your undo. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Dear Sandstein, Hurricane Irene has come and gone and after five days of no power, life is back to normal -- whatever that is. I just want to take the time to thank you for "saving" my bio and for your recommendations -- all of which I will faithfully follow. Toward that end, I have scanned a variety of documentation/verifications of my life and already e-mailed some to Killiandude, as file attachments, to find out if any of them will fit the necessary criteria. If I should also send the same to you, or any other administrator, please do let me know. All I'll need is an e-address which can accomodate file attachments. Hope I signed this correctly!!! Best Wishes, Peggy Adler User Bxzooo 16:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

NORN

Not sure if you saw, but I responded to your post there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Dutch-type cheese listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dutch-type cheese. Since you had some involvement with the Dutch-type cheese redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Augurar (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Neofeudalism

Erp! You've relisted 'Neofeudalism' twice. Dru of Id (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thanks; fixed now.  Sandstein  06:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Help usurp username in German Wikipedia

Hello Sandstein. I want to ask for your assistance if you could help usurp an account for me at the German Wikipedia. Currently, I wish to create a global SUL account under the target name "User:A7x". On most Wikimedia projects, I edit under the pseudonym "A7x", and I've been wanting to unify my account for a long time, but there seems to be a few issues. According to the SUL collision detector, there is another account at the German Wikipedia with the name "A7x" that was not created by me. I wish to usurp the account, however I'm not very good at understanding or reading the German language. By the way if you want to verify my request, I have my own wiki-matrix at Meta which is a list of all active and discontinued accounts that were created by, and belong to me. A few years ago, I created an account with the nickname "Snake311". That account has only one counted edit and has been left inactive, but I still hold ownership of that account, and remember its password.

Anyways, I want to ask if you could file a usurpation/rename request, Snake311 → A7x, to the German bureaucrats on behalf of me, since I can't read German, regarding my request for usurpation. I really need help on this so I can unify all my accounts; it has been a tedious task so far. Your cooperation would be very much appreciated. Best regards, —Terrence and Phillip 07:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to help you, but I think what you request is not possible under the rules of the German Wikipedia. Their page de:Wikipedia:Benutzernamen ändern/Benutzernamens-Übernahme says that accounts that are to be usurped must have zero contributions, whereas the account de:Benutzer:A7x has one contribution. Do you want me to make the request regardless?  Sandstein  07:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hoping that they could make an exception. If you or any admin on the German Wikipedia deleted that one edit, would it then be qualified for usurpation? —Terrence and Phillip 08:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I've nonetheless forwarded your request to de:Wikipedia:Benutzernamen ändern/Benutzernamens-Übernahme#A7x ← Snake311. Please confirm there with your "Snake311" account, in English, below my post, that you have made that usurpation request.  Sandstein  08:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid my request at the German Wikipedia has been declined, which is somewhat disappointing. However I just wanted to re-clarify that my motive is to unify all my existing accounts into "User:A7x" before merging them to prevent SUL conflicts. Just recently, I got my username here changed from "TerrenceandPhillip" to A7x, thanks to a helping hand from Xeno. Cheers, —stay (sic)! 10:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

University of Metaphysical Sciences

Hello, Why does the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Metaphysical_Sciences have to be on the University of Metaphysical Sciences page where there is no article now? if the article is deleted, does this negative conversation have to be there that was solely my conversation with others? The university never asked me to write an article, I do not represent the university of have anything to do with them, and now a negative conversation I had about putting an article there with attack from other editors is forever a bad reflection on the school that I am solely responsible for, not them. I had that one and three other articles I was going to give to Wiki, but after that experience I won't be doing any more articles here. However, now this conversation I had with people about the deletion of the page is there forever, and I do not represent the school, nor do I even know them and it is unfair to them that all that is left there is the negative conversation I had about the article with others who had no desire to see an article there about the school.

I am really disappointed that my moments of frustration are forever a reflection on that school, and they are pretty upset about it too because they have purposely never put an article there after seeing what happened to the last person who tried to. They would have preferred that no one write an article about them at all, and they knew it would probably be deleted, but now there is just this really negative conversation left and that is all. I saw that someone else who wrote an article long ago, someone who had access to it posted it in the conversation, I guess you file them somewhere that's not public viewing, and that was a negative conversation too I see, but that one is not publicly there to be detrimental to the school. I think that would be more fair. If an article is deleted, the conversation about it should go too.

Anyway, I would ask that you please put the deletion conversation wherever the other deletion conversation is that is not in public view, because I have ended up creating harm to the school rather than did anything constructive for wiki, which was my purpose. I don't see why that conversation has to be there if the article itself is not there.

Also, for what it's worth, you deleted the article before it had time to mature, because the stuff that was noteworthy wasn't put there until the last day, and even one user changed his vote after it was put there, but he's the only one who got to see it before it got deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalina Z (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Oops, forgot to sign Catalina Z (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Catalina Z

I have hidden the deletion discussion from public view. There's nothing more that I can do.  Sandstein  20:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Help with disruptive user caught redhanded falsifying sources

The outleen with diffs and links showing how he was caught is here: [1]. Just in case, a checkuser to see if this is one of the dozens of banned User:Loosmark's sockpuppets might be helpful. But this deliberate serious action deserves a response on its own. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

---

I wonder. What is more actionable from the WP:ANI standpoint? Militant ethnic nationalism based on blatantly hostile sources, or the groundless personal attacks coupled with baseless accusations meant to discredit my attempts at curtailing this sort of propaganda? Please tell me if filing the WP:ANI report would be a proper response, or should I try to address this issue some other way? Much appreciated. — FoliesTrévise (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser, sorry, you'd have to ask WP:SPI. Apart from that, I'm not in a position to tell who's right in this dispute, which seems to be mainly a content dispute gone sour. I recommend that both of you read WP:DIGWUREN#Principles and WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, and then follow the procedure described in WP:DR to resolve your dispute.  Sandstein  06:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I will go to SPI. However I will note that his behavior was not about content but about blatantly falsifying what the reference stated - the referenced article said one thing, he changed the article to make it falsely look like it said the opposite by adding stuff that wasn't in the referenced article. This is very wrong regardless of content.Faustian (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS

Just because I'm just "an IP" and not some registered self-entitled Wikipedian does NOT make my arguments any less weighted or acceptable. Your recent closure of the debate concerning the article Common Dead is totally unwarranted and preemptive. The discussion had only two participants on opposing sides but as soon as one additional stepped in to (barely) tip the scale, you closed it with what little power you have on this website. Unbelievable. For shame, "Sandstein", for a shameless demonstration of an authority complex, as limited and futile as it is. You give Wikipedians a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.199.156 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You had NOT allowed fair time and number of debate participants to properly explore the sources regarding the subject Common Dead. Had you done that, the taint of misinformation regarding the sources on the subject would have be realized and the article is PROVEN to meet the minimal standards via WP:Music. Even previous challengers who at one time doubted sources have visibly changed in favor of the article's restoration. At least half a dozen band pages I've had to defend have faced this exact situation -- a legitimate artist or band blocked from Wikipedia not for lack of requirements, but due to obscurity in the eyes of Wikipedians on a deletion high, like you. There is always a guy like you making frenetic choices on Wikiepdia, damaging and limiting the site as a whole in exchange for an ego boost. You likely laugh at my scolding, and yet nothing is closer to truth. 66.131.199.156 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  18:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, you're so full of it. You know exactly where and what I'm talking about. And if you really don't, it's just support to the "deletion high" remark I made about you; you do so many you can't even keep track in recent memory. From here on out, I really don't have an interest in talking with you anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_13 66.131.199.156 (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Horn

I will WP:DRV Levi Horn if you don't want to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Horn. He made the practice squad, which should be considered sufficient to have a page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's not for me as the closer to determine. What's relevant for the closure is that consensus in the discussion said otherwise, and I have to follow it.  Sandstein  06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

DRV says to notify the closing admin of my intentions. Consider yourself notified. I will proceed with opening the DRV today.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I need the article userfied for a proper DRV. I will ask at WP:AN or you can restore it somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Request also posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Levi_Horn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 14.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Time Unit

You did not provide sufficient Deletion Reasons These Are Needed Due to the protected status of the review page Please Provide Reason's --Rancalred (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason for closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 8#Nuclear Time Unit (closed) as endorsing the article's deletion is that there was consensus among the participants in the discussion to do so.  Sandstein  19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It Was Proteced so there couldn't have been a consensus --Rancalred (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 8 was never protected.  Sandstein  22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thoughtless Deletions

I am one who is outraged by the thoughtless deletion of many hours of hard work. In particular, the recent deletion of the Comparison of CECB Units is unacceptable. Here are my primary concerns:

1. You failed to give us clear warning of your draconian measures. I just learned about it today, and never once received email notification that you or anyone else was considering such a thoughtless and insensitive move.

2. That article still had relevent information of units still available for purchase. The need for this information does not stop, as it is forever required by the actions taken by government.

3. It is rude to erase so much hard work.

Your actions are unacceptable.

Put things back like they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KitchM (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No article entitled Comparison of CECB Units has existed. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  21:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Kokondo deletion

Hi Sandstein - I wanted to ask your rationale for closing the debate on the Kokondo deletion. It seemed to me that we were at a point where we had two users, Janggeom and Papaursa, who believed the article did not meet notability criteria after I provided additional sources. We also had one user, S Marshall, who believed that it did meet criteria and the notability rules were not being interpreted properly. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it seems like it was 2-2 at that point (if you include me). Your comments on closing the discussion were that restoration of the article was only favored by a minority of the participants. I don't believe that is true. I would echo the argument made by S Marshall that the notability requirement is not meant to purge Wikipedia of informative articles that are written in good faith. No one has argued that this article is anything but that. The sole argument has been that not a lot of people care about Kokondo. I think that if you are going to delete an article, there should be a higher bar than what has been set. I believe Wikipedia is stronger by having that article restored. NJG302 (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can you please provide links to the discussion and article? See WP:GRA. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_10

Please note the comment at the end from Cunard. I believe that that user had confusion about one of the sources and did not realize that Jukido Jujitsu is part of the system called Kokondo and so the Palm Coast Observer article actually was focused on the Kokondo system. (The other part of the Kokondo system is Kokondo Karate). I am attempting to clarify on his user page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cunard#Kokondo_deletion_.E2.80.93_Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2011_September_10

If Cunard is convinced that this is a valid second source, I believe he/she might also be in favor of restoring the article. Worst case, I would like to be able to edit and improve the article privately and then attempt to relist at a later date. NJG302 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

At deletion review, a deletion is overturned only if there is clear consensus for doing so. In the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 10, such consensus is not present. Five contributors endorsed the deletion, while two (you and S Marshall) opposed it. I have no opinion about whether the deletion was correct, but as deletion review closer, any opinion that I might have about that does not matter: my job is limited to ascertaining whether there is a consensus to overturn the closure of the deletion discussion. For these reasons, there are no grounds that would justify restoring the article.  Sandstein  18:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your rationale. Please note that the deletion discussion had a great deal of back and forth and in response to requests of the editors, I provided a number of additional sources to establish notability. The majority of the deletion endorsements came before I provided this additional evidence. Would you consider moving the article to a space where I may edit it and add these additional sources and then submit the article for consideration again at a later time? NJG302 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, userfied to User:NJG302/Kokondō.  Sandstein  07:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Common Dead

Sandstein, would you move Common Dead to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator? See the discusison at User talk:Cunard#Debate preemptively shut down. Ridiculous. – Common Dead and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Y OK, done.  Sandstein  09:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. Cunard (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus not reached?

Hi. You closed this vote saying consensus not reached. I certainly agree that there was no consensus if you counted votes. However, according to the relevant Wikipedia guideline, consensus of voters is determined by "evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions". May I ask which opposing arguments you saw in the discussion that balance the arguments of support, basicly, another name is now more common? Filanca (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Most participants agreed that the article should carry the most common name used in modern English-language sources. That is the correct standard according to applicable policies and guidelines, and as the closer I had to disregard any opinion not based on this standard, such as "use name X because it sounds better" or "use name Y because it is the local name". However, there were only a few such invalid opinions, such as that by Tachfin. Rather, the principal disagreement was which name was the most common name in English-language sources, and that is not something which I as the closer can impose my own opinion about (if I had any). People can in good faith, using different and equally valid methodologies, come to different conclusions about this matter of fact. And if - as here - there is no consensus about it, I have to respect that rather than impose my own preference about which google-count method should be used.  Sandstein  10:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I wonder what would happen if people not usually involved in this issue looked at the arguments offered. But maybe the discussion is long enough to discurage other users' involvement. Filanca (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Most contributors (including me) probably don't consider such issues important enough to engage in the extensive research that is needed to resolve them. Unfortunately, the people who do often appear to be motivated by non-neutral motives, such as nationalism, which taints the discussions. We don't have any better method, unfortunately.  Sandstein  12:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

Regarding RfC and RM at Tree shaping: you mention the RfC in your comment, but just to be clear: there is an older RfC, and then an RM. The !votes in the RM are 9 to 6, as you say, but I think everyone agrees that the current name "tree shaping" is not acceptable (mostly because it is too vague and could mean topiary which is an entirely different thing). The two alternatives that are more-or-less agreed on are either "Arborsculpture" or "some descriptive phrase", but there is no real consensus on what the latter should be. I guess what I'm trying to say is that leaving it alone as "no consensus" is suboptimal: nearly everyone agrees the current title is pretty poor. Someone (you :-) just needs to pick one of the alternatives. (PS: Im an uninvolved editor who is participating because I noticed it via the RfC page). --Noleander (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, in the end you did not close this discussion but another admin did. Do you know why this was? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Because they were faster than I to do so, I assume. I don't object.  Sandstein  18:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, Vegaswikian reversed themselves and re-opened the RM. So could you please take another look? Thanks, --Elonka 19:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done so, and left my opinion on the talk apge.  Sandstein  21:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

On Mohammed Schools Of Atlanta

Hello, Sandstein. I created Mohammed Schools (Georgia)

There used to be an article at "Mohammed Schools of Atlanta" but it was AFD deleted due to lack of sources Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Schools of Atlanta

I had created a new article from the ground up at Mohammed Schools (Georgia) and cited sources (from the AJC) there. The users at the old AFD did not find (and apparently did not attempt to find, based on what was not written on the AFD) sources related to the subject.

After I saw Wikipedia:DRV#Jarrett_Lee_.28closed.29 I had a question. When somebody finds new sources that make a topic notable, do you believe it is necessary for someone to contact DRV and notify it that a topic is now notable, or do you not believe that to be the case? I had the impression that there was no need to contact DRV in a case like this.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary. If the concerns that led to deletion in the earlier AfD are clearly resolved, the article can just be recreated. If you are unsure, you can go to DRV to prevent speedy deletion or a new AfD nomination.  Sandstein  18:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)