User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/April

1st April....

Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2012. Nothing special... What´s wrong?--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by that? Is there something you would like me to do?  Sandstein  09:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong... why did you spam warnings on Tenpoundhammers page? That what he did is nothing special... at least on April the 1st.--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing problematic... unlike that.--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against fun, as long as it does not distract readers or create unnecessary work for others, which is what the nominations at issue did. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground.  Sandstein  09:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein, humorous AFD nominations on April 1 is a long-running tradition on Wikipedia. If you don't want to do the maintenance work for them, then leave them alone and let others, but stop spamming warnings, making block threats, and closing off the AFDs before April 1 has run its course. —Lowellian (reply) 10:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it does appear that each year some people think that they need to demonstrate how funny they are by nominating random stuff for random things for inane reasons. If, as it seems, some believe that these people should have a right to do so, then I've at least as much of a right to tell them that they should stop it because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a playground.  Sandstein  10:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, who pissed in your cereal today? We're not harming the project, just having fun. And God forbid anyone should ever have fun. Oh no, we should be dead stone serious 24/7. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When you put AfD tags on real articles, for which no reason for deletion exists, you are wilfully degrading the quality of the encyclopedia. I don't call that fun, I call it vandalism.  Sandstein  17:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting the tags in articles is not a good idea.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but all of the jokers who thought this was a good idea did put an AfD tag in mainspace. I just removed it from Physics. And one other guy nominated an article about a living person for deletion, leaving insulting comments.  Sandstein  18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry for my "comments." But I'll have to agree with TPH, you will need to find your sense of humor. That's not even funny. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And I understand that the fun went a little bit out of hand, but in the future, before making block threats and spamming warnings on user talk pages, please think of all the contributors you will be driving off. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 20:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page.  Sandstein  20:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (3rd nomination)

In your closing statement, you cited WP:BURDEN. I'm confused by that. My reading of BURDEN is that it only applies to editors who add content to the mainspace, and not to editors who express a "keep" opinion in an AfD discussion. However, it sounds to me like you were saying that "keep" comments in an AfD are invalid unless the editor also fixes everything that has been discussed about the page, regardless of whether those things could be fixed following the AfD. Do I misunderstand? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said, or at any rate not what I meant. What I meant to say is that "keep" arguments along the lines of "I have improved it by using source X" are stronger than "keep" arguments along the lines of "it could be improved by using source X" and these are in turn stronger than "keep" arguments along the lines of "it could conceivably be improved somehow". These are not necessarily invalid, just not very persuasive compared to the other ones I mentioned.  Sandstein  18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK, thanks, that's much clearer. Let me ask you, then, how you would feel about bringing the list back at some time (not necessarily right away) with good sourcing. I say this because I'm pretty much convinced that no one in the AfD showed that such sourcing does not exist, only that such sourcing hadn't been provided yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that if the members of the list are sourced as atheists, especially the still-living ones, and if there is a reliable source that addresses the topic of atheist Nobel laurates, there should be no problem with restoring the list.  Sandstein  19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That clears up all of my questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Larry Tatum Page Deleted?

I am Grandmaster Larry Tatum's daughter wondering why his page was deleted? I am currently revamping some of our media and Web copy. Thanks for the info. (YogaBritt (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC))

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  05:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My Ears Are Burning...

[1]. Singling me out for the WP:NOTAVOTE essay, eh? Maybe I should have said "SNOW" - duh. When you want to get verbose in a deletion decision, focus on the content, not the contributors. Cheers, Sandstein... Doc talk 03:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to discomfort you, but it's my habit in complicated closures to explain which opinions I disregard and why.  Sandstein  06:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem! Saying "I've discounted the SPA votes, the ivotes, etc. ..." without actually naming anyone specifically tends to lessen the potential for drama, usually, from what I've seen. Sorry if I was a bit brusque. :> Doc talk 06:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Undelete article Journal of the European Royal Society (JERSY)

You confused unproven personal opinions in the delete debate for a proof to delete. The article actually meets WP:NJournals guideline to the letter, and it is in the spirit of an encyclopedia as well. The subject of the article is a properly registered journal of a historic value according to WP:NJournals. Also, the delete action was taken after exactly 7 days into the debate, which is the required minimum time. Why the hurry, besides the fuss on an article that meets the only relevant guideline? No real arguments to delete were offered other than insinuations and references to irrelevant guidelines. Please undelete or/and enable a routine undelete debate. 69.163.243.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC).

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  16:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not here to make it easier but to make it right. That said, the above request: is in English, is brief, does include necessary context, does comment on the content and not the contributor. So it complies with the guide to requesting assistance. Should you still insist on a link to an article you deleted just a few hours ago, then you are either mean or senile and this is pointless. 69.163.243.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC).

What I meant is, can you please link to the deletion discussion or to the article? (See also the box at the top of the page.)  Sandstein  06:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

ASMR

I was just wondering why you deleted the page about Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response, I experience this sensation and would just like to know why it wasn't fit for a wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.170.138 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you please link to the article or deletion discussion? 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  07:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Page icon

Hi Sandstein, When you get a chance, would you mind updating the little lock icon to use the full protection one rather than the move protection on on Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)? Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't normally bother with lock icons as they are purely cosmetic and 99% of readers and editors (me included) can't tell one color icon from another.  Sandstein  16:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"99% of readers and editors" ...Citation needed...68.81.76.1 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Undelete article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Reynolds_(politician)

Please undelete the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Reynolds_(politician)

This article has been deleted as part of an ongoing cyber-bullying campaign; one of the antagonist organisations behind this campaign even boast of this success on their website.

Previous installations in this campaign can be seen when looking through the history of this article where slanderous and defanatory edits have been made that were undone by other website viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.153.69 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the community decided to delete the article in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Reynolds (politician). What you say does not address the reasons advanced for deletion in that discussion, and so I cannot accede to your request.  Sandstein  20:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested action?

Hi there, as you have some history with the editors on the Prem Rawat article, I thought I would ask you my question, and skip having to fill in all the backstory to some other admin. In the last few hours, it seems that the usually tense atmosphere of the article's talk page has degraded past the point of acceptable, after 2000 words of discussion on a completely unnecessary point, I suggested asking RSN if Rumiton's source was reliable, he said that was a good idea, but he didn't like how I worded it, and on the Prem Rawat talk page he has now called my action "extremely stupid". He also stated that this was going to cause escalation, and right on cue Momento (who hasn't said a word in over 2 weeks) shows up and suggests I'm deliberately lying, even though it's all right there on the talk page. I'm not sure how to handle the situation. Do you have any suggestions? -- Maelefique^(talk) 08:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have the background knowledge or time to read all of Talk:Prem Rawat right now, sorry. All I can do is to refer you to the general advice at WP:DR and, if necessary, WP:AE - there are I believe arbitration sanctions applicable to this topic.  Sandstein  09:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC

Thank-you, the reminder about sanctions has given me a direction to go, I have filed my complaint here, and I fully appreciate that the Prem Rawat article has an inordinately skewed "value to Wikipedia/Time taken up by admins" ratio. :) -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement with deletion (A-fu Teng)

Hi, I disagree with the deletion of the article A-fu Teng. I'm the creator. Please review, while I may not have included enough references in a timely manner, a look at the corresponding Japanese/Chinese articles can yield many non-English references. If you revert the decision I can add the links in Chinese language quickly as references. Besides the English link provided is from a reputable source, a simple research will tell you it's from Chinese Television System, one of the largest media in Taiwan. It would be a shame if someone with 900 million fans (See this link from World Journal using a translator if you must: http://www.worldjournal.com/view/full_news/13327972/article-%E3%80%8C%E7%A6%8F%E3%80%8D%E9%9F%B3%E5%82%B3%E8%85%A6%E2%80%A6%E5%A5%B9%E8%AE%939%E5%84%84%E7%B6%B2%E5%8F%8B%E7%98%8B%E7%8B%82-?instance=tw_bull) cannot get an English wiki site because sources aren't in English. Wikipedia:Verifiability also doesn't say anything about non-English sources being non-notable. Just because one cannot find anything in English doesn't mean it's not notable. While I understand you are doing your job, I feel this is very lazy/disrespectful on your part. Had you Googled the Chinese name you will get over a million hits. That's hardly un-notable. If you can't read Chinese, and that's perfectly fine, you should leave the decision to a more qualified user/administrator. Timmyshin (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've restarted the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-fu Teng; you're welcome to make your argument there.  Sandstein  05:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Game of thrones

I meant to hit undo when I reverted your edit to the uncast characters, but accidentally hit rvv. Sorry about that, I in no way think that your edit was vandalism. I am about to leave a longer explanation on the talk page as to why I think we can't include uncast characters without a source to back it up. AIRcorn (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Freud and Sanger

You denied the edit request for Freud's views on masturbation to go into the article. But Kant's views are listed. So wouldn't it be similiar to put Freud's and Sanger's into either the history or philosophical viewpoints sections?--RJR3333 (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you please link to the discussion?  Sandstein  11:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Masturbation#Edit_request_on_8_April_2012--RJR3333 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have no opinion about the issue under discussion. My decline was purely procedural: Edits to protected page may only be made by consensus among all interested editors. Before making an edit request, you must establish that consensus on the talk page.

Your request is also rather confusing, so I wouldn't be able to implement it in any case. A request should contain the properly formatted text of the proposed addition and tell us where exactly that text should go.  Sandstein  17:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

uploading photos

Hi Sandstein... I was wondering about how uploading photos is handled. The only photo up on the page is a very old cassette cover of my top album. The person who posted the new info to my page didn't post any photos, and I'm wondering about the Wiki policy on that item. Appreciate your counsel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Demby Constancemary (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Constance Demby

Hi, there are interactive instructions at Commons:Special:UploadWizard. The general rules are at Wikipedia:Image use policy.  Sandstein  21:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Wikipedia is not recognizing my username Constancemary. Could have shifted somehow when the site was recently upgraded and expanded? I have been trying to sign in, but Wiki keeps stating that the username Constancemary does not exist. This is very confusing and I've never run into this ever before. Hope you can help me out. Thanks Constancemary (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Constance Demby

OK never mind, I have to get things sorted out here first, and get logged into wikipedia commons. And is it OK for me, Constance Demby, to add photos to my own site? I am still discovering how Wiki works. thanks Sandstein Constancemary (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Constance Demby

Well, generally, the advice at Wikipedia:Autobiography applies to that as well.  Sandstein  06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with deletion of SHPE de ASU

• SHPE de ASU · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

No evidence that this specific chapter is notable independent of the parent organisation - Whpq

I have supporting evidence from articles that SHPE de ASU is a notable independent of the parent organisation. It has made an effective impact on the schools and environment around it. High schools and middle schools are effected by the work that our student chapter does and the volunteering that we provide in the community, without it's support, some chapters would not be able to function.

The length of time an article has been on Wikipedia is not evidence for notability - Whpq

When an article is created, it must be reviewed before it can be submitted, how was this page approved if someone reviewed it and okayed it's full submission in 2007?

More specifically, what defines "notable"? This word has various meanings if official news articles with SHPE de ASU as its subject aren't enough to keep a page open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.83.63 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you please link to the Wikipedia article or discussion this concerns?  Sandstein  15:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have posted my concern on the talk section of article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SHPE_de_ASU#SHPE_de_ASU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowlight9 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Which I have removed as an edit to a closed discussion. Besides, it merely duplicated your original faulty argument. Articles that don't belong slip through the cracks for years. There is no pre-approval process as you seem to think. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So then what defines "notable" if official news articles with SHPE de ASU as its subject aren't enough to keep a page open? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.83.63 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

70.162.83.63, there is no review process prior to publication here. Rather, articles may be deleted if they do not meet our inclusion requirements, which are documented at WP:Notability. In short, they say that the subject of an article must be covered in reliable independent sources, because without such sources we have nothing to base the article's content on. Your argument that the school has made a certain impact on its environment is not relevant for the purpose of these inclusion rules.  Sandstein  21:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Larry Tatum

Hello,

New here, but I was just doing a little bit of browsing in Kenpo and other martial arts and saw that you were going to delete an article on "Larry Tatum".

Please reconsider. I'm not sure how to help, but I'd be happy to write the article on who he is (as much as I know and can gather), but he is pretty influential (or at one time) in the Martial Arts world.

http://www.ltatum.com/ http://www.tracyskarate.com/AmKenpo/Tatum.htm

but regardless, he should have his own page for this amazingly cheesy and wonderful gem of a film lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3wk28zI6Ik

Thanks

Spacekicker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacekicker (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you please link to the Wikipedia article or discussion?  Sandstein  22:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Tatum&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacekicker (talk • contribs) 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please read our rules for the inclusion of biographical articles at WP:BIO. To have an article, a person must be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources you provide for Larry Tatum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) do not meet that requirement. If you can find such sources, I recommend that you write a draft article and submit it to WP:AfC, where it will be checked. Or you can use Wikipedia:Article wizard to help you write the article.  Sandstein  05:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WT:V

I have a question for you at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Edit_request_on_27_March_2012. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epom

I see that this article was recently submitted and then proposed for deletion. Is there a way that I can get a copy of the article that was deleted? From the comments on the deletion page, it may be salvageable. I have been reading a little more on the company and depending on how weak the original article was, the additional content may make it worth saving. Please let me know if the original submission is salvageable. Also, please leave response on my talk page if possible. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's available at [2], but will expire in a day.  Sandstein  18:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Looks like a bullet list advertisement. May be more work than I thought. Any ideas or suggestions? --Morning277 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would need a complete rewrite to get rid of the PR-speak. And it was deleted for non-notability, which means that so as not to waste your effort you'll first need to find sources that satisfy WP:GNG. In general, that tends to be difficult for this type of company, per WP:B2B. For me, the effort would not be worth it, but your mileage may vary.  Sandstein  18:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I like to look for deleted content and see if there is a way to get it included in Wikipedia. Most people posting articles have no clue what is required (I am still learning as well) and if I can help them out I try to. This one is going to be a challenge. I will see how fast I get bored and give up on it. Thanks again for the archive. --Morning277 (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox - As an admin, do you have access to my sandbox? If so, please take a look. Whoever created the article went about it the wrong way. The company information is not that big (although enough for an article). What they do contribute looks like an integrated ad serving platform. I think what is needed here is to first update the Ad serving page with information on integrated and stand-alone platforms (maybe even enter a few more citations on that page as it is tagged for having lack of citations) and then re-post Epom. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The page User:Morning277/sandbox is accessible by all users. Unfortunately, I am not at all knowledgeable about or interested in the topic and so cannot offer advice, except that you should start by looking for the sources required by WP:GNG, or else all your work will be in vain because the article will not be restored.  Sandstein  14:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Understandable. Thanks again. --Morning277 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Base Yogas

I fear you have closed the Afd with the wrong decision. The community had reached a consensus to keep this article. Please read again more carefully. The two votes for delete has agreed that the article only needs to be renamed. I suggest transfering it to the title of Five elements of yoga. BO; talk 09:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. It is not true that the "delete" opinions agreed that the article only needs to be renamed, instead they said that it should be deleted because there are no reliable sources that satisfy WP:V. Your "keep" opinion was unpersuasive because it did not address the sourcing issue, i.e., it did not provide a citation of a source that describes the "Five Base Yogas" as they are described in the article.  Sandstein  10:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1. This article will need a rename, and much better sources if it's about 'five elements yoga.... - which it is positive if sourcing is improved
2. Yea, I'm fine with that. I haven't looked into 'five elements yoga' enough to know whether it warrants its own page, etc, I just looked enough to see that it's at least something which exists outside the confines of Wikipedia -- again positive
3. finally I had added a WP:RS to the article which you ignored but is germane to the sourcing issues. It pretty much corroborates all the other sources. BO; talk 17:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless these people recommended deletion based on the current sourcing status of the article. You are free to appeal the closure to WP:DRV.  Sandstein  17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again both on the facts and on the protocol.

1. The WP:V cure occured because of these comments and thus after they had been made - check the logs.
2. The only comment following the cure is positive.
3. Both the delete voters had expressed sentiments against verifing the sources adequately.
4. The mandate of the Afd recommends that the article quality be solved.
5. The statement you made refers to stating WP:V is the overriding policy. (which which I disagree) - is one that must also be respected by yourself, yet there was no WP:V problem when you closed the debate in opposition to the consensus.
6. You are therefore perpetuating a xenophobic mistake that has been pointed out and already remedied. It was your responsibility to check the facts and not only count votes I would rather spare you the embarrassment of having your decision overturned by some one else. BO; talk 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Five Base Yogas

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Five Base Yogas. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis. Robofish (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)