User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/June

AfD for Cwm Twrch transmitting station

Hi Sandstein. I know this sounds a bit pompous, but to my mind my late argument at WP:Articles for deletion/Cwm Twrch transmitting station trumps all the others (strength of argument not numbers of votes). Could you tell me why it doesn't? I really need to know what's wrong with this line of reasoning.  —SMALLJIM  18:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I'm almost inclined to agree and overturn my closure to deletion, but not quite. Certainly your arguments, and those of the "delete" side are substantially more convincing, and the "keep" opinions are much more weakly argued, in the light of our guidelines about notability and reliable sources. But "convincing" is not the same as "compelling", as an argument based on copyright or WP:BLP would be. The problem is that, convincing though your argument is, it did fail to convince a majority of the participants of the debate, leaving it about evenly split numerically. Under these circumstances, I believe that a closer should only find consensus for one side or the other if that side's arguments are not only much better founded in policies or guidelines, as here, but also only if these policies allow for relatively clear yes-or-no judgments by administrators or are considered fundamentally important, such as in the case of verifiability, copyright, OR or BLP. That is not the case with notability, which as a guideline allows for a relatively great measure of leeway, editorial judgment and case-by-case-decisions, as e.g. here regarding the question about what sort of sourcing is adequate for this kind of subject. On the basis of the principle of "when in doubt don't delete" (WP:DGFA), I'm reluctant to cast a "supervote" in cases such as this and decide the outcome effectively by fiat.  Sandstein  19:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the full reply; I'm glad to hear that you agree that my argument has merit. It sounds like it's unfortunate, then, that it didn't get the chance to convince others because I didn't come across the AfD until it was nearly expired - the one person to comment after me did agree with it wholeheartedly. Perhaps re-opening for further opinions would allow the argument to exert its full force?  —SMALLJIM  20:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, a relist is normally only appropriate if there have been too few participants for a thorough discussion, which is not the case here with nine participants. But as the outcome is no consensus, you are free to renominate the article for deletion at a later time. It would also not be proper for an administrator to give the impression of relisting an article in the hope of achieving a particular outcome, which is what some might accuse me of if I were to agree with the relisting you propose.  Sandstein  04:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Curtis Magazines

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Magazines The article was actually two articles. One about this imprint, which may or may not have been in error, it hard to know exactly what they called things, or if they had a name for it at all, and then the other part was a list of things Marvel Comics printed as magazines that don't fall into the existing articles for known imprints. Please put the article to my user page, so I can use the information there, to make a list article List of Magazines published by Marvel Comics. A lot of the things listed were blue linked to their own individual articles about these notable publications. Some of them were insanely popular and long running. There is no doubt these magazines existed and were from Marvel, just what they published them under is unknown. Dream Focus 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, copied to User:Dream Focus/Curtis Magazines. Not userfying the whole history as you say you only need the information, not the historic content for a merger. Please tag it for speedy deletion once you no longer use it.  Sandstein  04:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Kerry Ingram

Alright, I think the horrendous thing you did with this article is punishable by a permanent block. She plays King Tennis' daughter?? Arrrgh, thanks for the spoiler. I'm almost done with season one where they goto war and you tell me who won. Definitely a block. :) Bgwhite (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

King Tennis? Who plays his part? Roger Federer? (If you meant this seriously, her father is one of many self-proclaimed kings.)  Sandstein  06:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please reinstate the Yuri (unit) page

I was looking it up, and couldnt find it in wikipedia. I edited the specific strength and Yuri article before I noticed this had been put up and deleted. I noticed that it was deleted for being too arcane. I dont think this is the case anymore. nasa.gov has an article that defines it and there has been a conference with it in the title and now a published journal on space elevators . I think the page should be reinstated as MegaYuri or MYuri (both M and Y in caps) because that is how it is spelled in the field. Drxenocide (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted after a discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri (unit). If you think that you can address the deficiencies identified there, you can recreate it. But based on the discussion, I think it would be more appropriately covered as a part of the article Space elevator, because it is only used in that context.  Sandstein  11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

any way of seeing the original article? or is it really DELETED (dun-dun-duh...)? Drxenocide (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted articles are visible only to administrators.  Sandstein  14:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Doghouse Diaries Deletion

You recently deleted the page on Doghouse Diaries deletion, but the discussion was not yet over. Is it atleast possible for you to send me the source file. Thanks Shashi B Jain (talk) 15:05, 2 June 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  16:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to Undelete Page for AMIT GOSWAMI

To the administrator who deleted the Wikipedia page for AMIT GOSWAMI on April 11, 2012:

After a review of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Amit Goswami, it appears that you were the administrator responsible for the final decision to delete the Wikipedia page for Dr. Amit Goswami. I would like to review this decision with you and encourage you to undelete this page.

The Articles for Deletion record shows that the article was deleted because a) Dr. Goswami is not noteworthy enough and b) the information in the article was not verifiable. First, Dr. Amit Goswami is the most prominent individual associated with the name AMIT GOSWAMI and is very clearly noteworthy. As such, the deletion of his page should be reviewed and undone. The below information will illustrate such.

1. Google Search of Dr. Goswami A Google search for “Amit Goswami” results in pages of websites, images, and videos linking to the Dr. Amit Goswami at issue here, no other Amit Goswami or A. Goswami. These results go on for pages with links to Dr. Amit Goswami and his various achievements, books and films. No other Amit Goswami comes up in the Google search before Dr. Goswami. A simple Google search of the name is a clear indication that Dr. Amit Goswami is noteworthy.

2. What the Bleep Do We Know!? Dr. Amit Goswami was featured in the 2004 documentary, What the Bleep Do We Know!?. First released in theaters in 2004, this film is now distributed in over 20 countries. What the Bleep Do We Know!? is one of the top grossing documentaries in American documentary history. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

What the Bleep Do We Know!? Awards: • Best Documentary, Ashland Independent Film Festival, 2004 • Grand Jury Documentary, DC Independent Film Festival, 2004 • Platinum Remi Award, Houston Independent Film Festival, 2004 • Best Hybrid Documentary, Maui Film Festival, 2004 • Most Thought Provoking Film, Sedona International Film Festival, 2004 • #1 DVD Surprise of the Year, Amazon.com, 2005

Dr. Goswami was also featured in the sequel to What the Bleep Do We Know!?, Down the Rabbit Hole.

3. Dalai Lama Renaissance Dr. Goswami was featured in the documentary Dalai Lama Renaissance, a 2007 documentary on the life of the Dalai Lama narrated by Harrison Ford. The stars listed on IMDb for this film include The Dalia Lama, Harrison Ford and Amit Goswami. This film is the winner of 12 awards, and the official selection of over 40 international film festivals. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0953363/

4. Dr. Goswami’s Books and Amazon.com Amit Goswami is featured on Amazon.com with 12 books offered for sale on the site.

5. The Quantum Activist The Quantum Activist is a full length documentary film released in 2010 featuring Dr. Amit Goswami as the primary cast member. This film is in distribution in 12 countries, has had 200,000+ ratings on Netflix.com, and has won numerous awards at international film festivals around the world. The film is still screened around the world and is watched on Netflix to this day.

“There is a revolution going on in science. A genuine paradigm shift. While mainstream science remains materialist, a substantial number of scientists are supporting and developing a paradigm based on the primacy of consciousness. Amit Goswami, Ph.D., a pioneer of this revolutionary new perspective within science, shares with us his vision of the unlimited potential of consciousness as the ground of all being, and how this revelation can actually help us to live better. The Quantum Activist tells the story of a man who challenges us to rethink our very notions of existence and reality, with a force and scope not felt since Einstein. This film bridges the gap between God and Science. The work of Goswami, with stunning precision and without straying from the rigors of quantum mechanics, reveals the overarching unity inherent in the worlds major religions and mystical traditions. Meet the man behind the message as Dr. Goswami tells how he moved away from the religious teachings of his childhood, to seek his path in nuclear and theoretical quantum physics, and how he has come full circle, through quantum insight, back to the very religious axioms offered as a youth. Written by Ted Golder, IMDb.com http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397093/maindetails

The Quantum Activist awards: • Winner, Best Documentary, Heart of England Film Festival, 2009 • Winner, Cottage Grove Regional Film Fest, 2009 • Nominated Best US Documentary, Ireland International Film Festival, 2009 • Official Selection, Asia Consciousness Film Festival, 2009 • Winner, Best Film, Chile Digital International Film Festival, 2010 • Nominated, Best US Documentary, Thailand International Film Festival, 2009\ • Official Selection, South Africa International Film Festival, 2009 • Official Selection, Science of Non-Duality Film Festival, 2009

6. Dr. Goswami on IMDb Mr. Goswami is listed on IMDb with a full bio and a list of films he is “known for,” including What the Bleep Do We Know!? (2004), Down the Rabbit Hole (2006), The Quantum Activist (2009), and most recently in Am Afang War Das Licht (2010). “The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is an online database of information related to films, television programs, actors, production crew personnel, video games and fictional characters featured in visual entertainment media. It is one of the most popular online entertainment destinations, with over 100 million unique users each month and a solid and rapidly growing mobile presence.” (Wikipedia, IMDb) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1591946/

7. Other Noteworthy Articles and Publications: • Featured interview in Enlightenment Magazine, 1997 http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j11/goswami.asp • The Online Bulletin of SCIENCE WITHIN CONSCIOUSNESS, Volume 1, No 2; Can Science And Spirituality Be Reconciled? by Amit Goswami, Fall 1996 • The Quantum Doctor Is Here! DANBO Geophysics (2006) • Healing Journeys Suzie Daggett interview A. Goswami • A Chat with Dr. Amit Goswami By Lucy Gillis, Dreaming Lucid Exchange (LDE) (2005) • Death and the Quantum: A New Science of Survival and Reincarnation, Online Bulletin of SCIENCE WITHIN CONSCIOUSNESS« by Amit Goswami (1995) • Interview with Amit Goswami by Conny Hill, New Connexion, September 2002 – http://newconnexion.net/articles/index.cfm/2002/09/goswami.html

Finally, the information in Dr. Goswami’s articles is, in fact, verifiable. The following sources verify all of the information on Dr. Goswami’s Wikipedia page. • Dr. Goswami was a theoretical nuclear physicist and member of the University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics from 1968 for 32 years. http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~dmason/grad/ascosrel.html http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~dmason/grad/fac/goswami.html • Dr. Goswami is best known for his involvement with the 2004 film, What the Bleep Do We Know!?, Dalai Lama Renaissance, and The Quantum Activist – IMDb links for all three films are included above, verifying Dr. Goswami’s involvement in all three films.

Please let me know what additional information on Dr. Goswami’s Wikipedia page you were unable to verify and I can provide you with reliable sources.

Based on the above information, it is my belief that Dr. Goswami is very noteworthy and deserves to have his Wikipedia page undeleted.

Please let me know what your decision is and what steps are necessary on my end to ensure the page is reinstated on Wikipedia. Thank you.

BBaggett (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry but this does not convince me to overturn the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Goswami. You make at length an argument about how he is associated with popular films and such, or has a lot of search results, but per WP:ATA#Notability fallacies, these are not the arguments we look for to assess notability; instead, per WP:PROF we look at a person's measurable impact on science, or per WP:GNG we look for reliable independent sources covering them directly and in some detail. What you say does not address this.  Sandstein  06:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:SwisterTwister

Would you be willing to remove the revision of this comment at my talk page? Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  07:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lightshot recreation

On 26th of May you deleted Lightshot page. I think this is a mistake.
I'm Lighshot developer, I work in Skillbrains team.
Lighshot extensions has a lot of users:
Lighshot Extension for Google Chrome (73k users) https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mbniclmhobmnbdlbpiphghaielnnpgdp
Lighshot Extension for Firefox (45k users) https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/lightshot
Lighshot Extension for Opera (51k users) https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/lightshot-screenshot-tool/
There are a lot of review of Lightshot software on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22Lightshot%22
A lot of people use Lighshot all over the world and they need to know more about it from any sources, Wikipedia was one of theese sources.
I don't see any significant reasons to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergPeganov (talk • contribs) 11:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted as a result of the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightshot. What you say about the software's popularity is not relevant for whether we have an article about it. Wikipedia's inclusion rules are found in WP:N; they require coverage in reliable sources, not any measure of popularity.  Sandstein  12:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Some reliable sources:
http://www.makeuseof.com/dir/lightshot-lightweight-screen-capture/
http://lifehacker.com/5594846/lightshot-is-a-lightweight-and-fast-screenshot-capture-tool
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lightshot-screenshot/id526298438?ls=1&mt=12
http://drupaltroll.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/5-most-important-tools-for-bloggers/
http://oflibrariesandthings.blogspot.com/2011/07/lightshot-very-simples-thing.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SergPeganov (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, iTunes is just a sales catalog, and the rest are blogs, so not reliable sources per WP:SPS, with the possible exception of Makeuseof and Lifehacker. I recommend that you write a brief draft article and submit it to WP:AFC. If it is well written and sourced, which the deleted version was not, the experienced users there may agree that the deletion discussion's concerns are addressed, in which case you would be justified in restoring the draft to main space.  Sandstein  19:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

unprotect

Hi, now that the discussion is back at AfD, could you please unprotect Politics in the British Isles until the AfD closes so that additional improvements can be made? Some new sources have come to light that would be a useful addition. --KarlB (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

On advice

I thought I'd just note that the previous AfD editors appear to have ignored the advice and appear prepared to dominate this re-listing also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_in_the_British_Isles. KarlB for example has dumped an 8K wall of text onto the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well. Regrettable conduct. All of you should stop the textwalling. My practice in participating in or closing AfDs is to just ignore overly long walls of text; this may well happen here also.  Sandstein  16:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

GoT Season 3

Hi, I noticed this[1]. While I'm not the user who removed that, I do understand the reason behind it: in the books Edmure becomes the head of House Tully only after the death of his father Hoster, which takes place in ASOS. At the moment we don't know, whether Hoster has been cut from the TV show or not. He was mentioned by name in Season 1. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Removed again.  Sandstein  18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blood Confession

How does three people saying delete, one person making no keep or delete vote, and one person weighing in twice, once with a merge and once with a keep, all add up to a supposed "no consensus"? The only keep vote was by someone who hadn't thought about the topic well enough to realize he already said it should be merged. DreamGuy (talk)

You shouldn't readily assume what others may or may not have thought; and as you probably know, AfD comments are not votes. For these reasons, I find it difficult to follow your argument. In this case, I couldn't take P199's opinion into consideration. But you are right in that there are few opinions overall; therefore I'm relisting the discussion.  Sandstein  21:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

AE

Please see this AE which as The Blade of the Northern Lights states: "Comments from other admins would be really nice too." Ankh.Morpork 12:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Another Ankara based anon IP

Yet another Ankara based anon IP is making disruptive edits(removing referenced information)[2][3] and now, since no one has seen fit to address this issue, is making personal attacks[4][5][6].
The removal of referenced information is quite similar to edits made by currently blocked editor BozokluAdam.[7]
Is this quacking loud enough? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not currently active in dispute resolution. I recommend asking for help at WP:SPI or WP:ANI.  Sandstein  21:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for closing four discussions, which were listed at WP:AN/RFC. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 16:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  21:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Sandstein. Thanks for the clarification on the RfC. I wasn't sure about how to go about effectuating closure as this was the first time I had done it. I wasn't really familiar with procedures and wasn't even sure that this was the right board. Sorry if I caused an inconvenience.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I recommend following the procedure at WP:RfC in such cases.  Sandstein  21:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Antwone Taulton

The Antwone Taulton page is legit. New to wiki, wondering why it keeps getting deleted. You are free to confirm the sources pertaining to Antwone Taulton, by conducting a simple google search. Please undelete the Page!!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer254 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted according to the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antwone Taulton. What you say does not address the problems identified there.  Sandstein  21:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wish a copy of deleted article

I think that one of my created articles India Programme XII on Diabetes Research was deleted due to WP:NOTABILITY criteria. I wish if you could provide me with a copy of the deleted page in my email. This is meant only for archiving purpose and the article will not be created until the problems discussed with it are resolved. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  14:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Centripetal Spring Armchair

The DYK project (nominate)) 00:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics in the British Isles AfD

Hi, Sandstein. You re-listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles seven days ago. There have been contributions from ten more editors since then, but at the same time, the disruptive long-winded arguments between the same protagonists have continued. Since, as far as we know, you have not made any contribution to the discussion itself, it has been suggested here that you might be willing to close the discussion now. Alternatively, perhaps you could ask a non-involved colleague to do it. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The AfD will eventually enter a queue for closure. I might close it when it is on it, or a colleague might, but I don't normally pick AfDs to close early.  Sandstein  16:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for your prompt reply. Scolaire (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of deletion

Hi there,

I think it would be fair for you to review (and possibly reverse) the deletion for Mariko Hill. I see in the decision-making process there were identified a lack of reasonable external links and resources.

This girl was the youngest player to ever represent her country at senior level, aged just 12

She represented Hong Kong in the 2011 Asian games - the 2nd largest sporting event on the planet

She was said by the Asian Cricket Council to be "quite likely the best cricketer of her age anywhere in the world" (some accolade from the governing body) - http://www.asiancricket.org/index.php/news/february-2012/2356 - (see end of para.4)

She has been selected for the 1st team to participate in the Twenty20 Asia Cup 2012 against test-playing nations such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan & Sri Lanka

Thank you for your review and consideration. I believe that anyone who earns the accolade of representing his or her country warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, especially when that person set a new benchmark (age) or has received plaudits for being the best in the world at a given age.

Should the page be reinstated I will gladly add further links to corroborate Mariko Hill's standing as one of the leading young cricketers in the world.

Thank you,

Simon

Umpire, HKACUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.85.97 (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The article Mariko Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted per the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariko Hill (2nd nomination). That discussion concluded that she has received too little coverage in reliable sources for us to be able to write an article about her. What you say now concerns her personal merits as a sportswoman, but unfortunately that is mostly not relevant in the light of Wikipedia's inclusion rules for sportspeople, which you can review at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and specifically Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Cricket as concerns cricket. You would need to make an argument based on these rules, backed by references to reliable sources, in order to request the article's undeletion.  Sandstein  08:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Review!

An editor has asked for a deletion review of India Programme XII on Diabetes Research. 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. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  17:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

About deletion of TwistedBrush Pro Studio

See my arguments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TwistedBrush_Pro_Studio and please remove the "It is proposed that this article be deleted..." sign at the top of the article. I can add a number of links showing its notability in the article if you like. Roger491127 (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

After you added a sign about possible deletion based on a lack of notability I have added many links to show the notability of Twistedbrush on its talk page. Maybe you can read through the links I have added and find that Twistedbrush has a level of notability high enough to motivate an article about the program. If you do that and remove the sign you can tell me what changes you want to see in the article. (The discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software doesn't seem to get anywhere, so it is up to the few people who are interested in the article to do something about this.)

I can and will add more references to the article but I don't want to waste too much work on an article which could be deleted, or completely re-formulated, and your prime concern was notability, so I have concentrated on that issue for now. Roger491127 (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You still haven't met anything resembling notability yet ... you need RELIABLE sources (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Roger491127, the place for such arguments right now would be the ongoing deletion discussion.  Sandstein  18:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI on banning LPC

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on Legend of Korra wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Korra somehow someone made the whole page into a hyperlink to some sort of blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.179.229 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Legend of Korra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks fine to me.  Sandstein  18:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletionism on Wikipedia

Sandstein: You really need to take a look at this article: Are Deletionists Harming Wikipedia?. After several years as an editor, I myself stopped contributing to Wikipedia some time ago because of this kind of behavior from you and other Deletionists. One particularly poignant excerpt from this article:

People come onto the site knowing nothing of Wikpedia’s policies, but plenty about some—possibly very niche—subject. They make half a dozen or so edits, then return a week later to find that their article has been deleted with no apparent explanation. Or perhaps it will be flagged with a deletion debate, crammed full of arcane and cabalistic abbreviations such as WP:NFT, WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:WAX, WP:SOAP, WP:IAR, and so on, all pointing to Wikipedia’s byzantine and convoluted policies, guidelines and procedures. What kind of impression does this leave the casual editor? That Wikipedia is a hideout for a bunch of antisocial, bureaucratic teenage control freaks—a kind of online equivalent to the kids on the beach who kick the sandcastle you’ve just spent three hours building into your face. And since first impressions count the most, they will go off, never contribute anything else, and rant on blogs and forums about how insular and out of touch with Real Life these Wikipedians are.

Why is this harming Wikipedia? Because these are the people who contribute the overwhelming majority of substantive, meaningful content to the site.

SimpsonDG (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider myself a "deletionist", whatever one means by that, so I don't see this as applying to me. In general terms, I think it is inevitable that a site like Wikipedia has certain community-agreed rules about what to include and what not, and it's reasonable to expect of all editors that they adjust their contributions accordingly. Certainly we can do a better job of explaining these rules to newbies, though.  Sandstein  13:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

CECB

I just discovered the deletion of the CECB Comparison Page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CECB_units I find this bizarre. This page is linked to in many places and is just as relevant as it ever was. It turns out people are still watching television, and dumping cable and satellite every day. Also, many people are slow to realize that without a tuner, they are out of luck in emergencies (radio being what it is now - irrelevant). This was a major reason for the CECB program, poorly done as it was. The page should be back up again. There is room for improvement, but no substitute elsewhere. Note that the units range from utter garbage to extremely good. This is the reason for comparison. Full features are extremely rare.

In the deletion area, I have experienced the same difficulty determining why deletions were made. I constantly find errors or omissions in wiki, but have given up making additions. Aethelrick (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units, where deletion was not opposed. You do not make an argument why the closure of that discussion was wrong (except insofar as you disagree with the outcome, but you or others would have had to make these arguments in the deletion discussion, which is now over).  Sandstein  09:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein: Still don't consider yourself a Deletionist? Your talk page is constantly filled with complaints like this from people whose contributions you've deleted. Busybodies like you are ruining Wikipedia, running around deleting anything you don't personally consider "notable", even in areas in which you have no expertise. It's chasing off many potential contributors. SimpsonDG (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Most of them are from people who have never read WP:DELETE, or have more WP:COI than I have blades of grass on my lawn. Admins don't delete stuff based on personal belief of "notability" - we have a published threshold, and we base it on the proof provided. Don't forget, randomly calling people "deletionist" and "busybody" does still meet the definition of a personal attack ... and considering your most recent posts here, WP:HOUNDING looks pretty obvious too. Rather than rail away at people who follow and enforce the policies, why not fix articles so that deletion is not necessary? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Any admin that regularly closes AfDs, as I do, will frequently hear complaints from people who disagree with closures for one reason or another. I don't see this as a problem, but rather as part of the normal functioning of the system; if people don't agree with my explanation they can go to WP:DRV.  Sandstein  11:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you two have noticed the irony here: you're trying to defend your position by referencing the very body of endless Wikipedia rules and policies that I claim is alienating valuable casual editors. SimpsonDG (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

GoT S1 revisions

Can you take a look at Special:Contributions/Jak Fisher, so far as he's been going after GoT season 1 criticism sections. He looks to be doing a bit of whitewashing to me, but I'd like a second opinion before I go reverting... Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is unobjectionable, but on balance I agree that it is odd that this editor is deleting references to negative reviews and quotes at (possible excessive) length from positive ones. I wouldn't object to selective reversions.  Sandstein  12:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid the changes to The Kingsroad. Guy seems to really like HitFix, though... Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

merge proposition for Lamia (D&D)

Hello, as you took part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention a discussion on whether to merge or not that has opened on the article talk page.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability RfC

Hello Sandstein, and thank you very much for volunteering to be one of the closers of the verifiability RfC! I think I speak for all of the participants at the MedCab mediation in saying that we are grateful for you agreeing to put the time and effort into closing the discussion. I've set a mini-deadline for the mediation participants of 10am on Thursday 28th (UTC) to agree on the final tweaks to the RfC wording, which should mean that the RfC will finish on July 28th. There's nothing you really need to do until then, but if you are interested the mediation participants are currently having a discussion about whether we should outline anything about the closing process in the RfC instructions. I think the participants would value your input, but there's no need to comment if you don't want to. And also, if you have any questions about how the mediation process has gone, etc., just drop me a line. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 04:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for seting all this up. I think I will not involve myself in the RfC until it concludes, to avoid forming an own opinion about the issue, which would limit my ability to neutrally assess the outcome.  Sandstein  06:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I agree that it's probably better that way. Also, now that the RfC has started, the particular point we were discussing is moot anyway. Thanks again for taking on the close - I really appreciate it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"food choice" page

I am new at editing and finally figured out how to add two sentences to the Food Choice Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_choice) referencing two research articles to support the statements. I also included a link to a webpage with more information on the topic. These were all deleted as "apparent self promotion." The Cornell food choice research group has done extensive research on this topic and can add to this Wikipedia page but I am unsure how I should go about editing without it seeming to be self-promotion. Your feedback is welcome. MegJastran (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Per WP:NPOV, our articles should reflect a neutral point of view. I undid your additions because text like "The Food Choice Process Model was inductively developed to portray the multifaceted, interacting, and dynamic factors involved in making food choices" sounds more like something out of an advertising brochure than something one would read in an encyclopedia: it is full of positive-sounding buzzwords that do not convey any substantive meaning that I can understand. If you copied this verbiage from somewhere, it is is also a copyright violation; you must write articles in your own words rather than regurgitating promotional material.  Sandstein  11:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You deleted page "Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms"

05:45, 28 June 2012 Sandstein (talk | contribs) deleted page Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms)

Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms contains the list of assassinations plots of a novel named Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and I guess you, Sandstein have never read it. If you did not read this novel, you DEFINTELY do not have right to delete that page. The main reason is this; there is tousand and millions readers of this novel, and they did not determin to delete that page, yet. I now think that you, who have never read it, determineed to delete it.(Gauge00 (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)) I first dare ask you to answer to ask whether or not You really have read it.

Hi. Under our deletion policy, whether I or others have read the novel does not matter. What matters is that the deletion discussion concluded with a consensus to delete the article.  Sandstein  11:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you definately DID NOT read that novel. Then you german, how dare you delete a page related to chinese history. It is same thing 5 age old deleted a page related to Goethe. Please do not act like childish. You are not the only one to coount the number the DELETE advocates. Furthermore you definitely DID NOT read the (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms). You seem only counted DELETE one, DELETE TWO, DELETE THREE. (Gauge00 (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)) What a shit!!! I really want to know whether or not you read (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms). And Please concentrate on pages of related to the German history. There are lots of chinese or oriental users in wicki. They are 1000 times smaerter than you to decide to delete something whihc is related to the chinese history.

Sorry, I do not respond to requests made in that tone.  Sandstein  12:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I can understand you. YOU DEFINITELY did not read the (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms). Haha.. Did you ever visist Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms, the target of AfD? Did you ever understand what the 曹操 is? I once again say to you that THEY ARE LOTS of people who are fond of The Three Kindgoms. Books, Movies,TV series, and manga and games of it. You DEFINIELY are not one of them!! It is a disgrace to Three Kingdoms that someone like you deleted that page. Like a pig shitted on the book of Goethe. (Gauge00 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

Sandstein, we have been hoping for an admin to look at Gauge00 for a while now; please take a look here:Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Gauge00. I've even mentioned this exchange of abuse; Gauge00 has gone far enough, and somebody needs to deal with him. While I'm not at all happy that he's taken to abusing you, I am at least glad that this has come to an admin's attention. Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is problematic conduct, but as the admin whose deletion he disagrees with, I cannot take administrative action as I would be considered involved. If the warnings he has received so far are not effective, I can only recommend that you ask for another admin's assistance at WP:ANI.  Sandstein  05:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Venaculas wiki page

Why was this page deleted?

There is information feom that page that i would like have, as I am one of the band members. Is there anyway i can get the information from that page?

You can email me the info at may17@cox.net

Thank you

-Eric Whitney 24.252.39.46 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Venaculas wiki page deletion

I am a member of the band Venaculas. I noticed that our page has been deleted. I was wondering if you could email me the info that was on the page. Nobody in the band has this info and i would like to have it for my records.

If there is anyway to retrieve this, could you please email it to me at may17@cox.net

Thank you,

- Eric Whitney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.39.46 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Venaculas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted as a result of the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venaculas (2nd nomination). I have copied the deleted page to [8], but it will expire in a day.  Sandstein  06:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)