User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/May

Article Incubation

Hi Sandstein! Upon editing some other pages that mention a particular subject, I meant to start an article on that subject, until I stumbled upon an article that was already created but appears to be unpublished for one reason or another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Common_Dead). It appeared to be moved to the incubator by yourself at some point, so I thought I'd make contact with you about this. I will pick up where others left off and add some new information with sources to the article and hopefully make it "ready". Please do not hesitate to write me on my Talk page if you want to help me with making the article public after I fix it up. Regards, Ray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.20.167 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for my delay. I have been away from Wikipedia in recent days and checking other articles. I have finished adding the other citations and also corrected some errors on the behalf of past editors. The article has been improved to meet mainspace quality. I do not have the ability to move the article. Perhaps you can help. Thanks, Ray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.20.167 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have zero interest or knowledge about the topic and so cannot evaluate the article. If you think it (now) meets the criteria of WP:BAND, you can ask for its restoration at WP:DRV or proceed per WP:GRADUATE.  Sandstein  17:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought you knew something about it because I saw you were the last registered user doing something with the article. I have added the tag you mentioned. Do I need to do anything else just so that my intervention was not in vein? Thank you, Ray. 24.201.20.167 (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am unable to provide additional advice. If you have specific questions, consider asking them at WP:HD.  Sandstein  18:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I am sorry for sounding like a "n00b". I am new around these parts!  :) Thank you for your help this far. Ray 24.201.20.167 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

AFD video game music culture

I missed the discussion before it closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Video_game_music_culture

the only reason i created this article was to give a home to all of the garbage that people kept putting in the regular Video Game Music article. The intent was to trim the fat off, which most of us regular editors thought it was in need of. But the edit history was too persistant about adding stuff like that into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Video_game_music#trim_article

"I see what you're worried about, but i figure, just get it all seperated from the meat of the article first, then let the rest of wikipedia decide wether or not the leftovers & perceived self promoters merit anything. Even if they nix the other one, then we have a foundation for saying that it doesn't belong in this article either."

and that was back in 2006

I would actually rather the article be deleted and NOT merged back in, as it was all non-pertinent information that we stripped off of the Video Game Music article anyways; and looking at its edit history, it doesn't have much in the way of evolution since I made it anyways. Just wanted to chime in. RCHM (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, as you say: you missed the AfD. Sorry.  Sandstein  17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The last rendition of an article prior to your deletion

Base-2 scientific notation has been deleted -- 05:08, 2 May 2012 -- by you. Is there any possible way to get a copy of that article, the very last rendition of it prior to your deletion?

In my gross naivete and based on some reference within all those notes about the page, I thought we had until May 22 before the final judgment. There were changes made on May 1 that we did not copy somewhere else. I still believe there are enough encyclopedic references within obscure academic journals to justify our simple approach -- five high school geometry classes were involved! Original research? I don't think so, and I am quite sure that it is all out there somewhere. The conceptual frameworks are all just too basic. Notwithstanding, is there a way to recover that last rendition of the article? Thank you.

BruceCamber (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A copy is available at [1], but will expire in a day because of copyright/attribution issues.  Sandstein  20:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 27

We cleared one day, Sandstein. Let's pat ourselves on the back. I left one open--Big D. Thanks for taking care of it. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome - have a nice weekend.  Sandstein  12:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I passed the (music) Notability and you deleted my article

As per the Big D Kuwaiti Rapper article on wikipidea how can you delete it if it passed the(music) Notability rules? your deletion was a error! As per your rules in the notability I came across a sentence that said a musician may be notable if it meets at least "one of the following criteria": you claimed "ONE" the criteria's stated "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles" and I had a newspaper article “Big D - Kuwaiti rapper promotes positive message (Article – Via Arab Times)", If you want it in PDF format, “Click Here" I also have another reference which is www.kuwait-music.com which the website owner was interviewed by BBC and his website was nominated the leading website of music in Kuwait VIA ARAB TIMES I’m honored to say they featured me in their website too “Click here to view my User profile on Kuwait-Music.com” which was "online versions of print media" "Kuwait-Music.com is legit according to BBC click here "BBC News- Musicians in Kuwait struggle with censorship, Kuwait Music" and watch the video. Also according to ARAB TIMES newspaper article, "Kuwait-Music.Com Helps Bridge Cultures - Via Arab Times" So I guess your deletion was a ERROR, because I had more the one notable reference! You just deleted me because everyone said delete and Nobody reads my sources! I request you re-open my page. Regards, Big D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Kuwait (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big D Kuwait. Sorry, but no. As you say, "everyone said delete". Wikipedia is based on consensus, and as the person who closes the discussion I have to follow that consensus, no matter whether you or I agree with it or not.  Sandstein  12:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay sounds reasonable but since you mentioned the consensus of the people, everybody noted that my article was to be userfied too, breaking a persons spirit like that is not cool, at least you could of used the consensus of the people to userfiy it like all the admins noted, So when I can gather reliable sources that meet more of the music notability rules we could re-post my article and get accepted in the future. I guess the best solution and the least you can do for my 1 month of hard work is to restore the data and userfy it and in the future when I gather more reliable sources to get accecpted then I could submit it to Wikepdia.

P.S they all said to delete it before the ARAB TIMES article I got the notable source only 3 days before you deleted the article and the article was available for a month that is why there are so many people that said delete.

I'll userfy the article, if at least one other editor is interested in retaining and improving it. I'll not restore it for you alone, as per WP:COI#Autobiography writing one's own article is very much frowned upon here. Also, please sign your talk page messages, per WP:SIGN.  Sandstein  12:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Could it be my wife? or does it have to be a admin? and do I edit it in my sandbox? or does she copy and paste my old article on a user page and improves it?  Big D  (talk • contribs) 1:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Some previously established Wikipedia editor who is interested in the topic and, naturally, is not related to you or acting on your behalf. They can request that the deleted article be restored to their userspace where they can improve the article and, if they think that the problems identified in the deletion discussion are fixed, request consensus to restore the article to mainspace at WP:DRV. You yourself, per WP:COI, should not normally edit the article about yourself.  Sandstein  13:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania article level sanctions appeal

Dear Sandstein, please be aware of this request at WP:AE: [2] I believe in the light of consequent SPI results it is time to review the remedy imposed on this particular article. Further information is available in my appeal. Best regards, Grandmaster 10:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ASMR page

Please restore the ASMR page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Sensory_Meridian_Response ). This is a real sensation that many people experience. I never knew what it was called until very recently and since learning about it I've been able to trigger it nearly on demand. I hope other people can learn about this sensation so that they will also be able to enjoy it more and the wiki page is one possible vector for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylon (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the community discussed this and decided otherwise, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response.  Sandstein  15:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I count 8 votes to keep among maybe 20. For something that returns over 9000 results on Youtube alone I think there's something noteworthy to be said, even if the name lends it a very pseudo-scientific air that could be misleading. The link I included in this comment suggests a topic's inclusion into Wikipedia seem very inconsistent.--Mylon (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please reconsider the deletion of the ASMR page? There are several communities dedicated to inducing this phenomena. There are devices manufactured and sold to induce it. There groups dedicated to finding research on the topic. As the above commenter mentions there are over nine thousand videos on Youtube which appear when you search for "ASMR". There is no doubt that this topic is notable, and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Our deletion process is not a vote; the strength of argument is taken into account. Here as there, the number of search results is not relevant; rather, coverage by reliable sources is, as explained at WP:GNG. Random websites, blogs and videos are not reliable sources because they have no editorial oversight.  Sandstein  18:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, not enough research was done before the arguments were made. There is a radio station dedicated to the phenomena - yet this seems to be held to a higher standard than insignificant genres of music. There is an ASMR day, which is every bit as legitimate as other made up days. There are news articles in major (editorialised) publications. This certainly needs the guidelines for notability for a phenomena of this kind. Please do not sideline this community without good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.76.153 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your disagreement is noted, but it does not change my assessment. The only thing approaching a reliable source you cite is the Huffington Post article, which per WP:MEDRS#Popular press is not appropriate as a (main) source in an article about a medical topic. If you still think my closure was inappropriate, you can appeal it at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  12:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not a medical topic. It will never appear in a medical journal for the same reason a genre of music won't. It is a sensation produced by a certain stimulus, and should be judged as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.76.153 (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP has listed this at DRV here. Hut 8.5 15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.  Sandstein  16:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I submitted a deletion review as suggested. Despite providing dozens more sources, someone who didn't even contribute to the discussion shut it down. Apparently this has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments, or the notability of the subject, but is purely because of some wikipedia-technicality. Isn't this something you should have know about before sending me to the WP:DRV page? I spent a week finding interesting articles from a wide variety of sources, and got insulted and treated like shit by deletionists, and all for nothing. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your disappointment is noted, but on Wikipedia as elsewhere you are not guaranteed to be successful at everything that you attempt. You should accept that Wikipedia has inclusion standards that your chosen topic does not comply with at this time, and move on.  Sandstein  19:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me that I may experience disappoint on Wikipedia as elsewhere. Now, given that this is a subject of much greater notability than most Wikipedia articles, and that there are dozens of citations to show that, how do I create an article on the subject? I'd appreciate it if this time you did not waste my time. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Then, to avoid further disappointment and time-wasting on your part, I won't respond. Please feel free to avail yourself of the WP:Helpdesk if you are in need of further assistance.  Sandstein  20:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this how you usually treat people who are trying to add informed articles to Wikipedia? Why did you respond at all, if only to be rude? It seems that if your time was valuable, you would not responded, and if you had the time you would respond with a serious answer? I don't see the point of going to the helppage if my hardwork will be deleted by you. Can you please be civil this time? 62.254.76.153 (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters

Greetings! I would like to discuss the recent closure of the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters article. You elected to delete the article on the basis that Moonriddengirl's argument demonstrated that copyright violation had occurred. However, Moonriddengirl stated that she agreed with my assessment that the article constituted fair use, the only real argument for deletion was that we should be more conservative that fair use guidelines per US law. The only question remains is how much more conservative. As there is no clear guideline here, is it really appropriate to delete the article without consensus? - Sangrolu (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am preparing a DRV and hope to have it ready within an hour. BOZ (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you indicated in your rational that this may go to DRV, I am proceeding on that venue. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. 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.

DRV on UFC 27

Now the DRV has been closed what is the procedure to clear up after the history restore at the article ? Mtking ^(edits) 05:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

looks like you have dealt with it. Mtking ^(edits) 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing socialism

Survived an AfD, but some who sought deletion are now [3] and [4] trying the old "deletion by removal of all the content" maneuver -- well, over 95% of the content <g>. Including an insertion of a tag that it now only uses one source! Cheers - I find this sort of "stealth deletion" (used in the past by one of the same editors, by the way) to be abhorrent. Collect (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

After RfC was started, TFD repeated his bold removal of essentially the entire article. I asked him to self-revert, but it looks like he feels that he can "win" by simply deleting everything over and over without even seeking a consensus. Sigh! Collect (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a content dispute that I'm not really interested in, sorry.  Sandstein  19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is, in fact, a behaviour issue. A "content dispute" would be maybe a few hundred words or so -- 95+% is well beyond "content dispute." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The question whether the concept as previously described in the article is OR or not sounds like a bona fide content dispute to me. In view of the "no consensus" outcome in the AfD, it's also hard to say that this goes against any pre-existing consensus (that I know of). At any rate, I suppose you know what you can do per WP:DR: get more people involved via WP:3O or WP:RfC.  Sandstein  20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note my second comment was made after the RfC was started. Collect (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

An RfC was opened. I commented (so far, I'm the only one!). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

	Helpful Hero!
	Hello, my mentor used your signature as a basis for mine, and I wanted to say thank you. If you are not OK with me using the same color scheme, please let me know so I can change it! :) Ax1om77 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, thanks. You can use what you want for a sig, but I suggest a slight color change so that your sig is not easily mistaken for mine. For example, Ax1om77  Sandstein  20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Ax1om77 20:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for edit request

Dear Sandstein, the entire discussion for the edit request at {{Wikify}} took place in the sections above the request. The beginning of the idea is at Template talk:Wikify#Edit request on 13 May 2012. Various ideas were tried out and discussed at Template talk:Wikify#Possible alternatives. Finally editors explicitly stated their support at Template talk:Wikify#Support for an edit request. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; now done.  Sandstein  17:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you much! Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 8th 2012 Terror Plot

Hi Sandstein, Can't say I really care, but if I were closing afd's I would place more weight on the later !votes than the earlier !votes because the later !voters are in better position to consider both sides of the debate.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't say I agree in the abstract (just because they can consider both sides doesn't mean they do).  Sandstein  15:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but both sides that may have ulterior motives aside, there is a greater mathematical probability that an objective !voter would consider both sides fairly when both sides are presented before him than when both sides are not presented before him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, though that difference in probability is not enough to decide the outcome of an AfD. I consider the strength of the arguments that are made, and do not speculate about what the people who made them might or might not have considered. That does not rule out, of course, that factual developments may undermine earlier arguments, such as when compelling new evidence of notability, which earlier opinions could not take into consideration, is submitted during an AfD.  Sandstein  17:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sealand national football team userspace draft

The references needed to pass GNG are already linked in the DRV. Why not just restore the article to mainspace and then plop the references in without the additional hassle of moving the deleted content in and out of userspace? pbp 15:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Replying in the DRV.  Sandstein  15:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've created a userspace draft at User:Purplebackpack89/Sealand. It has five references and five interwiki links. pbp 13:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Slither

Hey Sandstein. I noticed you deleted the wikipedia article on the Slither software that I worked very hard to create. I wasn't apprised of this until after it was deleted, thus I had no opportunity to adapt the article to meet the vague reference of "notability" you had mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiplingw (talk • contribs) 08:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slither (software)? Sorry, but if you had watchlisted the article, you would have been aware of the discussion. There is no hard-and-fast rule to notify article creators about deletion nominations, although it is certainly recommended. I'm afraid I can't help you here.  Sandstein  08:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I see two notices of deletion on his talk page. Kiplingw, if you wanted to save the material for personal reasons I'm sure the folks over at WP:UNDELETE would be willing to temporarily restore the article in your user space for long enough to copy it offsite. Cheers. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Bravo

Good closure under difficult circumstances. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would also endorse your closure of that AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  05:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem

Hi, so you closed the AFD on Grey's Anatomy (season 9), and the result was delete. But some user recreated the page with a redirect, about an hour ago. Can you delete the page again, because it goes against the consensus on AFD. TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but the redirect seems pretty logical and unless I'm looking at the wrong AfD the closure seemed to indicate the a redirect would be an editorial decision.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yaksar. The redirect looks acceptable to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

With 4 delete recommendations and only one redirect, why would you choose redirect. Anyways, the user who changed it had no right to go against the admin AFD decision. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey's Anatomy (season 9), in which Sandstein said that any subsequent redirect would be an editorial decision. TRLIJC19 asked for a deletion in the AfD, saying that the page was filled with "bad grammar and much speculation", and the page with bad grammar and speculation was deleted. If TRLIJC19 thinks it's inappropriate even for there to be a redirect, they can take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but I doubt there would be much support for eliminating the redirect as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Metropolitan90 is correct.  Sandstein  05:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your time. TRLIJC19 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Railsea

Carabinieri (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

closure of AFD

Concerning your comments in the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident

I may not determine by "supervote" that one argument is clearly stronger than the other ... I must defer to the numerical (super)majority and find that there is consensus to delete this article.

You stated that both sides had valid arguments, so why didn't you close it as "no consensus"? Why would the "numerical majority" be used to determine anything? AFD are about the arguments, not the numbers. Dream Focus 11:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I did NOT vote to keep this article, but I agree with User:Dream Focus that deciding the AfD by "numerical (super)majority" is incorrect, particularly in an AfD where there were accusation of canvassing. While I find the rest of your argument compelling, WP:CON states that consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, nor is it the result of a vote. I ask you to reconsider your decision. NJ Wine (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Where a clear WP:CONSENSUS exists, the admin is bound to abide by such, unless the arguments based on policy require a different result. I would note that the CANVASS was, in fact, done by a person seeking to Keep the article, thus is highly unlikely to have affected the apparent consensus. In the case at hand, I suggest there were no policy-based over-riding arguments given. Deletion Review is your remaining option. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@NJ Wine: A charge of canvassing should be accompanied by evidence. As I scanned through the names of the voters in the AfD, I recognized most of them, so they unlikely to be newly-created accounts. Are you aware of any of the voters being notified about this AfD on their talk pages? There was a DailyKos post about this AfD here. From the pattern of the AfD votes it is not obvious that this had any effect, since the Kos post appeared on May 12 and there is nothing unusual in the vote after that. It would be of interest if any other external sites (besides Daily Kos) mentioned the Wikipedia AfD debate with the implication that people should come here and vote in a particular way. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein, I wonder if you took into account the fact that many of the Delete votes were presenting arguments based on factual claims that are either demonstrably false or wholly unsubstantiated. For example: "even denied by one of those who WaPo 'quoted' … has other sources partially or fully debunking it … the accuracy of informtion is questioned by the original source changing their story somewhat … contradicting information in the WaPo article … WaPo calls the one guy an 'independent' whereas the automobilemag.com source quotes him 'I am a Democrat'. … new evidence seems to suggest incident has been overblown." You didn't mention anything about this, which creates the impression that you treated these claims as credible (even though all these claims were challenged and in every instance the editor who made the claim ignored the challenge).

In doing so, I think you are creating an incentive for editors participating in future votes to simply make things up. They will be able to get what they want if there are enough of them promoting the same set of invented 'facts.' Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus and NJ Wine, in situations where both side have defensible arguments that are a matter of editorial judgment, I consider a roughly 4:1 majority to constitute the rough consensus that we normally look for in AfDs. It is also not clear how any alleged "keep" canvassing could invalidate a "delete" outcome.

Jukeboxgrad, most if not all "delete" arguments were not based on any factual claims made in the article, but rather on the view that the article represented an undue emphasis on a minor aspect of an individual's biography, and that it represented a mere aggregation of current news reporting which is not our purpose.  Sandstein  18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"[a] minor aspect of an individual's biography." Many people expressed this view ("minor") even though it's hard to grasp how a violent assault by a candidate for POTUS could be considered minor. This was accomplished largely by claiming, in various ways, that the accusation is false or exaggerated. Example: "new evidence seems to suggest incident has been overblown." "[M]ost if not all 'delete' arguments were not based on any factual claims made in the article." Many if not most of the 'delete' arguments were based on the assumption, either stated or implied, that the factual claims made in the article were "overblown," or that evidence had been presented "fully debunking it." Trouble is, these claims about "overblown" and "debunking" were never substantiated. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please put this article into my user page? I think there will be lasting implications in the election and I'd like to keep working on it. Thankyou.Insomesia (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Your edit history is too short for me to be confident that you can handle this sensitive aspect of a biography of a living person in accordance with Wikipedia's standards, even in userspace. Also, we normally only keep userspace copies of articles if they have potential for improvement, but here the discussion has concluded that we do not want to address the whole topic at article-level detail, so userfying the article does not have a productive purpose as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  Sandstein  19:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like it on my user page since I believe more coverage of this issue will come out before the election, and prove it has lasting effects. Dream Focus 19:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no again. You have a log of blocks for repeated and relatively recent disruptive conduct, which means that I am also not confident enough that you will use the content responsibly, and the second reason I gave to Insomesia applies likewise. Should there be more coverage of the issue, such that you believe it would again be appropriate to cover it in an article, you would first need to convince WP:DRV to change the AfD's outcome.  Sandstein  19:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In 2009 I was blocked for reverting someone four times. I assumed it didn't count since it was clearly vandalism, other people reverting the guy too. Simple mistake. It says in the block statement "3rr". The second block was a simple misunderstanding on a talk page for an article, which I thought we had worked out, but someone glanced at the long discussion and then blocked me for "12 hours" for "Disruptive editing", despite the fact the only editing I was doing was on a talk page trying to work out a misunderstanding over what different sources said. That was more than three years ago. I would've protested but I went to bed and when I got back to Wikipedia later on, the 12 hours had already passed, so no sense bothering with it. And the final block was in January, which many people thought ridiculous, including some administrators, I making what many felt an obvious over the top harmless joke about the "evil deletionists hordes" winning, when they finally managed to delete the rescue tag of the Article Rescue Squadron. No warning at all, just one guy deciding to block me, and a very long conversation happening with everyone arguing back and forth on both sides and dragging things out too long for most to even bother with. I don't see as how any of those three blocks should be used against me. Dream Focus 13:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

These blocks aside, as I said, I do not see a productive purpose of userfication in this case and at this time.  Sandstein  13:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter now. I just found it backed up at [5] among other places. Dream Focus 13:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Game of Thrones image caption for the Sexposition article

Hello, Sandstein. I have to state that, like this IP you reverted, I was also alarmed by the caption using the words "pretend to have." I mean, the two women were actually having sex. So when I clicked on the article very early this morning, I didn't know what to make of "pretend to have" being used and it did briefly cross my mind that the person who added it perhaps didn't consider the acts to be "real sex" because they were between two women. Then I thought maybe the person just used the wrong words and meant "perform" or "act out," since the women were performing sex for the man. When I clicked on the edit history to see what the deal was before changing the text, I see the latter is what you pretty much meant/mean, as explained in the edit summary linked above. So I ask: Would you mind changing the text away from "pretend to have" to either "perform" or "act out"...such as "perform sex for his entertainment"? If one wants to argue that it wasn't just about his entertainment, but also about making them better performers for others, then something else can be substituted in place of "for his entertainment" or "for his entertainment" can be left out altogether. Like I stated, the women were having sex, even though they were performing for someone else. It's no different than porn being a performance but still sex. And I can only imagine that more people are going to question the caption using the words "pretend to have" and argue for their removal.

Anyway, I'm not going to press this strongly. If you want "pretend to have" to remain, then I'm not going to fight you on it because there are a lot of important things I'm busy with these days. But I just wanted to explain why its use is problematic. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that scene, the women did indeed perform fake sex acts on each other, with exaggerated moaning and all, on the orders of their pimp who is watching them. If you think that there is a better way to express this than "pretend", all right, but "perform" or "act out" don't sound right to me for some reason.  Sandstein  18:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I saw, they performed real sex acts on each other. If her fingers were in the woman's vagina and anus for a sexual purpose, which I believe they were, that's performing real sex acts. No different than porn stars do. But I saw that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz changed the wording days ago and I like that wording better. Although one can still take it to mean that the sex acts were fake, it doesn't have to be taken that way with this wording. They were indeed pretending, in the sense that the sexual acts (and quite possibly the loud moaning) were a performance. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

why did you delete my article

who gave you the right to delete my article without giving an explanation....

I have been posting reference and question to why other articles with less coverage are peacefully there and I just got a bunch of idiots with no knowledge whatsoever blabbering nonsense.

So. that is wikipedia???

no wonder is considered not more than a forum if the people on there are like you guys.

anyway I am going to purge from now on.

and I am expecting an answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurahappy85 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 May 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  05:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Origin of "Prince of Winterfell"

Thanks for cleaning that up it was a mess I know. Didn't know how to word it right. Good job Andy_Howard (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

inre THIS AFD

As your May 14th delete vote at the AFD has resulted in issues at Jitendra Joshi (Marathi actor) finally being addressed through expansion and sourcing,[6] and, as it is not the same as when first nominated nor the same as when you offered your !vote, might you reconsider your stance? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, struck my opinion, though I haven't reviewed the sources enough to be able to offer a new one.  Sandstein  05:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your looking in. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up

May I ask you to please take a one more look at Template:Did you know nominations/Action Saybusch and see if you can give it a go-ahead based on my subsequent edits inspired by you comments. Much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Poeticbent talk 22:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

AFDs

Since you closed the AFDs on Last Res0rt and The Whiteboard, you might also want to look at the ones for Jack (webcomic), Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire and 1/0 (web comic). In all of these, Veled has been fighting tooth and nail to defend each comic despite an utter lack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

TPH, I'm not sure what you were thinking, but there's no planet on which CANVASSing Sandstein like that is a good idea. See you at ANI in a few minutes. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer, your message can be read as an attempt at canvassing either an AfD opinion or an AfD closure by me. This is inappropriate, and I will comment to that effect in the WP:AN.  Sandstein  21:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that it's canvassing — I see messages like "You were in the AFD for X, here's an AFD on Y, which is similar" all the time. Could've phrased it better, but still. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, I have better things to do than bother with the ochlocracy boards. Please do not send me, or any other editor, any further messages that can be read as canvassing.  Sandstein  22:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Pakistan Medical Students Page

Dear Sandstein. Can you tell me why did you delete that page I edited long ago. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anisramay (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Because of the result of the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Pakistan Medical Students.  Sandstein  05:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)