User talk:Sandstein/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Deletion of Rab - Ryukyu postage stamp article

Instead of demanding the article is deleted, why not ask me , the author, about it first? How will you like it if I call for some of your stuff to be deleted without writing to you first?

The philately project is being worked on daily and you can see on my user page and talk page what I am doing and what I intend to do. It's very easy to demand that something be deleted just because you don't understand it and are too lazy to seek an understanding.

--Jack 21:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Sir: Established Wikipedia VfD procedures do not require contacting the author before submitting a VfD request. In cases where deletion is appropriate, the article would have to be listed on VfD anyway in order to be deleted, the author can't do that by himself. At any rate, the author can participate in the discussion on VfD. Please do not consider my VfD request for your article (which was recognised as non-encyclopedic in the VfD discussion) a personal attack; it was not meant as such. Best regards, Sandstein 14:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The point is that I am new to WP and I have seen in the VfD procedures a directive about "do not bite the newcomers". Also, although I am new, it must have been obvious by looking at the category that I have hit the ground running by introducing a major (by philatelic standards) project (not forgetting substantial work on the cricket project too). I had already been advised by interested parties that the naming convention I started with was unsuitable and that I should use pipelinking. This was in my user page and on the talk page as something to be done asap, time constraints permitting. As it happens, it has now been done and the deleted article was easily restored under its new title, so no harm done. Sorry for getting annoyed but this is a serious project and all I needed was a little time to get used to the ropes, as it were. All the best. --Jack 09:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allright, ya got me.

But I couldn't help it! Its my first article, for God's sakes! Tell me before you delete everything, and we can work it out. All that time, wasted. Oh well. You suck!

Mike15 23:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but there is nothing to work out regarding the article Shattered Union: copyrighted material is not allowed, and neither I nor other users can "work that out". Your text isn't lost, though: you can recover it through the article history. This will allow you to put back in the text that is not copyrighted, if there is any. Best regards, Sandstein 04:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed copy/paste move of John Cooke

Rather than doing a copy/paste, next time please use the Move link at the top of the page so the edit history and talk page both move with the article content then edit the redirect to contain disambig content. I've made the updates to move the edit history for the original article to the now disambiguated article. slambo 15:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civ leader notes

I've noticed that you've been removing references to the AI leaders featured in Civ IV from their articles, and while I have no object to that per se I'd appreciate it if when you came to Hatshepsut you did not remove that reference as it is mentioned in a section that discusses her influence on pop culture. Also did you mean to leave the Civ 4 image of Mansa Musa on his article? It seems to me that having that image, as not only the primary but the only depiction of him is rather odd. Thanks. -JCarriker 18:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bund

You reverted Bund, please discuss at Talk:Bund.--Commander Keane 17:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

My typos are chronic, it's not a good situation for an encylopedia contributor I know. However, we don't "wikify" dab pages, since they are not articles. The MoS (dabs) specifcally says to have one wikilink per line on a dab page - this is for esy navigation. I'm happy to discuss this if you have any queries, and I've fixed up the dab. Take a read through the MoS (dabs) if you get a chance.--Commander Keane 08:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] G D Goenka Public School

G D Goenka Public School, which you proposed for deletion, has been referred to AfD here. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon in China

My bad. --M4bwav 17:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ironbridge

You were right to tag Old furnace, ironbridge for attention but to describe it as unverifiable is totally ridiculous - the info is so widely available it does not even need references. -- RHaworth 19:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, no, not exactly: in the confusing state the article was in, it wasn't even clear what "old furnace" was referred to, so anybody who wasn't already an expert on the industrial history of England would have difficulties looking for verification. And the industrial history of England, isn't so common a topic that it doesn't need references, IMHO -- at least not to this non-English user. Sandstein 20:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarthang Tulku

Your choice to mark Tarthang Tulku for deletion is being debated on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. I don't suppose it would have done much harm, but did you check on Google before you marked it? That is a normal action to do before marking something for deletion because unverifiable. A simple link to a reasonably reliable source from Google will make the article more verifiable than most.

P.S. In any case I agree with your sentiment above. Iron Bridge needs references. However, it's also been claimed that it's a copyvio (see the history). Maybe it should be deleted for that reason? Mozzerati 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RE your commment thanks for clarifying. Sometimes things go wrong when searching with google; there has to be a trade off between being careful and getting things done. I agree that the cost of losing such a short article is very little, though please also remember WP:BITE; with new users (that article was a first edit) it's really important to be gentle. Mozzerati 19:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Sandstein 19:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Old MBM Hostel

Removed for lack of signature, see User_talk:Ambuj.saxena#Old_MBM_Hostel for discussion. Sandstein 07:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rebecca Lee

Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed it. [1] :-) — Instantnood 20:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Student Life in IIT Kharagpur

Hi,

If you haven't noticed yet, I have created the article as per our discussion. Hope you consider it notable now. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Er, thanks for the notice. I think it could lose some stuff, such as the trivialities about students playing LAN games, eating at burger huts etc., but it's a good cleanup job and certainly keepable as an article. Greetings, Sandstein 17:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I will consider removing the LAN games part. The main reason I included it is because it was the turning point in students' social life as it turned a full 180 degrees. Don't ask me about deleting the thached hut part (although I myself want it to). People here are so sentimental about it that someone will issue a fatwa to kill me. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Then by all means leave it in - Wikipedians are of no use with their heads chopped off :-) -- Sandstein 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ilan Halimi, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1911 verification

I'm sorry not to have explained my changes but if you look at the main talk page for the project, you would be able to see that discussion of what actually to do with the list is still underway. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#Reviewing_1911. It's my fault that I did not also mark each of the pages but that would have taken more effort that it would be worth. Sorry to have done so without explanation. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No problem, thanks for the reply. Sandstein 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith R. Wood & Critic-at-Arms AfD

When nominating multiple articles for deletion at once, check out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. The AfD tag you left on Keith R. Wood pointed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith R. Wood instead of being combined with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critic-at-Arms. I also edited the title of the later to clarify it was for both pages. Let me know if you have any questions. -- JLaTondre 01:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the corrections. I did manage to do this correctly once, but here it seems I got sloppy late in the evening. Sandstein 07:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem. I'm certainly not mistake free. -- JLaTondre 14:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakila

Hi, you nominated the above article for deletion. Could you have a look at that page for my response and the article to reconsider your vote? TIA, --Gurubrahma 13:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denbeaux study

  • I am still working on it.
  • It is highly significant.
  • I think you will agree, if you look at the .pdf.
  • For instance it says (IIRC):
    • Only about 10% of the detainees were captured by the US, about half of the rest were captured by bounty hunters.
    • More than half of the detainees were not members of either Al Qaida or the Taliban.

The DOD said, yesterday, they complied with Jed Rakoff's court order to release the names of the detainees. Last night, when I was working on the Denbeaux study article I came across the site where the DoD put up 200 megabytes of unredacted documents, and I have been downloading them and looking at them. -- Geo Swan 16:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of ENotes article

After reading the guidelines more carefully, I see the purpose in deletion, although it may be possible to improve the article, I do not have enough information to do so at this time. My purpose was to improve upon the article "Study Guides" which references various similar sites which do have Wikipedia citations. Should those also be deleted? I feel I am too new to delete them myself but perhaps you can take a look and see if deletion for QuickStudy and/or Bookrags is appropriate? I will remove the internal link on that article to ENotes now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metrofeed (talk • contribs).

  • Replied on user's talk page. Sandstein 13:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanko zaka

This place is an important place in history of Japan. Such a reason, this report was described. If you consider that Eastern history is not worth, please write in this note.わがまま小皇帝

  • Of course Japanese history belongs into Wikipedia, but the article does not say anything about the historical significance of this street. It says that a temple once stood there, but if that temple was notable, it's the temple that needs an article, and not the street. There are many streets in the world, and we can't have an article on each and every one of them; therefore notability must be established. Sandstein 13:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you understand history of Japan?
Why can you judge importance or not for the area of Japan.
I respect the history of Many nations, and do not judge the importance of a foreign country.
Or are you racist?
わがまま小皇帝

  • First, please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Second, this is not about the importance of the history of Japan, but about the importance of the history of this street. The assertion of historical significance must be verifiable - for the history of Japan as well as for anything else, see WP:V. Sandstein 13:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, the Rubicon river is not a big river geographically.
However, for Italy, it is an important river and is deserves indicate as a report.
Don't you think so?
わがまま小皇帝

问对我的希望回答

  • Certainly, that's why we have the article Rubicon. But this article explains why it is notable: "The river is notable as Roman law forbade any general from crossing it with a standing army." We do have lots of articles, too, about notable sites in Tokyo, such as Yasukuni Shrine, Kokyo, Tsukiji Hongan-ji, and that's OK. But the point is not whether we should have articles on notable Japanese sites: of course we should. The point is that the article Sanko zaka does not show why it is supposed to be a notable Japanese site. And unless it does that, it will get deleted sooner or later. Please take the time to review WP:V for an in-depth explanation of this. Sandstein 15:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You have not replied to my question. I want you for me to reply to the next question. On what kind of standard did you judge it as notable? The attitude which has only on the standard of its own country and judges other countries is called ethnocentrism. How much knowledge do you have about history and geography of East? I want you to do a creative contribution to Wiki. 您日本来有时？您日语理解？わがまま小皇帝

  • First, the same standard of notability applies as to any other street in the world: "A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact" (WP:N). Second, it is precisely the problem that I cannot judge the street's notability according to any standard whatsoever, because you do not say why it should be notable. It seems we are getting nowhere here; I'm taking this to AfD. Sandstein 05:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

Americans, Japanese, South Korean, and Chinese respect the culture of other countries. Such an attitude is called cultural relativism. But Sandstein is going to delete the report by the self-righteous reason. He is not explaining why a certain report is important , and other reports are not. The attitude is called ethnocentrism. From such a reason, the attitude which he asks for deletion is unsuitable.わがまま小皇帝

I cannot understand why he persists deleting the report which others created.

[edit] AfD

Hi, I thought you might be interested in these votes for deletion:

Cheers, Pecher Talk 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper Deletion Procedures

Mr. Prymak: You may be interested to hear that I have nominated articles of yours for deletion as not conforming to Wikipedia's policies of notability and original research; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Prymak and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaterial world. Please do not construe this as a personal attack; your verifiable contributions on real subjects are much appreciated on Wikipedia. Best regards, Sandstein 13:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Sandstein,

Thank you for keeping me in check. I would like to know what exactly is the trouble with any specific article, and to have the opportunity to defend myself. I agree that your efforts are not a personal attack. You are very civil about this issue, and it is best to focus on the arguments for or against any claims of knowledge. So far, I have had very little will power used against me, and I hope for more sentences of reason and dialogue. Please do not think that I would make personal attacks as well. Thanks again for your comments and attempts to edit. I do appreciate it.

I agree that some of my work needs editing and I appreciate that you have gone through the proper procedures prior to any deletions. There are some arguments to defend my positions, and I hope to have the opportunity to do so. I have already deleting one article, edited others, and clarified. I genuinely find your responses and concern very helpful. Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely,

Joseph Prymak --joseph 17:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Prymak: The matter is now largely out of my hands (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion for the applicable procedure), and I suggest you defend your articles directly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Prymak and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaterial world, respectively. The specific policies I believe the articles to be in violation of are referred to on these pages, but see WP:NOT and WP:BAI for a general overview of why certain articles have no place on Wikipedia.
This being said, I'd be happy to vote to "keep" your articles once they reach encyclopaedic status, e.g. if the respective articles:
  • contain material to show that you, Joseph Prymak, are notable enough for inclusion under the guidelines of WP:BIO;
  • contain material to show that Anthropogeology is notable, i.e. a genuine scientific discipline and the subject of respectable writings by scientists other than yourself (see in particular WP:NOR);
  • contain material to show that Immaterial world and Universal questions are not merely original research of yours, i.e., that these specific topics have been the subject of scientific research and writings by, again, scientists other than yourself. But even so, with these topics being as all-encompassing as they are, I fear that they would be redundant compared to the more specific (and well-sourced) articles we already have on this, e.g. Philosophy, Ethics, Ontology, Materialism/Idealism and many others. You might be interested in directly contributing to these articles instead.
Best regards, Sandstein 19:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] MedCalc

With regards to the notability of the subject, we have listed some independent reviews. Citations in the medical literature are listed on [2]. --Frank 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hazrat Mujaddid Alfi Sani

Since you originally prodded it, I thought you might like to know that Hazrat Mujaddid Alfi Sani is now at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazrat Mujaddid Alfi Sani. NickelShoe 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Sandstein 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Graham

What, being Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education wasn't notable enough for you? She rather conspicuously meets criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8; and there's also evidence like this. [3]. Admittedly, she's not exactly in the same league as Air Force Amy, Kelly Gregg, Dex Brown, and BrainBread, to cite a few examples of articles that recently survived AfD nominations, but I think a case can be made for including an article on her. Any other questions? Monicasdude 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiona Stephenson AfD

Thanks for pointing me to the WP:PROD procedure. I wasn't aware of that - its always good to learn more about Wikipedia policies. Best, Gwernol 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Have a nice weekend, Sandstein 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd

Thank you for the polite afd warning, i appreciate it. Peace! --Striver 12:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsuna Zaka AfD

Just saying "no vote" doesn't actually do anything, you have to actually remove it from the AfD. Oh well, too late now.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry. Though I really didn't intend to retract the AfD, just abstain on this so that other users acquainted with Japan can decide... Though as an admin, I'd have been more reluctant to delete all at this stage of the debate. It would seem that there wasn't yet consensus on Tsuna Zaka. Best, Sandstein 05:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MGSWorld

Thanks for the support in the removal of the article, MGSWorld. He was new so I was hoping he'd ask for deletion when he understood he couldn't make it. :) --Aegwyn 06:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hello Pot, Meet Kettle

You've got gall to insult me the way you did about my TT player's list for thinktanks entry. There was no need to be so harsh. A simple Delete would've sufficed. Paisano® 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be perceived as insulting. However, your articles do in fact constitute a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not. As such, your apparent expectation to be allowed to misuse this online encyclopedia as a web host for your private games does indeed show quite some gall. Sandstein 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. If it makes you feel better to insult an obvious wiki-rookie then go ahead. I made an honest mistake and will learn from it. I don't consider that gall. Have a nice life. Paisano® 01:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Deletion

Would you be willing to consider a redirect -- without merging -- from Roman Catholic conservatism to Traditionalist Catholic? Thanks. Hyphen5 07:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiethics Polls

Greetings, having read your comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics I thought you should be aware that there are two polls on it that it seems you'd be inclined to want to participate in. Thanks! Netscott 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the info. Sandstein 15:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] C/A/T Article For Deletion

Hello, I see you've suggested an article I had just started, C/A/T should be deleted. As you may be aware, it is extreme difficult for North American industrial and goth musicians to really secure major record releases, and I understand that there is always some Wikipedia related discussion as to what a relevant musicial contribution is. I think you've proposed for an article deletion too soon, and would suggest you check out similar Wikipedia articles for other similar artists, such as Claire Voyant, Switchblade Symphony, and Vernian Process. C/A/T has toured across the United States, and I feel is significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Thank you, MCalamari 19:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-notable persons and alternative deletion methods

Having fun on AFD? Might check out {{db-bio}} {{db-group}} {{db-band}} etc. also, as they would have been more appropriate in that last case. If it's borderline even for that, you can use {{prod|reason}}. Anything to help cut down the clutter on afd. — Mar. 18, '06 [19:33] <freakofnurxture|talk>

  • Thanks for the heads-up. I'm well aware of these methods and use them frequently. In today's cases, though, the pages either were contested PRODs (found via [4]) or they at least seemed to assert notability, however unlikely. The Oldham Brothers, for instance, claimed to have produced The Matrix, and this demo company also had some adjectives like "well-known". So their speedy deletion was only really justifiable per WP:SNOW, I think. Best, Sandstein 19:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floating signifiers

I made some major changes to Floating signifiers, since I was familiar with the term. I included some web references. It's still not a great article, and I'm not sure it should be kept, so I didn't deprod it, but I thought you might want to give it a second look to get a better idea of whether or not it has potential with some more work. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah. Er.... Frankly, I still don't understand the article after reading it four times and glancing through Sign (semiotics). But then, it's postmodernism, so I guess it's not supposed to be understandable. Anyway, someone else deprodded it now, and since it's apparently a bona fide scientific term, it doesn't warrant an AfD. Thanks for the work! Sandstein 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "Floating signifiers" is a postmodernist way of saying that race and gender don't exist, but we have words for them anyway. I just can't figure out an encyclopedic way to explain that. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schaechter-Viswanath

Hi,

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so maybe you can help me improve the article I posted today that you flagged for deletion, on Yiddish poet Gitl Schaechter-Viswanath. I looked at the notability test and I believe she qualifies. GS-V is one of the most important poets writing in Yiddish today; she has been published in many of the leading Yiddish journals and her book was published by one of the few mainstream (non-religious) publishing houses that publishes Yiddish. Her control of the language is remarkable. Please tell me what to add to make these things clear.

I am trying to create enough information in Wikipedia about Yiddish literature and culture to make it useful for the average undergraduate student. I am a literature librarian with a specialty in Yiddish. I made myself a list of 50 Yiddish writers I thought should be in Wikipedia. My plan is to gradually work my way through the list so that in a year there will be a good body of information there for Jewish Studies and Literature students to consult. I know that many of these names will not be household names outside the small group of people who study Yiddish. But the fact is that one of the main deterrents to people who want to study these writers is the lack of any source material in a major language such as English. Wikipedia seems to me the ideal way to make this kind of information available.

Nomi Jones 02:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Bhai Makhan Shah

Dear Sir,

Further to your vote to delete my article, Bhai Makhan Shah, I would like to bring the following to your attention and present this for the record:

You said: "WP:NOT a book publisher. If verified to be notable, rewrite as an encyclopedia article rather than a story." I would like to bring the following to your attention. Ths article is not a book but a historic record - please see my introduction and the links added recently. Further the style of writing is how these Sakhis are normally written - so I have preserved the style and want to give the readers a feel for how this history was passed from one generation to another in rural India during the 1400 onwards.

You may be aware that this article was tagged by Joe for speedy deletion because he thought that the article "appears to be a fictional story" at 2:58. He had however, failed to notice that the article began with: "Makhan Shah Lubana (also written as Lobana) was a devout Sikh and a rich trader from Tanda district Jhelum (now in Pakistan)..…" – If this was a fictional story, would it refer to "(now in Pakistan)"?

Further, mid-way down the article is the line "He then recited this Shabad of Guru Arjan Dev:" followed by the sacred hymn by the fifth Sikh Guru – Now surely if you are not even aware of the Gurus of the Sikhs, do you have the right to make any judgement on this article or any other article linked to Sikhism?

He was wrong but he realised his mistake and rightly and honourably retracted from that position. However, he did not completely re-evaluate his position as he almost instantly put an AfD notice on the article.

If Joe had the "well-being" of Wikipedia at heart, surely it does not take more than a few seconds to search for "Makhan Shah" on Google to see if this is fiction or fact! – If he had done this, he would have found 654 hits and the first article is at: www.Sikh-History.com – Do I need to say more! – I don't think you would find fictional stories on a history website. Under the circumstances, the comment by User talk:Royboycrashfan that this is "original research" is unbelievable!! 654 hits with Google and you think that this is original research!! This is a record of historical events that took place in about 1620AD. And what is surprising is that you are supported by User:TBC and User:Khoikhoi. Blindly following the leader!!

Following my comments on the discussion page highlighting that this article was a example of a Sakhi (ie: Historical Record), which are very popular in Sikhism at 3.09, Jow quickly changed the article to AfD status at 3.13 saying that this was because "text is a Sikh story taken from www.srigurugranthsahib.org website". So in 4 minutes he had read the 2 articles of over 1250 words each and done a proper comparison of the two articles. I am sorry but I don't think this is how articles should be judged - Someone spending less than 4 minutes to evaluate an article that may have taken a few days to create from various resources. Why should someone who appears to have no knowledge of the subject matter, is completely anti-religion and has spent very little time researching the subject take such a step? I wonder?

Having read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, I believe that the comments made by Joe – "only that the fashion in which it is currently presented is non-encyclopedic" does not appear to be reason for articles to be deleted.

Further, he say that if the text was: "of great religious import, it would, I think, appear in some form on more than one website" – This is based on a Google search of the words: "Once while he was returning home". What he does not tell us is the Google finds the following:

"with his ship carrying valuable goods over the vast seas, his ship got caught up in a furious storm" in my article and

"with his ships loaded with valuable cargo, there was a furious storm at sea and his vessels got caught in it" on the other site.

Not quite the same sentence – let alone the whole article. So how can anyone say that "text is a Sikh story taken from" www.srigurugranthsahib.org site - is a completely mystery to me? I wonder why you have taken this step as it is totally unjustified!

I believe that your criticisms are entirely ill-founded and without foundation. Further, this appears to a tactic to discourage minority religions to have a reasonable say on this website and this type of behaviour will stall contribution from the minority traditions. The majority sects will dictate what goes on this site - even when they are completely wrong!! If that was your intention, I have no problem with that – just do it openly rather than using unnecessary stealth and poor logic!!! --Hari Singh 07:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebi zaka

Hi Sandstein. Don't forget to add {{subst:afd1|Hebi zaka}} to the other articles, so that their visitors know that the articles are up for AFD. There're more complete instructions here, if you need. Take care. ×Meegs 22:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Now you've made me... do exactly that. I thought I could get by the lazy way, but no chance. Sandstein 22:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry ;) ×Meegs 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ham and eggs cells

You asked me:

Would you consider adding encyclopedic information to the article, e.g. what this solution is and what it is being used for (apart from growing cells in general)?" WAS 4.250 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My response is that I did put in the article "what this solution is" and you deleted it as not encyclopedic. WAS 4.250 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Well, what I deleted was dozens of lines of the following:
L-Arginine 211 mg
Biotin 0.024 mg
L-Histidine 21 mg
Calcium pantothenate 0.7 mg
which I think doesn't really help anyone except microbiologists trying to recreate the solution. But there is consensus that WP:NOT a repository for recipes (whether for sandwiches or growth solutions). What I meant was: is there information about the solution? Who invented it? For what uses is it better than other solutions? Now that would be useful encyclopedic information. Best regards, Sandstein 07:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We agree on what you deleted. We disagree on whether an encyclopedia with over a million articles should be allowed to have articles in which part of some articles is only useful to a minority of readers. I would like you to seriously compare what you deleted with Monoidal category and rethink your deletion. For example: you deleted "Biotin 0.024 mg" which I find an interesting informative piece of information even though I am not a microbiologist. On the other hand

Given a field or commutative ring R, the category R-Mod of R-modules (in the case of a field, vector spaces) is a symmetric monoidal category with product ⊗ and identity R.

is mumbo jumbo to me. It would be wrong for me to delete that just because only a very very small minority of readers will find it useful. I suspect the majority of those who understand it, already know it, so who is it for. Let's delete it. we are not a place for people to store just any old thing. Um .. on the other hand, maybe an encyclopedia with room for articles on minor characters in minor TV shows can find room for other things too. I hope you will change your mind on what is fit for Wikipedia. By the way, this is not a food recipe even though it is dinner for the cells that grow in it. I find it very interesting to know exactly what substances are in the intercellular fluid of mammals and thus also have to be in this cell growth medium in order for them to multiply. I am saddened you do not share that. WAS 4.250 17:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, "we are not a place for people to store just any old thing" in that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But since you feel that this information is useful to our readers, and I'm not the one to dispute its notability, I'll revert the deletion and slap a {{context}} tag on it. My suggestion to add some information that is useful to the layman still stands (I can't do it since I have no clue about microbiology...). Best, Sandstein 17:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that this article like many other wikipedia articles is unfinished and could use help. As I say, I am not a microbiologist either. I ran across the term in cell culture when someone added it without a reference and I had to look it up to see if it was true or a joke or whatever. I discovered many interesting things in that little info jouney, and slightly improved a few wikipedia articles while I was learning. And added this article. Which as you say, could use help. I would love to know how exact these measurements have to be and what if any variations are needed for different cell types or species. But I only have so much time and my priority right now is the H5N1 series of articles and a minor addition about information science evidence for evolution in the evolution article. Best, WAS 4.250 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyrights in Switzerland

Hey, great find with that decision on the Meili photo! :-) Lupo 09:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I needed to use some trivial photographs from a book, so I remembered reading about that decision in the NZZ one day, dug it up and made a Commons template... Might be useful for a variety of Switzerland-related purposes. Best, Sandstein 10:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, except for the Meili photo itself, I wouldn't dare apply this court decision to any other press photo. You are probably aware of the "Bob Marley" photo referenced in that decision, which is copyrighted... But it is useful because it clearly establishes the Swiss analogue to the U.S. Bridgeman v. Corel decision and thus clarifies the situation in Switzerland for reproductive photographs of 2D originals. Lupo 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Maybe I'll write a brief Wikipedia article on the decision(s), using the Marley photo (as fair use :-) to illustrate the issue. At any rate, Blau Guggenheim seems to be rather more far-reaching than Bridgeman. Apart from 2D photos, it could also be used for run-of-the-mill photos of press conferences, etc. to illustrate articles about politicians, business leaders et al. Sandstein 10:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The new article: Copyright protection of photographs in Switzerland. Sandstein 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schultheiß

I added your article to Portal:Germany/New article announcements and Portal:Germany/New articles. Please list other relevant articles you create there. You might also be interested in the German-speaking noticeboard, which has currently too few Swiss editors. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 06:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O'Fallon, Illinois Public Library

The person who removed the "prod" for this article did so admittedly without ever having read the Talk page for the tag's justification. In short, he made a mistake. Not allowing the readdition of the prod tag simply perpetuates this mistake. Please re-add. Rklawton 19:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And I, too, made the same mistake... I was just about to redirect to O'Fallon, Illinois after reading the talk. Would that do? Sandstein 19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I doubt folks are going to search for cityname "public library" - so I doubt a redirect would serve much purpose. Speedy delete works for me. I'd hoped "prod" would require the least admin time/trouble. Rklawton 19:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll revert. Sandstein 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somebody set us up the deletion

It would be a shame indeed if anyone eroneously came to these conclusions. Let's hope they have the common sense not to. For great justice. 18:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the tip

Thanks for the tip on how to use the {{prod}} template. I'll be sure to do so next time I run across an article that fits its use. --Impaciente 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ala archa unsourced

I was wondering why you taged {{unsourced}} to Ala archa even thou it has an exteranl link. I didn't actually read what it links to see if what is said all comes from that sight so im' not positive it is a sorce but i would asume it is.--E-Bod 21:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I am sorry, you are quite right. I meant to add {{uncategorized}}, but caught the wrong tag when copy-pasting. I have now removed the tags after cleanup. Sandstein 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Results and Thanks

Sandstein/Archive 1, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path.

--- joturner 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for collaboration.

Hello,

If you would, could you please {{wikify-date|April 2006}} tag instead of the {{wikify}} tag? There is an effort underway to make it easier to sort through articles that may require wikification.

Your assistance with this effort will be greatly appreciated. Folajimi 07:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Will do. Sandstein 07:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROD

Hello there. You have proposed the article AE Magazine for deletion without providing a reason why you think the article should be deleted. Please consider adding your reasoning in the future when proposing articles for deletion (see: How to propose deletion of an article). This will aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. Thank you. Sandstein 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I did leave a comment with my reasoning, both in the edit comments and at Talk:AE Magazine. I agree that my edit comments could have been clearer, but I did also write them more clearly on the talk page (the edit summary field is a bit too small). Overall, I fail to see the problem... where do you think I should have placed my comments? Cleduc 15:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah... I see. Thanks for the pointer! Cleduc 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you left me a message similar to that you left Cleduc, I'm replying under this header; I hope you don't mind... Thank you for noting that my PROD tag was missing reasoning; when fixing the tag, I inadvertently removed the reason I'd previously given (although I did include the reason in my edit summary as well). In any case, I'll be more careful in the future; sometimes one clicks "save page" and fails to check the page (perhaps that's why we have the "show preview" button, of which I need to take better advantage). Cordially, Joe
No worries; I didn't perceive you as improperly or untowardly chastizing. You were wholly correct and, in any case, your campaign to encourage editors to provide reasons in their PROD tags is altogether good and productive. Joe 19:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've updated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_discussions to show how to use the {{prod}} tag: {{prod|reason for deletion}} -- since that's where I originally saw the example, I did just what I saw there. Hopefully that will educate people who are new to this procedure (which is just about everyone at this point). Cleduc 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I have proposed Avangate for deletion due to reasons listed on the talk page. I didn't even know that prod supported adding a reason, now I know, and will use that instead. Thanks. -Mulder416 19:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 15:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag explanation.

Hello,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Bryan Schmidt entry. Although I had initially tagged the entry with {{prod}}<nowiki>, an anonymous user removed it. My guess is that the entry may very well be a vanity article. At any rate, what I eventually did was include an <nowiki>{{importance}} tag — to avoid an edit war. Could you please review the entry and see if it qualifies as a legitimate entry in Wikipedia? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Folajimi 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Replied on his talk. Sandstein 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No offense taken. You are the third person who seems to be of the opinion that the entry in question has all the markings of a vanity article. What are the odds of successfully pursuing AfD with this entry? (FWIW, the subject is a "Production assistant" not a producer — whatever that means...) Folajimi(talk)
P.S. Thanks for informing me of the {{prod}} tag's additional features.

[edit] Prod

Thank you the information. Wasn't sure I could edit the template. Glad to know now that I can. I have got more experience with AfD. Thanks again for the information.--Dakota ~ ° 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, me too. I figured it out later on my own, but it's good to have a reminder. Thanks. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our RfAs

Image:1000000eme.jpg
Another newly produced robot thanks you for your handiwork, and excuses himself while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 10:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein: Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 77/3/0. I hope I can perform at the standards expected for administrators. If I make any mistakes, or you need anything, please let me know. Prodego talk 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == WP:OR caution. ==

Hello there and welcome to Wikipedia! Please refrain from posting your own research/opinions/philosophy to Wikipedia. This is not allowed. Please remember that all contributions must be verifiable and cite reliable sources, or they can be deleted. Cheers, H0riz0n 01:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Note for the record: I posted this very message to H0riz0n in reaction to his creating a number of WP:OR articles such as Distributive Unconsciousness and Unified Theory of Cycles. After receiving a verbatim copy of the message in reply, I have enquired further. Sandstein 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell from Harmonics Theory, he seems to be editing in good faith, but is having trouble getting a handle on Wikipedia's policies. I've pointed him at the deletion/undeletion ones. --Christopher Thomas 05:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
After taking a look at his edit history, he also seems to have swallowed Ray Tomes' "cycles theory" stuff hook, line, and sinker. I'm attempting to explain "don't take pseudoscience at face value" to him. Time to put up a few AfD notices. --Christopher Thomas 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've noted this whole cycles theory stuff of his too, but decided to wait for now. I would support AfDs as non-notable pseudoscience cruft. Sandstein 05:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It's up, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory, though I've avoided touching the articles that date from the original debates, as I'd _really_ rather not burn out again. --Christopher Thomas 06:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Donlee

I thought you might like to look over what I have said at User:Donlee's talk page in reference to his additions to Wikipedia considering your question that as far as I can see has gone unanswered. Dismas|(talk) 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Unless verification is provided, I assume that Quantum idealism, Thought-Space and Interpretive reality are pretty obvious WP:OR and merit deletion. Best, Sandstein 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It's late here and I just got in. I'm not going to reply to Donlee just yet as I have a stomach to fill and sleep to get to though I thought you might like to read what he has to say about my message to him. It's at the bottom of my talk page if you'd like to read it. If you feel that action should be taken for his articles, don't worry about stepping on my toes. Dismas|(talk) 03:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soggy biscuit

Hallo- I noticed that you posted a 'Delete' vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (2). I have recently posted some new material that I feel satisfies the requirement for WP:N and WP:V- hopefully you may feel the same. In any event, best wishes and apologies for the intrusion. Badgerpatrol 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

Thanks. I actually came across the articles that I put the tag on while I was patrolling and performing speedy deletions. I had my doubts whether they qualified for a speedy, so I put the proposed deletion tag on them as a less drastic alternative. Personally, I have no strong feeling regarding them either way. Elf-friend 06:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (Whose ancestor actually came frome the Bernese Oberland.)

[edit] Kusma's RfA

Hello, Sandstein! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. (I really wasn't an admin before today!) If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{prod|yes i know}}

Yes I know {{prod}} can have a param, forgot to add one to '88 Games Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Added param. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem, just thought you might not know it yet. It was simply advertised as {{prod}} for some time. Sandstein 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{prod}}

Thanks, I forgot to add a parameter, and assumed the other templates listed gave enough reason. Oh, and could you use the User discussion pages (User talk:) to post messages to a user, and not the user page itself (User:)? That is what the discussion pages are for. Thanks again, Sir Isaac Lime 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thought you should, User:WoodDaver added an insult to your user page, most likely as a retalliation for your AfD nomination of one his pages. I undid it, but I wanted to give you a heads up, in case he does it again. Sir Isaac Lime 01:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter.

Hello there. You have proposed the article Harefield, Southampton for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ow, wow! I didn't know that - thanks for letting me know. However, in that specific case, the article was marked for speedy deletion under the criterion "no content". I felt that the article did meet the requirements for speedy deletion and, hence, I could have deleted it, but, as I put in the edit summary, I felt there was room for expansion. (For example, notable events that occurred in Harefield, famous people born there, census figures, etc.) Therefore, I removed the CSD tag and added PROD. I have not, though, readded PROD because you removed it, but if you feel that it deserves to be PRODed, feel free to readd it. --M@thwiz2020 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the reply, but it was not I who removed the PROD, but User:Punkmorten. I have no ide about the subject's notability. Plus, PROD is not allowed to be re-added once removed - next stop in this case is WP:AFD. See WP:PROD for more details.
Incidentally, could you tell me where you got the idea to add {{prod}} without parameter? Nothing against you, of course, but I see several people doing this and I wonder whether we have a information text somewhere on Wikipedia that needs to be amended. Best, Sandstein 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Same problem here Sandstein. I had been using prod with a parameter then I stopped doing so because I believed I was making a mistake in doing so - I couldn't see my reasoning appear anywhere, so assumed that actually it was different to {{db}}. If the parameter appeared more clearly, then I would have continued to use it. TheGrappler 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I've initiated a discussion on Template_talk:Prod. Sandstein 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, on WP:PROD, under "Details of the process", bullet one says "you can tag them with {{tl:prod}}". (I didn't actually read the next section, so, well, there you go.) --M@thwiz2020 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I've now slightly modified WP:PROD to avoid this. Sandstein 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airbus {{current}} tag

The tag was not related to the A380. It was related to the BAe sale. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Maybe move the tag down to the relevant section, then? Sandstein 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

Hi! Thanks for the heads up! I hadn't been very active in Wikipedia for the last year and when I used the old VfD the prod procedure didn't even exist :) I'll tag the articles including a reason from now on. Sarg 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Kamezuka Koen
Uster
Yadoukai
Tamachi
Bremgarten bei Bern
Martin Schulz
Tuna no tebiki zaka
Tsuna zaka
Allmendingen bei Bern
Sanko zaka
Bern (district)
Belp
Tsuki no Misaki
Divine United Organization
Saules, Switzerland
Hasegawa Settan
Kohya Hijiri
Conseil d'Etat (Switzerland)
Gyoran ji
Cleanup
Lenzburg
Ratnavli
Takeda Shingen
Merge
Elections in Switzerland
Crest (heraldry)
United States coinage
Add Sources
GED
Divine Light Mission
Sterilization (microbiology)
Wikify
Howar Ziad
Peter F. Secchia
Plastic shopping bag
Expand
Media RSS
Argentine Air Force
St. Michael's College School

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

Thanks for "Welcoming" me to Wikipedia, but, as far as the two articles I started, Its a work in progress like all of Wikipedia's work. I would like it fif you would stop trying to delete my work and give me to the end of the weekend to finishg these articles. In talking about Minority Partnership programs especially when so many programs don't have thenm, I say since you happen to like to be a fan of my "work" that you wait until the aritcle is finished sometime today before making any more comments on it. Please and thank you! Awhitfie

Replied at Awhitfie's talk. Sandstein 21:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

if you want to nominate them for deletion, you are more than welcomed. Obviously you are not from the Dallas Fort Worth Area, so how you figure they are not notible ise the opinion of somebody who is in Europe compared to somebody who lives in America. Not all business in America are known to companies in Europ. Take for example The Irvine Company They are both the same company with same causes but that article isn't up for deletion. Maybe you should think about that before you nominate aritcles from deletion thereby discouraging people from editing or contributing to Wikipedia Awhitfie

Replied at Awhitfie's talk. Sandstein 05:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, I did some reasearch and have some newspaper sources and I'll add them on Awhitfie

[edit] Original Ideas---Quantum Mechanical Laws?! and Quantum Philosophy

You may want to do some research before making dumb remarks such as: quantum philosophers/philosophy and Quantum Mechanical Laws as being my original ideas. Distributed Unconsciousness is my original idea, as it has more evidence than Jung’s collective unconsciousness idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by H0riz0n (talk • contribs).

Please read WP:NPA, provide links to what you are talking about and sign your messages. Sandstein 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aibotteam

You have the patience of a saint! I noticed that one of the sockpuppets in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aibotteam, User:64.9.205.95, was also involved in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astroseries puppetfest. Given that Astroseries was subsequently recreated, do you think it meets the criteria for speedy deletion? -AED 22:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • By all appearances, yes. I'm not an admin, so I can't see the previous article, but it does appear to be a repost (WP:CSD G4), and it's still not notable under WP:SOFTWARE. I've tagged it accordingly. As to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aibotteam, it appears I saw too late that I was talking to puppets... Sandstein 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New user sandestin (talk • contribs)

Hi. I've created a new user name for the reason I state on my user page. While thinking about what to use, I saw your name on AfD and it reminded me of Sandestins, magical creatures from some of Jack Vance's books. I hope you do not think I would try to impersonate you or that the name would be a source of confusion. If you object, I will change it. Sandestin 00:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posted to your user talk. Please continue disussion there.
Hello! Thanks for notifying me. I had no idea that I am a mis-spelt magical creature...
Frankly, since Wikipedia:Username prohibits "names that can be confused with other contributors", I'd much prefer it if you would change it via Wikipedia:Changing username. I think that would be beneficial for both of us in the long run. Consider this AfD, where a newbie suspected that Fagstein was a sockpuppet of mine just based on the similarity of our names. We'd have to spend a lot of time clearing up confusions like "but you voted already".
Best regards, Sandstein 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD:A7

Thank you for your support and encouragement in the {{db-web}} TFD debate, when you wrote: "Keep, but ideally adjust to incorporate the consensually accepted CSD A7 wording." There was some resistence to creating a template that didn't exactly match the policy description, but I have discovered that the policy description does not fully reflect the policy proposals that have been approved. I have begun a discussion here. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. K. Rowling

Hi. You recently converted the citations on J. K. Rowling using cite.php. I'd like to point out a discussion to you that I started here, where I would offer that the consensus of the discussion was that there are a group of editors (myself included) that strongly oppose using the cite.php system in certain articles, and that it would be better for now to not convert articles from {{ref}} to cite.php without discussion, and that some articles should go ahead and stay formatted with {tl|ref}} for now. I'd like to ask you to not convert any more articles to cite.php without verifying that A. No one has done something similar recently in the page history (as has happened several times on J. K. Rowling and B. Leaving a note on the Talk page prior to making such conversion. Thanks, and best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the message. I'll not endeavour an opinion as to the consensus of the discussion you cited, but I agree with part A of your request. I have no intention to force any purely technical change on any article where the editors involved don't agree, although I submit that the general consensus among those Wikipedians interested in footnotes does appear to be in favor of deprecating the older system, insofar as most of the conversions do not provoke any opposition.
For this reason, I don't really see the point of part B of your request, as on all other articles that have been converted so far by me there has been no controversy, and leaving a talk message prior to conversion would amount to un-bold formalism. A revert is all it takes if someone disagrees - I won't insist. Best, Sandstein 18:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Good response. I admit that I don't understand why we should have to "ask permission" before converting references. For one, there's WP:BOLD, and two, there's WP:OWN, which states that nobody owns an article and you don't have to ask permission to make edits. Obviously if there is a contentious page then we should stop and discuss, but otherwise, posting messages to random article talk pages asking permission to convert references is absurd. --Cyde Weys 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well personally I see the Be Bold guideline slightly differently. Basically what I would offer the policy is saying is: "If you are unsure if making a change is the right move, feel free to go ahead and do it. If there's a problem, it can be dealt with". However, if you do make a change that is questioned, it's probably a good idea to rethink your strategy. Don't also forget the section of the page that says"...but don't be reckless!": "But please note: 'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion, without carefully looking at your edit...An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily." The Be Bold guideline is not a catch-all excuse to do whatever you feel like doing to a particular page. Further, while the Ownership of articles policy is worth keeping in mind, I again will quote from the relevant page: "When making large scale removals of content(or changes), particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not." You need to be willing to respect that certain editors have contributed heavily to certain articles, and we willing to give some leniency to those editors if you run into a difference of opinion if you've not contributed heavily to that article before. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tabdulla and Eonycteris

Hi. I notice that you asked (several weeks ago) Tabdulla whether his insect articles (specifically Eonycteris) were from copyrighted sources. I would like to ask if you ever received any sort of response? Some of his recent contributions seem rather suspicious to me. He has not responed to a copyright warning I put on his talk page. I'm just trying to figure out what is going on. —Veyklevar 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. No, I have received no communications from Tabdulla. In fact, I had forgotten about the matter until now. It would certainly be useful to look into some of the odder stuff he or she writes, e.g. Megadermatidae, which is just a bibliography that shows up verbatim on other articles he or she writes. Until something shows up, though, I'll just WP:AGF. Sandstein 04:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
My concern was that some of the stuff he has posted on the topic of Malaysia was clearly copied and pasted from other websites. This may be well-intentioned and stem from some misunderstanding over copyrights, but it is still time consuming to clean up after. He has now posted on Talk:Eonycteris, unfortunately he seems insulted. —Veyklevar 11:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good page

I think the five generations of computing pages just needs editing and its fine allot of education instatutions have this as a assesment ite

  • Please link to what you are talking about and sign your posts. Sandstein 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse of refconverter

Unreflective use of refconverter is causing many problems, and in many cases actively harming Wikipedia. The tool is nice to have—in fact, it's the impetus for me creating my own "Citation Tool" (still alpha). But it is nice to have to aid editors who are actually involved in editing a specific article, and who have reached consensus about making a given type of change to an existing article. Unfortunately, the semi-bot is largely being used to make "drive by 'improvements'" to articles where editors either have not considered the citation style, or where they have actively decided on something different from what the tool produces. This is extremely disrespectful to other Wikipedia editors, and a gross violation of process.

I have not looked at your specific changes made using the semi-bot, but I strongly recommend that you follow a guideline along the lines of: "Use this tool only after consensus for a change has been reached on the talk page of the article to which it is applied!"

You may also want to take a look at User:Evilphoenix/ref conversion. This is a sketch of an RfC that may be filed to try to resolve this problem (I see no reason you might not opine there, even while it lives in userspace). Ideally, Cyde will back off his insistence on changing all articles, even where against editor consensus. But unfortunately, his attitude has only become more belligerent when I have repeated requests in this regard. I think a positive involvment of well-meaning users of the semi-bot might help matters resolve amicably. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref converter RFC

You are receiving this message because you are on the Ref converter spamlist.

Hello there, I'd just like to make you aware that Lulu has filed an RfC against me and "other users of Ref converter". Since Lulu has previously contacted you regarding Ref converter I think it is safe to assume that you are one of the people named in the "other users of Ref converter" bit, so you may want to get involved. Just a heads-up, Cyde Weys 18:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra edit buttons

Hi. Thanks for pointing out that the extra edit buttons were not working. I have updated the script and it seems to be working for me. I have also added some more information to the Village Pump. If you still have problems let me know. --MarkS 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, now they work fine. Thank you! Sandstein 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friedli ref on Copyright law of Switzerland

Hi Sandstein, I see that you added a link to a new ref about Copyright law of Switzerland, and it looks interesting (and very relevant to the page). Given that I don't have access to Weblaw, and that the abstract I found there was not particularly helpful, do you think you could summarise shortly what Friedli says on the topic (in comparison to, say, the fair use rules that we use on Wikipedia). Sorry for pushing you if that was part of your plans; no urgency if it was not. Cheers, Schutz 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll try to do that when I have time. Sandstein 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks to you

Thanks to you, I will never add another article or edit another aritcle on Wikipedia! You have no right to sit there and havbe an aritcle that three of us worked long and hard on deleted! this is exactally why professors in the US doesn't want people using Wikipedia for references because people like you! Gfood luck, for now on I'll use google when I need information awhitfie

Note for the record: awhitfie is referring to Coppola Group and Nathan Coppola, which were unanimously (I think) deleted as apparent hoaxes. Sandstein 18:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I will manage to contain my grief. Sandstein 18:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

–If I can not delete things on my OWN comment page then please have Wikipedia delete my profile because what I did was NOT vandalism, what YOU did was vandalism and where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say that? Awhitfie

As per WP:VAN, "removing warnings for vandalism, personal attacks, or disruption from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." As for I, I merely nominated Coppola Group and Nathan Coppola for deletion — after providing you with ample warnings — and they were indeed unanimously deleted as unverifiable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coppola Group, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Coppola). You did not chose to participate in the discussion even though you were notified by me about them. Sandstein 04:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, see WP:U and WP:UP for information about deleting your account. Sandstein 04:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] HDS template

Hi... I recently came across Template:HDS. Nice work, well done! I wonder if it would be appropriate to include a field for 'URL accessed on date' as well? --BillC 12:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued on Template talk:HDS. Sandstein 19:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Contact me re: Template talk:HDS? Thanks! --BillC 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back in touch. I appreciate the template talk page is the best place for this discussion, but I'm making use of the temporary Template:X7, which gets overwritten every 12 hours, so I wanted to get in touch with you before it got cleared out. If you look at the top of my userpage, you'll see the text "Me, BillC in German, French or Italian in the online Historical Dictionary of Switzerland. Version of 6 May 2006.", for which I have used the template {{X7|329|date=2006-05-05}}.

The general form is {{X7|article_number|Alternate name|author=name|date=article_date}}. Author and date are optional (as is your original Alternate name field). --BillC 20:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. It didn't handle the indentation : (or *) properly. 'Date' of course does not need to be linked, but doing so has the advantage of displaying it in the reader's chosen form under Preferences. I copied this part from {{cite web}}, where there's a similar field. --BillC 21:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. Obviously we can tweak the format and parameters if need be. I have updated Corippo to see if it works. --BillC 08:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Editor / User Page Review

Hey Sandstein –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturner 15:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking some of your suggestions into account, I made the axioms on my userpage appear less serious and the qualifiers for them relate to the Wikipedia Project more. Once again; thanks for the input. joturner 21:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bait Bazi

(from User talk:Pearle)

I have to clarified and wikified this page as per your request. Please inform me if it meets the criteria or I have to furthur improve it. There are 11,700 hits on Google if you search for Bait Bazi. Thanks. Siddiqui 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Forwarded to User:Sandstein, the originator of the request. -- Beland 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Continued on Talk:Bait Bazi Sandstein 04:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deprod of Bikini Car Wash

I deprodded this after moving it to The Bikini Carwash Company, which was the real title of the movie. This is a real movie with a significant release, and I would vote to keep it on AfD if you had brought one. Please don't use prod if you can imagine someone disagreeing with your assessment of an article; in such cases, the community should have the chance to provide input. Mangojuicetalk 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see - apparently I didn't check thoroughly enough. At any rate, the community did have the chance to provide input - in the form of the article being listed in the PROD category, and in the form of your deprodding it. I disagree that PROD should not be used if I can imagine someone disagreeing with my assessment - after all, there's always the chance that, against all expectations, someone might turn up with evidence that the subject of the article is notable. That's how the system works - someone prods, someone else deprods... Sandstein 04:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] db-repost

I did seriously consider deleting the Comparison of content management systems article again when I cleaned all of the spam links around a month ago. At the moment I'm leaning towards chopping out all of the redlinks on the grounds that if they're not worth their own articles, their inclusion was nothing but an attempt to advertise. Thoughts? --GraemeL (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think we have a no-red-links policy towards lists, or don't we? This should apply to comparisons also. Sandstein 16:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actuarial Outpost

Good morning. As an actuary working for a very large Swiss firm's American brach, I can tell you that all of the actuarial students, and many credentialed fellows and associates, keep up-to-date with actuarial news and current events through that site. Have you looked at it? Thank you -- Avi 05:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Note for the record: This discussion concerns Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Actuarial_Outpost.
Good morning to you also. No, I did not need to look at the site, because WP:WEB states: "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria [of WP:WEB, Sandstein] via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section." Since the article does not meet this burden of proof, it can be deleted without further ado. If such links are added to the article, I'll be glad to change my vote to keep. Judging from your Wikipedia Philosophy, I'm sure you'll agree. Best, Sandstein 05:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, :D , yes I am a deletionist, but I also have first-hand information about this site (over 11,000 posts) and also, being an actuary I have a more specialized knowledge about my field, the people in my field, and the contribution of this site TO my field than a layperson would. WP:WEB is a rough guideline. However, you must vote as you think is best for Wikipedia as a whole, and I thank you for your interest. -- Avi 05:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prods on two Centres

Hey -- I deprodded Centre for Ukranian Canadian Studies and Centre for Research into the Older Workforce. I don't know what you mean by "nn college institute" -- I don't think notability applies to such things. In any case, I think it needs at least discussion. I put up mergeto tags on both pages, to preserve your suggestion to merge. Just letting you know! Mangojuicetalk 04:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, and thanks for the message. I do think that the criterium of notability applies to every subject, and that individual college instituted do not normally tend to be notable. We'll see what happens with the merge. Sandstein 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Seventh-Kilometer Market, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of DYK! ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Black Admiral, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 15:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2

I thought you might be interested that joturner is running for adminship again. Pecher Talk 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed the Seventh-Kilometer Market above: congrats with the DYK. How come you became interested in the subject? Pecher Talk 15:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I have no particular interest in Ukraine, or markets, as such -- but when I read interesting stuff in newspapers (in this case, the NYT), I check if Wikipedia has an article on it. Remarkably frequently, it does not, and then what's a Wikipedian to do? :-) Sandstein 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Son of DYK!

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Dudleian lectures, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts! ++Lar: t/c 05:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The DYK that would not die!

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article European Maritime Safety Agency, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your continued efforts! ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olyroos

  • Please only create articles with references/sources from WP:AFC and don't forget to include the anon editor's IP adress in the edit summary for GFDL purposes. WP:AFC has instructions on the top of what not to forget when fulfilling requests. If searching the history for the anon's IP is too laborious, maybe you want to try AmiDaniel's new Whodunit tool... - Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UBV

I've tagged this redirect for speedy deletion because it redirects to a non-existent page. I just figured that I would give you the heads up. --Alphachimp talk 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but now it does redirect to Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela. Sandstein 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I removed the notice. When I first read it, you said you were redirecting to a page that was being written, but I see that that has now been fixed. --Alphachimp talk 07:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Massacres

Please keep your personal POV. Dandanakan 21:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This message contains insufficient data and context for a meaningful reply. Please elaborate, if you desire a reply. Sandstein 22:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On December 15, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Karl Zinsmeister, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 11:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary + question

From my watchlist:

Copyright law of Switzerland; 17:35 . . Sandstein (Talk | contribs) (→Literature - add Schütz reference (I know, I am supposed to actually contribute to the article someday...).)

Geezz... before I looked at the actual diff, I was wondering if I could possibly have written anything in a Wikipedia page that you may have wanted to add to this article — but this seemed quite surprising (especially since my username does not have an umlaut ;-). Oh well... You may be supposed to actually contribute to the article, but you've already done some great work, if only in the first revision of the article, which taught me quite a bit.

Say, given your involvement with processes such as AfD, and your overall excellent contributions to Wikipedia, I was thinking that you may benefit from being an administrator. If I was to nominate, would it be useful to you, or is it something you are not interested in (or maybe not now ?)

All the best, Schutz 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind comments and for your suggestion. I do feel, however, that I am not presently knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia policy to function as administrator. Also, I edit Wikipedia in my spare time and may not be able — due to my professional obligations — to give the project the level of involvement or diligence that people may (or at any rate I would) expect from an administrator. So, thanks, but maybe later.
Conversely, though, after briefly looking at your editcount, bot work and contributions (which appear to be of high quality throughout), I think that you may well pass muster at WP:RfA, although some may expect you to have another few hundred edits. If you are interested now or at some later date, I'd be glad to nominate you in turn. Best, Sandstein 05:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for considering it; my answer is the same as yours, with slightly different reasons. Firstly, I'd rather have these few hundred more edits under my belt before looking into it; secondly (and probably more importantly), I have not yet really found a 'job' where I was really missing having admin powers. Sure, the revert button would be useful, and it'd be nice to be able to do a complete job instead of merely tagging articles as speedy deletion candidate, or reporting a user for vandalism, but nothing I really miss. However, this may change in the next few months, since I have started to become interested in some areas where admin capabilities are quite useful (namely: sorting out possible copyright violations, and eventually delete copyvios, etc). So if you ask again in a few weeks, my answer may be different, but there is no hurry. In the meantime, I hope I'll have the pleasure to "see" you again around an article or another Schutz 23:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camelot

I just double checked: the link works for me. The url doesn't change, and the contents are meaningful. Google doesn't seem to have the page cached, but the begning is the the same ([5]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: I checked it in Mozilla and IE, and it opens the correct page. Also the main page (<deleted because of spam filter, Sandstein 04:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)>) seems to be meaningful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That site has useful info relevant to the article, I'd rather we keep it. It is really strange you are redirected to http://wikipediareview.com . Have you tried other browser? I wonder if it is a browser, IP or your comp issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LostMagic

This is an article aid, not a game guide. Jesusfreak 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, what is an article aid? I didn't know articles needed help, particularly not on how to play video games. Sandstein 04:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I appreciate your willingness to help filter wikipedia but Jesusfreak's article should not be deleted, as it is simply a list of spells found within the game. There are plenty of other videogame related lists similar to this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.135.1.154 (talk • contribs).

Sir: I recommend you offer your arguments related to the deletion of LostMagic Complete List of Spells at the place designated for this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LostMagic Complete List of Spells, where they may influence consensus on whether or not it should be deleted. I by myself cannot influence this now, it's in the community's hands. However, I think the article violates WP:NOT, and it is generally accepted on Wikipedia that the fact that there are unfortunately many unencyclopedic articles is not a reason to keep any particular unencyclopedic article. Sandstein 14:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Roger C. Ambrose

FYI: I have posted a comment: [6]
Roger ambrose 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; your message is duly noted. It appears you do not object to the userfication or deletion of your autobiography. Be assured that this is not a personal matter for all involved; we've all seen a lot of articles like that. Sandstein 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

An FAQ was deleted as having no encyclopedic context under CSD A1, not as patent nonsense. Hopefully this is an uncontroversial deletion, as it fully meets this criteria and is in no way going to become an entry. See Family law system in England & Wales instead. Harro5 10:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Please mention the language(s) in which the Swiss Federal Council members comminicate with each other at the concerned page.Cygnus_hansa 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Swiss Federal Council. Sandstein 15:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It has come to My attention...

Dear Sandstein, let me first adress that I am an admirer of your work on swiss stuff. But I am afraid that I must protest some of your decisions of late. It was brought to me by a student of mine that you deleted a page on a certain Infidel Iggens. I must protest this, it is a true article and should not have been deleted. I have also spoken to over this system of mail to others in league with you and your anti-Iggens cause. I have spoken also to (in person) the writers of the original article, a certain John Pape WoodDaver and Isaac Burgess Von Halburg JizzyJonII. I told them not too post any such article without my checking it. However now having seen the original essay I say that these students should be unblocked and their article reposted.

Yours-- Prof. Jones

cc Alexis Wright

--Gene Chris Jones 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Referred to sockpuppet investigation. Sandstein 04:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stasis of Tichondrius

Hello Sandstein,

I am actually a member of the Stasis guild on Tichondrius that you removed. I just wanted to say that entry was something we were all pretty proud of. Since none of us were responsible for making it. We joke about the exploiting thing, it all started with the creation of a video about walking through walls in a buggy instance. All in all, I thought it was pretty remarkable we got a wikipedia entry from some random person on the server during all the drama and well I was wondering if we could get that post re added. I could get you a copy of the video if you would like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.193.165.6 (talk • contribs).

Hello. I am not an administrator and cannot therefore delete any articles. In fact, I do not remember interacting with such an article at all (although I suppose it's possible I did vote for its deletion at WP:AfD or put a {{prod}} tag on it and then forgot about it). Are you sure you are talking to the right person?
At any rate, I cannot undelete any article because I am not an administrator. If you think the article was deleted in error via WP:AfD, please make your case at WP:DRV. However, articles on gaming guilds are regularly deleted because they are usually not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT for more); and your petition will thus most likely fail. If it was deleted via {{prod}}, you can just recreate it, although it will likely get deleted again for the reasons noted above.
I cannot help you any more. However, an administrator from Category:User undeletion may be prepared to honor your request if you provide a more coherent reason for undeletion and provide a link to the exact article name at issue. Best, Sandstein 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WoodDaver

I am very glad to say that this case has been dealt with quickly and promptly! The result was that all of the accusers have been blocked. The case is accessible by clicking on the above link or going directly to the June '06 archive page. If there is anythign else I can do to help, please let me know! Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs with a color word(s) in their names

Hi, I appreciate your point re this list, but it seems to me to be a pity to delete a page into which so much effort has gone (even though that effort might have been more useful elsewhere). So I'm asking editors if they can rethink and factor that in - I appreciate they may well reach the same conclusion even after a rethink :-) Dlyons493 Talk

[edit] Unacceptable POV Behavior

Sandstein, from the previous comment and your numerous misstatements and activities to mimize relevant content, you appear to be on some sort of personal vendetta to eliminate all references to the wear of any clothing other than pants by males. While I appreciate and respect your POV, I ask that you stop using your POV as a criteria for content removal.

I've repeatedly discussed the relevant issues with innumerable references with the few (about five) of you who appear to be similarly motivated, to no avail. Wiki policy continues to be violated. I've elevated the issue, and received several quite supporting and well qualified comments. Still to no avail.

Result: Page reverted.

Any further personal attacks, abuse, illegal manipulation/control/threats will be submitted for arbitration. Wiki is NOT a forum to be used to further your own POV by deleting content contrary to your POV. Dr1819 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Note for the record: The above comment is presumably relating to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. Sandstein 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello... again (sigh). First, please let me note that I have no bias (that I am aware of) on whether men should wear pants, kilts or whatever. I don't care. My involvement in the abovementioned AfD is solely to help Wikipedia content to conform to the basic policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS.
In particular, I think you should stop to construe any attempt to stop you flooding Wikipedia with neologisms such as "Male Unbifurcated Garment" and "Men's Fashion Freedom" as an attack on you or your beliefs. It's not about you. It's just that no one but you and some other bloggers and forum posters seem to use these terms for issues involving men wearing skirts. As such, these terms do not belong into an encyclopedia.
I am not aware of having committed any "personal attacks, abuse, illegal manipulation/control/threats". If you have any objections to any particular edit of mine, please provide a link or a diff so that I know what you are talking about. Then we can discuss the matter further on the related talk page. Note, though, that repeated serious allegations such as these may be grounds for disciplinary action under WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Sandstein 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Dr1819, you seem to be suffering from an acute case of m:MPOV. As someone noted of another person with strong opinions on the mailing list recently, you don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing The Truth. You percieve your biases as neutral, and anything conflicting with them as bias. You are attributing motives, without benefit of evidence. All these things can only get you in trouble on Wikipedia. Do take the time to read WP:TIGERS some time. Just zis Guy you know? 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, JzG, these are useful links... :-) Sandstein 18:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
JzG, I've made significant contributions to articles on [RAID], [Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles] (which I authored), ]Joint Precision Approach and Landing System] (again, I authored), and others. I'm a long-term (3 years) active member in good standing of one of the most demanding logic-based discussion websites online. As a sysadmin for 20 years, I apply very strict criteria to ensure that everything I put forth is factual, verifiable, and qualified. I put forth the same effort to ensure that MUGs and MFF met the same criteria as JPALS, HLLVs, and my other edits. No one has made any negative comments to work anywhere else in Wiki. Only in the area of men's fashion choices and variants have my contributions been hammered, in ways that violate Wiki policy, rules of debate, logic, politeness, and civility. Again, I used the same care in authorship and to the same standards for all my articles, but received vastly differing responses for articles involving male garment wear than the others. Why only this narrow range of topic and not my many other contributions?
Simple - The dichotomy in responses is a function of the biased POVs of the four main individuals providing the comments, due to the nature of the content, and not due to the clarity, verifiability, or truthfulness of the article itself. No other conclusion logically fits the facts mentioned above. Dr1819 18:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Dr1819, would you mind taking your insights to another forum than my talk page, insofar as they do not concern me? Thank you. Sandstein 18:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Already answered at his Talk. Some people have difficulty understanding that WP is not like web forums. Just zis Guy you know? 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I appologize, Sandstein, truly. Perhaps if you could enforce others to stop their personal attacks and demeaning comments, this unfortunate content wouldn't drift onto your page. Dr1819 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] m:MPOV and WP:TIGERS

Thank you, Sanstein, for your endorsement of the resources - they were excellent. Thank you, JzG, for providing them. I've added them to my growing list of Wiki resources covering Wiki policy, rules, and recommendations. Ciao for now! Dr1819 19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dr1819

An RfC has been opened concerning Dr1819s behavior surrounding men's fashion articles. Since you have been involved in discussing his behavior on these articles, you may wish to certify the dispute or add your thoughts on the issue. Thanks. Shell babelfish 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clothing

To be fair, the articles for deletion discussion was about whether these terms deserved entire articles, not about whether they deserved half a sentence each. Let's see what new evidence Dr1819 comes up with for the notability of the movement and term. Stephen B Streater 08:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but my reasoning stands: these appear to be neologisms used only by Dr1819 and maybe a few dozen bloggers and forum posters. Pending sources to the contrary, they are not really suitable even for a passing mention. If Dr1819 comes up with good sources, I have no problems with their inclusion. Sandstein 08:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

The comment was irrelevant to the discussion. User:Retune

I did not make any sort of call that the comment was unrelated - you yourself started the minor conversation by stating that it was on an 'unrelated note'. Your supporting page explicitly says that talk pages are not for general chatter. User:Retune

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/n/User_talk%7ESandstein_Archive_1_91b9.html"