User talk:Sandstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here to leave me a new message.. Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message; this will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

If you were looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in Archive 1, Archive 2 or Archive 3. I will respond to messages on this page unless you request otherwise.


Contents

[edit] Deletion of Unofficial Rugby Union Championship.

Hi there. Stupid question, when a page is deleted it's deleted for good, there's no trace of it anywhere, is there? The reason I ask is because I'm a member of an association who want to lobby the IRB to have a international trophy modelled on the Ranfurly Shield system and that page was deleted before we could add it to the dossier. I understand why it was deleted but it's a pity, could have been very helpful to us. Saebhiar Adishatz 14:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to access the deleted content of an article, I can restore it for you. Whether it will have any value in an administrative proceeding is another question. The article Unofficial Rugby Union Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has never existed, though. Can you provide the exact title of the article you want, please? Sandstein 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Article

I'm leaving you a message because I think the user Realkyhick recommended this article for deletion in an unsubstantiated manner. I told that user this:

We're really not trying to abuse the system here. The Government is not looking for free advertising. They've been a group for years, and are of notability on the CT shoreline. You definitely can't find the band on google if you search for alternative, CT, and the Gov, because the heading of Thegov.net does not include any of that as a description. Still don't see what the problem is. The local music scene is just as notable as the national, famous circuit, and just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean its not worth having an article about.

Also, I've just added a bit of information to each that I was saving for the WIKI of the PCIA. The band acts as a sort of spokesman for the youth advocacy group PCIA, which is how I know them. They certainly DO exist, and, again, if you google search a string of words, you won't find what you're looking for.

Also, according to the guidelines posted, "A mere claim of notability, even if contested, may avoid deletion under A7 and require a full Article for Deletion process to determine if the subject of the article is notable."

I'd like to contest this deletion on the grounds of the previously mentioned claims of notability, and would like to assert that this user is not involved in the Connecticut music and political advocacy community, and, as I am, I qualify as a better source of information regarding their notability.

which asserts the importance of the band in the independent music scene of CT, and their involvement in a local Youth Advocacy group. I obviously couldn't convince the other user with that, but what more can be done to prove notability? That user is from alabama, and not CT. I , however am from CT, and know enough about the topic to contribute an article. Thend 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Thend

Please specify what article you are talking about by providing a link to it, like this. Sandstein 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Intervening talk threads archived. Sandstein 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The articles have already been merged

I checked and the two articles were merged so I simply deleted older unnecessary information, sorry for trying to make it easier.

Since the merger has already happened would you be so kind as to fix it and delete the unnecessary page,

like I tried to...

Meissmart 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Which articles do you mean? Sandstein 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hello Sandstein, please review this [1], I assume it as a very offensive, close to menace or intimidation. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked per WP:NLT; see User talk:Dr. Steller. Sandstein 10:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetto's Response

Hi! I appreciate the response to the issue back on the admin board. However, i would like to ensure that if i were to engage in a discussion with "my fellow editors", i will not be ridiculed or ignored. Should this happen, then i will stay in the same situation i am in now, with no progress made whatsoever. I'd like you to assist me in this one last situation. Think you can help?

Muchas Gracias! Gooden 14:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't ensure that, and I can't assist you in getting the result you want. That's up to you. It depends on how politely and reasonably you argue, I guess. Assume good faith and don't simply think you are being ridiculed just because other editors don't agree with you. If you alone propose something and everyone else disagrees, you have to accept that it won't happen. However, if others are being incivil or abusive - without provocation, mind you - feel free to tell me and I'll take a look at it. Sandstein 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiBeNiceWiki and PoolGuy

I was hoping that Ohnoitsjaime was going to be around, as I think he know more about this user, but the block was based on a string of account creations: User:WikiMightyWiki is created at 00:14 and blocked at 00:18 as a sock of User:PoolGuy, User:WikiFineWiki is created at 00:19, posts on jaime's talk admitting to being sockpuppet, and is blocked at 00:22 by me, WikiBeNiceWiki is created at 00:30, blocked by me at 00:33 based on the patterns in the username. This was somewhat confirmed by User:Mistreatedhere's post here and here (he also opened an ArbCom case on Jaime). That user is blocked by me, only to be replaced by User:DoesBeingAnAdminMakeYouADick, User:AllYouHaveToDoIsBeNice, and apparently user:NoOffenseBut, who showed up after I went out. If you think I misjudged, by all means unblock, but it seems likely to me. Natalie 16:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, sorry I didn't get you this info sooner. I didn't see the unblock request or I would have posted it there. Natalie 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense, thanks. Unblock declined. Sandstein 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So if a person blocks me for no reason and I create a new account, somehow I did something wrong. Looks to me like ohnoisjaime and erin were going block happy. I think I should be unblocked don't you?NoOffenseBut 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If only all sockpuppets of blocked users would be so considerately announcing themselves. Blocked. Sandstein 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell, this particular person is using a dynamic IP he/she can reset. Jamie mentioned filing a checkuser, I guess to find out the ISP and perhaps inform them. You may want to ask him about that. In the meantime, it's mighty convenient that he/she keeps announcing the sockpuppets, but it certainly would be easier to prevent their creation in the first place. Natalie 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A checkuser is a very good idea; I helped deal with an extremely abusive sockpuppeteer sometime ago. That user didn't stop until a range blocked was introduced (and it's still likely that the user is around, just keeping quiet). Users like PoolGuy/WikiBeNiceWiki, are not likely back down simply by blocking the accounts. Acalamari 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just what are you trying to do? I get blocked by someone just being a dick, and now I create a new account to use Wikipedia, and the likes of you and Natalie jump in and start going block happy. Why? Do you even know what you are blocking me for? I sure don't.

If you don't like me creating accounts, don't block the one I have. If you didn't block I wouldn't create another account, I could use mine. Why are doing that? It does not make sennse. It does not work. It just blocks IPs for other wikipedians. Maybe you should think about the damage your actions are doin to the project. First ohnoitsjaime does it, then Natalie, now you jump in. Is that what they teach you in Admin school? Be mean? Jeez.JustWhat 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confusion

You left me a message but I have no idea what it's about. Marshmellow Mind 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits such as this one or this one are vandalism. Stop it. Sandstein 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R9tgokunks

Following previous incidents and such. R9tgokunks is a generally disruptive editor, who likes to rush in without thinking. Often ruthlessly attack other users, and engage in 3RR. Seeing that you blocked him. I am informing you that I was torn apart in a previous incident, between him, and another disruptive editor called User:LUCPOL who he I fear is bullying. I fear though, R9tgokunks has been slightly disruptive again, and if you want I will keep an eye on his contributions, and report any trouble. Regards. Retiono Virginian 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not aware of the more recent conflict you refer to. As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to watch this user on my behalf, but do feel free to report any blockable misbehaviour to me or to WP:ANI. Sandstein 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InvaderSora

Please unblock me. -Invadersora —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InvaderSora (talk • contribs). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.163.132.236 (talk • contribs).

No. Do not evade your block by editing anonymously. Sandstein 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I sort of have to. its unfair to block me for aother week because i was using the unblock template to expand further on ym reason for unbcok. 64.175.37.54 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, kid, you do not "have to". What you do have to is to obey your block, the reason of which has been explained to you several times. I will reset your block again. If you evade it once again, I will extend it. If you evade it yet again, I will block you indefinitely. This is your last chance to obey Wikipedia's rules and participate constructively in the project. Use it. Sandstein 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch (people)

User Rex Germanus has recommenced editing at Dutch (people) - formerly Dutch (ethnic group) as his block expired. He appears to have violated the three-revert rule, and has again adopted an agressive tone on the talk page. Since you reviewed this before, I would aks you to review the current state of affairs.Paul111 17:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a complicated content issue. Please do the following:
  1. On the talk page of Rex Germanus (talk • contribs) please state, with diffs, how exactly you think that user has violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz, WP:3RR or any Wikipedia policy.
  2. Invite him to comment on your complaint (with a link to this thread).
  3. Then notify me again, in this thread, once he has responded to your complaint, or if he has not responded in a reasonable amount of time, and I will determine whether administrative sanctions are required.
I will not process your request unless you follow these rules of procedure. Sandstein 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I did this, but another user has now entered the issue, in defence of Rex Germanus. In a tit--for-tat move, he has asked you to impose a revert parole on me, even though this is a sole taks of the Arbitration Committee. As a result, I now need to defend myself on the talk page of another user, against complaints by a third user, which have not gone through any proper procedure. I suggest you limit the discussion to one place and two parties.Paul111 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that another admin has now imposed sanctions, which means that I'll have to consider this request to be moot. Sandstein 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is not immediately relevant to the above request, you may be interested in this comment to FutPer: User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Nationalist_material_on_Wikipedia -- Paul111 11:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting things on my userpage

You deleted material from my userpage for what you believe to be unrelated content, which was simply my explaining my POV for the benefit of other Wikipedians. I'm looking at your userpage. How is this related to Wikipedia? "Apart from being a Wikipedian and a jurist, I am also a bicyclist, a classical liberal, an author and a lieutenant in the Swiss Army." Billy Ego 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:UP,
"Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth."
However, what's not allowed is
"Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, ... Other non-encyclopedic material ... Polemical statements" (my emphasis).
As you can see, one sentence of personal information is perfectly permissible (and normal), but several pages of political opinions are not. It's a matter of proportion. That's why I've not also deleted your fascism userboxes and your eagle picture: some POV information is permissible, but don't overdo it. Sandstein 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, it looks like I overwrote your edits to the lead section

Sorry, I seem to have overwritten your edits to the lead section of User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Yuser, on fighting link spam. I will try to un-do the damage I caused. Because I got an edit conflict, I had edited some text in an external editor, and when I pasted it back in, the lead section had changed some more in the meantime. --Teratornis 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Is Stevenstone93

Sandstein, I would like to thank you for your help and time for getting me unblocked. I truly appreciate your cooperation in getting me off the hook here. I will contribute to the Wikipedia Project and not solely just my article, but is it still OK to make an edit or two here and there on my own page? Once Again Thanks, --- Steven Suttles Stone

You're welcome. Of course you may edit your user page, but keep it to a minimum, yes? What we need to see from you now is involvement in the encyclopedia. That is, the articles. This is why we are here. Sandstein 05:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conner

You recently tagged this article for deletion under speedy-deletion case A7. The speedy-deletion was challenged in good faith. The page has been temporarily restored and listed to AFD for community discussion. You may want to participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I just put {{bio-notability}} on it. Sandstein 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BZ

You might want to keep an eye on User:BZ(Bruno Zollinger) -- after returning from the block for inappropriate Talk page use, which he passed by engaging in irrelevant discussions on his own Talk page, his first edit was another round of soapboxing and irrelevant personal opinion. I left another chat warning for him, but this seems unlikely to change his behavior. (I'd have posted this at WP:ANI, but the prior BZ topic has already been archived.) -- Rbellin|Talk 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I see you warned him, next time I'll indefblock him as advertised. And I'll warn his strange companion, Jahn Henne (talk • contribs). Sandstein 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Billy Ego: picture

I (and I am sure many other editors) also find the picture on his user page quite offensive. My father and his pals were paratroops who suffered horribly in WW2 fighting that. Is there any chance of removing the picture? Thanks if you can help. MarkThomas 20:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If it were a Nazi symbol, yes, it would be inflammatory. However, Image:Aigle-napoleonienne-p1030180.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is a Napoleonic aquila, which I assume was not present on WWII battlefields. Incidentally, Cloveoil is right: do not harrass other editors on their talk pages, even fascists. Sandstein 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Evening

I just wanted to let you know that DarzieP has updated his talk page. Please look at it. I'd like you to reconsider as he's not a bad guy. He is my brother after all.

[edit] I think it's done

Thank you for your help.

I've finished my main copy-edit of User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Yuser, on fighting link spam. Please take a look, and touch-up anything that needs it. It goes live on Wednesday (tomorrow). The Transhumanist   22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You Very Much

I thank you abundantly for your reconsideration of my ban. Could I bother you to explain to me what a provisional ban is? Thank you so much.

DarzieP 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. You're not provisionally banned. You're provisionally unblocked, that is, if you commit one more copyright violation, I will block you again. Sandstein 06:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ohmefentanyl

It appears that after you deleted the page based on User:Nuklear's request, he recreated it. I guess it was some kind of strategy to prematurely end the AfD discussion...? JulesH 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Another AfD will be required if you think it's still problematic, I'm afraid to say. Sandstein 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Plese reconsider your vote to delete Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq

Hi Sandstein,

I've just put a lot of work into improving Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq so that the article is not now anything like what it was when you voted to delete. I think it may meet your objections to it, so please take another look and see what you think. I'm still not satisfied with the article, but it has roughly the proper scope and many more reliable sources. I think what I've done shows that there's too much material out there to merge this article with anything else. Significant gaps remain and some subjects should have footnotes from more sources, but I think the article is several steps toward what it should be. Best, Noroton 22:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editors refusing discussion and edit warring

May I consider users refusing discussion on the talk page as a vandals ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No. As per policy: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." If a user does not enter into discussion, this is a different conduct issue that requires initiating the dispute resolution procedure. Depending on the case, it may also be disruptive and require admin intervention under e.g. the three revert rule or the civility rule. Sandstein 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Prod

I just wanted to give you heads up that I've deproded the Religion in A Song of Ice and Fire. I don't know if you want to take it to AfD or not but I think that the Prod reason is debatable enough to warrant discussion there is you feel that the article is clear cut policy violation. NeoFreak 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Ruiz III

Greetings Sandstein,

The article 'Nicholas Ruiz III' was deleted with very little discussion and unsatisfactory objections raised by the Wikipedia critic on the talk page for the article. Please reconsider the said deletion; it is exceedingly unfair and egregiously biased given the wide occurrence of similar articles already on Wikipedia. Many thanks for your consideration. I insert the text of the talk page here: <content of Talk:Nicholas Ruiz III redacted, Sandstein> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick.ruiz (talk • contribs).

Dr Ruiz, your autobiography Nicholas Ruiz III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was correctly speedily deleted under the rule WP:CSD#A7 because it did not attest notability. Also, per our conflict of interest policy, you are not allowed to write articles about yourself, especially if their content is not verifiable by reliable sources. See also WP:WAX: that Wikipedia has many unsuitable articles is a reason to delete those, not to add more. Sandstein 06:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Sandstein,

Many thanks for your note. I believe I can attest to the notability of the article by claim of published work in an active field of study. Such information is verifiable by reliable sources, by Wikipedia standards. I do recognize that entries regarding one's work need to be carefully neutral--this care is taken in the article, which is neutral in bias. It is not the case that such already existing Wikipedia articles are 'unsuitable,' but rather, they serve an academic and informational purpose in higher education and for posterity. I do agree that they should be neutral in bias, and not promotional materials, as indeed, this article and the others safely avoid. Please reconsider this deletion, if any complaints or discrepancies arise regarding the entry, I agree to edit the article accordingly in a timely fashion. Thank you for your consideration. Nick.ruiz 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your claim of "published work in an active field of study" does not make you notable by our standards, which must be met in addition to the article being based on reliable independent sources. Also, per WP:COI, writing articles about yourself is greatly frowned upon. You'd have to wait until someone else finds you interesting enough to write an article about. Please click these links to find out what I mean. Sandstein 08:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein, I am the editor and founder of the peer-reviewed journal Kritikos, which is indexed in university library databases all over the world. Kritikos is widely known as one of the premier online, open-access journals for cultural and critical theory, art and criticism. All of this is independently verifiable. As for article authorship, -frowned upon- does not translate into -forbidden-. In light of the verifiable notability and responsible neutrality of the article, this article entry is a justifiable exception. Many thanks again, for your consideration. Nick.ruiz 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, but this is apparently not widely known enough for Kritikos to have its own article. Even if it were so, and you cite no sources for it, it would not follow that you as the journal's editor would be notable also. This, in addition to the conflict of interest problem – it's hard to be "responsibly neutral" about oneself – leads me to decline your request for undeletion. If you would like to appeal this, you may file a request for deletion review at WP:DRV; please link to this discussion (with the link code: [[User talk:Sandstein#Nicholas Ruiz III]]) if you decide to do so. Sandstein 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein, I have appealed your decision. The link is below.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nicholas Ruiz III. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nick.ruiz 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Sandstein 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user 207.69.137.14

I see that on 10 March 2007 you blocked this user from editing. Does it take a while to take effect? This user today (23 March) made edits Jose Rodriguez (intelligence) which I'm trying to determine are valid or not. Alcarillo 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The IPs are not the same. 207.69.137.14 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) is blocked, 207.69.137.24 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) is not. Please report the latter to WP:AIV in case of repeat vandalism. Sandstein 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article titled "Pranic Healing"

Hi,

It is completely understandable why the article was deleted. I would like to create a new informational (not promotional) article with the same title. This is a subject I have been studying for many years and I think that given the number of people who study this modality and the number of books available on the subject, it would be very useful to have information about Pranic Healing on Wikipedia. Please let me know if it is alright to create an article with the same title right after the previous one was deleted. Would that be a cause for the deletion of my article?

Thanks for all your help. Sg ph 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. In principle, you may write a new article about Pranic Healing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), because that article has not yet been the subject of a articles for deletion discussion. In your case, I do not recommend it, though:
  1. I note you are associated with the organisation "pranichealing.org". Per our conflict of interests policy, you should not edit articles about issues your organisation is involved with.
  2. Looking at the deleted text, the concept appears to be nonnotable and will thus be likely nominated for regular deletion. Sandstein 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZK

Ich habe mir den Quelltext von der Diskussionsseite vom BZ daheim bei mir auf Platte kopiert. Du kannst das also meinetwegen gern komplett zersägen. Mein Nachbar, er ist Pfarrer, hat zwar mit WIKIPEDIA nix am Hut, aber er meint auch, daß man erst mal das machen sollte (should do), was hier, bei WIKIPEDIA als AGF bezeichnet wird. Ich seh das anders, deshalb bin ich auch aus der Kirche ausgetreten. LA VIE EST BELLE. fz JaHn 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your change of heart concerning my unsuccessful RfA. I am disappointed that I was judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Hopefully I can convince you next time around. But until that time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bikini Carwash Company

  • There is a vote for deletion under way. I think you might be interested. Hektor 14:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks but, per the prohibition on votestacking, I should not have been contacted, because since I am the prodder, I must be expected to favour deletion. For that reason, I decline to participate. Sandstein 14:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Given the fact that I am in favor of keep, and have written so in the vote, I don't see where is the problem ? why are people always assuming bad faith. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I just wrote to you because your archive was linked to this page, and I have also written to the other user you were writing to. I don't appreciate the accusation. Hektor 14:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • My apologies. I did not see that. I'll try and remember to WP:AGF more next time. Sandstein 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

There has been an extensive effort to combine Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (together with much of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) into a new policy called Wikipedia:Attribution, and its FAQ, WP:ATTFAQ.

Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo questioned whether the result had adequate consensus, and requested:

You are invited to take part; the community discussion should be as broad as possible. If you wish to invite other experienced and intelligent editors, please use neutral language. This message, for example, is {{ATTCD}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by User 72.10.124.202

Link to User's Talk Page

this user has received a number of warnings about vandalism and being blocked, but has not been blocked to date, yet continues to vandalize articles. what is the procedure for blocking that user? Whateley23 20:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a shared IP which is not currently vandalising, so doesn't need blocking now. For next time, to have in-progress vandalism stopped, check that the user has received a final waning and then report them at WP:AIV. Sandstein 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collateral damage

Thanks for letting me know. I say go ahead and unblock, though I still have a couple lingering doubts. The main instigator of the earlier fraud definitely had some technical/hacking skills, so it's possible that they just did some password phishing to find another account to use. However, it's probably best to WP:AGF and then just keep an eye on things. If the account sticks with editing in unrelated areas, then we're fine.  :) But if they make a beeline for any articles related to medieval history, then I'd say to keep them on a short leash and reblock immediately if any problems pop up. How's that sound? --Elonka 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As a related account we are having troubles with, check contribs of 208.157.148.51 (talk • contribs). We had another anon posting personal attacks, which an admin deleted, but now a different anon account is restoring the attacks. Could you help with vandalism cleanup there please? Or would you prefer that I took it to ANI? --Elonka 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't claim to understand what is going on here, but this appears to be just trolling. Blocked. Sandstein 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm, just bugging you about more socks.

Remember Brigader General (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Lt. Col. Cole (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)? I found another person with the same modus operandi. Ruby1942 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). More of the same. I'd appreciate blocking, but I'll have left a notice on WP:AIV, IRC, and the user's talk page by then I think. Logical2uReview me! 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm going to leave a RFCU (IP Check) on this person (if it's applicable, the policy keeps changing), as it seems to be a chronic problem at this point. Thanks for the block. Logical2uReview me! 22:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Puppet and puppetmaster indefblocked. Thanks for the info, feel free to report any new socks that might pop up. Sandstein 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I appear to have found one last sock. Jack3090 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Logical2uReview me! 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
... and blocked. Sandstein 08:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A favor

Hello. I write to ask for a favor. I'm elipongo (talk • contribs) but I'm typing this from my cellphone's microbrowser via a Google interface because my computer crashed thursday morning. I'm hoping you'll do me the great favor of posting a template explaining my absence on my user & user talk pages. My new computer won't arrive for a couple of weeks and I won't be around much until then. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.102.6.136 (talk • contribs).

Sure, no problem. Sandstein 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

And do please give us the courtesy of at least trying to write in English. — Sandstein 20:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

are you saying i cant speak or write in english?

give me an example why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanbricks (talk • contribs).

Replying on your talk page. Sandstein 07:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my spelling

if you are refering to the way i spealt oiL, thats the way the band spells it.

Im Australian so our first language is english and i go to school so im %100 sure i can spell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanbricks (talk • contribs).

... Ah, yes, very well, thank you. However, your last sentence should have been spelled "I'm Australian, so my first language is English and I go to school, so I'm 100% sure I can spell." But never mind, and have fun contributing to Wikipedia. Sandstein 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


No need to be so arrogant with your reply. Every person born in Australia speaks English, so thats why i said "our", and your corrections are slightly wrong, Australians use different grammar to some countries e.g. Some countries spell color, Australians write colour, as for the word mom and mum. The swiss are only good for one thing, making chocolate.

Thanks Mr. Sandstein for your very informing "English Class"

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 25 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Source Columba, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 09:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

User_talk:Billy_Ego#Blocked_again. What's your call on it? —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll not contest the matter if another administrator undoes the block. That said, I recommend declining the unblock request.
We are not a free web host for political essays (or quotes collections, which have also been the subject of the previous cleanups of Billy Ego's userpage). Billy Ego is not a long-established editor who might be allowed more latitude in his user space. More importantly, though: he appears to be unwilling in principle to adhere to our content and conduct policies, taking an unnecessarily combative stance at every turn, as is the hallmark of most people who eventually end up at WP:BU. If Billy Ego were to be unblocked now, he might consider it as validation for any further soapboxing or combative editing (check his block log).
Oh, and dragging this before ArbCom? What the hell for? This issue can very well be resolved at the WP:ANI level, if required. Sandstein 17:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

I am now unblocked - thanks for your help. LeeG 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10:08

Sad, that articels, that are referred to in the www, are deleted! http://www.etre.com/blog/2006/12/1008_watch_advertisements/ Can I recover the article for my own information?! Best regards --menphrad 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

10:08 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10:08. I have restored a copy for you at User:Menphrad/10:08. Sandstein 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your effort of restoring this piece of information for me! Best regards --menphrad 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] <profanity redacted>

Why did you delete my drawing?!!!!!!???!!!!? Replay7 21:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and WP:CSD#G1. Sandstein 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you bring it back so I can re-save it to my computer? Replay7 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You want that bunch of scrawls back? No. You can recreate it faster than I can undelete it. Sandstein 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No I can't. I can't remember the design of it. Replay7 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? There was no design, just random blobs of colour. Sandstein 22:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides, if you uploaded it, it's still on your hard disk. Sandstein 22:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I say it probably wasn't if he has swapped computers or perhaps re-formatted (see formatting). Lord fabs 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hakia

Hi

I am curious why you deleted the content on hakia. I will really appreciate if you can let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitramitava (talk • contribs).

Hakia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was deleted under the rule WP:CSD#A7. It did not assert notability. Click on the links to learn more. Sandstein 06:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Conventions: Scottish National Party standing against the Speaker

Hi, thanks for trying to tidy up the article on Constitutional Conventions by promptly removing what I had written. However, I think you were wrong to do so. As it stands the article says "no major parties stand against the Speaker." Well, the Scottish National Party do: this is not original research (see Glasgow North East (UK Parliament constituency)#Election results) The Scottish National Party are a major party: they are the official opposition in the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, I think my addition to the article should stand.

Thanks

Boleslaw 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC) DB

Okay, go ahead and put it back in... I really know too little about this. Maybe you could add an inline reference to a reliable source to back this up? Sandstein 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know too little about this why did you self-righteously delete it???

On a more constructive note, I have a reference from the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm

However, this is a Flash animation which one has to navigate around to find the required information. Can I link to this?

Boleslaw 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)DB

Please read WP:AGF. See WP:RS and WP:EL as to your second question. You can link to it, the question is whether you should. You don't need to source the claim that the SNP is a major party. You do need to source the claim that they do what you claim they are doing in Parliament. Sandstein 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of MediaCommons

You speedy deleted MediaCommons despite me putting a hang-on tag on the site, providing a citation on one lengthy external article on the organization, and indicating in the discussion that it was a work-in-progress and stub. Can you please explain the rationale for this? --Jajasoon 04:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. The rationale for deleting MediaCommons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was WP:CSD#a7, i.e., the article did not assert notability. A piece of external coverage is no assertion of notability. I've restored the content to User:Jajasoon/MediaCommons so that you may work on it to bring it to WP:WEB standards before re-publishing it. Sandstein 05:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from the Hybrid

Hello. As I was involved in a lengthy RfC pertaining to User:Cerebral Warrior, which is visible near the bottom of his talk page, I am aware that certain things are simply not allowed on Wikipedia, and must be removed. I am also aware that freedom of speech is non-existent here. However, looking at things logically, certain things have been allowed. To start, Category:Wikipedians by politics. The existence of these categories suggests that Wikipedians are allowed to identify what political views they hold. Since many of these users are in these categories due to having certain userboxes on their pages, that suggests that they are able to publicize what views they hold on their user page in a visual, literary form. Removing these things from user pages, yet maintaining the categories is contradictory. What is the correct thing to do, delete the categories, or allow freedom of expression? Does this warrant a larger poll? Cheers, -- The Hybrid 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help to unblock account

Hi Sandstein,

I really appreciate for your help to unblock "Florawu" account. However,I'd like to know the current status so far.

I left message to request unblock as the below reason, but it seems like no response. Feel disappointed because Wikipedia is supposed to collect the valuable knowledge as much as possible. In my case, I try to contribute world's first "ACT" (Automatic channel targeting)function from MIPRO as the pro audio valuable hi-tech knowledge. (please visit www.mipro.com.tw in detail). "the conflict of interest" makes my account has been blocked. I must apologize for this mistake. However, I promise not to edit the relevant article and request the opportunity to unblock only.

Finally, I hope administers who want to contribute the valuable and important knowledge for Wikipedia can help to save this problem.

Again, thanks for your assistance in advance. Sorry, I can not sign the name at the end because of block IP address not allow me to leave message to you.

My account is :"Florawu" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.120.105.139 (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm replying on User talk:Florawu. Sandstein 04:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for unblocking

Hi Sandstein,

Thanks for your help in lifting my Autoblock - while I'm hardly a major contributor I like to do my little bit and certainly have no interest in abusive or similar behaviour - joys of shared IP addressing.

Best regards,

Peter aka Pstansbu 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration filed

Here's to notify you that an arbitration is being filed against you here [2]. Billy Ego 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XFD's

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for reviewing me and pointing my mistakes out. I haven't learnt well XFD's yet, so I was bound for something like that. I didn't realise (I missed the policy and the essay), I was out of tune. Thanks for reviewing me and thanks so much for slamming me hard instead being really nice. It is very appreciated. A barnstar is hereby awarded. Cheers! The Evil Clown my contributions 20:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. I do hope I was not too frank about it. Sandstein 04:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Foil of Wit

I, Durova, award you this Italian grip Foil of Wit for delightful Homeric ripostes at the RFA for Akhilleus. DurovaCharge! 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I, Durova, award you this Italian grip Foil of Wit for delightful Homeric ripostes at the RFA for Akhilleus. DurovaCharge! 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re:Abortion in Switzerland

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that fact. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll go ahead and create Category:Abortion in Europe as Category:Abortion in the European Union seems to needlessly exclude non-EU countries in Europe. It doesn't seem logical for some European states not to be grouped with the rest. Also, this would harmonize the category with the navigation box featured on the bottom of the "Abortion in Europe" articles (like Abortion in Finland), which is titled "Abortion in Europe," not "Abortion in the European Union." Also, thank you for creating the Abortion in Switzerland article, and helping to fill a gap in Wikipedia's coverage of global abortion law. -Severa (!!!) 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reza Shah/New

If you look at the talk page, the author agreed to have it deleted. So it should probably be deleted. Thanks. The Behnam 04:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium Challenge Account

On the map critique, I was wondering what you meant. The map image itself is a wikicommons creation that is free use. All the best! Judgesurreal777 08:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant: what data is the map based on? That data needs reliable sources, too. Sandstein 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protester statutory arguments

Dear editor Sandstein: Thank you for your GA review of this article. Your points are very helpful. Yours, Famspear 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've added a few additional thoughts. Sandstein 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military simulation

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 30 March 2007, a fact from the article Military simulation, which you recently nominated, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion in Switzerland

Updated DYK query On 31 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abortion in Switzerland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you so rude?

Hello. I was just reading my talk page and found that you are attempting to qualify a reasonless statement by adding "IMHO", presumably meaning in my honest opinion? Why are you so rude to use abbreviations for words normally respected in the english language as being sincere?

Please reply, and apologise if you can't defend adequately. Lord fabs 13:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I came across this by chance, but FYI, "IMHO" typically means "in my humble opinion," actually. Newyorkbrad 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep. See IMHO. Sandstein 22:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

As a Clerk for the Arbitration Committee, I am advising that the arbitrators have voted to decline to hear the case that Billy Ego brought against you. Therefore, the case has been removed from the requests for arbitration page. If you have not already done so, you will wish to read the arbitrators' comments, which can be found in the history of the page just prior to the removal. Newyorkbrad 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser procedure

Hi, I moved the case you recently filled to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Antidote, since User:Antidote might be the sockpuppetter. Do you know by any chance a confirmed sockpuppet account that was used on the last 30 days? Both accounts you provided last edited in 2006, which is unfortunately too old to check. Thanks. -- lucasbfr talk, checkuser clerk, 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wow

i apply for adminship and u disrespect me like dat, a simple constructive critisism wouldve worked —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.57.21.52 (talk • contribs).

And who might you be? Sandstein 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:InvaderSora

Given this editor's continuing misconduct, edit warring, and civility, I've blocked him indefinitely. As you dealt with him previously and gave the warnings, figured I'd let you know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I've no objections. Sandstein 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Ego

I'm going to reinsert all the material you deleted from my user page. Other adminstrators over in the arbitration section said that you should go through a consensus process before deleting the material from my user page and blocking me. Are you going to abide by that convention or act as judge, jury, and executioner again? Billy Ego 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My advice Sandstein is to ignore this remark, they said no such thing. In fact, from their comments when they rejected Billy Ego's case which I repaste below, they said that they "disallow inflammatory use of userspace" and that "user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute are prohibited in any case". In case you are in any doubt at all Billy Ego, this means you. There would be every reason to report your page if you do so, and the best approach in my opinion would be to tag it for immediate deletion and apply for you to be permablocked for utterly ignoring arbitration rulings. MarkThomas 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
<copy/paste of RfAr removed, Sandstein>
No arbitrator suggested anything of the sort you – Billy Ego – suggest; see the RfAr in full. If you continue to violate WP:NOT#MYSPACE and WP:UP by adding political essays and Hitler/Mussolini quotes to your user space, I will block you, and then I will submit that block for review by other administrators. As I have said numerous times already, you may post such material at any length you desire on another website, but not on Wikipedia.
You have been now been amply cautioned that your behaviour is willfully disruptive and is (as was noted by an arbitrator) suited for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. As such, the next block I will impose will be of indefinite duration. Sandstein 23:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This threat will be reported. Billy Ego 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In case you missed it, administrator Paul August said "Decline. Per Doc above, "moderate declarations of POV" are allowed and can be useful. However what constitutes "moderate" is debatable. Blocks related to this issue, in all but the most obvious cases, should be based on consensus. (Reference: Paul August ☎ 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) [3]) And adminstrator Docg said, "We allow moderate declarations of POV, but we block trolls and disallow inflammatory use of userspace. Sandstein should have sought, and received, support from other admins, but he realises that. There is nothing more here.--Docg 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC) [4]) That's two administrators who say you should first seek consensus. Maybe you missed these comments. So, I ask you again, are you going to act as judge jury and executioner when I restore my user page the way I like it? Billy Ego 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I will certainly base my block on admin consensus. Such consensus may, but need not be obtained prior to the block, depending on the severity of your disruption. Sandstein 05:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding USER:Benjiwolf

I saw you indefblocked USER:Benjiwolf. You may also want to nab User:CrystalizedAngels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and protect User talk:CrystalizedAngels -- he's been adding his wikivandal-for-profit business there too. /Blaxthos 05:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Already indefblocked as sock; talk now protected. Thanks. Sandstein 05:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I'm initiating an arbitration case against benjiwolf because of the for-profit vandal service he's offering, along with his sockpuppetry and admitted purpose of getting most of switzerland blocked. Please head over to the current requests and drop in your $.02 (the sooner the better). Also, his talk page will need unprotection, and we'll need to let him have the ability to edit the arbcom case. /Blaxthos 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. His talk page is now unprotected; you may notify him there. He can issue his statement via his talk page. Sandstein 07:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Hicks article

Hello there, At present the article entitled "David Hicks" is on the brink of entering a revert or edit war as the user "Prester John" continually deletes cited material that s/he feels is inappropriate but is actually very straightfoward. While it appears that this user is manipulating the article to suit their point of view, there is equal chance theu honestly feel their edits are for the common good. That said, in his/her edit summaries, s/he has made snide comments about "lefties" that I think spoils the community a little. You may feel there is nothing to worry about, but I would prefer an administator look over it.

Vision Insider

Vision Insider 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, admins don't intervene with admin tools in content disputes, which is what seems to be going on at David Hicks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). You should both not be editwarring on the article, but discuss the issues on the talk page instead. If there are specific conduct issues, such as vandalism or WP:3RR, please bring them up specifically after discussing them at the other editor's talk page, or report them to WP:AN3. You may also request page protection to stop an edit war from going on. Sandstein 08:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugin

That's funny. So User:Eloquence started this discussion the other day on how to use meta:Open Source Toolset to promote useful open source software to our users. I created commons:Category:Created with Hugin to showcase a powerful and popular tool which was instrumental in creating two of our featured pictures. I return to the WP page to add a link to the category only to find that you would like to delete the article (via CSD A7 no less!). You know, memory may be failing me, but weren't you the guy who wanted to delete Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra Software, too? I hope this is a freaky coincidence. How about you let me know if you feel like deleting a software article? I know a thing or two about software. I'll be in Bern April 19/20 attending a conference – we could have a drink and talk about notable software :-). Rl 17:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the discussion you mention. I saw Hugin mentioned on a blog, clicked the link, noticed that it had no claim to notability, supplied the appropriate tag. I do not doubt that you are knowledgeable about software, but nonetheless WP:N (let alone WP:ATT) requires that a topic needs coverage by reliable independent sources in order to have an article. Your personal knowledge can't stand in for sources, I'm afraid.
By the way, interesting that you should mention that documents management conference. I got the flyer and briefly considered attending too (the authority I'm with does a lot of DMS-related work), but lawyers are really just a nuisance at such events. Better to have the techies and project managers there, they like the buzzwords :-) Sandstein 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Criteria for notability depend on the subject. Scientific journals cover very little beyond scientific software, and newspapers focus on software with large advertisement budgets. Open source software doesn't even have sales numbers. What do you suggest we use to establish notability? – I'd agree that we have too many articles on non-notable programs, but we need something better than the standard notability criteria or we'll throw out the baby with the bathwater. The method you seem to favor is putting articles through AfD and waiting for knowledgeable people to attest to the software's notability, but that's just a more formal way of asking some people about it. Rl 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suggest applying WP:N, that is, looking for reliable independent published sources. If there are none, we ought to have no article on the subject, if only because the article would not be verifiable in the first place. Sandstein 21:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Self-published sources are perfectly valid (and verifiable), so that's not the issue. What they cannot be used for is establishing notability, and that is notoriously difficult with free software. With ATLAS I was lucky, but even for highly popular software like hugin the typical crop looks something like this: [5] [6] [7]. Would you like to add these links to the article? Rl 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
These sources actually look pretty good to me, especially the magazine reviews. I'll let someone else do the honour of inserting them, because I know nothing about the subject matter of the article. Sandstein 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the discussion. I'm going to add one of them and remove the notability template, hope that's okay with you. I'll renew once more my offer to look into software issues if run across them. Then I can dig up references at least for the cases that I know about. Rl 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration request against you

I am requesting an arbitration against you for misuse of power, here: [8] Billy Ego 01:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto

You speedy deleted Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto despite me putting a hang-on tag on the site, nor have I received any answers from you regarding the Sgarabotto wikipage. You keep deleting despite the fact that I had corrected the so-called "violations".............


RE: Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto as a copyright violation from http://www.moennig.com/fall83.pdf. Sandstein 04:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My post: "Pardon but if the issue is over only one section of the page, why have you deleted the entire page again? Do let me know. Thank you. User: Milliot 31 March, 2007 Again, if the issue is over one photo and small section of the text which incidentally did have attribution to the authour (Philip J. Kass), why are you deleting the whole page. That seems puzzling. Please extrapolate. Thank you in advance. ...........

Incidentally, the article is used with permission by Maestronet: Please see the full article at http://www.maestronet.com/m_library/world_strings/fall83.pdf (Selected World of Strings Newsletters Provided courtesy William Moening & Sons, Ltd, used by permission on Maestronet.com). For the meantime, I believe it should be OK to have a link directing to http://www.maestronet.com/m%5Flibrary/world_strings/index.cfm (Selected World of Strings Newsletters Provided courtesy William Moening & Sons, Ltd, used by permission on Maestronet.com) I have posted the article without the text and the photo that you objected to. Please let me know if there is anything you would like to add to these very important Violin Makers of the 20th century. User: Milliot 1 April, 2007"


Please take a look at the updated version of the article on User:Milliot/Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto, it should be OK since I deleted the photo from 1965 (for now) and the text which you raised issue with. Please put back the article to its rightful place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaetano_and_Pietro_Sgarabotto Thank you in advance.

User:Milliot 3 April, 2007

[edit] 3RR block appeal

Could you give me a little clarification of why you turned down my appeal based on "a thorough examination would take longer than your remaining block period." You do realize SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) who instigated the block is using this against me[9][10] maybe in part to an issue I had months ago with her.[11] I think it would be best in the future for you to deny appeals based evidence rather than it taking too much time. If its too much trouble for you to review then you shouldn't take the time to deny the block. Addressing the appellates concerns is what the appeal is supposed to do rather than simply supporting someone else's decision.[12] In sum, I'd like to know why you took the time to deny the appeal, but not the time to review it. Arbustoo 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. You seem to misunderstand the nature of unblock reviews. They are not appeals; they are not judicial proceedings and there is no right to due process. They are also not a way to get a full review of your block by a second admin, but merely an opportunity to call attention to egregious errors in judgment on the part of admins.
The reviewing admin will not normally re-evaluate the basis for the block in full, especially in complicated cases, but simply check if the block is obviously erroneous. This is mostly because due to WP:ABP, unblocks need to be done in consensus with the blocking admin except in very rare cases of evident abuse. In the case of short blocks, this consensus-building would generally take longer than the remaining block duration. The unblock reviewer will therefore not generally go to that trouble unless they think it is worthwile because the block is of long duration or because they think the blocking admin is obviously in error. Neither was the case here. Sandstein 05:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I didn't see discussion about my appeal by "other editors - most of whom probably have no involvement in the matter."[13] You were the only one who commented from "outside" and you said it wasn't worth reviewing due to time. While it is too late now, I feel, judging by your comments, that you denied it for the wrong reason; time. In the future, addressing the nature of the concerns would be more helpful for all involved. Arbustoo 17:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi, you recently blocked Ajiboy11 (talk • contribs) for keep uploading images with no copyright tag after i listed him at AIV, however when informing hi/her they hade been blocked by you their was an edit conflict from Orphanbot at 12:06 about inmage copyright problems and you blocked him at 12:04 the block log says, is their anything you can do to stop him uploading images.Tellyaddict 12:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. The account is now blocked and can (I presume) not upload any more images. What more would you like me to do? Sandstein 12:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh its sorted now, newver mind, thanks for you help! Regards Tellyaddict 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord & Taylor vandalism (again)

Hey there,

I am so sorry to have to ask you for help on this again, but, that autistic teen is at it again, this time frequently vandalizing the page "list of Lord & Taylor locations"

He also occasionally vandalizes the main Lord & Taylor page.

How can we get these pages locked/protected again from unregistered users? Please help. Thanks.

PanzaM22 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Mike

OK, this concerns Lord & Taylor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and List of Lord & Taylor locations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I've blocked the kid's curent IP, 72.82.180.99 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log), for a month. Notify me if there's more trouble. Sandstein 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto

It's back, as a note; as you were in conference with the author on a previous incident with this article - and the fact that my PDF viewer is screwing up, meaning I can't ascertain whether it is another G12 or not - could I ask you to evaluate it? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the current version is not an (obvious) copyvio. The author is somewhat incoherent but well-meaning, so I've let the matter be. Sandstein 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE DON'T ...

== PLEASE DON'T I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I'D DONE WAS NEGATIVE IN ANY WAY...DON'T BAN ME OVER THIS I CAN MAKE IT UP TO THIS SITE, I CAN MAKE POSITIVE INFO, THAT CAN BENEFIT THIS SITE AND FOR THOSE WHO LOG ON! ==

please don't block my account over this, if i'm doing anything wrong please inform me what i'm doing wrong as i'm unsure of what i should or shouldn't do! I've even undone what i've currently done to please you.SCOCSOOCSOSC 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(Header shortened for clarity.) What you did was create Agnes Lenz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), an article which appeared to be full of ludicrous charges of incest, etc., against a woman of that name. Please see WP:BLP. Was this meant to be a joke? If so, it was in very poor taste. Sandstein 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I see now from your contribs that this might have been about a fictional character, yes? If so, please make this very abundantly clear next time. Begin with "Jane Doe is a fictional character in ...". Remember, there almost certainly is a real person named Agnes Lenz somewhere, and she would not have liked to read what you wrote about "her". See WP:WAF for more info. Sandstein 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A REAL AGNES LENZ OUT THERE?

So truly sorry But i assumed that the web page was meant to be linked to the Billy Lenz web page which is set on a fictional character. Problem is if there's a real Billy Lenz there could be a confusion later on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I DID MEAN A FICTIONAL CHARACTER

I did mean a fictional character, i just assumed that from the Billy Lenz page linked to this one and with the writing style, (which didn't establish that the character is fictional) that the Agnes Lenz page was a work of fictionSCOCSOOCSOSC 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I NEVER MEANT TO CAUSE ANY OFFENCE...IN ANY WAY...PERIOD

That's not what i'm about i'm only online with Wikipedia to supply odd, usefull and at time valuable info to share with others on a wide degree of subjects.

I NEVER MEANT TO CAUSE ANY OFFENCE...IN ANY WAY...PERIOD 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what i'm about i'm only online with Wikipedia to supply odd, usefull and at time valuable info to share with others on a wide degree of subjects. SCOCSOOCSOSC 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, please calm down, I'm not going to block you. Don't type in ALL CAPS, please, you sound like you're screaming at me. Just try to make it clear next time that you're writing about a fictional character, yes? People don't see which page links to a new article you create; they might not be able to tell otherwise. Sandstein 05:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleted article: Realm versus Realm

hello,

My -new- article has been removed by you. The reason was: "CSD g11" but i think you were wrong.

Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#removed_article , this is where i explained why did i add the article and my problem with deletion. A brief description (if you don't have the time reading the full message -which i exquisitely understand-)

"(...)
the reason is i tried to advertise something but this is absolutely wrong: 1st) RvR is really "their word" ('WAR' makers)
2nd) WAR Online, as fully and definitely a game advert is available on wiki (but that's OK imo, there are a lot of definitions like that, e.g. "Portal (computer game)"
3rd) I spent a couple of minutes searching for "RvR" (including wiki) but didn't find it: that's why i decided to create an account here and add the topic so i can save some time of other people
(...)

p.s.: I'm open to remove the "advert feeling" parts of the definition."


Thank you for your time and sorry if my "move" is/was against the wiki policies.

All the Best,
Mark Kondor
aka "foolorganIC"
p.s.: the properly cased article was "Realm versus realm" - which is a typo ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FoolorganIC (talk • contribs) 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC). foolorganIC 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


UPDATE: did not get an answer (did you go to sleep? :P) so re-created the page without referencing any "advert like" pages or adding off site links. The new page can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_versus_Realm_%28RvR%29
Please let me know if something is wrong with it.
Thank you for all your trouble related to my add/edit actions.

All the Best,
Mark Kondor
(aka foolorganIC)
FoolorganIC 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did go to sleep. The problem with Realm versus Realm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is that it violates our rule that Wikipedia is not a dictionary for neologisms. It also is not attributed to a reliable source. Please click the links to find out what I mean. Sandstein 06:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kafka Project

Dear Mr. Sandstein, I am Mauro Nervi, the owner of the Kafka Project (http://www.kafka.org), the most visited Kafka site on the net. I hazardously found by Google that a "Kafka Project" (not initiated by myself) was on Wikipedia until last 25/3, and you deleted it for copyright infringement. May I have some information about it? Sorry that I am not so much into the functioning of Wikipedia. My email is <redacted for spam protection, Sandstein> , but I see that you can answer only on my Wikipedia talk page (that I do not have) or on your talk page. I will try to check your talk page, if I can find it;-) Regards, Mauro Nervi

The Kafka Project: http://www.kafka.org/ 131.114.96.252 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Nervi. The article Kafka Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was deleted because it appeared to have been a copyright infringement. The text of the article was copied from http://www.kafkaproject.com/mission.html. Wikipedia does not allow the posting of copyrighted content. I hope to have been of service. Sandstein 12:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Harrism84

I'm considering unblocking this user given his willingness to engage in dialog and assertion of positive contributions. Will be easier to walk him thru practical contributing 101 that way too. Would you be OK with that? Deiz talk 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. If you are willing to supervise him, then of course I have no objections. Sandstein 06:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism

Can you explain why you consider fascism, as described on Billy Ego's userpage (or, rather, on past versions thereof, since the content has obviously been removed) to be a "grossly offensive" political philosophy? While I don't agree with it, it seems that what is grossly offensive here are various other views held by historical fascists and not shared by Billy Ego. --Random832 05:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I' ve made my comment more clear on the workshop page. Sandstein 05:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the base for sockpuppetry confirmation

You have confirmed that user:Fear_the_Fire is my sock-puppet.[14] Do you have any basis for this decision? Me and this user are different person updating from differnt IP Domains. Could you let us know what is the basis for this confirmation . -- Sundaram7 06:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn. Sandstein 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
But this sockpuppetry is not valid. I really doubt there are a couple of administrators try to abuse the admin power to block me without a reason. See the case Invalid Sockpupperty Decision atWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. The administrator has put a lot of invalid IPs and Users who are in different IP domains and even different countries. I would appreciate if you can put your hands on it. -- Sundaram7 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.
 Sandstein, thanks for your support in my successful RfA--

your adaptation of the Iliad was awesome.
As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage.
--Akhilleus (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks.

Just wanted to thank you for unblocking my IP :) ttam~matt 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue letters

Hi, Sandstein. My purpose here is to ask you about the blue letters on your user page. I saw that there are three words on Swiss Federal Supreme Court Building, Pediment incision. The three words are LEX, IVISTITIA, PAX. Could you please explain what does three words mean? Please, reply in my talk page. Thanks in advance! Daniel5127 | Talk 18:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/n/User_talk%7ESandstein_4b85.html"