User talk:Sandstein/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Article for deletion: Torrent finder

Hi, I hope you can take some time to vote on the AFD debate for the Torrent finder article (i noticed you had nominated another torrent site earlier). The debate is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torrent finder. thx! Zzzzz 11:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Web design award

{{speedy}}'s faster! ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, yeah, it is, but the article doesn't meet any criteria of WP:CSD, unfortunately. Sandstein 17:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah! Never realized the purpose of prod until now. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for addng those tags to my latest article

I Didn't know it needed that much cleanup

--Showmanship is the key 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sandstein 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] La Salle University

Guys, chill...I'm working on them now...I agree with you 100% Lasallefan 20:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAOGK deletion request

I would like to suggest that the Random Acts of Genealogical Kindness listing meets the standards listed at WP:WEB

It has received multiple awards as seen here.

FYI, I have no commercial interest in this group, I have only volunteered once or twice to function as a regional photographer for interested parties. In fact, it functions much like Wikipedia in that volunteers are the sole source of activities for its services. It is not a commercial enterprise in anyway that I am aware of.

With this information at hand, would you consider removing your categorization for requested deletion? Or do you have any constructive suggestions as to how I can update the listing to Wikipedia standards?

Sincerely, Mactographer

Hello! You should add the fact that it received awards (and the link) to the article, but I'm not sure whether these awards are "well known and independent" per WP:WEB. Remember, we're not a listing of all the websites out there. We only list notable websites. The article must reflect this site's notability.
You can delete the {{prod}} tag yourself if you disagree with the rapid deletion. But people can still nominate it for regular deletion. Best, Sandstein 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Would you consider that it's had over a million hits in it's lifetime an indication that it is somewhat notable?
Alexa.com has some 225 links coming into it: http://www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:raogk.org/&linksin=225&page=1&url=raogk.org
Even an Italian (I think) version of Wikipedia seems to link to it here as 7th in a huge listing of other similar sites: http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuto:Genealogio
I might delete your deletion request as suggested, but I would prefer consensus -- which is why I'd rather dialog with you first about it. However, I am new to Wikipedia, so I’m not sure how to make a case and where to do it. The navigation is very complex on this site. Even reading the rules for inclusion is a marathon task which seems to link all over the place. I’m not complaining, but it is difficult for a newcomer.
Thanks,
Mactographer
P.S. I found a link to it from Freepedia? http://en.freepedia.org/Genealogy.html#Volunteerism
Is that a branch of Wikipedia?
As you may know, hits indicate little, what with search engines, bots etc. all generating hits, plus they're not independently verifiable. When it comes to Alexa and notability, we often look at the traffic ranking, which is 1,002,426 in this case. That's not overwhelming. Besides, neither traffic nor it being linked to (especially from wikis) is a notability criterion under WP:WEB.
But I now see that it has received press coverage, as linked to in the article, so the removal of the PROD is warranted. You're making your case very well, incidentally, but I think it's most important that an article reflects the fact that its subject is notable, or some bored Wikignome such as I will nominate it for deletion.
I don't know what Freepedia is, but it looks like someone is leeching off Wikipedia by reproducing its content in his own setting. That's allowed under GFDL. In this case, it's just an older version of our own genealogy article.
I'm copying this to article talk for future reference. Best, Sandstein 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advert tag on Garmin G1000

Would you be so kind as to explain *why* you've tagged Garmin G1000 with advert? It reads very neutral to me aside from perhaps the "Competition" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChadScott (talk • contribs).

Yes, that's the one I noticed: it really reads more like a high-gloss brochure, and when the major contributor is a user called GarminMatt, well, one does wonder. But I know too little about the subject matter to expunge the advertisement, so.. I'll move the tag into that section where it's more appropriate. Sandstein 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. In the future, when you tag with advert, please put a note in the discussion page telling us authors what you'd like changed. :) ChadScott 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is valid. Yes, it reads like an ad, but contains a lot more information than is contained in any of the Garmin ads on the 1000. Recommend leaving it as is. Mugaliens 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't add copyrighted text - Pacific Islands Regional ocean policy

Hi - sorry for getting back only after 6 weeks but I don't visit my watchlist very often, and I only just saw your message below regarding a page that I had created, but which you had deleted:

"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your creation of the article, Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. ... Happy editing! Sandstein 09:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)"

This is just to let you know that the text was not copyrighted. It is a public domain text and, as an international agreement between several countries, it would not be appropriate to paraphrase it in my own words. I posted it here because I thought it might be convenient in a scholarly context.

However, the text of the agreement is available elsewhere on the web, so I accept that there is no point in Wikipedia also including it.

--Timonroad 11:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandelism

Thank you, Sandstein, for you instructions to redirect me to your talk page: "Please do not abuse Wikipedia articles for airing your opinions regarding Wikipedia or its editors, as this is considered vandalism. Use the talk pages of the individuals concerned instead or see WP:DR. Thanks. Sandstein 10:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)".

Will someone who knows how to line through comments please do so to the next three paragraphs (and erase this request)? Thank you. Mugaliens 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Point - I recently posted a comment on a Wiki artical about wiki admins who impose their fashion police comments/edits/etc.

A Wiki Admin objected to my input. This fact isn't in question (as per Sandstein's comments) What's in question is my right to post such "objectable" comments. Objectionable to whom? Apparently, I'm not allowed to report the news (as noticed by myself and others)???
One question - since when has direct observation of recorded incidents widely available/viewable by others become "vandalism"? Help me here, as I'm an associate editor of a local newspaper, and this claim borders on sheer lunacy. Mugaliens 11:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Replied on his talk page. Sandstein 11:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Sandstein - I did read your response. I am sorry if I somehow offended you (your comments appeare to contain a lot of anger), and I sincerely hope you take what I have to say professionally, and not personally.
I would honestly like to know, however, for future reference, at what point are someone's edits or inputs considered "vandalism," and why? You mentioned "opinion." Is there a page on Wiki which defines the difference between what Wiki considers opinion and common knowledge? I really would like to learn what's acceptaple and what's not, so I hope you can appreciate where I'm really coming from. I was certainly not being a "vandal," as I had absolutely no intention of defacing the page in question, and my sole interest was in improving it. As I hinted on my talk page, I'm fairly new, so please take the time to point me in the right direction.
Also, please note that at 15:55, 6 August 2006, I did remove all references ("grievances" as you called them, although I have no grievances, just an observation) to Wiki at your initial warning, which you gave a little over five hours earlier, at 10:38, 6 August 2006. More 12 hours after I removed the references, you posted your second warning, at 04:44, 7 August 2006, again mentioning references which no longer existed. Why, I'm not sure. Perhaps you can shed some light, here.
I'm quite open to suggestion, Sandstein, and as it appears Wiki is a collaborative effort, I respectfully request your help. I hope we can overcome this initial stumbling block and work towards building more positive working relationshiop! Also, please consider using a different term than "vandel." That's a bit extreme, bording on libelous, especially before one appropriately ascertains motives.
Thank you for your understanding, Sanstein. I look toward more cooperative efforts in the future. Mugaliens 19:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism, on Wikipedia, means the deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. You did this twice by inserting extraneous commentary and wikipedia-related material into Fashion police, first with this edit. After I explained to you that such matter belongs on talk pages but not into the articles, you professed to understand the problem, then you proceeded to repeat your vandalism. This edit was then reverted by another editor with the statement "rv vandal", so it is no longer visible in the article. Please click on the light blue links to see the edits in question (on Wikipedia, every single edit is recorded). I don't see what more there is to explain. Once more: If you disagree with the actions of other editors, use their talk pages or the other fora listed at WP:DR. Do not use the articles as your soapbox. Thanks. Sandstein 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

After the aforementioned response, I expected a much more open-minded response than the one you gave.

Sandstein: No, I did not "vandelize" the pages. That's libelous on your part (and on the part of the other admin). Second, I did indeed correct after your first warning and prior to your second. That's presumptuous and ill-informed on your part. Third, I checked the date/times of every edit with extreme caution, and my reports are 100% valid, as anyone here on wiki can check! Why would you contest such an easily counterable claim??? Please notice that I'm not using the articles or the talk pages of other editors in this response. As for you accusations of a "soapbox," that's simply inflamatory and insulting. Continue, and I'll report you. Wikipedia has listed it's standards of decorum that will be adhered to, even by admins such as yourself. Mugaliens 21:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of Potential Request for Arbitration

I have not yet enacted this action, but reserve the right to do so in the immediate future. Your comments/actions in light of reality remain under heavy scrutiny. If you persist, I will not hesitate to request the dissolution of your admin status via the Arbitration Committee. There are many outstanding Wiki admins out there who would be happy to take up the slack. Neither Military Officers, Corporate Executives, nor Wiki Admins are above reproach. Each are held to higher standards than the rest of the crowd. If you cannot adhere to those standards, others will be found that can. Mugaliens 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I'm very impressed with this dire threat. If you think my vandalism warnings were in error, do go ahead and initiate any form of dispute resolution you would like, although I don't think this would get you very far. Just don't soapbox around in articles any more, and you won't hear anything from me again. Sandstein 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's an observation, not a threat. I hope you and I can reconcile - you have a lot to offer. So do I. Teams accomplish a lot more than antagonists. Mugaliens 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Creation

Thank you for your work on the AfC page! Just one request: When you leave notes to users explaining why their articles have been accepted or declined, could you please sign them with ~~~~? People (either the submitter or other reviewers) sometimes have questions, and the signature makes it much easier for them to figure out who to ask. Thanks! Kickaha Ota 03:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. Hmm, I see this even is in the instructions... Thanks for telling me. Sandstein 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I added it to the instructions ; it's something that people were doing, but it never got documented. Kickaha Ota 14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Daily Talk

Thanks for creating an article on The Daily Talk of Monrovia, Liberia. I was happy to see that you had beaten me to the punch!

Yours,

--Craigkbryant 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the message. Sandstein 16:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 8 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Daily Talk, 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.

[edit] Your edits in HVAC on August 10, 2006

Sandstein, I commented on your edits on the Talk:HVAC page. Would you please respond there? Thanks, -mbeychok 05:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I did so. Sandstein 05:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying To Learn

I'm currently in the very early stages of trying to learn the in, outs, whys, and wherefores of Wikipedia. Hence, I'm curious to know how you happened to notice my small edit to the time page. Is this an area in which you have an interest? incidentally, thanks for your vote of approval on my tiny contribution.

Bern is a beautiful city; I visited there briefly years ago. If I'm not mistaken, it was briefly home to a little-known German-born physicist of whom Bob Dylan wrote: "You would not think just to look at him that he was famous long ago for playing the electric violin on desolation row." Perhaps known for a couple of other things, too.

JCNSmith 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Be Bold" has become an unofficial slogan of Wikipedia.
"Be Bold" has become an unofficial slogan of Wikipedia.
Well, I ocasionally peruse the new user log to get to know our new fellow contributors, and your entry got my attention - so I had a look at your contributions, saw your question on the talk page and just had to give an answer. Although I can't really say that I have any particular interest in, or knowledge about, time as a subject of scientific inquiry, I can still tell that your edit was good. That's because under WP:BOLD, one of our most important guidelines, most bona fide edits are good edits - even if they are factually wrong, someone else will just overwrite them, and they are correct, as your edit very much appears to be, they will stay and Wikipedia will be better for it. So do be bold and edit ahead! And do feel free to ask me if you have any questions with Wikipedia procedure.
That little-known Swiss-German physicist, incidentally, has now practically all of the Historical Museum of Bern devoted to an internationally acclaimed exposition about him and his work, on account of the 100-year-anniversary of the annus mirabilis. It's well worth a visit should you happen to be in Europe. Best, Sandstein 05:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to serve as a "consultant" as I learn to navigate Wiki-land; I may take you up on it. Regarding the nationality of the little-known physicist, he himself has been quoted as having said, "If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German, and Germany will declare that I am a Jew." Marvelous! And of course we Yanks are proud of the fact that he was able to find a welcoming home among us. In fact, he was a citizen of the universe. Best, JCNSmith 15:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year pronunciation

I saw your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year pronunciation. Please explain what is original about it. Georgia guy 16:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is presumed to be OR because it stipulates that a certain pronounciation is "the preferred English language method" and it has no sources for this assumption. Per the second sentence of WP:NOR:
Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
-- Sandstein 16:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Let's continue any further discussion on the AfD page, please. Sandstein 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agitator

The picture you added to Agitator is interesting. However, I don't think "manifestation" was a correct term - Skysmith 07:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have no objection to your change of the word to "demonstration". Sandstein 07:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing With Vandalism

You offered to serve as a guide to a newcomer; I'm here to take you up on your offer. It appears to me that someone has essentially vandalized the Wiki entry on Time by adding a web link to a blatantly commercial web site (www.greenwichmeantime.com). What is the correct way to deal with such a situation? Am I mistaken about this addition being a form of vandalism? Thank you for any guidance you can offer. JCNSmith 12:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you refer to this edit. The relevant guideline in this case is Wikipedia:External links, and the new link does not appear to meet its criteria (although I've only looked at the site briefly).
I wouldn't call this vandalism yet. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia" (WP:VAND). Not every edit that does not meet Wikipedia style guidelines is vandalism; indeed, this edit could be any one of these things that are not vandalism. As we must always assume good faith in our fellow contributors, absent clear evidence to the contrary, we should be very careful in accusing others of vandalism. In this case, the anonymous contributor might just have wanted to add a link to a website that he found while surfing and that appeared relevant to him. We shouldn't just assume he's the operator of the site looking for advertisement clicks.
What I would do is revert the edit (see the link for instructions, or just edit the page and delete the link). I'd use a helpful edit summary such as: Reverted addition of non-helpful external link per Wikipedia:External links. If the other editor persists in re-adding the link, I'd try to engage him in a discussion on his own or the article talk page before reverting him again.
I hope this helps. Feel free to ask me again if you have questions. Sandstein 12:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your comments are very helpful, as I knew they would be; thank you. Having reassessed the situation, I believe that perhaps I overreacted to the edit in question. I was taken aback by the blatant commercial nature of the referenced web site, and I assumed that there must be some alternate, less commercial, web site that could stand in its stead, some site with proper, staid, British decorum, for example. Having now done a cursory google search, I find that my assumption may have been off base and that I may be living in a fantasy land! Despite its commercial trappings, the newly added link may serve a useful purpose, so in hindsight I'm willing to assume good faith and therefore am reluctant to tamper with it. Thank you again for your help. Best, JCNSmith 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judge Taylor

Sandstein, while I appreciate your wanting to keep biographical articles NPOV, one cannot utterly eliminate the repercussions of and indeed criticism of one's actions while in the public spotlight, which Judge Taylor clearly is in. If you can offer a better NPOV of what the Detroit News offered and what has been said critically of her ruling, please do so. But let's not attempt to change the fact that the "right-wing" has indeed criticized Judge Taylor as being a "left-wing" sympathizer, which is clearly factual. I've reverted the article to include my previous post. Again, feel free to edit for NPOV without erasing the facts.  :) Solascriptura 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your reply at Talk:Anna Diggs Taylor. Let's try and find consensus there. Sandstein 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Orlando, Florida

I'm not sure what happened here, but it looks like you attempted to list this article for deletion once in the articles history. I've relisted it for deletion. I actually came to the article from a link on the Hurricane Charlie page. I thought it was a geographical link, as that's how it is worded in that article. Hope you can help clear this up! Thanks! Stubbleboy 06:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent nonsense

While checking through the candidates for speedy deletion, I noticed that you tagged Fuse 3 comics with {{nonsense}}, the template corresponding to the "patent nonsense" speedy deletion criterion. However, only articles which contain no meaningful content should be speedily deleted under this criterion; poorly written content does not count as patent nonsense. May I suggest that you do not tag articles such as this as patent nonsense in the future.

For a fuller explanation, see Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. --bainer (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. After a more thorough read, I guess there is some real-world sense to be made of this, but really not too much. Sandstein 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article web.py

You said that you deleted an article in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. But I don't see what should be wrong with that article. Could you please explain why you deleted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valentinw (talk • contribs).

I didn't delete web.py, an administrator did. You recreated this previously deleted article, which means it can bee speedily re-deleted per WP:CSD. The original reason for deletion is in this AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web.py. Sandstein 09:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know it had been deleted before. But it's one of the major Python web frameworks [1] and has been referenced in two other articles. So why not start an article on it? Furthermore the AfD discussion took place in May and things can change pretty fast. -- Valentin 11:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:CSD G4, speedy deletion is only possible for a "substantially identical" article and "not merely a new article on the same subject". So yes, you can recreate the article without fear of it being speedily deleted, if it is more than just a description of this framework, as it was before. The new article ought to demonstrate, with links to prove it, why web.py now meets the notability criteria of WP:SOFTWARE, i.e. why the prevailing arguments in the old AfD are no longer valid. If the article does not do this, it can be speedily deleted or could be resubmitted to AfD, depending on how "substantially identical" it is to the AfD-ed article. Sandstein 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indzhe

Thanks for your kind words on this AfD - they were appreciated. Dlyons493 Talk 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for delection notification

This is just to notify you that I've nominated Long War (21st century), which you appear to have created, for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long War (21st century). --Bobblehead 19:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Sandstein 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Insex

You voted "(provisional) delete" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insex because of the lack of reliable sources. I added three more sources, so I was wondering if you still consider them insufficient or if you just didn't look at it yet. Sloan21 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of pointe shoes

I was wondering what your reasoning is behind wanting to merge pointe shoes into en pointe. The two are rather discrete subjects, with the shoe itself having as much of a history and tradition as the technique. If length is the reason, I do intend to expand them at some point (hopefully sooner rather than later). I'd like to hear your reasoning, seeing as no notes were left on either talk page. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've addressed this on Talk:En pointe. Sandstein 05:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Deleted: Famous_Kapus

Hello,

Why was this article Deleted Please restore this Article..I was the one who created this Article. The names of People mentioned in this Article show the History of the Hindu caste!!!which is almost 2000 years old.. Some of the personalitied mentioned in the Page belong to the 4th Century A.D. and are also eminent Poets..

Most of them were Politicians who broght Freedom to India and also were crucial in forming the state of Andhra Pradesh... Most of them might not be known internationally but are very well known Nationally and Regionally within India.

Regards Panel1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panel1 (talk • contribs).

Hello. Famous Kapus was deleted as a result of consensus of Wikipedia editors, not by me. For the reason this article was deleted, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Famous_Kapus. Please do not recreate the article with substantially identical content, as it will get re-deleted (see WP:CSD). If you think the deletion was in violation of process, you can appeal it at WP:DRV. But if you just disagree with the reason for deletion, you should have contributed to the deletion discussion. At any rate, I'm not an administrator and I therefore can't restore the article. If you still have a problem with the above, you could ask Jaranda, the administrator who actually deleted the article based on the deletion discussion result. Best regards, Sandstein 05:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


OK Thanks for the response. The question there are similar pages which hold informaiton about Famous pesonalities from other communities in Wikipedia... The question it why was only this page tagged for deletion!!! I would take it up with Jaranda... Thanks. Panel1

[edit] Icon of Coil

Per their entry on their record label's website ([2]), Icon of Coil is obviously notable, based on their positions on the Deutsche Alternative Charts. Why on earth did you think they were NN? I would ask that you remove your edits in regard to them, in case I miss any.--Eyrian 23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because what you say is not in the article. The relevant guideline WP:BAND states clearly:
Also, please keep in mind that the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability.
In particular, WP:BAND also notes that
An article that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable can be speedy deleted under criterion A7.
In fact, there is no actual claim to notability in the Icon of Coil article: the article does not say that the band has achieved some particular place in the charts. To sum up, a more appropriate response to my edits would have been to improve the article instead of complaining. If you do not, it may be speedily deleted, as noted above. Please note that any claim to notability must be backed up by reliable third-party sources. Best regards, Sandstein 05:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telephone_numbering_plan, Carrier_Identification_Code and Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier

Good evening, Sandstein. Appreciate seeing another officer of the court contributing to Wikipedia.

I've amended the articles to strip out the reference to the specific carrier's name and code in the example of use.

I've also removed the two links to telecom industry web pages, leaving only the link to the archive of the comp.sys.telecom USENET newsgroup, as well as to the U.S. FCC and the N.A.N.P.A.. The latter maintains a changes-every-month list of those codes, and internalizing that information would be a needless effort, IMHO.

Might also note I've been adding to Wikipedia content for a while now, and this is the first issue I've had with content, or anything else, for that matter.

If there's a better way to tackle the issue, let's do that, as my sole objective is to make this information available to those who need it to bypass tied-up long distance trunks and use the trunk lines of alternate providers to call their families. Please feel free to contact me off-line at my ARRL address below.

73s and best regards,

John Bartley K7AAY

K7aay 23:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: I don't speak for Henry Durant, the OTC, the ARC, the ICRC, nor anyone else. View expressed are mine alone.

[edit] Vitra Design Museum

Hi Sandstein, I saw you wfying some links to this article, and noticed that you wrote Vitra. Nice work-- will you write Vitra Design Museum too? If you need images, there is Image:Vitra002a.jpg available from the Commons, but if you have more that would be even cooler. What an exciting building, I've never been there, but it seems so to me. Regards, DVD+ R/W 20:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I visited the museum today, had a guided tour of the premises and took some pictures. Then I decided to write the article that I found we still lacked... Yes, I intend to write the museum article also, but first I'll have to edit, upload and add to the article some of the photos I took. There are also some good free-content pictures on Flickr, I've noticed. Best, Sandstein 20:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, the pictures are really great too. I'm going to put Vitra on the architecture portal, if you don't mind :-) I've already got Vitra Design Museum on my watchlist, and look forward to reading what you write. DVD+ R/W 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to have rushed to nominate Vitra at the portal. I was just really excited about the article, I was thinking of writing it myself at one point, but you've made a much better start than I would have. You don't need to abstain (as like so much at Wikipedia, it isn't a vote but a discussion), and you have plenty of say. Also, it won't get posted for another two months so the rough edges can easily be taken care of by then. I should have waited to hear from you, but so you know, it really is intended as a compliment/award as much as an attempt to organize architectural info here. I hope it makes DYK too. You're right that it needs more sources, I'll look into it, but someone who's really good at that (esp. for architectural stuff) is Mcginnly. I'll ask him if he's not busy, or you can if so inclined. Regards, DVD+ R/W 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to apologise - I have no problem at all with you nominating the article for anything (thanks, again, for your praise). I was just being realistic about it being probably not very good yet. I've put it up at DYK because that usually attracts some eyeballs to fix the usual problems that are obvious to all but the author. And you don't need to feel obliged to find sources, or to ask anyone to - which isn't to say that they wouldn't be much appreciated, of course. Best, Sandstein 16:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, the museum article is written, as well. Knowing that one has a readership is a motivation... Sandstein 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm reading too - nice work - we've really been lacking Hadid images - Do you have any more for the fire station? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Just what's at Commons:Category:Vitra. I'll upload a few more, worse ones (with people in the picture, etc). There are also some free content pictures on Flickr, if anyone has the time to upload them. Sandstein 12:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 8 October 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vitra, 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.


Updated DYK query On 9 October 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vitra Design Museum, 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.

--Peta 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Updating information

I created a set of future links for the template lookup (at Wikipedia_talk:Updating_information), and saw that you'd used the template in the Bern articles. When I looked in one to see how you'd used it, I saw that it was in a heading. Curious, I changed the year from 2010 to 2001, and the heading changed, as I suspected. Since links can be made to headings, I'd say that this template should be used OUTSIDE headings. I'll update the usage instructions to reflect this. --Scott McNay 06:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, this makes sense. Thanks for the message. Sandstein 06:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your posting of "how to" tag

On August 10th, you posted "how-to" tags in two sections of they HVAC article, suggesting that the might qualify for moving to Wiki Books. I would like to implement that but I don't know how to do so. How about explaining how that is done (in step-by-step detail) on the Talk:HVAC page? - mbeychok 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:HVAC. Sandstein 05:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Hello Sandstein, I understand from your userpage that you are a jurist. I was wondering if you have noticed the dispute over the {{PD-Soviet}} licensing, and what you think about this. Could you either convince me of the case against it or provide some legal defence for it? I've been thinking about this a lot lately and need help with the legal arguments involved. Regards, DVD+ R/W 01:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been aware of this issue only peripherally. I'll take a look at it, although I can't promise anything - if the issue involves interpreting Soviet domestic law rather than the Berne Convention, I'm not optimistic. Sandstein 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As I've got no time to read up on the actual legal sources (and I don't read Russian anyway), I've briefly reviewed the discussions. They present a question of law and a question of policy: are those Soviet-era images copyrighted, and if yes, what do we do about them?
As to the first question, Lupo has provided references to both Russian and U.S. courts holding that the pictures are indeed (at least now) copyrighted under the respective domestic laws; these references are summarised at Commons:Template:PD-Soviet. I've seen no persuasive arguments that these holdings don't apply to all or most {{PD-Soviet}} images; and because the law is essentially what the courts says it is (I'm a legal realist), as far I'm concerned we must assume that the images will generally be copyrighted as a matter of law in the countries relevant for our purposes.
As to the second question, based on my (probably limited) understanding of the scope and basic policies of Commons (free content only) and en-Wikipedia (free content and fair use only), it follows from the answer to the first question that the decision to delete {{PD-Soviet}} images on Commons was correct, and that {{PD-Soviet}} images on en-Wikipedia should be reclassified as fair use, or if they have no fair use, deleted.
I hope you find these thoughts useful. Best, Sandstein 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: The argument for keeping the {{PD-Soviet}} images seems to be, in paraphrased form: "These are useful images, and no one has sued us so far, so let's keep them." This strikes me as unpersuasive, because it doesn't address the legal question (or it accepts Wikimedia projects violating copyright law), and because it seems to advocate keeping images that do not meet the generally applicable image copyright policies of our projects. It's not relevant, in my opinion, that the images are useful for our projects and that no rights owner has (apparently) objected to our use of them until now, because if we were to accept this as a reason for keeping images, we'd have to keep nearly every random website copyvio image of the sort that people upload all the time. I see no reason why we should privilege Soviet-era images in that regard. Sandstein 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on this Sandstein. I hope no one ever retroactively copyrights GFDL unless, of course, we get massively compensated for it ;-). Hey, when are you going to become an admin? DVD+ R/W 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Retroactively copyrighting GFDL? Hmm, that would be difficult, because GFDL-licenced content is already protected by copyright - it's just that the rights holders (i.e., we) have granted everyone the right to use the content for free, unter certain conditions. So what can a crazed hypothetical legislator do? Retroactively forbid the licencing of content for free? Apart from the obvious question of why, this would create a great deal of practical problems in any reasonably recent legal system (i.e., younger than some 2,300 years).
Oh, and thank you for the compliment. I've not really considered applying for adminship until now, because Wikipedia is enough of an interesting hobby as it is. I've probably still got some more spam new page patrol to do, to get my fingers itching for that delete button... Sandstein 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Whenever you are ready, you have my offer to nominate or co-nominate you. DVD+ R/W 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
All right - and thanks, again, for that vote of confidence. Sandstein 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical Discussion of Rangekeeping

Please reconsider your decision on the article for deletion for this article. Sr13 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - it looks rather different now. Sandstein 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update to Template:Update_after

Hi! I've made changes to Template:Update after (it now links to Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating and As of), and made significant changes to the documentation at Template:Update_after (including documenting the built-in ability to add a comment, and a changes in where it's allowable to be used); please review, and provide comments at Template talk:Update after if you think any are appropriate. Thanks! --Scott McNay 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] UN resolutions at Wikisource

We have to be careful which UN resolutions are put up on Wikisource. The UN does not release these documents under a compatible license. The only recent resolution we are able to host are those where the underlying document was prepared by the US government and therefore Public Domain. The best way to determine this is if the resolution is availble through the State Department webstie. I know this is complicated and confusing but that is copyright for you!--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the info. Is there any fast way to check this on the State Department website? Sandstein 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't know. s:User:Jusjih did most of the research originally and I am hoping he will comment on this particular one. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 05:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
UN works published at its New York Headquarters are copyrighted in the same way as works published in the USA. To check if the US Governmental employees prepared any underlying texts of any UN resolutions, please try to search some words of the text with "site:.gov", especially "site:www.state.gov", as well as the US Mission to the UN under the jurisdiction of the US State Dept by searching with "site:www.un.int/usa/". The only fast way to check this on the State Department website is to search with some words of the texts. After all, English Wikisource cannot accept any UN Headquarters works published after 1 March 1989 for 95 years unless US Governmental authorship can be proven. If in doubt, please leave the works out of Wikisource that cannot claim "fair use" like English Wikipedia.--Jusjih 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (English Wikisource admin)
Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately, resolution 1718 fails that test, even though one must assume it was drafted by the US. Oh well... Sandstein 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess what we were wrong about this. Apparently Resolutions and certain other official recods are PD. s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#United Nations resolutions found to be in the public domain Just wanted to share the great news!--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Sandstein 18:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aurae

Ah! I wasn't aware that aura (paranormal) existed; if I had been, you can be sure that I would have made the redirect instead of just tagging the article with "disputed". Thanks for taking care of that. DS 12:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labinal

Hi Sandstein, can you visit the Airbus A380 talk page for your recent edit about Labinal? cheers --Ctillier 16:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 17:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal question: Einstein's matura

Dear Sandstein, I need your advice on a legal point. I have a copy of Albert Einstein's matura, which he received in Aarau in 1896. This is a pretty important document, since there is a widespread myth that Einstein was bad at math, and this document shows that he actually received top marks. My question: can I upload it assuming that it is public domain ? In Switzerland, I am pretty convinced that such a document would not be covered by copyright, for lack of individual character (I'd also be curious to know if you think that such a document could be considered as ineligible for copyright because it is a "decisions, protocols or reports by public authorities"). On the other side, US copyright law for unpublished works is pretty stringent, cf [3] (the document was obviously published, but I don't know when, and probably not too long ago). Pragmatically, I don't see how there would be any problem, but I thought I'd check to see what your opinion is. All the best, Schutz 08:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. Prima facie, I'd say there's a very good chance of it not being protected by copyright in Switzerland, either because
  • it's a case of art. 5 par. 1 litt. c URG, as you surmised,
  • it's not copyrighted due to lack of individuality per art. 2 URG, if it's just a form sheet with the marks written in (this is maybe less clearly the case if there is a written commentary),
  • it may be public domain under relevant Argovian cantonal law, or
  • copyright may have likely expired under the "author's death +70 years" rule (art. 29 par. 3 URG).
I'll see what the commentaries have to say on it if I'm back at the office tomorrow, but I'd really need to see the document (can you upload it as fair use for the time being?).
As to applicable law, if US law is also applicable for our purposes, which I'm not really clear on, we'd have to ascertain if it's a "work" and whether and when it's been "published" at all (by the rights holder, of course), according to US law. Per your link, works published extra-US before 1909 are not protected under US law. I agree that as a practical matter there will be no problem. (For a somewhat comparable and also unproblematic Commons upload by me see: Commons:Image:Günter Grass POW record.jpg). Sandstein 16:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to scan the document as soon as possible (I have lent the book to someone). There is no commentary, expect for preprinted text with gaps filled in with name, dates, and marks. Except for the layout, it is probably similar to present time maturas. Schutz 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Scanned and uploaded at Image:Einstein-matura.jpg; I still have to fix the fair use licence for now. Schutz 09:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking at it, my opinion is that it is in the public domain under both of the following rules of Swiss copyright law:
  • lack of individuality - just a form sheet (art. 2 URG)
  • decision of a public authority (art. 5 par. 1 litt. c URG)
Although you haven't said so, I'll assume it was published in Switzerland first, but at any rate, my rule of thumb would be to apply the law of the country where the decision was issued, i.e. Switzerland, at any rate. Finally, the canton of Aargau is extremely unlikely to try and enforce any purported copyright in a US court in such a case. My advice would be to upload it in Commons with the appropriate PD-Switzerland tags. Sandstein 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. As for the first place of publication, I can not answer. My book was edited by the Historical Museum in Bern, but there is no guarantee that it was the first publication ever. Many thanks for looking into this ! Schutz 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for supporting my RfA

 Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.

I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.

Again, thanks; └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Every man’s nostril is despondently empty

A recommendation for you: Another Nikhil Parekh poem. Contains the immortal line I've stolen for this title. Vizjim 09:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah! My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing! :-) Sandstein 19:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for your kind words and your show of support on my recent RfA. If I can ever be of any use to you with my fancy new buttons or if you just need a pair of disinterested eyes to look at an article, feel free to give me a holler.

It is especially nice to get some support from the Swiss delegation, as my X-chromosome (maternal line) is of Swiss origin. So if you see anyone named Holtz, Honnaccer, or Goetz today, tell them that a distant cousin from American says "hi." Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Editor Review

Hi, I just started an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil and am trying to get feedback on my edits. Feel free to leave a review or comment. Thanks and bye.--Jersey Devil 06:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary

Help me to improve the article, but please do not delete it. Thanks. --Öcsi 14:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demographics_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary"

I'll be replying on Talk:Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary. Sandstein 18:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I already have a problem. (Kann ich mit dir auch deutsch reden, wenn's nicht stört?). --Öcsi 18:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose we keep this on Talk:Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary for simplicity. It's considered good etiquette to use English on this Wikipedia, but feel free to use German if it helps. Sandstein 19:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My answers are already there (maybe you haven't noticed it) --Öcsi 16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikhil Parekh

I have just placed this notice on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Parekh page, and am bringing every voter's attention to it as promised.

Comment. Sigh. Despite the inevitable tirade that this will unleash, I am sorry to have to bring new information to the table. I have this morning received an email from Vijaya Ghose, editor of the Limca Book of Records. "Dear Mr (----), We have enlisted a couple of claims of Nikhil Parekh. Longest Poem is not one of them. He has formidable competition in John Milton's Paradise Lost and our own Mahabharata. However, he has written to many heads of state and has received replies but not from the head of state but the secretary or executive assistant. He is is the first from India to feature on Eppie. We checked with them. Regards Vijaya Ghose. So Parekh, though probably not notable as a poet, is indeed an Indian world record holder. I suspect that this changes the balance on his notability, though the article would still require a great deal of clear-up. I will notify everyone who took part in this vote and ask admins to extend debate a little. Sorry.

I don't know whether this changes your vote, but thought you should know. Vizjim 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus:• syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • morefixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages• convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjustthe font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Usually it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Villiage Pump on BJAODN

How come you copied the VP section about the Model T to BJAODN? It was a valid question & complaint about an error in Wikipedia. How is it a bad joke or nonsense? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a valid complaint of sorts... but it just struck me as incredibly, y'know, anal-retentive (and funny) of this individual to write a lengthy, LOUD missive about how one Wikipedia article on an automobile gets one detail wrong. Anyway, if you don't find it funny or if you know of a better Wikipedia humour repository to place it on, I'm not offended if you delete or move it. Sandstein 23:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I did think the person over-reacted a little.  :) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Can you please reconsider? see my comment here .. I will be very thankful. --- ALM 21:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Assistance

Can you rename TrackBack to Trackback (no uppercase B) to keep with the convention for Linkback, Pingback, Refback, Trackback as it's commonly employed throughout the IT world? I know some conventions highlight the B, but most don't. Thanks! - Mugs 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I believe you don't need one in this case: just try using the "move" tab at the top to move the article to "Trackback". Sandstein 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talking of which...

Why aren't you an admin? Is it because nobody has thought to nominate you? Guy (Help!) 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I have, back in May. Schutz 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the laurels (er, is this a valid turn of phrase in English?), people, but I'm not keen on running for an admin quite yet. I'll pipe up if this changes, promised. Sandstein 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I offered to nominate Sandstein in October, which still stands and I have been thinking about offering again. Sandstein you really should do it. It won't be running, more like walking - it will be a breeze. JzG should fill out the forms though. DVD+ R/W 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sandstein, it's No Big Deal, remember? ;-) I'll make the page for the three of us (and you of course) to collect our thoughts and then you can see what you think. If you decide that our co-nom is not to your liking I'll summon the Awesome Powers of Sysop and nuke it. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sandstein Guy (Help!) 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no dissuading some people, it seems :-) Seriously, I feel distinctly honoured that so many of you think I could make a useful contribution. Do go ahead, and maybe I can even think of some coherent answers. Sandstein 17:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If Sir would like to sign on the dotted line, I will place the document in the appropriate forum :-) Guy (Help!) 23:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! I've started to fill out the form, but will probably have to wait until after work to finish it. Sandstein 07:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Worry not, there is no deadline :-) Guy (Help!) 12:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget you need to squiggle the line which says "indicate acceptance" Guy (Help!) 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
All right, the bytes representing the squiggles are still wet (and the nomination ready to go). I've just now finished with answering the questions, and I've withheld the signature to avoid any nominatio praecox, so to speak... :-) Sandstein 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hi Sandstein, and thanks for your participation at the recent RfA, which did not succeed. For those of you who expressed their support, your kind words and your trust are sincerely appreciated. For those who were opposed --especially those who offered their constructive criticism-- please accept this message as assurance that equally sincere efforts, aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of representations within the Wikipedia, will continue. Striving for improved collaboration and consensus will also continue, with all of your insights in mind, while applying NPOV ideals as fairly and reasonably as possible. Ombudsman Ombudsman 23:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A favor

Sandstein, Guy's nomination looks good to me, there is nothing I can think of to improve upon it. This should really be about you and not nominators so I'd rather step into the background and support like everyone else rather than co-nominate, if that is okay with you. Should you accept (which I think you should) your brilliant answers to the questions will be more noticable than my clumsy attempt to summarize your contributions and character. Don't forget to mention Vitra. While I'm here could you help me translate this User:DVD R W/Michael Thonet? It would probably only take you 5 minutes but would take me hours. Regards, DVD+ R/W 04:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

All right - and thanks again for your kind words. I've started translating the article, which is fun to do, and will probably be able to finish it this evening. Sandstein 07:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
... and it's done now, merged to Michael Thonet. Sandstein 06:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know. Do you want to send it to DYK? Also happy thanksgiving. DVD+ R/W 06:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well, why not? Can't have too many designer chairs or chair designers on the front page. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well! Sandstein 06:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

I have asked a question there. I would appreciate it if you could answer it. Thanks,  Jorcogα  01:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done so now and remain open to requests for further elaboration, of course. Sandstein 06:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Raphael

Thanks for posting the notification on the author's talk page. I should have handled that myself, but spaced on it. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland

Thank you very much for your translation and writing of the article, no matter how simple it may seem.

Thanks again, Weatherguy1033 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome – and thanks for adding the new courts to Template:Politics of Switzerland and giving me the idea to write an article about one of them. Sandstein 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

No problems at all. Unfortunately, I think we might be in for on-going problems. [4]. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews for Jesus

Thanks for your 3O. Please see my response in Talk:Jews for Jesus. inigmatus 06:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks. What a mind-numbing experience trying to find that on the templates page. KP Botany 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did You Know?

Updated DYK query On 29 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ristorante Cooperativo, 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.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/n/User_talk%7ESandstein_Archive_2_e26a.html"