User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2007/May

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Kotani Kenzo

Hello,

I see that you had changed the title of my piece. I don't mind if one changes a title for the reason that it might bring greater recognition but in this case I am afraid that to call it call just Kotani Kenzo is anynomous and without merit. It does not give his due at time at the shrine which was his most significant time period and furthermore and more importantly, will degrade him to obscurity. I think you will understand what I mean.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempaire (talk • contribs)

I'll be replying on your talk page. Sandstein 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply but I do not think that you understand my motive in resisting the name change from Kotani Yasunori of the Yasukuni Shrine and plain Kotani Kenzo.

I am a Japanese scholar and in Japan if one do not identify a man with with title or work the plain name becomes meaningless. I am writing for a foreign sword audience on this man whom they would all acknowledge that giving him as plain Kotani Kenzo makes him a non person and would confuse him for another person. By making his art name prominent it gives his name a meaning. You are jurist and not a Japanese scholar so I hope you can understand what I am trying to tell you. I am not a jurist by trade but I cannot and will not tell you how to write your legal breifs concerning a similar above point.

This man,Yasunori(his art name) was a famous swordmaker and I cannot leave out his art name. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempaire (talk • contribs)

LEX IVSTITIA PAX

You describe the "LEX IVSTITIA PAX" motto inscribed upon the pediment of the Supreme Court building as an "incision". This is not wrong; an "incision" is a "cutting into", and these words are "cut into" the stone. In modern English usage, though, "incision" is almost exclusively a surgical term, as are "excision" and "circumcision". Words cut into stone by stonemasons are called "inscriptions". Writtenright 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Fascinating, thanks. Sandstein 04:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock lift.

Thankyou very much for lifting the autoblock on me here User talk:Brinstar. Have a nice day.--Brinstar 08:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello,

While idly googling my own name, I found that there existed a briefly-lived entry on Wikipedia about me that you deleted.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Sergey_feldman

Do you know if there is any way to see what this page contained?

Thanks,

Sfeldm2 15:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I can undelete it to your user space, if you want, but maybe it will suffice to say that it was a bunch of juvenile vulgarities. This diff will give you an impression of what the article contained.
I've now blocked the user responsible, SergeyLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), indefinitely; it appears he was also editing as Meomega15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 68.33.150.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and 70.21.68.185 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). You may want to have his contributions and much of the history of Sergey, Switzerland expurged via oversight.
Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Sandstein 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks very much for your quick response. I suspect that this entry was about someone else, as I haven't offended any middle school students in at least nine years.

Sfeldm2 18:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What Qualifies as 'Notability'?

I am really trying to improve on some local articles and would like to know a few things. In reply to the comment you left on my page I have a few more questions.

In regards to the Harrah's Casino, what does it have to be to be Notable? There are several other smaller Harrahs Casinos that have their own Wikipedia article and yet they don't get deleted. So what do I have to do to make sure an article does not get deleted? I was in the process of gathering more information to Harrah's Council Bluffs when you deleted it. I was also trying to put together information for Horseshoe Council Bluffs as well. And if you say they aren't notable then that doesn't even make sense. Horseshoe Council Bluffs held the World Series of Poker here this year? So does that make it 'notable'? They both have huge concerts with prominant musicians playing. I am just curious because I just dont understand how other Casinos that are so much smaller can have pages but these can't.

As for adding pictures, I would like to know how to add a picture to a site because I have several local pictures that would be a lot better than some of the pictures currently up. Please either let me know how to do this. Also if I upload my own personal pictures up to Photobucket does that mean that photobucket copyrights them and I can't use them anymore? Just curious because you said that "Wikipedia doesn't allow the fair use of copyrighted pictures where free ones could be easily created" when I took those pictures. I obviously created them.

So please let me know. Thanks. --LocalBandAid02 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. As to notability, an article can be speedily deleted (i.e., without discussion) if it does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. See WP:CSD#A7. Even with such an assertion, an article may be deleted after discussion if despite the assertion the subject is in fact not notable; see WP:N for what we mean by "notable". Please click the blue links to learn more.
As for the photos, you didn't say that you took them. I don't know if the site you uploaded them to now claims copyright, but I should think not. Please click here and follow the instructions to upload your images to our media repository Wikimedia Commons. Sandstein 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
But how come you get to decide what is notable expecially since you are not even from around here? The World Series of Poker was held there and it seems like that doesnt even matter. So tell me who I should talk to to get it 'approved' to write these articles please. Because just because it isnt notable to you doesnt mean it isnt to anyone else.
And Please, just don't assume I stole the pictures from some website instead of taking them myself. I know enough about Wikipedia that I wouldn't do that. Please if you answer a Help Me call just answer the questions and don't attack the person instead. I'm sorry but I have never experienced anyone this rude for just asking questions. So I am kind of put off by it now. --LocalBandAid02 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't get to decide what's notable. The community of editors does, in a deletion discussion if it comes to that. But we, the community, have established a rule that an article must at least state that its subject is in any way important, or there is no discussion at all. Believe me, we have tons of worthless articles about garage bands, random teens or dogs that need speedy deletion. Just check here. If you want to prevent speedy deletion, you should actually write into the article that the World Series of Poker was held there. Read our deletion policy, please.
As to the pictures, your displeasure is duly noted. You did not say that the pictures were yours, so I pointed out that they were copyrighted. We have very, very many people here who try to use copyrighted images on Wikipedia. This is a volunteer site, and no one is obliged or paid to answer your requests. You will have to accept whatever help you get, and in my experience, if you are nice about it, people will be nice to you, too. Sandstein 18:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't mean in any way when I was aking for help. It was being accused of using copyrighted photos(and you are still saying the pictures are copyrighted for some reason... not sure why because they aren't) and the fact that you came to my page to 'help' when both questions I asked were not even answered. I am just saying that instead of treating new people like that you should just promote cooperation between Wikipedia users instead of jumping to conclusions. If you answer the 'help' calls you should at least try to help. And I understand that there are plenty of articles that should be deleted from 'garage bands, random teens and dogs' but that was not a garage band or anything close to being insignificant. It was a very large Casino in the area with over 2000 employees and a very important part of this metro area. So please do not delete it when it is just a few hours old before I have time to add anything else to it. Thank you for your help. --LocalBandAid02 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Thank you for your nomination of my article Military simulation for inclusion in the front page Did you know section for 30th March 2007. I've only just discovered who the nomination came from (I'm a little slow sometimes!), but it was a massive thrill at the time to realise that my hard work had been noticed and appreciated... especially as it's my first complete article. You made a slightly apprehensive newbie editor feel welcome and part of this amazing project, and for that I will be forever grateful. EyeSereneTALK 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - thanks for the kind words! Sandstein 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Creation history request

Thanks for your help with that vandalism. I wonder if you can tell me who uploaded the original image (NOT the cartoon). I suspect it might have been me, in which case I wasn't informed and the photograph was possibly taken by me. Cheers. --Mal 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

My image wasn't copyright infregment, it was free. Why was it deleted? We absolutely need a Lloyd Banks image and that one wasn't copyright infregment. - Super48 14:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All photographs are copyrighted by default by their photographers, unless copyright protection is explicitly waived. Can you please indicate who the rights holder of Image:Lloydbanks.PNG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is and where they have released the rights to their image? Sandstein 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The person is here. I chatted with them on that forum, where they said anyone could use the Lloyd Banks image. - Super48 14:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you should not have uploaded the image based on that chat. The image is a professionally-made publicity photograph, and its copyright is likely owned by the artist or his agency. It is highly unlikely that the user "theboy67" on that forum owns the copyright on that image. Most likely he just copied it from somewhere on the internet. He can't release copyright protection on an image that he does not own. Sandstein 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
But I've heard about a Lloyd Banks concert recently. It already took place, so I bet he took it there. - Super48 15:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The image is a publicity shoot; it does not look like it was taken at a concert. Even if it was, we would need a post by the author with a credible assertion like "I, <real name> took this photograph at <concert> and I hereby release it into the public domain." We must take copyright seriously here. Sandstein 15:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I rpelied on my talk page. What made you think I uploaded the image of Sergeant Yates? - Super48 16:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I will continue discussion on your talk page. Sandstein 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

can i just say

why was my autoblock declined? MasterEditor99 21:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:MasterEditor99#Why? and Rklawton's statements there. Sandstein 04:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks/Sorry

I was told that I should post a brief note about it on the AN/I. I'm not familiar with wiki rules and procedures and I do not know what penalties (if any) apply to backdooring procedures.

Personally, it wasn't a big deal to me, as the only socks I have are on my feet. And, it wasn't actually me he was after, it was the user he thought I was a sock of.

I found it amusing that he went to that much effort to have me investigated.

Sorry if the post was improper or disrupted AN/I.

Peace in God. -john Lsi john 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, nothing to apologise about. Best, Sandstein 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

DCGeist Breaking 3RR rule again

He's at it again. 4 reverts in a matter of minutes on the same page - deleting my comments in support of his "time out." He thinks disagreeing with him is an attack, apparently. I am being honest in my assessment, but not attacking by any stretch. I was equally critical if the other guy on his page.

View Page

Declined, see your talk. Sandstein 05:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Beatles Fab Four

I am sorry to bother you with this, I just didn't want to take up this matter officially (yet) and you have been impartial and fair in my dealings with you. Beatles Fab Four has been seriously disrupting the regular work of Wikipedia.

  • Deleting sourced material or reverting/removing sourced material from articles: [1], [2], [3],

[4], [5] and far more. Note that all his contributions are to one article, Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, during last few days it has become virtually impossible to edit the article.

  • Refusing to reasonably discuss the changes, as can be seen from his talk and article talk page Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn#DLX, with such gems like "Well, I get bored of your annoying comments.", "I presume you are a denier of the Holocost", "Who cares about internal affairs of the US?" (about Nurenberg Trials and U.S. High Commission in Germany), [6].
  • Constantly abusing and insulting edit summaries [7]:
 * "Do you know how to read, I doubt"
 * "Hey DLX IT IS YOU WHO WANTED THIS BLOG"
 * "It was discussed, but WAS NOT AGREED UPON. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO EDIT "
 * "We freed Europe from Nazism, while you cleared Estonia from Jews"
 * "You Estonians wanted it. We didn't start the fire V"
 * "To my small estonian friend" (repeatedly)
 * "I'd immediately write a letter to Kostya if you don't stop misinterprete him"
 * "I'read the revised version. it's too complicateted to catch the point. maybe just drop this reaction"
 * "DLX where did you study English? PTU?"
  • Pasting sections in Russian to talk pages, and when user Staberinde asked for a translation, his reply was "I'm not a doctor. Can't teach you Russian. Bye and best wishes."

I am asking from you a suggestion what to do? It is clear that Beatles Fab Four will not start to contribute or discuss his changes in a meaningful way in near future. He has been asked and warned repeatedly to "mend his ways", but so far nothing has helped. DLX 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the appropriateness (or not) of the contested material on the Bronze Soldier article, but I agree, this is annoying conduct. For the time being, I have blocked the user for violation of the username policy, and warned them about their disruptive edits. Feel free to notify me, or any other admin through WP:AIV if this keeps up after an eventual username change. Sandstein 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As he is a new user, I would have thought warning more appropriate as of now - but of course, username violation is there as well - din't realize that. Thank you once again. DLX 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
*sighs* I think he is now back as an anonymous user - see [8] by 85.140.209.67. Perhaps it would be useful to apply for semi-protection again? DLX 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It is preferable to warn and block disruptive users instead of locking up articles. I've issued another warning. Sandstein 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Now he is user:Beatle Fab Four. DLX 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Briefly blocked for continuing disruption. Sandstein 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sandstein! Many users (not only me) are angered by DLX behavior. Look at Bronze Soldier discussion page for their views. Please block him. That'd be fair 85.140.209.118 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, holding views that you disagree with is not grounds for blocking. You are in a content dispute. Read WP:DR for how to proceed in such a situation. I've yet to see a diff by DLX that you believe violates a Wikipedia policy and is grounds for blocking. Sandstein 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Look at his posts please, and at warnings of other users like M.V.E.i. and Irpen. His views sometimes are very offending, not smart, and I dare to say almost pro-Nazi. Beatle 85.140.209.118 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
We do not block people for having views. But we do block people for expressing them in a disruptive manner, and this includes calling other people names, like you just did. Admins intervene when people disrupt Wikipedia through edit-warring, and I will block DLX when I find him doing it. But admins do not block people to help others in a content dispute. You need to solve this content dispute by yourself. WP:DR explains how to. Please read it. Sandstein 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

DLX, if you have a problem with the user, try better solve it without calling for administrative intervention. If you absolutely can't, you should post to the proper boards designed to call for administrative attention and not cherry-pick admins to lodge your complaints.

As for this conflict, obviously both users have been rather opinionated, should I say, and lost temper on several occasions. A username block is not something I am going to comment on, but if the block is going to be made for the disruption or other misconduct, both parties are equally guilty. IMO, they behavior still does not amount for a block as obviously they develop the article and explain themselves at talk. But people can disagree on how much of bad behavior warrants a block. --Irpen 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW DLX didn't follows the steps WP:DR you offered me to follow. I believe this is unfair. Beatle 85.140.209.118 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Beatle, just go to Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, and discuss the changes you would like to make there, and then wait until you have consensus for them before you make them. The same, of course, goes for DLX. If anyone involved here calls the other names, or engages in edit-warring, I will (and any other admin should) block them once notified. And that, gentlemen, will be all, I should think. Sandstein 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to start a discussion. Now I'm switching off 85.140.208.210 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What's the problem then man? I don't touch the article. Let some natinalists vandalize it. I believe it's fair thay you say the same words of warning to that user as you said to me. LOVE AND PEACE BEATLES 85.140.211.236 23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
DLX, dont you have any shame?! Wikipedia is a free-edit place, so the Beatles Fab Four has the right to edit it just like you. If he removes stuff from your articles, it's because you write bullshit. An example for it is you stating that your SS didnt kill any Jews, thought all the historical facts show you started killing Jews before the Germans even arrived. Theres nothing wrong in bringing articles in Russian, you can read it so whats your problem??
And don't blame the Fab Four for somthing he didn't do, i was the one calling you little people. Actually, he reasonobly discussed the article with you, but you just started telling such lies that it was impossible to talk to you. And Russians really liberated Europe from the Nazis, while all you did in your intire history is killing Jews in your country, those are facts. DLX, all your edits are pure lies, and writing lies on Wikipedia just so you could soften your nationaal shame, is VANDALISM. DLX, you did it in the Estonian way! You started an edit-war and then ran crying that you've got wipped-out by facts! You proved yourself to be a true Estonian! And you Sandstein, if you are a real administrator then go to the Bronze Libarator talk page and study the case. You will see the lies thet DLX spoke there, and you will see that any normal person couldn't take it. Who cares about the tree-revert-rule? Fab Four should get a star for fighting against Vandalizm, and not to be blocked. Fabe Four saw that some people there start writing lies in articles, and he didnt think about the three revert rule, he fought Vandalism! M.V.E.i. 15:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* BFF is back again, this time as user Nazis Hunter. Same edit warring (Special:Contributions/Nazis_Hunter) and edit summaries. As for user M.V.E.i., I am trying to reason with him - User talk:M.V.E.i.#Your recent actions. DLX 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this DLX really thinks that it only he who have the right to edit controversial articles. He in fact denies that Esonian SS legions killed Jews and other civil citizens. What then any normal person should think about him? No comments. 193.232.195.136 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
BFF, please see my long reply in User talk:M.V.E.i.#Your recent actions. And next time, please use my talk page for similar discussions (civil, please!), not user page of unrelated user. DLX 17:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Will the people from Russia please stop disrupting my talk page by throwing personal attacks against others around? I don't care about lies I have not seen (and by lies you may mean "opinions about history I disagree with"), but I care about people that I can see are disrupting Wikipedia by being loud and incivil. And I don't really have time to block the whole lot of you until I get back from work. Sandstein 17:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason it all happens in your talk page, is because you blocked a user (Fab Four) that many don't agree that he deserved to be blocked. M.V.E.i. 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sandstein, I have to inform you that I will write to Wiki members of the Holocaust community about your actions MAKE LOVE NOT WAR 85.140.211.220 01:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What has the Holocaust got to do with all of this? Sandstein 04:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hadouken!

umm why did you delete the article on Hadouken! the band? Jamallewis69 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete Hadouken!, other admins did. See here, and see your talk page for the boilerplate explanation. Sandstein 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ok fair enough, but it said on the page it was you. after reading the criteria, Hadouken! fills several of them, including air time on radio stations, and has had several big features in the NME, including a double page spread last week. If you could provide me with the biography on the page, then I can edit it to your standards. Jamallewis69 16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Iman Ali

If you do think I was acting correctly can you you have a look at the page. The copyvio bit has been restored and I'm just qquitting for the night. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And I have to go to work now... Where is it copyvio from? Sandstein 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

InfoExpress

Just noticed that when you were closing the AFD for InfoExpress, you deleted the AFD page instead of the article. I've fixed that (restored the AFD page and deleted the article), but I was just wanted to leave you a message in case you closed any other debates as delete recently. Just in case you might have deleted the wrong pages in those cases too. AlistairMcMillan 15:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Beatle Fab Four and sockpuppeting to avoid block

Firstly I made checkuser for BFF and User:Nazis Hunter, result is "likely"[9]. Also edits from few IP's seem to be quite obviously Beatle Fab Four avoiding block: User:85.140.243.184 and from User:85.140.211.220. Both of those IP's edited disputed article then BFF was blocked: [10], [11], their other edits at talk pages make it quite obvious that BFF was behind both of them. So it seems quite obvious that BFF has sockpuppeted to avoid block.--Staberinde 07:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Replied at WP:ANI#Block_evasion_of_Beatle_Fab_Four. Sandstein 08:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacres in Peloponnese

Remember you voted for the deletion of that article because it was POVfork right? Therefore now you have the responsibility to prevent vandalisms and nationalist point of view impositions in the mains article and in a new article opened by this greek nationalist Alexius..Now i expect you to come, do a descent thing and fix the article..Regards.--laertes d 10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no responsability whatever to fix whichever article according to your wishes. It would help if you specified what articles you are talking about and what's wrong with them. Sandstein 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me correct then, you have a moral responsibility since you deleted an article about the above mentioned topic. this new thread was not open by me but it has to include massacres in Peloponnese in a descent way, since opening a new thread on the subject is not allowed for its being accused of POVfork..there are a number of separete article about the ottman massacres somehow which are not to be considered as POVfork--laertes d 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not making sense to me. What new thread? Please specify each article you have a problem with by providing a link to it, like this, and say what exactly the problem is with each one of these articles. Sandstein 12:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacres during the Greek Revolution this one. I want a descent, serious mention of the massacres in Peloponnese. im not deleting or changing anything about the massacres committed by the Ottoman Empire. Sandstein you know that there was a separete article about the massacres in Peloponnese and it was deletd of being accused POVfork but then now i cant include sourced materials into this new article nor in the main article nor i can open a new thread since it would be accused of being POVfork. Therefore i simply cant include these materials in any possible way--laertes d 12:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And note that there are a number of articles about the Ottoman massacres whereas talking about the wiping out of entire civilian population in Peloponnese is almost prohibited in wikipedia..--laertes d 13:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about the subject. If you think the article Massacres during the Greek Revolution is deficient, you must engage in a discussion about it on the talk page. If consensus is against you, you must accept it. If you persist in having difficulties, please follow the dispute resolution procedure. — If you think there are too many articles about the topic "Ottoman massacres", you can issue a merging proposal. Sandstein 13:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then i invite you to learn about the subject since youre influential in deleting a separete article. And please what kind of logic is this, im using separete and credible sources for the massacres but only because some greek nationalist dont want to see and some administrators are unwilling to acknowldge christian massacres then they must not be included, is that what youre saying?

what i want is simple, i want my well sourced information to stay without being deletd by greek nationlist like Hectorian, alexius or Plutarchors, And i have been engaging in discussions for months by now, check the discussion page of the main article of the greek war of independence. Each time the conflict resolves a new nationalst show up and start imposing his own points of views--laertes d 13:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You will only get what you want if you do what I recommend you to do above. There simply is no other way. I have no interest whatsoever to learn more about the subject. However, I can recognise WP:POVFORKS when I see them. Do not make personal attacks against other contributors, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 13:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Terersa jones

FYI, User:Terersa jones is one of approximately five dozen named accounts abusing Wikipedia from a single IP address that checkuser turned up yesterday. Every one of them at best worthless, and at worst pure vandal (the bulk of them the latter.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sandstein 14:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock granted???

  • I am curious. You must have noticed the multiple warnings at the top of the talk page User talk:Bravehartbear. Does the user not even deserve a shorter block for this? And how does his one apology make it all better, does this not take into the fact the prior history and multiple warnings? After all of these warnings, should the user not have known better? Smee 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Yes, no, it does, yes. In brief, blocks are preventative, not punitive (see the blocking policy). He'll be back to indef soon enough if he commits another copyvio. Feel free to drop me a line if he does. Sandstein 18:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, thanks for the polite explanation, and will do. Thanks again for your time. Yours, Smee 07:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Autoblock

I'm now on a public terminal.... I was editing from a different one earlier this week, no idea who'd last edited Wikipedia then! --Shabzar 09:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm. When editing from a public terminal, make sure to log out and to clean cache and cookies before you leave (see Wikipedia:Personal security practices). Sandstein 10:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thankyou for blocking those two users and I'm sorry I posted my report on the wrong page. Again thank you. trainra 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Photon Belt

Hi. You deleted this article but I'm considering proposing a deletion review. I am working on the article at User:Eep²/The_Photon_Belt but would like to see what the original article had in it that could be merged and sourced, as necessary. Would you undelete it and, if you don't want to keep it in the main article space, put it as a subpage under my user page (like User:Eep²/photon belt or something other than User:Eep²/The_Photon_Belt, which already exists). Thanks. -Eep² 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Done; the content is now at the first link you provided. Sandstein 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there no way to restore the full edit history and talk page too? -Eep² 07:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Done as well. Sandstein 10:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Was there no discussion? -Eep² 04:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
About deletion? There was, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Photon Belt. Before moving the article back to main space with the "move" function, you should submit the improved version to WP:DRV. Sandstein 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean a talk page ("Discussion" on my "simple" skin template). I plan on doing a deletion review after I get it sourced sufficiently--almost there. Also, is there a way to merge histories? Also, there's no history of the article having been deleted before you restored/moved it--why not? Just wondering; thanks. -Eep² 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, there was no talk page. A history merge is possible, but complicated. Just add your new and improved version to the restored article; your improvements will then appear as a single edit in the history. Sandstein 05:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I just wanted my edit history to be included for reference/posterity/evidence of its evolution. -Eep² 05:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Photon Belt. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Eep² 08:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 16 May 2007, a fact from the article Percival P.74, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aranherunar

I checked carefully when blocking and again now: there is no "Japan is pure bullshit" diff to accidentally revert to. ··coelacan 20:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Sandstein 20:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

List of the writings of William Monahan

Hi, just would like to let you know that I renominated List of the writings of William Monahan for deletion. As the closing Admin in the first debate, I as wondering if you could explain why your decision was no consensus, even though about 2/3 of the votes were to either delete or merge? Any chance you could reconsider this initial decision? Black Harry (T|C) 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think this is a bit of a moot question now, as we have a second AfD ongoing. Any consensus that emerges there will be determinative, and if you then feel the second closing admin is also mistaken, you should ask them. I can certainly not go back on my closing decision now, because this would involve closing the ongoing second AfD out of process. Sandstein 18:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
WellI'm not concerned whether you could change it or not, but could you explain the reasoning behind your decision. I couldn't really tell from your closing statement Black Harry (T|C) 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning was that there was no consensus at all to delete the article outright. Deletion on AfD means hitting the delete button. Most of those who advocated "deletion", including you, did not actually want that, but advocated a full or partial merge. Merging rules out deletion, for reasons of licencing. It requires only copy/pasting and redirection. The AfD discussion would not have been necessary for that, incidentally. Sandstein 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks foe explaining that to me. I'm still learning stuff about wikipedia so that'll help me in the future Black Harry (T|C) 01:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Bollocks

Thank you so much for brightening up my day with this.... Spartaz Humbug! 15:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) Sandstein 21:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 17 May 2007, a fact from the article Missa sopra Ecco sì beato giorno, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Nation

Isn't it kind of odd to execute the redirect before the deletion debate closed? Especially when most people opted for delete? The Behnam 07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I see that it closed, but if was for 'delete'. I guess it doesn't make much of a difference anyway except for a minor issue. Never mind. The Behnam 07:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I made it a redirect after the debate closed (correctly, IMHO) as "delete" and the article was deleted. Sandstein 07:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal_issues_of_cannabis#Switzerland

(Brought to attention by a question at the reference desk). Hmm ... decriminalized? Is that what Artikel 19 of the Betäubungsmittelgesetz says? I know there's an initiative coming up, but "decriminalized" seems a bit hasty. Your input is appreciated. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the previous text was not worth much. I've replaced it with a referenced summary of the present situation, although the immediately available references are some 8 years old, I'm afraid. Sandstein 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent and fair representation! ---Sluzzelin talk 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Translations

Hey Sandstein how are you? Sandstein, I've been studying German the past few months and have been translating some articles on the way. I think I've learned enough that I could have done the Thonet one by myself now. Anyways, I found a few articles about courts on de: that you might be interested in translating, but I don't know, here they are [12], [13], and [14]. Would you like to? A few related articles that are also about architectural history, I will probably translate in the next few weeks, [15], and [16]. Also, I've been working on this article [17] and need some advice, I've been thinking of sending it to peer review once I'm done, but recently uncovered something that I need advice about sooner. I've found that a few parts of the article on the German Wikipedia are cut and pasted from other sites such as [18], [19], and [20] which I've now linked as footnotes. Could you compare the original to these and tell me if you think I shouldn't include the cut and pasted paragraphs or do I need to rewrite them further than I already have? Thanks, D. Recorder 01:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. To the extent your translated article incorporates text from these references, I think they are altered sufficiently so as not to infringe on their copyright. The Austrian courts articles would certainly be interesting to translate, although I'm not really knowledgeable about Austrian institutions. I may give one of them a try in the next few days. Best, Sandstein 06:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

about user:vinay412

1. user:vinay412 please see edit summary(testing that cant be tested in sandbox) [21] and also his test(before testing in article wikipedia) in sand box [22] in this link see previw of sandbox. this should be enough to assume it to be in good faith. and reason for choosing particular article(wikipedia) for may be: if tested small article it would tense people who are interested in that article as debate drags for five days. 2. his edits in afd debate of female body shape (quoted in blocking reason)is not at all personal atttack. it was info relevant to context 3. his reverts in article human figure was only upto when a third party entered(go through history:human figure). it is correct not to allow someone singlehandedly delete article when that second party came to article for first time. 4. as for repeated unblock request that is because you and next admin did not care to cite reason(you need explanation here?) for decline of request. saying someone does not have common sense not considered as personal attack from any angle.

kindly reconsider block and review your acts once again. thanks.Greg dn 04:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. My review indicates that you are a sock puppet used by vinay412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to evade his block, and have been blocked. Sandstein 04:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology

You are quite right. I just felt angry and frustrated by some nonsense at the Humanities Desk. I promise to be on 'best behaviour' in future. Cheers SeanScotland 08:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but no need to apologise, as I was not offended - and, incidentally, welcome to Wikipedia! Sandstein 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please weigh in on Care.com AfD

Hello Sandstein,

I would like to see if you could weigh in on an entry for an American website article on Care.com. There is some debate about it being a WSD11, but I think that you have had contact with Geni.com when it first launched as well. Care.com is an important website which is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you please evaluate? There are sufficient references. I have also offered to remove any external links. There is concern that this is a SPA, but I have every intention of editing other venture capital firms, companies, and care related articles to enhance the knowledge base. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Rjongm 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean WP:DRV, but no matter: done, although not in support of your opinion. Sandstein 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NP - the conflict of interest is fine. I am completely honest, though, so that is the consequence. I understand. However, you must remember that there are hordes of SEO consultants running around Wikipedia acting like objective posters who are actually proxy for many private interests. All I ask is that you go back and edit existing Wiki articles including Geni.com to conform to the rules, otherwise, you will continue to run into issues about what constitutes a business article. I think that the article is objective and offers relevant press references from Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, StartUp Squad, etc. Care.com is a valid organization and is making great in roads with government website inlinks such as this one on the Social Security Administration: www.ssa.gov/work/Beneficiaries/sources.html Thank you.Rjongm 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved a comment at DRV

You added a comment to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 22 in this diff. The diff's edit summary and the content seem to clearly indicate that it was intended for the discussion on Zionism and racism allegations, yet it somehow ended up in the discussion for CyberPower PCs. I moved it, but am letting you know in case I screwed up. GRBerry 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct: Thanks! Sandstein 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Karl Zinsmeister

I recently edited this article to clarify that Zinsmeister lives in Cazenovia, NY. The original article simply said "Upstate NY". The edit was correct, it was not an experiment, I don't understand why it was reverted. Again, Zinsmeister really lives in Cazenovia. Do I need to source this? If it needs a source, shouldn't it just have a "needs source" tag?

Sorry, my bad, I thought this was a joke name for a town. Feel free to re-revert, but you should provide an inline reference for it. Sandstein 07:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No biggie, but for future reference,many american towns have silly names. seeIntercourse, Pennsylvania

Dr. Eric Henderson

This article and an associated article BioForce Nanosciences, Inc. appear to have been speedy deleted. I am concerned, as the article on Dr Henderson did assert notability, even if there may have been conflict of interest and an element of spam. The company may have been notable as well. The speedy delete was contested on the article talk page. I was in the process of looking for references, but you had already deleted this. I do not have time to look into this any further just now, but wonder if you did not act too hastily? Again, I only caught a glimpse of these and they may have been total spam... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs)

Yes, Henderson asserted notability, but his article as well as everything else written by Dhappe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was total spam for the company Dhappe asserts to belong to, most likely copied straight from a company website. For instance, Gregory D. Brown:
Gregory D. Brown – CFO. As noted earlier, Mr. Brown joined the Company as its Chief Financial Officer in January 2007. He brings significant domestic and international experience in the venture capital industry and in financial management positions with technology focused companies. Prior to his employment with BFNH, Mr. Brown held the positions of CFO with BidRx, LLC, Co-COO and Partner with Residex Ventures BV, and Managing Director and Partner with P3 Technology Partners BV.
Feel free to suggest recreation of these articles at WP:DRV, but I'm wagering it won't go far. All are free to recreate non-spam articles about these persons, of course. Sandstein 05:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sounds like it was pretty clearly spam. I think you are right about it be a copy paste from corporate web as well...—Gaff ταλκ 07:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vinson

I was in the process of building a 'tony vinson' entry, and yes there was some copyright infringement, but it was only there to work with as a skeleton, and was NOT the finished entry. I would appreciate it if you could put that content back. Many thanks

(if just to give me time to save a copy to work on) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden1963 (talk • contribs)

No. Copyvios are not undeleted. Create some new, original, non-copyvio article, and please keep WP:BIO in mind. And please sign your posts, and use the preview mode. Your incremental saving produces edit conflicts, which is quite disruptive. Sandstein 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then send me a copy of the work, if you can access it, and I will do as you suggest. The text was taken from a press release, and you have not just deleted a section of text, but removed the entire entry. Some flexibility on this would be greatly appreciated TylerDurden1963 18:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide your e-mail address. Sandstein 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

<redacted>@googlemail.com THANKS! TylerDurden1963 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tajima's D

Greetings and salutations. Re: your nomination for AfD, why not take a minute to google the article? Also re: your comments on AfD, don't bite the newbies! All the best. Mmoneypenny 23:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. See my comments there. Sandstein 05:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Penumbras and Emanations

You miss my point, kind sir. I was not appealing directly to the United States Constitution, I was making an analogy. In the same way that Justice Douglas argued that despite the fact that a right to privacy was not explicitly written into the constitution, it was implicit as found in the "penumbras and emanations," of the document and the ideals upon which America was founded, I argued that freedom of speech is inherent in any organizations that encourages "anyone to edit" and values the benefits of collective contributions and the free market of ideas in the manner that Wikipedia does. But hey, the block was reduced, and now I am able to edit and contribute as freely as anyone, so all's well that ends well. Limin8tor 06:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of SimpList

Please state proper reasoning for the deletion of this page Mrtechguy 10:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimpList. Sandstein 10:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo!7 deleted?

Hi there.

I was amazed to see Yahoo!7 deleted. I'm not quite sure what was missing to "assert the importance of the subject" or what "web content with no notability asserted" means, but I should point out that Yahoo!7 is a separate entity from Yahoo! (a joint venture with channel seven) and is the 3rd most visited site in Australia. If you'd kindly re-instate it and explain what was wrong with the original entry I'd be most grateful.

Many thanks.

Gridkid 03:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo!7 redirects to Yahoo!. The previous article was deleted per WP:CSD#A7, which says that an article about a website is to be speedily deleted if the article does not state that the website is in some way notable, i.e. important. Our criteria for the notability of websites are at WP:WEB. You can recreate the Yahoo!7 article if it makes clear that the criteria of WP:WEB are met, e.g. by adding links to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources (not blogs, press releases etc.). Sandstein 04:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will include appropriate references, would similar coverage to Ninemsn be sufficient? Thanks for the clarification.

203.84.216.147 05:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, see WP:WEB. You need to show that the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. For either Ninemsn or Yahoo!', citing some of the entries in the Google News Archives would do. Sandstein 06:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright...

Where would be the right place to report this then? I thought I had done that in the wrong place, but I don't know where to go. Could you please tell me? Thanks. --Ksy92003 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please now see your talk page. Sandstein 20:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pipsy the mouse

I think I have it all sorted out now. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

David M. Gonzales

You have me a little confuseed. What exactly are you referring to? Tony the Marine 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have me confused too - what comment of mine would you like to have clarified? Sandstein 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Latoyapainting.JPG

Hi - just for clarification - while Robert Koehler did indeed die in 1917, the Robert Koehler who claims to have created this is the user who uploaded the image. --Fredrick day 10:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Replied at IfD. Thanks. Sandstein 11:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Attraction to disability Third Opinion request

Hi. You deleted my wp 30 request, so I'm addressing this request to you. I would like a third opinion on the edits I made. They were pretty radical, but I don't think they constitute vandalism. I am relatively new here, and I am trying to avoid an "edit war" such as would enevitably start if I were to simply reinstate my edits after they were removed. If my edits were out of line, I'd like to know that too. You are correct in assuming that I object to the conduct of the other editor(who is the page creator), but I am not seeking to resolve that conflict here. Thank you for your time.Altairah 13:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs for the edits you want me to review? Sandstein 15:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein, interestingly, another Wikipedia editor had no problem understanding my 3O request, and provided a useful third opinion. She did this after my request was deleted, and addressed the dates of the edits and discussion listed in my original request. Please consider this when you are tempted to delete requests in the future. Just because you didn't understand the request does not mean it is irrelevant. Since I now have the third opinion I originally requested, I withdraw my request for your review. Thank you for your time. Altairah 22:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Digwuren

Hi, I don't understand why 3 Löwi and Klamber were blocked for alleged sock puppetry. They were not the principal of the original checkuser case, being [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]. Even if one is a sock puppet of the other, which I doubt, no claims such as "mutual 3RR assistance" were made against 3 Löwi and Klamber, and the puppetry policy only bans disruptive puppetry and there is no evidence of this. Note that the admin who did the original checkuser Voice_of_All has a sock puppet VoA, so having a sock puppet isn't a wikicrime per se. So could you please reconsider unblocking them. Thanks. Martintg 00:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Having multiple accounts is permissible (and VoA is open about its accounts), but in this case the block reason is that the multiple accounts were used abusively. I have no opinion on whether or not this is the case, as I did not need to check this. The unblock requests said "we are not sockpuppets/meatpuppets", so I merely had to evaluate that, and checkuser consensus tended to indicate otherwise. The result might have been different if the accounts had said that yes, we are socks or users acting in concert, but we are doing it legitimately. Sandstein 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just sent you a formal unblock request via email. Just to add that the reasons stated in the email are also applicable to alleged meat puppetry as well, i.e. No participation in AfD votes cited in the checkuser case, no evidence of attempts to avoid 3RR, no evidence of other abuses contained in the case. Martintg 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to examine whether the coordinated use of multiple accounts was nonabusive as long as the accounts themselves claim there was no coordinated use of multiple accounts at all. Also, 3 Löwi's unblock requests have now been declined by numerous admins. I'm not inclined to override all of them, the blocking admin and the checkusers. The reexamination of my block review is declined. Sandstein 11:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand the disinclination to override the other admins. You must then have knowledge of coordinated use of these two accounts outside the scope of the original checkuser case. Sock/meat puppets usually coordinate to sway votes don't they. The kicker is that these two did not even participate in the two AfD's [23], [24] nor the alleged 3RR avoidance cited in the checkuser case. It seems that Petri Krohn has some issues with Digwuren and that these guys 3 Löwi and Klamber ended up as collateral damage when the checkuser net was cast wide over many candidates listed as potential sock puppets to Digwuren. Anyway, thanks for your input. Martintg 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Block by Bishonen Against Ferrylodge Regarding Harassment

Hi Sandstein. Just FYI, I thought I'd mention to you that I have posted on this subject at ANI. Ferrylodge 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rosner

Good call. I don't think Vestar is a hoax, though, they've been mentioned by / quoted in Businessweek magazine: [25]. But still, we can do without the spam, and what was up with those puppets? Mangojuicetalk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, a Vestar was mentioned in the magazine, which need not be the Vestar controlled by this Rosner persona. I've worked on a case where a scammer tricked at least >1M EUR out of gullible retirees in part by co-opting the name and logo of an established investment firm. Although I'm equally puzzled about those puppets. Maybe just an overactive teen's imagination after all. Sandstein 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in biology, chemistry, and medicine nominated for deletion

Hi Sandstein,

the articles unsolved problems in biology, unsolved problems in chemistry, and unsolved problems in medicine have again be nominated for deletion. Your comment would be appreciated on the discussion pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in chemistry, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in medicine 2.

Thanks, Cacycle 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I recreated Robert Rosner, but this time focusing on the astrophysicist at Argonne. Just to inform you and manjojuice. --Whsitchy 02:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tajima's D Introduction

Thanks for the suggestion, I wrote an introduction for Tajima's D, please let me know if you find it readable Jlrflores 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very much. Thanks. This makes up the difference between an accessible encyclopedia article and something mistaken for formula salad by a hasty layman like me. Keep up the good work! Sandstein 22:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)