User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2007/February

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sandstein. 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.

Well, only two days after semi-protection was removed from Lord & Taylor, our autistic editor (141.150.233.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is at it again. In the past month he has also been playing around with various mall articles using different IPs (from friends' houses maybe?) but those other IPs haven't worked up to level 4 warnings as of yet. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotecting again for 7 days, blocking the IPs. Thanks for the message! Sandstein 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't realize that other editors had split off the List of Lord & Taylor locations into a separate article. Our friendly autist is using another IP (71.168.146.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) and raising merry heck there— no doubt that it's him, the editing pattern is identical. That IP is already up to level 4 warning now due to previous edits of mall pages regarding, you guessed it, Lord & Taylor. I'll notify DragonflySixtyseven and ask that she he write to this kid's mom again and ask that he be brought under control.--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Lord & Taylor locations is now also semiprotected for a month. I'll block this other IP on request in case of any further vandalism. Too bad for the kid, but we are not his playground. Sandstein 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He's edited Lord & Taylor into the Southpark Mall (Colonial Heights, Virginia) using 71.168.146.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) after a final warning on that IP's talk page. I know it's late over there, but if you wouldn't mind... :-)--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Sandstein. I've got this to say about this kid; he's persistent even though his edits stick out like a sore thumb. Anyways, in the past week he's worked himself up to a level 4 warning on a new IP 72.82.207.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and just made a vandalous edit after getting the level 4 warning. Thank you for all your help in this! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. Blocked for a week, main target articles semiprotected for a month. I wonder if a file on WP:LTA would be in order now for ease of reference. We have recorded a similar case who is using sockpuppet accounts at WP:LTA/MG. Sandstein 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't checked out that page before. That might indeed be a good idea. I'll put it onto my "to do" list. Thanks!--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 00:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A short time ago, you blocked User:VictorO for disruptive editing on Prem Rawat. I don't want to tire you with the details, but here's the short version. A few editors have advised that the lead to that article be rewritten, I rewrote it, and a small cabal of readers have opposed the rewrite (Here's the long version. They've been unable to justify their complaints or gain a consensus in their favor, and have resorted to edit warring. Lo and behold, rather than hit a WP:3RR violation, User:VictorO returns to the scene just in the nick of time to revert on their behalf! This strikes me as very odd. Can you please help? I've already filed a sockpuppet report on this user, which you can find on his talk page. I don't want to edit war, but this is clearly foul play. Mael-Num 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I echo Jossi's advice at Talk:Prem_Rawat: this is a content dispute, work on the talk page to get consensus. There's no immediately obvious evidence of foul play, and under WP:AGF, it is probably not helpful to make such allegations against numerous users, including one administrator. My advice would be to help deescalate the situation by re-starting constructive discussion on the talk page, or to get other editors to weigh in, such as via WP:3O. Sandstein 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed still blocked when I go to my café! Sdedeo (tips) 16:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay... but right now you're not, it seems, so there's no need for an unblock template. You might want to ask Raul, but I guess that café's IP will remain rangeblocked until it's no longer likely to be used by the vandal. Sandstein 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If I only add the unblock template during the hours I am at the café, I will never get unblocked. It's been days, and Raul has not responded! Sdedeo (tips) 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you might want to contact another admin who's more proficient in handling range blocks than I am and see whether they can help you out - see the recent blocks log for candidates. An unblock template is only appropriate if you are actually blocked, or admins will get confused. But also consider just editing Wikipedia from somewhere else until the rangeblock expires. Sandstein 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW you gave a third warning to this guy for a second offence (both reverters had already warned him) when he probably didn't see any warning after the first offence which was very close in timing to the second.

Worth checking a users edit history to avoid inadvertently WP:BITE but I cannot paw-point as I am not perfect at that myself. --BozMo talk 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I did check the history, and considered whether to just indefblock Halo4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a vandalism-only account: all two of his edits were vandalism. A level 4 warning, even if redundant to previous ones, appeared appropriate in this case. I don't think BITE is even remotely a concern with users who have yet to make one good faith edit. I'm not about to undo your unblock after the perfectly appropriate block he got for his third vandal edit, but I can assure you I will indefblock this account if his fourth edit is also vandalism. Sandstein 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have clearly heard your message. --BozMo talk 22:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For this severe personal attack, you are blocked for a week. Sandstein 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Geee thanks. Just what I needed!--Light current 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein, did you see the comment from Anchoress that eventually led to that comment? Thatcher131 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't immediately find it. Although I can't imagine any edit to which his comment was a legitimate reaction, I'm willing to reconsider if this is/was some sort of bona fide misunderstanding or jest. Sandstein 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anchoress crossed the line with this amateur psychiatric diagnosis, which she removed a few minutes later. Light Current was warned not to pursue the matter User_talk:Anchoress#Er_over_the_top, after which he made his "no you drop" remark to Hipocrite, but it would be nice to see some sort of apology from Anchoress as well, and a week seem out of proportion unless the Anchoress is going to get something as well. Thatcher131 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I er, don't mean to butt in, but LC's remark was clearly directed at me - I was the one that told Anchoress in no uncertain terms that her comment was over the line (her remark was over the line - I advised her to remove it, and she did.) I have been in unrelated disputes with LC before and have learned by now to tune him out. I don't care if you leave him blocked or unblock him. I do not feel threatened by him at all, and I don't care if he's incivil to me, because I can't see his comments as a result of high quality User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

After EC: it would be appropriate for Anchoress to apologize, however. I'll suggest it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I see; thanks, all, for the comments. I'm inclined to believe that Anchoress' comment on ANI was made in good faith, even though it was offensive, and as she retracted it, I see no need for sanctions, especially if an apology ensues. Given that personal attacks are never justified, death wishes even less so, and that Light Current then attacked another user, and not Anchoress who had offended him, my assessment of his edit does not change. I'll not object if you feel it necessary to shorten the block, though. Sandstein 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is where I praise the lord that my periods of periodic dramatic incivility keep me from ever having access to admin tools. Good luck, guys! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your creditable, patient intervention in this matter. It appears Anchoress has indeed apologised. Sandstein 21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with a full week for Light Current as he was arguably provoked, but taking it as far as he did was his choice and he certainly has a history of pushing problems two steps farther than necessary. I'll leave it to your judgement. Thatcher131 21:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a couple cents worth of opinion. A week is a long block, but the remark was unacceptable and this is a pattern of recurring behavior. He did a bit of namecalling that caught my attention recently, but I said nothing to him directly about it. A few folks have noticed that he appears to thrive on attention (positive or negative attention - doesn't seem to matter to him), so perhaps ignoring him whenever possible is the best thing to do. That said, it's understandable to me why someone unfamiliar with him would block on sight for that remark. And, of course, it's difficult to ignore behavior that's actually disruptive. As for the community patience issue, maybe someone could explain to him what this means once more before it comes to that. Friday (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, too, for these comments. In my humble opinion, we have better things to do than to continue to waste our time with what appears to be a never-ending series of disruptions. If someone doesn't get WP:NPA with that kind of record, I'm not optimistic they ever will. But then I am a pessimist. Sandstein 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia talk page for Wikipedia :Notability you expressed some opinions about whether things covered by news media should be entitled to Wikipedia articles for having met the criteria of multiple coverage in reliable independent sources I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news) looking at the question of whether "newsworty" equals "encyclopedic." Your input is welcome. Thanks. Edison 01:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm aware of the rules on canvassing, so you're going to be the only person I ask to comment on this. I nominated Wikinfo for deletion (for the third time) here and it seems to be going the same way as the first two. I basically want a sanity check. To me, this article fails core policy and guidelines, and if this wasn't connected to Wikipedia there wouldn't be the slightest possibility of it being kept; consequently, I think keeping it shows absurd double-standards. As you were one of the people advocating deletion last time, do you still feel the same way? Or am I so out-of-touch with the current deletion process that I should just stay away from the whole area? I would really appreciate your response. Thanks. Trebor 13:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check passed. As far as I'm concerned, your nomination is straight on point. I've left my opinion; thanks for the notice. Sandstein 13:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait and see what happens. If it gets kept again, I'm gonna take a break from deletion, since (most of) the community's views and mine are miles apart. Trebor 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot really see why you decided that from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omi (Xiaolin Showdown) that the article was to be deleted. The article was about a major character from an animated series, and frankly, any sources would be from the cartoon itself. I will be listing the article at DRV, as I feel that it should not have been deleted (I would not have been notified of such until the orphaned image message came about).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply at the DRV entry, then. Thanks for the message. Sandstein 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

...that is, unless you would like to hear my explanation before submitting the DRV. Sandstein 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yargh, sorry about that. On a similar note, could you help me figure out how to restore an article? I've just copy-pasted the last version, and I don't know if I should hist merge or not.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should move it to preserve the history (I guess), but you seem to have done so already. Sandstein 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That and I inserted a hack into {{superherobox}} that makes images unusable in the non-article space :/ but several user pages utilize it with free images.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you gotten a chance to review the userfied version of the article? I added citations to User:Ryulong/Omi and I don't want to move it back to article space if it'll just get deleted again. I also don't want to go into citing the other character articles if they'll just be deleted as well. You were the original closing admin with the reasoning of WP:V and WP:NOR, so I would like your opinion on my work. Jay32183 04:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks well-sourced now, although more secondary sources would be better - but given the subject matter I guess that's not realistic. I have no objection to a recreation in this form. Sandstein 23:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein,

Thank you for your efforts regarding the socionomics article. To evaluate that huge collection of evidence and arguments speaks admirably to your commitment to the Wikipedia community. In keeping with the guidance on the Deletion review page, I cordially ask you to reassess your decision to delete the socionomics article. Please consider the process issues in the first three points, and the matter of behavior in point four.

1. Your rational said the case was "principally" about whether socionomics is "a sufficiently notable scientific concept." But I politely remind you that nowhere in the article was socionomics described as "scientific." The article should not have to a prove a claim it did not make. Furthermore, WP:DEL does not include WP:SCI (a proposed guideline) among the listed notability guidelines. Even the editors who initially invoked WP:SCI soon agreed that it is not binding.
2. You observed that with "eight votes to four in favour of deletion," the "numerical consensus is determinative." I respectfully say that, put in simpler terms, your phrase means "majority rules." A numerical consensus contradicts the letter and spirit of WP:NOT "voting…may not be treated as binding," and of WP:GD "Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not."
3. You elected to discount the opinion (and "keep" vote) of user:MarkA12. This editor was a full participant in the discussions regarding this article, and exchanged views cordially with several other editors on the project and discussion pages. While WP:GD says "the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin," it also says "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion," including anonymous users. With a clear indication of good faith and nothing demonstrably suspicious, there was no acceptable basis to discount this editor's vote.
4. The most troubling issue is related not to process or notability, but to Wikipedia's core policies and values regarding behavior. This AfD was born of incivility and a pre-existing biased point of view. The incivility was plain to see in the nominator's opening statement, which included defamatory remarks about a living person. I was personally identified by name before I even offered an opinion in the AfD; my initial appeals to civility produced the opposite, and in one instance a literal defense of incivility (user:TheOtherBob). I also provided evidence that at least four of the editors were hunting for a test case for deletion. It is no exaggeration to say that these editors voted not as individuals but as a group. This is an egregious example of the very conduct that Jimbo Wales has openly spoken against regarding the deletion process.

Thank you for considering these issues. I will be happy to answer any questions you have, and I look forward to your reply. --Rgfolsom 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I hope the following will suffice:

1. It's immaterial for the purposes of the deletion debate at issue whether "Socionomics" is a "scientific" theory or not, and I did not apply WP:SCI. "Scientific" was merely a label I applied for want of a better word. Rather, the discussion turned about whether the topic was more generally notable, and consensus determined it was not.
2. You are correct that we are not a democracy and that votes are not binding, but WP:GD also states: "To the extent that voting occurs (...), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far." This is indeed what happened. As a practical matter, votes are often a good indication of consensus, especially when the individual opinions are - as here - generally well-informed and based on defensible interpretations of policy. For that reason, it was appropriate in this case to rely on votes to establish consensus.
3. MarkA12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had indeed the right to participate in the debate, but as you note, it is admissible - and established practice - to discount contributions by very new users. Actually, I've yet to see a bona fide new user who with his seventh edit jumps straight into a deletion debate citing esoteric points of policy, and I'd be very interested in the results of a WP:RfCU on that account.
4. The motivations for an AfD and alleged incivil conduct on it are not relevant for the outcome of the deletion debate, which is all that concerns me here. If you mean to accuse these other users of meatpuppetry, you'd need to come up with much more substantial evidence for it, and even then it's not clear whether this would immediately invalidate the AfD result.

I hope to have been of service. Sandstein 23:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thanks for your prompt reply. Just to be sure that we understand each another, allow me to clarify a couple of points, and perhaps you can please do likewise.

1. I accept that you did not apply WP:SCI. My question is which policy or policies did apply. The AfD included no credible evidence of bias (NPOV) or of original research, and no challenges to verifiability. These "policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia," and are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. The socionomics article satisfied these policies, so how can the editor's consensus supersede them?
2. As for "meatpuppetry," Abuse of Deletion Process defines it as "soliciting of desired views," thus there is no need for me to "accuse" the editors in question -- they have freely acknowledged soliciting their own desired views. The nominating editor said this to the group, "All right, I gave it a shot: see here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionomics." And, user:Trialsanderrors said "it's pretty clear from the WT:SCI that that was the first time we noticed the topic and clearly, being atuned to science discussions around here we're usually able to recognize a duck when it walks and quacks like one." If this does not amount to an abuse of the deletion process, please help correct my lack of understanding.
3. A face-value reading of WP:DEL (etc.) is that vote counting must not determine outcomes. But you say that, "when the individual opinions are… generally well-informed and based on defensible interpretations of policy," it is appropriate "to rely on votes to establish consensus." Do you mean to suggest that opinions to "keep" were not well informed and based on indefensible interpretations of policy?
4. Regarding user:MarkA12, the absence of experience on your part is not evidence of suspicious behavior on an editor's part. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. As for WP:RfCU, perhaps you'll be good enough to speak plainly about why you would be so "interested" in what you discover about that account. I invite you to learn all you care to know about mine, and I very much hope that other editor says likewise.

Thank you again for your work, and I sincerely look forward to your candid reply.

--Rgfolsom 06:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

1. At issue was not mainly WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, but whether the subject was notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, or whether it was a nonntotable neologism used almost exclusively (and promoted by) your employer. I personally have no opinion on this. Per WP:DGFA, I merely establish the discussion's consensus and act on it. Also, you misunderstand these policies' significance to the deletion process. The part of WP:DGFA you quote mandates me to delete an article if it clearly fails these policies. However, compliance with these policies is only a necessary criterium for inclusion, not a sufficient one. Consensus may determine that an article fails other inclusion policies and guidelines, as it did in this case.
2. The discussion you refer to is not an abuse of the deletion process, as it took place in a public forum. What would have been illicit would be private e-mails or talk notes asking people to "vote" to delete an article in a specific AfD discussion.
3. No, in this case, both sides were generally well-informed and argued based on (prima facie) defensible interpretations of policy, that is, they did not simply say "delete because it sucks" or "keep because I like it". This is what enabled me to count heads here; had there been mostly WP:ILIKEIT-type contributions (as there sometimes are in AfDs), I'd have had to perform my own assessment of the article and decide also based on that.
4. I'm interested because his pattern of contributions, at that time, was that of a sockpuppet account. As WP:GD states, "[The decision to discount] is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments."

I'm afraid that you have not persuaded me to overturn my decision. If you still believe it to be erroneous, I recommend to appeal it at WP:DRV, although I'm not optimistic about your chances in that forum. Sandstein 07:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jochic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a blatantly obvious sockpuppet of 87.116.145.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was recently blocked for the exact same vandalism. We need not give each sockpuppet a series of warnings before being blocked. John254 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that he's continuing it, I've indefblocked him. In general, though, we don't indefblock anyone for a single vandal edit. Sandstein 15:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What ridiculousness is this? That is following the letter as opposed to the spirit of the law. For what it's worth, I did try to give him a blatantvandalism template (complete with a "for the record"), but it got edit conflicted out.... because other users were chiming in. Yes, I've read the header to AIV, and I figured that since we had done something better than boilerplate. I did the paperwork here by warning him on his talk page.

I mean, come on. Boilerplate is a quick shortcut for convenience; a tailored message is better because it can be more specific. And you're going to let him continue to vandalize? This isn't the criminal justice system, this is a private website. What if he'd been posting death threats? Phone numbers and contact information? Would all the paperwork have to be in order before he could be banned? SnowFire 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Dated now, I see, but I figure that vandalbots are SO OBVIOUSLY HORRIBLE (and mentioned as exceptions on the page!) that the actual written explanation was so obvious as to not be necessary. SnowFire 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, he's indefblocked now. We do have the rule that vandals aren't ordinarily blocked unless they have an explicit final warning on the talk page. I saw only later how egregious a case of bot vandalism this was. Sandstein 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. Anyway, I do appreciate the work of people watching AIV, for what it's worth. SnowFire 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

When adding the {{no rationale}} template, please check that there isn't more than one fair use template on the image page, as was the case of Image:Chainmail 3rd edition.jpg (see User talk:Gracefool#Fair use rationale for Image:Chainmail_3rd_edition.jpg). ··gracefool |☺ 23:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does not. I'll comment on your talk. Sandstein 05:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein,

I am flattered that you deem my grasp of wikipedia policy unusual for a newbie. However, it's actually not that hard to tell the difference between policies and "suggested guidelines." First, they are labelled. Second, the policies are intuitive, sensible and articulated clearly, while the proposed guidelines are ... not.

I would like to clear my username. As you can see, I have filed a request with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfCU. I would appreciate it if you would encourage them to take the request.

Respectfully,

--MarkA12 23:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think RfCUs are not usually commented on, but you do realise that if anything, this very request makes it even more probable that you are an account operated by someone with a personal interest in "Socionomics"? It's highly improbable that the typical Wikipedia newbie would have even known of the above discussion, and cared enough to (or known how to) request a checkuser on himself, let alone to do it in an educated and polite diction that is (unfortunately) very much not the norm for new users. At any rate, a negative RfCU will not rule out sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, as noted by Prodego (see also [2]), and for the reasons outlined above, it will certainly not make me change my mind about the AfD. Sandstein 05:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is classic. You work hard to try to do something right, act civily and all that, do your research first, and the result is: You're accused of fakery. Then you try to clear your name, still acting civily, idealistically asking your accuser to help, and ... you're accused again. Sandstein, I am not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or whatever other puppet term you want to use. But I am done, sir. You win, better things to fight for; classier people to fight alongside. You kids have fun. And no, I didn't realize that. --MarkA12 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 05:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your messages: [3] & [4]. Please see my reply: [5] & [6]. It si fine. --Bhadani 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed you have tagged some of the logos I uploaded for deletion. I am not quite sure what you want me to write about the logo. I have read the articles on fair use rationale, image description but I am still not clear what it is you are looking for?! Also, unfortunately none of the articles had any examples which would have given me a better understanding, some thing for you to know since I see you are an administrator. Please give me some feedback (example preferred) on this so I can change the image description page so the logos won't be deleted. Thanks. HeMan5 23:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of page name. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 81.106.142.175 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_7#Solar_Empire. Sandstein 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete it! that image was from a long time ago when wikipedia still allowed copyright materials --Cs california 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request that you restore this image, it was being used on both Poke Ball and List of Pokemon items. I realize that the orginal uploader did not wish to provide an adequate fair-use rationale, but if you'd resotre the image I'd be more than happy to write one. And, as i'm sure you're aware, wikipedia does allow copyrighted materials so long as they qualify under fair-use. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Pokeball.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been restored. Please provide a fair use rationale. Sandstein 18:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Edward Rutherfurd page now contains all of the edward rutherford text. I rekon a redirect should be added or what you guys do so someone doesnt make this mistake again. --Salavat 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody already did. Sandstein 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Word of thanks for Sandstein Good morning (GMT time); I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, taking a neutral stance to, closing, suggesting I close or otherwise contributing to my recent RfA; unfortunately, I felt that although there were more support than oppose votes, the weight of the latter was too great for me to accept the promotion with so many not trusting me with the janitor's trolley - I therefore decided to end my nomination prematurely. The feedback I received was invaluable, and I am striving to start afresh with all of the advice my fellow Wikipedians offered. In order to meet the aim of adapting to your advice, I've drew up a list of aims (located here) which I intend to follow from this point onwards. If you have any further advice or comments for me, don't hesitate to post me a message at my talk page where it will be graciously and humbly accepted. Once again, thank you and I do hope to bump into you around the encyclopedia! Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C]

Behavioural Aims: edit  User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Behavioural Participation Aims: edit  User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Participation

Don't hesitate to add to these - just drop me a message so I know!

Post script: thanks a lot for your comment about my psyciatric disorders. I am sorry that I have them, and that Wikipedia does not want them, but I will try my best to keep them out of the way of my editing in future. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you. i've been spared useless labour after reading comments on this man.now, i will have to rethink my decision to create page on him.but, its not proper to laugh at others or make comments like- hilarious matter is available on request-.it shows your inflated ego. avoid using such impolite words. Kushwah 14:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What comment of mine do you refer to? Sandstein 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I saw the template you left on my talk page. Is the final warning part of the policy not at all flexible? I've seen admins indefinately block accounts with little or no warning if all of the edits have been vandalism. I'll follow the policy to the letter, but I'm wondering now. Thanks. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 08:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So let me see, I posted a site on an organization that is one of the three of four leading children's health advocacy groups in the United States with links to fellows programs at the Urban Institute, Brookings Institute, New America Foundation, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and funding from the Packard Foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies, the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Yet, you speedily delete it from your post in Switzerland as not notable and yet you post a cite about a pastor in a very small Catholic Church in my neighborhood in Bethesda, MD, and claim that is relevant and noteworthy??? Really??? How do you possibly justify that?

-mcadoo11

What article or articles do you mean? Please provide links to them. Sandstein 18:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Vaghi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcadoo11 (talk • contribs)

OK, and the deletion of which article are you objecting to? Please put its exact name between two square brackets, like that, so that it appears red. Sandstein 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein: You have nominated Definition of Jewish Terms in the J-Blogosphere for deletion, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definition of Jewish Terms in the J-Blogosphere. It would be very helpful that in the future, if nominating articles that relate to Jews and Judaism subjects, you could also post it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Thanks so much in advance. Sincerely, IZAK 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but no, not unless policy mandates it. I really don't have the time to find out, every time I nominate something for AfD, whether someone has organised a deletion sorting project for a topic it falls under. Chances are that the people who know about will tag it eventually, as you did in this case. Sandstein 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived at User talk:Sandstein/GU Comics. Please do not post any more requests to restore the article here. A deletion review is now underway. It is now up to the community whether or not to restore the article. Sandstein 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tried to help you out, hope I didn't make it worse. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 05:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you're welcome. Thank you for your efforts to instruct the commenters about our policies and procedures. Sandstein 05:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I may not agree with GU's removal from Wikipedia, I can not appreciate my users coming here to effect personal attacks.

To Sanstein I offer an apology. This has obviously gotten a little out of hand.

To the GU readers, I ask you to remember your manners and the rules that govern our little community. Sandstein has established a review for GU's relisting. And I'm asking you to use the proper channels and apply the proper amount of respect and decorum in filing your requests to restore GU's wiki entry.

Whearn 05:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Your message is much appreciated, but you do not need to apologise on behalf of your readers if you did not send them here. I'd be much obliged if you could ask them to stop posting here (I assume this address has been posted on some forum). I'm not going to undelete the article on my own, now that a deletion review is underway. The problem was that the article on your webcomic did not even assert its notability; it is Wikipedia policy to delete such articles on sight. The best way to proceed for restoring it would be to recreate it in userspace, to source it so that it meets WP:WEB, and then ask to restore it at deletion review. Best, Sandstein 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I found two links to this section in the GU Forums. They have been removed. An addition will be added to the initial writeup for those who only read the front page of the site. If you need to contact me further, rather than taking up space in your "user talk" section, please feel free to email me - woody at gucomics dot com Whearn 06:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As the person responsible for setting up the bulk of the article and checking in on it from time to time, I'd also like to thank you for putting it up for review rather than just leaving it deleted, and I'd also like to appologize for the abuse you received. Methinks a few people got upset that a comic they enjoyed was, in their eyes, slighted, and they reacted rather poorly as a result. My familiarity with finding archives of the original article are non-existent, so if you could, on my talk page, point me in the right direction so that I can have it on file in the event of a decision to un-delete, I would appreciate it.--Breandán 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and again, it's not up to you to apologise. It was not I who set up the deletion review, but I would certainly have done so after waking up this morning and seeing my trash heap of a talk page. I'll reply further on your talk. Sandstein 06:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that you put it up for speedy delete which IMO does not apply to this situation - "# Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." As it is obviously controversial for at least speedy delete; and the article was nominated for a previous AFD, speedy delete should not apply. In addition a speedy delete does not give much time for a rebutal, usually does not present good faith, and I had to search around for a bit before finding who deleted it, much less a place for rebutal.

Again, I stress you put it up for a speedy delete, and that is very unfortunate. I'm a bit disappointed in whoever nominated it. Mefanch 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw nothing that would indicate beforehand that it would be controversial (such as talk page discussions), and I was not aware of - and cannot find - any previous AfD on GU Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Could you please provide a link to it? Sandstein 08:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous delete on 18:32, 13 October 2005 by RoySmith. That is the best I have been able to find, but I am no expert. The article has been revised on the aforementioned user page with references, and is being cleaned up and coded.--Breandán 09:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a previous speedy deletion. That's not the same thing as an AfD discussion and does not indicate any requirement to open an AfD instead of speedy deleting it. Sandstein 10:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

<personal attack removed> Punissuer 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He's trying to keep it small today diff, but I gave him a {{uw-vandalism4im}} yesterday for sticking Lord & Taylor into the Mall of Georgia's article diff. I'll be writing up a description of him for the LTA page when I catch up to my personal backlog. Thanks!—Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one month now. Thanks. If this keeps up next month we may have to block the IP indefinitely. Sandstein 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is up for review at WP:DRV. Thought you might want to know. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the new regular closer for deletion review. Do you think the recreated article now has an assertion of notability to escape WP:CSD#A7? If you say so clearly on the deletion review, I can close early with a closure like "speedy deletion endorsed, article recreated with an assertion of notability, history restored, further actions at editorial discretion" and restore the history. If you don't think it has an assertion of notability, please say so, either to me or at the deletion review. GRBerry 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's sensible. Done. Sandstein 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I added references and external links to satisfy your criteria for posting. Please let me know if there is anything else needed to remove the tag you placed on the page. It is my first page creation so I am trying to get it to meet your standards.Mcadoo11 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Sandstein 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I must respectable disagree, but thank you for contacting me after you listed it for AFD - that was very considerate. Regards, KazakhPol 07:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That user has been deleting Talk:Kate Mulgrew. Supposedly there is something private in Mulgrew's past about the daughter she gave up for adoption to whom she was reconciled (according to another user claiming to be her husband) which has not been verified. Unfortunately Mulgrew's own website and multiple reliable sources are available for just about all aspects of the adoption/reconcilation. I do not to the best of my memory believe the daughter's name has been posted on Mulgrew's article.

Prior to the privacy claim, the article had a NPOV that IMHO was positive and in accordance with (IAW) WP:BLP. Upon the privacy claim, I invited a WP:BLP member to look over the article. He made some tweaks and recommendations. In addition, he provided the alleged husband with distinct methods of contacting Wikipedia directly to advance his issue. To date, this alleged person, who was a governor candidate, has not availed himself of the means to get the info stricken.

I am an average joe. But, if there was something I did not want on Wikipedia and was given the means to have it deleted IAW WP:BLP, I would exhaust all means. Ronbo76 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I really can't tell if this needs further attention. I'll ask on WP:BLPN whether any action is necessary and on how to proceed. Sandstein 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use the warnings (I used a first level warning a few hours ago and now have case to go to level 2). Dimitroff 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism was in this edit: [7] the IP along with another has been harassing me for months on the talk page as well as vandalizing my user page/talk page. The talk was removed by an admin because of the harassment an the fact that it was unconstructive to the page. The IP reverted it with an edit summary stating he was reverting vandalism.--Crossmr 07:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see, but the IP had no final warning message on their talk page (see WP:UTM). I can't usually block them if they don't violate a final warning. Sandstein 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for catching my incorrectly placed abuse report. Unfortunately even after following the link you indicated, It is still not clear to me how I should file the abuse report. Any hints you can offer are welcome. Domandologo 17:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied at their user talk. Sandstein 06:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We decided to merge the page at the Simpsons WikiProject. -- Scorpion 00:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Woo Yay, Thanks for unblocking me. Btw no need to reply unless you want to. Jedmiller 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for using the Norwegian ø. Second, since some sourcing has turned up and the article did recently win an award, making the situation much different from what it was at the time of nomination, have you considered withdrawing it? At this point it would still be possible and painless. --Kizor 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on the AfD. Sandstein 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't log into wiki until today, and didn't realize that you deleted my article.

How can I file an appeal to get it back. I would have at least like to back it up because a lot of effort was put into it.

It was also being referenced by multiple blogs as a list of definitions which were unique to the way in which these terms were used on blogs.

Psychotoddler 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychotoddler (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I assume you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definition of Jewish Terms in the J-Blogosphere. I have restored a copy of the article for you at User:Psychotoddler/Dicdefs. Do not use it to recreate the article unless you receive permission to do so by appealing the deletion at WP:DRV. Such an appeal has zero chance of success, however, and I do not recommend pursuing it, as there was no violation of deletion process, and the article very clearly violates our policy WP:WINAD. Sandstein 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Unfortunately I discovered quite late the deletion of Ekşi Sözlük article (which I don't check regularly); is it possible to bring it back and I look in for references where it was asked ? That page was a work of a lot of people. Anyhow I'll write a new one I guess. --Nerval 10:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, checking from google cache (the references asked were under a criticism section. Why not delete that section and leave the article as it was?

Thanks. --Nerval 10:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the deletion-related thread above; the same applies in this case (see also WP:UNDEL). I can recreate the text in your userspace, but to restore it as an article you need to ask at WP:DRV. Sandstein 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So you know, your speedy deletion of this article has been questioned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 23#IndieTits. —Cryptic 10:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you closed the AfD debate for List of bisexual people. You didn't leave one of the usual messages about this on the top of the talk page, which generally says the result of the AfD debate and includes a link to the AfD page. Is this something that is supposed to have been done? I'd do it myself, but I don't know the proper template to do so. --Xyzzyplugh 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The info is there - click on "show" in the "Article Milestones" box. That's the new {{ArticleHistory}} tag. Sandstein 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanl you for your interest int he Muslims fear Backlash article. A google search of the term reveals 920,00 hits without quotation marks and 744 with. Do your Liberal sensitivities really believe this is in violation of WP:NP or are you scared of this this term appearing in the encyclopedia? Prester John 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already warned you to not make personal attacks on contributors. You might also want to read up on WP:A, WP:AGF and WP:RS. Google hits aren't enough, we need specific sources. Sandstein 06:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if my comments have offended. I know how abrasive therm Liberal is. Is not a quotation from The Boston Globe reputable?Prester John 07:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I mean this [8] quotation. Prester John 07:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You should provide such sources at the AfD discussion, not here, and integrate them into the article. We generally need more than one reliable source for notability. Sandstein 07:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles age can be measured in seconds. Can you confirm to me that you are willing to let the article stand if more sources (other the the The Boston Globle) were allowed to stand?Prester John 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not my decision alone, but subject to editors' consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden Jihad Syndrome. You should heed the advice on that page. If you can show that this term is used by multiple reliable sources, the article is more likely than not to be kept. Sandstein 08:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. You speedy deleted and salted Muslims fear Backlash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just as I had put it up for AfD. Purely from a process point of view, I'm concerned that this (admittedly poor) article is now salted without ever being discussed in AfD. I'm more concerned, though, that its incivil author will now have something real to complain about in DRV and other fora. Could you elaborate why you felt it was necessary to act as you did? Sandstein 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I did not salt the article. I was at Wikipedia:Protected titles adding another page when I saw the glaring delete this page enable cascading protection (I assume it was added by Ryulong). I looked at the poor page and noticed it had been deleted three times. And so, I deleted it again. I don't care if Prester is going to have something to complain about; since when do we operate based on how specific users will react? I don't fear backlash. -- tariqabjotu 07:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not implying you fear anything. I was asking you to, in a sense, not feed trolls. Why delete and protect a page out of process when it would have been properly deleted five days hence? Being deleted thrice already isnt't grounds for a fourth deletion under WP:CSD#G4 if none of the previous deletions have been the result of a XfD discussion. Sandstein 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored some of the later versions of the article and removed the salt. But as I said earlier, the page was salted by Ryulong; I merely deleted it. I forgot about the caveat in WP:CSD#G4, but that did not influence my decision to delete the article. -- tariqabjotu 08:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for warning about User:Hipocrite/Terrorism. Would you agree that this a good candidate for deletion? Prester John 08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No. This is a page in the user space of User:Hipocrite, not an article. Editors may develop articles in their user space before submitting them to main space; these drafts are not generally subject to deletion (see WP:UP#What_about_user_subpages.3F). If you want to create new articles, you also would be well advised to first work on them in your user space, such as at User:Prester John/Draft Article. If the article is complete with sources, you can then move it to main space. This will reduce the likelihood of your articles being deleted shortly after creation. Sandstein 08:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reinstating what I believe is a blatant propaganda article that heas not been touched since September 2005. Using a user page to create a biased and unreviewed pieces is a trick as old as Wikipedia itself. I look forward to your opinions on this article in the articles for deletion page. I ask again Sandstein, why do you believe this user page should continue? given its massive length of time unaltered? If so why? and why did you reinstate this article? It is a simple question. I'm sure you have the integrity to answer it.Prester John 09:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the content of that page; indeed I did not look at it. However, blanking pages in another user's user space is considered vandalism. If you think the page should be deleted, you must follow Wikipedia process: list the page on WP:MfD and explain why it should be deleted under the deletion policy, e.g., why it violates WP:UP; or alternatively, tag it with an appropriate speedy deletion tag. Sandstein 09:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and: this is not an article, because it is in user space, not in main space. The encyclopedia reader won't ever see it. Sandstein 09:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been a week and a bit since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 12:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please explain your block of User:63.3.19.1? They are requesting an unblock on the unblock mailing list. It seems you blocked the address because of an attack by User:63.3.19.129 - I presume you spotted a connection between the addresses (beyond them being from the same ISP), but I can't see it. Can you explain it to me, so I can explain it to them? Thanks! --Tango 17:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. The point of origin was this AIV report by Ubiq. It involved severe threats against him by several IPs apparently operated by the same person. Specifically, the ...129 address made this threat, the ..130 address this threat, the ...1 address this edit and the ...2 address this edit. I blocked them all. However, if in your judgment the person now contacting you isn't the same vandal, I of course don't object to you unblocking them. Sandstein 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, thanks! It looks like the address is for a large ISP, and the fact that the attacks come from multiple addresses suggests they are dynamic IP addresses. I will give the emailer the benefit of the doubt and unblock them. Thanks! --Tango 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It might make sense to place an {{anon block}} encompassing the entire /24 IP range for a sensible period of time iff this continues. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The attacks seem to be very spread out, so it would have to be blocked for a long time. I don't like the idea of stopping a large number of anon users for a long time... --Tango 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the details, but it wouldn't hurt to file a case with Wikipedia:Abuse reports and report back to the ISP if this kind of harassment drags on. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for commenting on my case. The block is now over. I posted you a message on my talk about 10 minutes ago (just before the block ended). I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. I still feel that SlimVirgin did not deal with my case fairly. How would I get the block retroactively reviewed? And do I leave the template questioning the block where it is, now that the block is over? Thanks again. Tiamut 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Sandstein 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)