User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2006/August

Advert tag on Garmin G1000

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

Yes, that's the one I noticed: it really reads more like a high-gloss brochure, and when the major contributor is a user called GarminMatt, well, one does wonder. But I know too little about the subject matter to expunge the advertisement, so.. I'll move the tag into that section where it's more appropriate. Sandstein 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. In the future, when you tag with advert, please put a note in the discussion page telling us authors what you'd like changed. :) ChadScott 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is valid. Yes, it reads like an ad, but contains a lot more information than is contained in any of the Garmin ads on the 1000. Recommend leaving it as is. Mugaliens 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandelism

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

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

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

A Wiki Admin objected to my input. This fact isn't in question (as per Sandstein's comments) What's in question is my right to post such "objectable" comments. Objectionable to whom? Apparently, I'm not allowed to report the news (as noticed by myself and others)???

One question - since when has direct observation of recorded incidents widely available/viewable by others become "vandalism"? Help me here, as I'm an associate editor of a local newspaper, and this claim borders on sheer lunacy. Mugaliens 11:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied on his talk page. Sandstein 11:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Sandstein - I did read your response. I am sorry if I somehow offended you (your comments appeare to contain a lot of anger), and I sincerely hope you take what I have to say professionally, and not personally.

I would honestly like to know, however, for future reference, at what point are someone's edits or inputs considered "vandalism," and why? You mentioned "opinion." Is there a page on Wiki which defines the difference between what Wiki considers opinion and common knowledge? I really would like to learn what's acceptaple and what's not, so I hope you can appreciate where I'm really coming from. I was certainly not being a "vandal," as I had absolutely no intention of defacing the page in question, and my sole interest was in improving it. As I hinted on my talk page, I'm fairly new, so please take the time to point me in the right direction.

Also, please note that at 15:55, 6 August 2006, I did remove all references ("grievances" as you called them, although I have no grievances, just an observation) to Wiki at your initial warning, which you gave a little over five hours earlier, at 10:38, 6 August 2006. More 12 hours after I removed the references, you posted your second warning, at 04:44, 7 August 2006, again mentioning references which no longer existed. Why, I'm not sure. Perhaps you can shed some light, here.

I'm quite open to suggestion, Sandstein, and as it appears Wiki is a collaborative effort, I respectfully request your help. I hope we can overcome this initial stumbling block and work towards building more positive working relationshiop! Also, please consider using a different term than "vandel." That's a bit extreme, bording on libelous, especially before one appropriately ascertains motives.

Thank you for your understanding, Sanstein. I look toward more cooperative efforts in the future. Mugaliens 19:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, on Wikipedia, means the deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. You did this twice by inserting extraneous commentary and wikipedia-related material into Fashion police, first with this edit. After I explained to you that such matter belongs on talk pages but not into the articles, you professed to understand the problem, then you proceeded to repeat your vandalism. This edit was then reverted by another editor with the statement "rv vandal", so it is no longer visible in the article. Please click on the light blue links to see the edits in question (on Wikipedia, every single edit is recorded). I don't see what more there is to explain. Once more: If you disagree with the actions of other editors, use their talk pages or the other fora listed at WP:DR. Do not use the articles as your soapbox. Thanks. Sandstein 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Notification of Potential Request for Arbitration

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

I can't say I'm very impressed with this dire threat. If you think my vandalism warnings were in error, do go ahead and initiate any form of dispute resolution you would like, although I don't think this would get you very far. Just don't soapbox around in articles any more, and you won't hear anything from me again. Sandstein 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an observation, not a threat. I hope you and I can reconcile - you have a lot to offer. So do I. Teams accomplish a lot more than antagonists. Mugaliens 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

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

OK, will do. Hmm, I see this even is in the instructions... Thanks for telling me. Sandstein 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I added it to the instructions ; it's something that people were doing, but it never got documented. Kickaha Ota 14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Talk

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

Yours,

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

You're welcome, and thanks for the message. Sandstein 16:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On 8 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Daily Talk, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Your edits in HVAC on August 10, 2006

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

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

Trying To Learn

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

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

JCNSmith 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Be Bold" has become an unofficial slogan of Wikipedia.

Well, I ocasionally peruse the new user log to get to know our new fellow contributors, and your entry got my attention - so I had a look at your contributions, saw your question on the talk page and just had to give an answer. Although I can't really say that I have any particular interest in, or knowledge about, time as a subject of scientific inquiry, I can still tell that your edit was good. That's because under WP:BOLD, one of our most important guidelines, most bona fide edits are good edits - even if they are factually wrong, someone else will just overwrite them, and they are correct, as your edit very much appears to be, they will stay and Wikipedia will be better for it. So do be bold and edit ahead! And do feel free to ask me if you have any questions with Wikipedia procedure.

That little-known Swiss-German physicist, incidentally, has now practically all of the Historical Museum of Bern devoted to an internationally acclaimed exposition about him and his work, on account of the 100-year-anniversary of the annus mirabilis. It's well worth a visit should you happen to be in Europe. Best, Sandstein 05:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to serve as a "consultant" as I learn to navigate Wiki-land; I may take you up on it. Regarding the nationality of the little-known physicist, he himself has been quoted as having said, "If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German, and Germany will declare that I am a Jew." Marvelous! And of course we Yanks are proud of the fact that he was able to find a welcoming home among us. In fact, he was a citizen of the universe. Best, JCNSmith 15:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Year pronunciation

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

It is presumed to be OR because it stipulates that a certain pronounciation is "the preferred English language method" and it has no sources for this assumption. Per the second sentence of WP:NOR:

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

-- Sandstein 16:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Let's continue any further discussion on the AfD page, please. Sandstein 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agitator

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

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

Dealing With Vandalism

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

I assume you refer to this edit. The relevant guideline in this case is Wikipedia:External links, and the new link does not appear to meet its criteria (although I've only looked at the site briefly).

I wouldn't call this vandalism yet. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia" (WP:VAND). Not every edit that does not meet Wikipedia style guidelines is vandalism; indeed, this edit could be any one of these things that are not vandalism. As we must always assume good faith in our fellow contributors, absent clear evidence to the contrary, we should be very careful in accusing others of vandalism. In this case, the anonymous contributor might just have wanted to add a link to a website that he found while surfing and that appeared relevant to him. We shouldn't just assume he's the operator of the site looking for advertisement clicks.

What I would do is revert the edit (see the link for instructions, or just edit the page and delete the link). I'd use a helpful edit summary such as: Reverted addition of non-helpful external link per Wikipedia:External links. If the other editor persists in re-adding the link, I'd try to engage him in a discussion on his own or the article talk page before reverting him again.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask me again if you have questions. Sandstein 12:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your comments are very helpful, as I knew they would be; thank you. Having reassessed the situation, I believe that perhaps I overreacted to the edit in question. I was taken aback by the blatant commercial nature of the referenced web site, and I assumed that there must be some alternate, less commercial, web site that could stand in its stead, some site with proper, staid, British decorum, for example. Having now done a cursory google search, I find that my assumption may have been off base and that I may be living in a fantasy land! Despite its commercial trappings, the newly added link may serve a useful purpose, so in hindsight I'm willing to assume good faith and therefore am reluctant to tamper with it. Thank you again for your help. Best, JCNSmith 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Judge Taylor

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

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

East Orlando, Florida

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