User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/June

TalkBack

Hello, Sandstein. You have new messages at Domer48's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDunc^Talk 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging a Block of AfD Nominations

SpacemanSpiff and I were talking, and it would probably be best if the huge pile of AfD nominations I put up this evening on Judo articles could be merged into three nominations (as there were some differences between a few sets of articles). How should we go about this, and could you help?Tyrenon (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to redirect the old AfD pages to the target AfD, link the articles with {{la}} at the new AfD and mention the merger there. This should only be done to the AfDs that have not yet been commented on, or it will be difficult to establish consensus. I haven't the time to help you out, sorry.  Sandstein  06:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Smith 2006

Hi, I left a message over at User:AGK's talk page regarding User:Smith2006 and the recent Arb Com Enf notification of him ([1]) by User:PhilKnight [2]. Just making you're aware of it. Also, please note that I haven't made a single edit to the page - despite Smith2006 and "that disruptive anon" (whom I've talked about before) making several - since you left the message at my talk page.radek (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

Hi. The Afd about Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi has just closed with the label "consensus to merge the content into the article Mahmudiyah killings". As i and many other people in the discussion have always strongly opposed this. Some points have not been clarified i see the discussion far away consensus. I was just writing another reply. I think the debate could have been at least extended. So i wonder why. As i am new could you please explain your decision to me? Iqinn (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Per WP:DGFA#Rough consensus, administrators must take the strength of arguments into account when assessing consensus. In this case, as I explained, many people who supported keeping the article did not either not address our policies WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, or they said that they disagreed with those policies. Because I must evaluate the strength of arguments in the light of these policies, I had to give the opinions of these people less or no weight. That is why I found that there was consensus to merge the article. Best regards,  Sandstein  09:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Now let me ask you some question because i am still confused. The argument of the people in favor of delete or 'merge' was: "She is only notable for her role in one event" and that fails WP:ONEEVENT. I and other people have addressed this issue extensively. We basically agreed that she is only notable for one event. But that this in her specific case is consistent with WP:ONEEVENT because of a policy in WP:Notability_(criminal_acts). We explained the new policy and it has not been opposed. Our argument was that secondary sources have devoted more than significant attention to her role in the killings. So that she has become notable just for this single event and as WP:Notability_(criminal_acts) says this is consistent with WP:ONEEVENT. We put also effort in providing secondary sources which have devoted more than significant attention to Abeer's role in the killings. The Time[[3]], the Guardian[[4]]. Just one person said her role was not significant but that may be his personal view. We have to look at the sources! And try to answer the question. Do they devote a significant attention to her role in the killing? My answer is yes. And in this case we can not come to the conclusion she fails WP:ONEEVENT. What's wrong with my argumentation? The second point i want to mention is about addressing of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The discussion started off with the claim of violation of WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E then WP:ONEEVENT and i and maybe others put effort to address these policies. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL had been brought in later. I and maybe others have not specially address it because it can only be applied to not notable persons what could be seen as in insult. As we where still busy finding out if she is notable under WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT. Sorry for the trouble but as i am new i have a big headache dealing with all this policies. Iqinn (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

These are certainly valid arguments, but there is no point in discussing their merits with you here. The time for such a discussion was during the AfD. My role as closing administrator is to find consensus in the finished AfD based on the number of people who provide valid arguments. In this case, relatively few people (including especially you) made valid (i.e., policy-based) arguments for keeping the article separate, and relatively many made valid arguments for merging it. That's why the discussion closed as "merge". You can at any later time continue the discussion on the article talk page and attempt to establish a new consensus for splitting the article out again.  Sandstein  15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have two requests. Firstly i would like you to extent the discussion for another seven days as the discussion was not finished at closing time. For example i would like to point out that i had ask NoCal100 for clarification less than two hours before the AfD was closed. That did not leave me and others enough time to reply. In fact i was just writing a reply and could not submit it. Secondly, if you can not extent the discussion. I would like you to change the outcome of the debate to No consensus. The reason is that the valid argument i have made in the discussion based on WP:Notability_(criminal_acts) is stronger than all other arguments people have presented. WP:DGFA#Rough consensus is not determined based on the number of people who provide valid arguments it is the strength of the argument. Finally, the incivility of this debate was dominated by rudeness and aggressive behaviors that disrupted the AfD to a point it can not be seen as valid under the core values of Wikipedia. Many people who have been in favor of keeping two separate articles have complained about the frequent rudeness and aggressive behavior in one or another way. And when we in good faith were working on clarifying how and if one policy is violated and to discuss that, another policy was thrown at us instead of following up on the presented arguments and discussions about specific points and i mentioned at the beginning of the debate that i am a newcomer. Under these conditions it was impossible to work towards consensus and have a valid debate. I would like you to consider this when answering my two requests. Kind regards Iqinn (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I won't do either. AfDs run for 7 days only, unless there are insufficient contributions to establish consensus. With respect to your argument concerning WP:N/CA, that guideline supports the notability of the Mahmudiyah killings, but not the notability of the individual victims; on the contrary it says that "a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission". Any incivility in the AfD is regrettable, but it did not rise to a level that prevented relevant discussion. As I said, you can continue the discussion and seek consensus for a re-split at Talk:Mahmudiyah killings. If you disagree with my closure, you can contest it at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should i be disappointed? I appreciate your response and time you spent on it. I hope it is fine when i ask you one last question. For the decisions you made: Did you read the secondary sources, i have provided to decide if she had a significant role in the Mahmudiyah killings? And if so. Do you think Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi had a significant role in the Mahmudiyah killings according to these sources? Finally thanks for the links you send to me. Kind regards. Iqinn (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not read those sources, because even if they do support your argument, this would not have changed the outcome of the AfD: too few made the sort of policy-based arguments that you did in order for me not to find a "delete" consensus.  Sandstein  07:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

General Notability Issues for Listings "Musikvergnuegen" and "Walter Werzowa"

Walter Werzowa, who is the owner of Musikvergnuegen, has asked me to work on these Wikipedia pages, and I'd like to know how to get rid of the warning appearing above both articles, which state that the articles may not meet General Notability Guidelines. However, all the sources refer to either the Musikvergnuegen website or a third-party site, which supports the information on the pages. I'd like to know what can be done to make this "official." Please let me know via e-mail. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyasuzawa (talk • contribs) 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide links to the relevant pages.  Sandstein  07:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iqinn (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For pointing out that copyvio; I was about to do so. For fun, check this Google search: [5] The last one is my favourite :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, total discomfiture indeed.  Sandstein  19:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kiachi

Why the monkey nuts did you delete the page I was making?!

That is really unfair because it is not vandalism and blatant misinformation and what ever else it said in the deletion log! It is what I believe I was making that as a reference for others and I think this could be taken as racism(or religionism or something(I'm not sure what the real word is :P) by some. I don't, just. Give me some decent reason why I can't post that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaail of Hrusk (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you appear to have made that religion up. You are not allowed to submit content that others cannot verify in reliable sources, see WP:V.  Sandstein  20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

carrying on from the above

what about other Kiachen? They can verify it surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaail of Hrusk (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RS.  Sandstein  16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your closing

Hi Sandstein, Obviously I feel that this was an unfortunate decision, I believe that I showed you 3 concurrent edit wars that never should have been. This does not constitute a simple content disagreement but a state of mind and an unfortunate strategy. I believe that you were in a position to facilitate an atmosphere more conducive to actual discussion and avoiding edit wars. I realize that you probably have better things to do, but I hope you will comment on the following:

1. Wikipedia uses labels dictated by the prevalence in sources, yes? no?

1. Ignoring discussion is disruptive, yes? no?

Thanks in advance, Unomi (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that it would be helpful to discuss these questions of editorial policy here. In general, please take into account that the administrators patrolling WP:AE depend on the clarity and conciseness of your report to decide whether a situation is actionable. More complicated situations involving multiple editors are ill-suited to AE, but should be resolved through dispute resolution. AE administrators will generally only act if they are convinced, without undue effort on their part, that a situation is ripe for an enforcement action. That is not the case here.  Sandstein  15:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What I am asking for here is advice. I think we both agree that in absolute terms the answer to both of my questions is yes. I can only understand your closing as an indication that I had not shown that those 2 premises were violated. Is that correct? Please understand that I am not asking you to revisit or modify your closing, I am simply trying to find out how I can avoid such misunderstandings in the future. Further, I would like to request that you accept me for mentorship so that I may learn the proper application of wikipedia policy. I hope that you will accept. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What you have not shown is clear and sanctionable misconduct. We do not generally sanction people for violating content policies, such as WP:NPOV or WP:V, as long as we believe that there may be a good faith disagreement about the application of such policies to the facts at issue. Disputes of that nature are generally referred to as "content disputes" and are expected to be resolved amicably through consensus as provided for in WP:DR. Administrative sanctions are really only applicable to conduct issues such as edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry or really obvious and blatant violations of, say, WP:NPOV. In either case, it is up to you to provide a persuasive report through the use of well-selected and well-explained diffs. If you provide dozens of unexplained diffs, and I click on a few of them and most appear unproblematic, I will not investigate further. Remember, admins will not usually comb through contributions and histories to find misconduct; it is up to you as a requesting user to explain the pertinent facts.

Because I do not engage in mentorship programmes, I must unfortunately turn down that request also.  Sandstein  18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that my initial post to WP:AE could have been more clear. I deliberately wanted to avoid singling out other editors involved because I believed that my desired outcome would have cleared the air more efficiently. The problem I am facing now is that it is likely that when I involve other venues of DR I will be met with allegations forum shopping such as ice cold beer already did when I first brought it to AE. I am sorry to hear that you cannot be my mentor but thank you for your consideration. Unomi (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that you appear to have made an edit after the closing. Perhaps you should consider removing it. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict, I had the editing window open while finding some sources. I have now moved the offending response outside the archived box, I trust that you are directing jehochman to do the same. Unomi (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, you were carrying on the dispute, Jehochman's edit was procedural, and in any case the closing Administrator replied to it and it seems obvious that therefore I shouldn't intervene. And in any case, someone else has moved these comments into a separate box making the issue moot. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Unomi (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Don't worry, I just was wondering lol xD, I know, thank you for your reply. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 17:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Roblox

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Roblox. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --gordonrox24 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User Smith2006

Hello Sandstein, sorry to bother you with this one since I'm not sure if this is o.k. or not. You have placed user Smith2006 on E.Europe topic ban for 6 months. He however, keeps making rude comments on the talk page of Jan Dzierzon such as:[[6]],[[7]],[[8]]. Is this acceptable?--Jacurek (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I already noticed due to his post to WP:AE, which I have watchlisted, and have blocked him for 48 hours for violating the topic ban.  Sandstein  17:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh o.k. thank you, his comments were very rude also...--Jacurek (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, just to let you know that he is active and back at it again right after his block expired.[[9]][[10]] Regards.--Jacurek (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked.  Sandstein  20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Other issue

Hello Sandstein, sorry to bother you again, but I was placed on a "black list" and my rollback rights (which I use to revert vandalism) have been removed from me by one of the administrators for rolling back Smith2006 edits while he was banned. Could you please look at it (of course if when you can)[[11]]. I think that this was not justified but maybe I am wrong, I don't know.Thank you--Jacurek (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I just confirmed that I could use rollback to revert edits of banned users[[12]] and another edits were vandalism made by a anon user who never edited before[[13]] and removed a picture and tons of sourced material, changed names of Polish cities from Kresy in 1931 but according to the rules the names should be as they were then not now. I really think that this was a vandalism and not a good faith edits. Hope this was just a mistake of the admin. When you get a chance could you look at it.? Thanks a lot.--Jacurek (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I need your opinion please. I'm being unjustly punished. Please look at this when you get a chance.[[14]] Thank you so much.--Jacurek (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Could you please tell me what the "punishment" that you object to is, and what you want me to to do?  Sandstein  05:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

An administrator who gave an example of my rollbacks of Smith’s edits while he was restricted (actually already banned by you) and another Anon who removed tons of information from the page as misuse and removed my rollbacks privileges. He later realized that he made a mistake as far as Smith, saying that I maybe had some room there but later went on and dogged out other examples of misuse I do not think were misuse. This is my opinion of course and I may be wrong. The problem is that in my opinion (I may be wrong again) he is now defending his decision, which was a mistake, and is looking for examples of misuse to justify it. This is how I feel. Unfortunately to get a big picture you would have to read all this[[15]] and get some background history on Administrator as well since he has a history of disagreements with Polish editors[[16]][[17]] and I feel that his decision was a little tendentious as well. I am not sure if you have time or desire to do this but I thought that I might ask since you were the one who banned Smith in a first place. All I want is an opinion, true opinion. I feel very strongly about and I do not expect anything out of it. Just an honest opinion. If you could look at this it would be great, if not perhaps you could suggest something. Thanks Sandstein--Jacurek (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't reply to you due to edit conflicts. Please use the preview feature (and edit summaries) and make only one edit to my talk page per message. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In adition to all of above please also take a look at this[[18]]

I was placed on this list just below Smith you have banned for rolling back his edits etc. I think this is total injustice. I would appreciate any advice or opinion form you at your convenience of course, no rush. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jacurek that he has been treated unfairly here, and by an involved admin. As I can myself be seen as involved, I am not undoing what happened (wheel war = evil), but I think there was a gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of admin power here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is a proper use of rollback to undo edits made by topic-banned users in violation of their topic ban. (Because such rollbacks are easily mistaken for edit-warring, given that no edit summary is possible, it is probably prudent not to make them anyway.) But it seems that Deacon of Pndapetzim removed your rollback privileges also because of other rollbacks made by you, for instance [19] and [20], which are not reverts of vandalism. I find that, in removing your rollback access for such edits, Deacon of Pndapetzim acted properly and explained himself adequately.

The Digwuren notification, on the other hand, was superfluous because the relevant remedy, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction, is no longer in force. But it does no harm either.  Sandstein  11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein. I will still file an appeal because (%100 honest) I did not have any bad intention even in the questionable rollbacks and if you compare %99 of my vandalism rollbacks to %1 in question you can find a proof right there. I know that a warning and a friendly advice would work for me. I always follow advices of more experienced editors. There was no need to treat me so harsh and placing me on a "black list" for example. P.S. Thanks again for your time and an opinion, I know that this is a minor issue for you but it is soooooo important to me. Last night I was even debating if I should quit editing altogether because of this. Thanks again.--Jacurek (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The apeal has been filed already[[21]]. I know that your opinion as far as the use of my rollback rights is not in my favour but it is honest and I respect that very much. As per my comment above, I think that I was judged and punished by that administrator very quickly..too quickly. Thanks again for your time Sandstein.--Jacurek (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Three things to consider. First, should an involved, prejudiced admin be the one to take such actions? Second, wouldn't a word of caution (warning) be better then removal of rollback - after all, isn't most of Jacurek's rollbacks helpful to the project? Third, the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions superceeded the General restriction and is very much in force (see the log of blocks and bans on this page - the one to which you contributed yourself very recently :)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding proper course of action.

Hi Sandstein, While I do not wish to 'drag you' into this, I need some guidance as to a proper course of action. This is in regards to reversing the burden of evidence in the BRD process as well as contested claims of existing consensus. initial discussion and now Please do have a read thru and inform me of what you believe would be a proper course of action. Unomi (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend continued, civil, ontopic discussion, perhaps posting to the WP:FTN with a neutral description, and if you aren't satisfied then starting an RFC. I wouldn't go straight to an RFC as it would look like trying to short circuit discussion. Verbal chat 10:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, prior to reading this I had followed Tom Harrisons previous suggestion to open an RFC. I am not quite sure what FTN has to do with parsing a quote. It becomes difficult to carry on a proper discussion when a. it degrades in to "I'm right, you are wrong" and b. proper process is ignored and the contested material is kept in thru edit warring. I tried to explain how I came to my view on the quote and the points in my argument seemed to be ignored. I suggested to include the quote in full, but this too has been ignored. I did not 'abandon' the discussion, merely waiting for a response to my arguments. So quite frankly I am at a loss. Unomi (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Posting to FTN with a quick outline "There is disagreement as to how this quote should be used in the article (quote) Please give your opinions and help establish consensus here (link to discussion, the first one maybe)." would bring more people and help establish consensus. I don't think proper process has been ignored (and I don't mean thzt edit warring is a normal process.... ;). Verbal chat 10:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proper process would have been to ask if parties agreed to the manner in which the contested material was presented in the article, the article history shows clear signs of edit warring, one which is continuing even now. Please address the arguments I present in the initial thread. Unomi (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that I do not have the time to familiarize myself fully with the situation, but on the face of it Verbal's suggestion looks reasonable.  Sandstein  05:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If possible

Hi,

Thanks for your understanding in the situation, can you please have a word with Eugene Krabs as he is threatening me with a last warning for Vandalism when we have already resolved the issue regarding the Federer page and now he is having a go at me for editing my own message to yourself, help!Joshuaselig (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist! :) --Joshuaselig (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied.

I've replied on my talk page. Sorry for the trouble. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

You seem confident that you understand the remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2, while I am not at all confident that I understand them. Here's a situation that I'm not sure about, so perhaps you can make a ruling beforehand. An editor added a long list of POV problems with Prem Rawat at talk:Prem Rawat#Article hides controversy, is not presented in a neutral way. Noting that the issues seemed to reflect a POV dispute, I added a POV tag to the article. Another editor reverted my addition of the tag. So now what? May I restore the tag now? Must I wait 8 days to restore the tag? Which is it?   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Revert limitations, "if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." Since you added the "POV" tag, and Pergamino reverted this, my interpretation of the restriction is that you may not re-add the tag until seven days after Pergamino's removal.  Sandstein  05:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If I'm not mistaken, Pergamino would also be able to immediately revert my revert in seven days.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That depends on when the seven-day period begins. If it begins with the revert and not with the original edit, he too would have to wait seven days. Perhaps this might be the subject of a clarification request?  Sandstein  05:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your time at AE today.--Jacurek (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Sandstein...

As you appear to be perceiving this as troublesome, please indicate if you don't mind it much exactly what was wrong with this: [22]. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, vandalism? No way Putinjugend can in good faith be construed as an attack page as defined in WP:CSD#G10. It even says outright that the term is a a pejorative neologism and a slur.  Sandstein  18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fucking lunatic" was deleted for similar reasons, despite similar protests from editors. That was a pejorative term used in a political context, too. The only difference then is BLP – that's important, of course, though I did not see that as much of an issue when I tagged the Putinjugend entry. I'm not sure why you think I was not acting in good faith there – I formally joined in April and am not an expert in picking out nuances exactly. Hence I let my instincts and sense of analogy direct me at certain points. I'm not sure Putinjugend is just a good faith sort of thing – do we really need a separate article for the one paragraph that can be placed in Nashi? PasswordUsername (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly something worth discussing (I have no real opinion on the subject), but the way to go about it is not to replace the article with a speedy deletion tag. Tags go at the top of the article. And Putinjugend does not attack anybody. It does not allege that the "Nashi" are a kind of Hitlerjugend (that would be a deletable attack page). It reports that "Putinjugend" is a slur used against the "Nashi", which is not the same thing at all.  Sandstein  18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fucking lunatic" did not allege that the person referenced was a fucking lunatic, only that he was controversially discussed as such. So the analogy seemed apt. Yet pages like Macacawitz and Bongo from Congo had their db-attack nominations rejected outright. I'm still digressing here, but I'd seen the G10 criterion applied thrice in my life here, and the first time was in a fashion similar to that in which I applied it to Putinjugend. What is "designed" to threaten or disparage someone seems like an ambiguity – a matter of interpretation as I looked at it, given the manner in which the db-attack template had been used.

Thanks for the explanation. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, sorry for assuming bad faith. With respect to your complaint at AN, such reports should be made directly at WP:AE in proper form, where they will see faster action and less drama. You should also not make sweeping generalizations ("everything X does is an outrage") or emotional claims. That is not actionable. What helps are well-selected diffs documenting specific misconduct.  Sandstein  18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I'm still new in a very relative sort of way, really, but I certainly do try to stick to policies. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Claudia MEyer (erased page by you)

Hello,

Would you please clarify why you would erase someone based on the fact that this person is not registered in in SIKART Please know that someone who is not registered in in SIKART as " A vaguely Notable visual artist" Can have very good reasons to NOT BE LISTED THERE... I find your comment and behavior unacceptable. Please search a bit deeper before erasing. There is such a thing as The World Wide web and galleries websites.

Please read below. Mr Meyer, Agent and Partner

Your quote:

Delete. She is not included in SIKART, a database that includes all even vaguely notable Swiss visual artists. Also, the article is unsourced, causing her to fail WP:BIO. Sandstein 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Meyer (erased page by you)

My Email to Farictramp

Hello, Would you please let me know what makes you eligible to erase the Claudia Meyer page. Mrs Meyer is a Swiss contemporary exhibiting in numeral art galleries in Europe the USA and France. There was numerous website referenced on her wikepedia page which justified and attested of her existence. All you had to do is visit and contact the art galleries websites if you wanted to verified the accurency of the posted informations. Furthermore. A google search would have help you even more. Who are you? Can you please clarify. I am Mrs Meyer agent and partner in life you can contact me avia the official website or visit the Artist website at www.claudiameyer.com DO NOT erase her page again or I will contact Wikipedia for a formal complain.

Thank You Mr Meyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.225.121.145 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) While I do have the authority to delete pages that don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines (see WP:ADMIN), I did not erase the Claudia Meyer page nor did I make a single edit to the page. That page was deleted by Spartaz as the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Meyer. I did not express any opinion in that discussion -- I simply listed it on two lists that track deletion discussions for those who are interested in following them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meto59 (talk • contribs)

I would appreciate hearing from you in regard to the page you wrongly erased. Please refer to previous post above for more information.

Thank You

Mr. Meyer Artist Agent and Partner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meto59 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the page at issue as directed in the box at the top of this page.  Sandstein  04:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul Pantone

Hello Sandstein,

I see on the page [[23]] that you have deleted the Paul Pantone's page. I would like to know the reasons why the article was deleted and if it was possible to access to the deleted version of the article. Also, if the old version is not suitable for wikipedia's standards, I would like to translate the French version of Paul Pantone's page. This would be a good start.

Thank you for your consideration,

Samsagas01 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Paul Pantone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted as a result of the community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Pantone. Deleted articles are not publicly viewable, but I can restore the text if needed. You are free to write an article about him, but it may be speedily deleted if it does not demonstrate notability (see WP:BIO) better than the original article did. The article must also strictly conform to WP:BLP.  Sandstein  15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement reports

You said: "It is preferable to examine and if need be sanction each user's alleged misconduct individually based on clear reports." I reported Digwuren to WP:AN for similar violations of WP:DIGWUREN sactions, but the resulting discussion got completely derailed and nothing was done.[24] I had a clear feeling that the evidence was not really looked at because WP:AN was the wrong venue. Do you think it would be a good idea to post a more clear report of the same issue to WP:AE? Offliner (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not looked at the issue itself but in general, yes. What's really important is the clarity and brevity of reports: no generalized accusations and opinions, just the diffs and an explanation how they violate relevant norms.  Sandstein  15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. William S. Saturn (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alemannisch

Ho, hab grad uf diner Commons-sit gsän das dr Alemannisch schwätzsch, drum schäni Griß us Lohr im Badische.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Danke u häb's o guet!  Sandstein  04:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification archived

Hello, Sandstein. A recent request for clarification which you were a part of, "Prem Rawat 2", has been archived and can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2. If you still have questions about this case, please feel free to post another clarification request, contact a Clerk, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Hi Sandstein, I have provided the diffs you requested [25], thanks - Fedayee (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please have a look at report on Brandmeister again. [26] According to the remedy requirements, a user must be officially warned before he could be placed on editing restriction, however there's no evidence that Brandmeister had any prior warnings. Plus, he most probably was reverting a banned user, which does not count as rv, as per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. Regards, Grandmaster 13:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I will reply there.  Sandstein  13:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

mIRCStats userification

You may as well just move the mIRCStats article to my userspace for now then, I'm sure we'll be able to do more with it later. There was actually much more going on with the nomination of this article for AfD than what was apparent in the AfD itself. I did not feel I should bring it up there as I was trying to limit my contact with User:Theserialcomma. I was discussing this with User:A Nobody while trying to get a referral for an admin who could work on this and you can find a summary with links to most everything on A Nobody's talk page here. Tothwolf (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, at User:Tothwolf/MIRCStats.  Sandstein  11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer controversy

My apologies, just saw AFDs had been changed to seven days ... this is what happens when you work nights and try to have another life outside of Wikipedia. Blueboy96 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on political straw polls

Hi Sandstein, I apologize for not notifying you sooner as a deleting admin on this discussion:

The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 21 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maria Conchita Alonso's Wikipedia page

I have been trying to correct some of the information and update this page for Maria Conchita Alonso. Each time I make the changes it is deleted and changed back. Is there a way that you can make these changes for me?

All information is varifiable by this artist!

The link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Conchita_Alonso

Attached are some of the changes:

<removed>

Dabdesign (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I won't. You should not edit pages that you have a personal interest in, see WP:COI. Moreover, "verifiable" in Wikipedia terms means "verifiable in reliable sources", not "verifiable by the subject", see WP:V. If you continue to make such edits, you are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Instead, you should limit your edits to what is verifiable from reliable sources.  Sandstein  05:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

HELP!

Hi, Sandstein! May I ask you to help me? There is a user User:Jasepl who is constantly accused of vandalism (look at his page). At the moment, he is trying to edit in a very strange way Aeroflot – Russian Airlines destinations article, deleting everything he considers useless: regions to where Aeroflot flies, capitals of countries to where Aeroflot flied and some other "improvements". So I do ask you to interfere in order to find a consensus. Thank you. --Dimitree 10:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Can you provide relevant diffs, please?  Sandstein  10:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not so keen in wiki terminology and I do'n know what diff means. But if u have a look at that page (history), u will definitely find out what is going on. If u remember, ths article Aeroflot – Russian Airlines destinations was born in a real struggle and now it is being changing in a very strange way. No arguments are taken into consideration by User:Jasepl, only his own opinion matters. So that is all I can tell u... --Dimitree 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Sorry, this is explained at WP:DIFF. But it appears that you don't agree with somebody else's edits. In that case, I advise you to follow the advice given at WP:DR. Administrators, such as I, have no special authority to decide who is right and who is wrong if two editors disagree about how an article should look like.  Sandstein  21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Maria Conchita Alonso

Can you please verify that Maria Conchita said: and those who vote and support him as "terrorists". If you can't, could you please omit it from the page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Conchita_Alonso

The implications of a statement such as this leaves one valurable to attack. There is no place this statement can be verified by me.

Thank you,

Dabdesign (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The source given is Geraghty, James. "After Watching Her Speak, Giuliani Was an Afterthought", National Review Online. May 1, 2007., presumably here. If you believe the quote does not accurately reflect that source, you may of course modify it to make it conform more closely to the source.  Sandstein  18:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaming

About Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Requests for enforcement, complain on me, Gragg. I badly know English, and mostly edit Russian Wikipedia. I do not know where discuss rename the article in enwiki.

As far as I know, articles about the geographical object in Nagorno-Karabakh should be named, as they named in 1988, until war. I watched several of these articles (in ruWiki) and saw that the name of the some English articles do not satisfy this rule. So, I have to rename them. But my change was removed Baku66, аnd other members warned him for breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: [27].

Please do not deprive me the possibility to rename the article. I am ready to discuss the names of those articles. Gragg (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please make this comment at [28], where other administrators can read it too?  Sandstein  13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren

After our recent conversation, I decided to file the report about Digwuren. I realize that it may be seen as disruptive to file 2 reports on the same day in addition to being the subject of another one. But I only want the diffs looked at. I think the evidence of edit warring is clear in both cases, but if you think if the diffs need more explanation (i.e. why they are reverts), please let me know. Offliner (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I responded about my edits and replied to Colchicum here. I am not sure if anyone ever filed two retaliatory claims to ArbCom in the same day. You can only imagine what kind of "collaborative spirit" exists in this sector of WP. To be honest, that might be a relief to be restricted and do not feel responsible for anything. It is enough to compare these versions of article about Litvinenko to see what is going on. Such as Russian propaganda, and it will be inevitably promoted in wikipedia (the Baltic users only care about Baltic subjects, which is natural). At least I did what I could with Russian subjects within my limited time.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not have time to examine these cases now, but may have in the evening, unlass another administrator has already addressed them.  Sandstein  05:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why en what?

Why the hell did you delete important information about the Bilderberg group? Are you a special agent for interpol, cia, mossad or another organisation for the world dominators? And what was the tekst you removed? We still have freedom of speech so until this has not been restricted, all information should be out there, also and especially on wikipedia because its from the people for the people. The new world order will never succeed!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by techrick 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what activity of mine you refer to and provide a link to the page at issue?  Sandstein  05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2009_Bilderberg_Meeting is the page that has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.93.246 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That page was deleted as a result of the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Bilderberg Meeting. For advice on how to proceed if you disagree, see WP:DRV and WP:WWMPD. Please review also WP:NOT.  Sandstein  13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi,

I'm writing to ask for your advice.

It seems Biophys has filed an AE request on Offliner, citing numerous complaints. Perhaps foolishly, I added one more diff of my encounters with Offliner. It seems that this has prodded Offliner further, and he has responded by not only filing a countersuit against Biophys, but one against me as well. There's a lot of diffs, so I won't discuss all of them (more of this below), but for context -- and as an example --, I'll discuss one of them.

The first diff mentioned by Offliner, [29], is an article talk edit of mine, explaining that Risto Teinonen can't be considered a reliable source for Estonian Defence Police. Teinonen is a notorious neo-Nazi in Estonia whose blog post -- needless to say, rather critical of police -- had been used as a source in Wikipedia by somebody. I expressed my frustration at this appearance of neo-Nazi ideas in the edit summary ("I was born so many years after the WWII, and *still* there are Nazis around. Sigh."), and I expressed my surprise that anybody who isn't a neo-Nazi might fall for thee ideas in the post body ("For a taste of Teinonen's opinions, the first article about him on Google is an interview headlined "Teinonen: National Socialism had many good sides". He's notorious, not notable. I find it hard to believe that anybody but another neo-Nazi would seriously consider adding Teinonen's opinion about police onto Wikipedia would be a good idea.") Offliner describes the post as "Implying that other editors are neo-nazis:", which quite clearly is not what I had in mind. I suppose I might have been a bit ambiguous -- not being a native English speaker, I do stumble occasionally -- but given that this diff has been brought by Offliner to the administrator's noticeboard before, and the consensus has not found any personal attack in it, I doubt this is what happened here. For what it's worth, a consensus ultimately developed agreeing that this is not an appropriate source.

That was the first diff. I spent about 1500 words, and about 30 minutes, on discussing it, and I trust you'll find it's not AE material. Offliner has listed 39 diffs; at a glance, they're all similar, so it seems prudent to assume they'll take roughly the same level of time. I really am not sure spending 19 hours on a 58500-word thorough rebuttal is an appropriate use of my time, or the time of the poor administrator who would need to read through it all. For comparison, the article word count states that a typical mystery novel is around 60 000 words. I am technically quite capable of doing it -- you might want to take a look at this RFC/U I helped to file about two years ago, when I was two years younger and two years battlier -- but it doesn't seem productive. If I had that sort of time, I'd rather be writing an article or two on computational linguistics, on medieval castles Germans built in Estonia or perhaps work out a way to cover the diplomacy surrounding Winter War in an encyclopædic manner.

Please advice: is this ordeal needed? Do I need to write a mystery novel to defend myself against recurring complaints based on deliberate misinterpretation? Alternatively, would it be viable to not respond at all, and hope that the handling administrator will understand the problems with the diffs as well on his (or her) own? Admittedly, there are a lot of them; I guess it's tempting to think that among 39 diffs, at least one or two *must* be actionable.

Or perhaps, as a middle road between the extremes, I should concentrate on some of the 39 diffs? If so, which ones?

Two years ago, I was once drawn into an arbcom battle, and I dedicated a lot of effort trying to -- ultimately, futily -- defend myself. I guess that's enough for a lifetime; if at all possible, I'd rather not enter another wikibattle. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 10:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems I've made an embarrassing mistake; the explanation above is only about 250 words, not 1500 words. Counting 250 words per 39 diffs would only net a total of 9750 words, which I reckon would run from the mystery novel's exposition to about the first major cliffhanger. Still, it's a metric buttload of text. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this helps, but if the request is spurious and your conduct is unimpeachable (I've not examined either), it will generally not be necessary to react. At most, you should reply only briefly (but not with attacks against others) to clear up any misunderstandings and let your record speak for itself. If the complaint has merit, on the other hand, you should not try to defend yourself, but to convince administrators that you understand the problem and explain how you intend to conduct yourself in the future.  Sandstein  11:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't promise it's unimpeachable. Everybody does mistakes, and I'm sure I've made some. But among the flood of diffs, I don't know what the real mistakes are, and what's just filler. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Except for the first five, every diff in the list I posted is a revert. This should be easy to verify. Your mistake is persistent edit warring. This is exactly the same kind of behaviour that you were recently blocked for, when you edit warred to remove a speedy deletion tag from your article 6 times in short succession. I can only repeat what admin Mangojuice said regarding your block:

Repeated removal of a speedy deletion tag from an article you created yourself is disruptive to Wikipedia's processes and edit-warring. You were banned for a year in an ArbCom decision; in that decision, ArbCom found that you had repeatedly been involved in edit warring, including disruption to Wikipedia processes. I would support about a 24 hour block even with no previous history, the ArbCom case should serve as a permanent and strong warning to change your behavior. In principle, I might support an unblock if you could at least acknowledge you should have used (hangon) like everyone is saying and will try to do so in the future. But as you won't even go that far, I don't think I can support an unblock. Mangojuice talk 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC) [30] Offliner (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say Hi

I noticed that you had comment on the article Yang Jia additional source. You may have notice that I do put quite a lot of this additional source on China related articles, the main reasons being that there are not enough English-based-source available, and it would take up too much time to do all the Chinese-English translation, so I decided to use Google translation quite a bit. I know the machine translation has it's limit, but something is better than nothing. You are welcome to comment on my talk page. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 05:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have mail on Talk:Yang Jia Arilang ^talk 07:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 Guizhou riot

2008 Guizhou riot needs a complete re-write, what you think? Arilang ^talk 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look

I have begun work on 2008 Guizhou riot, please have a look when you have time. Arilang ^talk 01:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't read Chinese and know little about these issues, so I can't really comment. I wrote Yang Jia based on what I read in Western media.  Sandstein  04:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Eastern Europe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman included me as a party to this case. However, I believe that my involvement would be contrary to your advice here, which I was going to follow. What should I do? Thanks a lot for your hard work at AE.Biophys (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I advised you mainly to stick to 1RR, and you do not intend to go around reverting people on the arbitration requests page, do you? What might be helpful could be a brief statement by you about whether or not you believe that ArbCom intervention would be helpful at this stage. Any comments about any (mis)conduct of others or about the substance of the disputes would not be helpful.  Sandstein  20:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Would ArbCom intervention be helpful? I am not sure because we had enough EE cases. There are discretionary sanctions. If Moreschi was here, everything would be already resolved (this is not to criticize your work). One of the reasons Moreschi was so effective: he was familiar with the underlying content problems the people argued about, and he cared more about WP content than about people. There is a popular phrase: "it takes two to tango", which places two sides at the equal footing. But this is wrong for improving WP content, because one of the "sides" may be an expert, and another "side" may be an idiot who knows nothing about the subject. If you treat them equally, the expert will be gone (and that is what actually happening). Moreschi acted wisely because he knew who is who and who is doing what. Second reason. Such arbitration cases should be open by people who are actually involved in the dispute. Otherwise, an uninvolved administrator may acutally open a "pandora box" and create a battleground, instead of calming people down. I am afraid this may happen here. Finally, I foolishly commented in the previous EE case, which made me a lot of trouble. Now I would not comment all, unless I have to.Biophys (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already commented on the request at [31]. Whether or not you do is up to you. But you should not do this again.  Sandstein  21:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I did not know.Biophys (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, was such edit allowed?Biophys (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The filer may add whoever they like; only clerks and arbirators may remove people.  Sandstein  04:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen your discussion with Jehochman at AE. What did I do? I only made a brief comment at arbitration, exactly as you suggested. I said precisely what I think. Was I impolite? Please tell what's the problem. I am seriuosly thinking about leaving this project for good. I became a worse person after editing here. Sorry for bothering you again.Biophys (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this appears unhelpful, but it is Jehochman, not I, who re-opened the thread. I suggest you ask him.  Sandstein  19:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I did. I do not want to be unhelpful. For the record, I would gladly stop commenting anywhere except article and user talk pages. I asked FloNight what she thinks.Biophys (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg 2009 page

Hi, regarding the Bilderberg 2009 page, there were the same number of opinions for both side. You deleted the page without merging it to the main article, which was the proposal. I would ask politely for it to be reversed, as there were no discussion of the subject, only empty statements, which were all replied.

"The result was delete. By direct order of the Supreme Grand Illuminatus himself, I am disregarding the unfortunately too insightful opinion of Tris2000" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.204.236 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the AfD.  Sandstein  18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

HereEchofloripa (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is an invalid link.  Sandstein  18:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What was there to merge? So far as I can see, virtually everything in that article has been in the main article at some point even if it isn't there now, except perhaps for the list of those who were supposed to attend, and that isn't sourced anyway. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD closures reflect the consensus of the discussion. Merging was not even mentioned in the discussion, so the AfD cannot be closed with a "merge" result. Also, I agree with Dougweller.  Sandstein  19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1) There was a lot of well-sourced information to merge. WHich took a lot of time to research and put together. 2) The list of people who attended, which was sourced from different reliable sources, is of extreme importance. 3) "consensus of the discussion"? I answered all his assumed reasons for deletion, have you seen any reply? There were no consensus, there was indeed other people that thought the article shouldn't be deleted. 4) About merging/deleting, In the page "A suggestion for a merge has been rejected on the talk page.". First, I wrote to keep the page, not that I prefered deleted than merged. 4) You agreeing with him doesn't mean there were any consensus. I tried to engage a discussion. to which there was no reply, I don'think there was a discussion or a consensus.Echofloripa (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by this. If you want to contest the deletion, you can do so on WP:DRV, but an appeal such as the above will very likely be unsuccessful.  Sandstein  22:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How long time do I have to appeal? And thanks for help. Echofloripa (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no time limit.  Sandstein  21:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you make available the removed page somewhere, so that I can make my point in the appeal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.151.201 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We already have an article listing attendees, List of Bilderberg participants. In the article, of the 6 people listed as having attended, only one had a source. Two of the unsourced are sourced in our 'List'. It also included a list of people scheduled to attent, likewise virtually unsourced. I'd say that without a source, no one should be listed as having attended or scheduled to attend as Bilderberg is controversial enough for that to be a BLP violation. The rest of the article was trivia about some minor demonstrations, much less serious than at a G7 conference for instance. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, clicked save too soon. I am concerned about anything even in user space that might be a BLP violation. I may be wrong on that, but that is how I see it. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for template help

Thank you for helping with Template:Arbitration enforcement request. Keeping these threads organized will hopefully encourage more administrator involvement and lead to better resolutions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need to come up with procedures to make AE more manageable.  Sandstein  14:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just posted at WP:AN requesting more help. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Voting on color soon

Hi, looks like there is going to be a consensus voting on the color of ROC flag:commons:File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg, please go there and voice your opinion. Arilang ^talk 23:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no opinion on that topic.  Sandstein  05:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat talk page

Hello there. Would you please take a look at the discussion going on at the Prem Rawat talk page? I've asked some editors to assume good faith, and it doesn't seem to be working, but heating up. It would be unfortunate to see things escalate there. See Section Fastest growing? and the section below it "Keys to Cities," with an attention to comments being made about "anti-Prem editors." Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a very long discussion about a topic I know or care nothing about, and I do not have time to read it just for the fun of it. Could you please tell me which edits you think are problematic, and what, as an administrator, you think I can do about it? Thanks,  Sandstein  18:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try another administrator. Thanks anyway. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP deletion

Hi Sandstein, I'm curious about the reasons for deleting (or oversighting, by the look of it) Christine Beauchamp under BLP, even though she's long dead. It is quite a well-known case e.g. [32] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'll send you an e-mail.  Sandstein  16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

AE

Done.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar

Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federer–Hewitt rivalry

Other articles were at one time added [33] and removed [34] from the AfD. Some of them still have AfD tags. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federer–Hewitt rivalry. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. These tags should be removed by whoever added them.  Sandstein  12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ITN credit templates

Hi, I see you added a new bolded link to ITN. Can you hand out credits, as instructed here? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Bronze cast Allach SS Flag Bearer by Theodor Karner.

This photo file should not be deleted because of “Fair use, Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.” This is important to show this photo in the article because it is of the only known bronze cast Allach SS Flag Bearer by Theodor Karner. This item came out of the personal estate of Industrialist Franz Nagy had owned the land since 1925 that the Munich-Allach facility was built on. Nagy helped creat the porcelain factory Porzellan Manufaktur Allach. Examples of porcelain Allach SS Flag Bearer by Theodor Karner can still be found for sale for around $20,000 if one comes up for sale. This is the only one that might have been cast in bronze at all. It would be a shame to have this photo of this one of a kind artwork deleted from this article.--nicholasweed (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

Hi, I volunteered in St. Bernard Parish. I lived at Camp Hope for 17 months. At Camp Hope we had a 24 hour fire watch from St. Bernard Parish fire department. To a person, they all remembered the Vancouver fire department.

Please check with them before you edit on their behalf.

If you need contacts I can provide them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapidave (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean by that.  Sandstein  21:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)