User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/November

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

Northern Artsakh

Hi. I just would like to comment with regard to your statement at AFD closure. The only source for the article is this book by certain Samvel Karapetian. The book is published in Armenia, which is the country that military occupies about 16% of Azerbaijan's territory, [1] and is involved in a long-standing conflict with that country over the territory. The author is characterized by the British journalist Thomas de Waal as an Armenian ultra-nationalist. Considering the above, the mere fact that this only source has an ISBN number is not sufficient to justify the existence of the article. There's a question of reliability of that source, plus the subject of the article not being covered in any reliable third party scholarly publication makes it a fringe theory. I believe this should be taken into consideration. Thank you. Grandmaster 09:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not competent to assess the merits of this source, but only you even discussed it during the AfD, which is not enough to establish an informed consensus for deletion. I can't find that such a consensus exists if all other "delete" opinions just say "delete because there are no sources", while ignoring this one published and hence prima facie reliable source. Sandstein 10:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been discussing the author some time ago at WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38#Samvel_Karapetian), he was found unreliable. Brand[t] 19:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Was he? In a discussion involving only you and two other people who held the opposite view? Sandstein 19:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If they had some further objections since my last reply, they would rather post them. Brand[t] 20:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any agreement was reached in that discussion. At any rate, that discussion is not relevant for the question whether there was a consensus to delete in the AfD here at issue. Sandstein 20:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But is 1 source published in Armenia (i.e. not by a third party authoritative publisher) sufficient to justify the existence of a dedicated article? The rules require the use of third party sources, and this one is clearly not third party, and is the only one available on the subject. Grandmaster 15:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

These questions should have been discussed in the AfD. Had most other participants agreed that the source is inadequate, I would have found a consensus for deletion, but since they did not, I cannot. Sandstein 15:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for taking the time to look into this. Grandmaster 07:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

fyi

Hi. It may well not change your closure view, but I thought I should mention that one of the three delete votes at the Charles D. Bell AfD was by an editor just determined to be a sock. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link? Sandstein 06:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing ... to the editor sock investigation or the AfD?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Both. Sandstein 06:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. sock investigation and AfD. 龗 is the sock who was one of the three delete votes (and the decision was to delete the article).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even discounting the sock would not change the consensus, but thanks. (At least this led me to oppose the sockmaster's RfA.) Sandstein 06:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Great -- just wanted to let you be aware of it in the event that it did impact the outcome.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Thanks for that. Any chance you can protect/semi-protect my user and talk pages to stop the IPs? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 05:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I saw that you were involved in the dispute between Dahn and Mario1987 and that you praised Dahn's words over others but you should know that this Dahn has multiple accounts created in different wiki's where he wrote some disturbing words on his userpage regarding his personality and people like here, here, here, here and here not to mention that he was banned for editing the Romanian Wiki several times because of uncivil words and attitude and misconduct. I don't want to suggest anything but just wanted you to know the other side of the story that Mario tried to explain but no one listened. Thank you for your time. Siht ta kooL (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember any dispute involvement or "praising words over others". I just blocked Mario1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for copyright infringement, and am unaware of any issues involving Dahn. If you have problems with that user, please see WP:DR. Sandstein 21:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Microvision Incorporate page deleted

Hello,

I'm an employee of Microvision Incorporated and was notified by a co-worker that our Wikipedia page was deleted. Can you shed some light as to why this occurred? I'd rather have the previous page re-instated and updated if necessary rather than authoring an entirely new page.

Best regards, Nicolas Andron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.213.130 (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The deletion was decided by community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microvision Incorporated because it failed our criterium for inclusion, WP:CORP. Please see WP:WWMPD and WP:BFAQ for more help. Sandstein 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, help!

Hi! As u said earlier, you do not know who is right and who is wrong among Editors in dispute. So we've tried to find a consensus with User:Jasepl, but unfortunately without any results. Now he is trying to offense me using my nationality and my country: [2]. It is already discrimintion. Please, tell me how I can influence on him using Wiki methods. --Dimitree 12:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I don't see how that diff is offensive. This is a content dispute about whether Russia should be considered part of Asia or Europe. What steps in the dispute resolution methodology have you already attempted? Sandstein 14:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dore‎

As the AfD found that there was no evidence of a Battle of Dore‎, I can't help doubting the wisdom of recreating it as a redirect. Isn't there a presumption that redirects can be expanded into articles? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a presumption. I was thinking of WP:R#KEEP, item 2: An entry that makes the creation of duplicate articles less likely by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term. Evidently somebody thought there was a Battle of Dore because there is a memorial stone in the village. By creating the redirect, we prevent others from making the same mistake, and we help people who also think there was a battle to find the relevant information. Sandstein 05:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On that presumption, I've seen it stated in several places, and one which comes to mind is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, which states at the second paragraph "Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia". I'm mystified by "Evidently somebody thought there was a Battle of Dore because there is a memorial stone in the village." The stone (which as has been pointed out wouldn't be a reliable source, in any event) makes no claim about any "Battle of Dore", and if you read through the AfD discussion you'll see there's a strong consensus that there is no evidence of such a battle. The only somebody I'm aware of who thought there was a Battle of Dore is the creator of the article which we agreed to delete. So could the redirect please be deleted? Moonraker2 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the redirect is useful, because it prevents the inadvertent creation of a second "Battle of Dore" article. If you disagree, there's always WP:RFD. Sandstein 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't agree that it prevents such an inadvertent creation, because when you're creating a page with a title which has been deleted you get a warning that you are doing so. If you insist, I'll take it to WP:RFD, but could you please first say whether you can find any reason to believe there was a 'Battle of Dore'? Moonraker2 (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but the AfD determined that there was not. Sandstein 18:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. So do you see any other reason for Wikipedia having such a redirect? (Other than the one I've answered, I mean.) In short, what's the difference between Battle of Dore and Pyramid of Heligoland? Moonraker2 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously somebody thought that Battle of Dore existed. I don't know about Pyramid of Heligoland. Sandstein 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So if someone created an article on Pyramid of Heligoland, and it were then deleted after an AfD, would you wish to keep it as a redirect to Heligoland? Moonraker2 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a hypothetical question. It would depend, I suppose, how likely it would be that people would search for "Pyramid of Heligoland", or whether there is some sort of connections between pyramids and Heligoland. Sandstein 19:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's hypothetical, but then so is anything for which there's no evidence. As I see it, the question in the second case is simply whether there ever was a Pyramid of Heligoland, just as the question in the first case is whether there ever was a Battle of Dore. Is one more real than the other? Moonraker2 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this discussion. If you think the redirect is unhelpful, please use RfD. Sandstein 21:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick note

[3]

I have challenged it on two points: 1. RegentsPark was involved in the discussion and the restrictions says that only uninvolved admin can close the discussion and 2. He declared it was 22 to 8, and, per what I show on his talk page, it was really 18 to 14. He has also been in disputes with me previously, and many of the "votes" on the page were direct carry overs of people who were upset at me in a just closed thread about my questioning of Chillum on Jimbo's talk page.

I seek only to have an impartial and unbiased system, as the original complaint was over partiality and closing of something that one was participating in while reading the consensus inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, whether or not that is so, my opinion is that a restriction that does not actually restrict you more than any other editor is not worth an ArbCom case. Sandstein 17:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking for a case. I am only asking for a decision on the restrictions per the appeal. I believe such things are handled by a series of motions without any evidentiary proceedings, questioning, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you replace the older template?

Hy there. I recently moved the Template:Roman provinces 120 AD towards Template:Roman provinces AD 117 (better name, accuracy, etc see the talk). I noticed/found your Template:Roman history by territory only after replacing the older template in all the articles (all the provinces).

Your template is simply more interesting and better and I simply can't understand why you didn't replace the older template when you could. I'm thinking of replacing the 'Template:Roman provinces AD 117' with your work but I'm inclined of changing its name (ie: cutting and pasting your work into 'Template:Roman provinces AD 117'. However perhaps you can give me an even better name. Flamarande (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about not replying earlier, but you could just redirect Roman provinces 120 AD to Roman history by territory to avoid copy-pasting. Sandstein 12:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Need to post information....

I need to post information to the WP:AIRLINES and WP:AVIATION WikiProjects relating to a source for photographs for which I have just gained permission for editors to use. As the resource is related to aviation in an ex-constituent republic of the USSR (Ukraine), my posting of this to the project pages, could be construed as being in violation of my topic ban. Can you please confirm if this would be the case. Thanks, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking to a USSR-related resource is not a violation per se, but linking to it in an edit or a context related to the USSR is. Sandstein 12:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your answer. As I will need to provide contextless links and information for these resources, the project will need to wait until March 2010 to learn of the resources (a total of 10) which it will now be able to use, as I am not going to violate the ban. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

concerns with an IP joining in an edit war

Hi Sandstein. I have recently been trying to mediate a dispute in the aircraft pages, after responding to a wikiquette alert raised by Dimitree against Jasepl. See alert now, and this revision where I marked it "resolved".

I see you have blocked them both for 24 hours. That may help calm it down a bit... we'll see. But I want to bring your attention to a problem with IP address User:203.76.185.35, which has just now gone on a spree of reverting many Jasepl edits; plus leading two personal attacks against Jasepl on Dimitree user page.

I may comment a bit further if you like on my experience here; and I would also welcome any guidance you might offer. Feel free to have a look at contributions at WP:WQA, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines, and the user talk pages of both editors if you want to check whether I'm helping or making it worse. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the IP looks sockish, but SPI should deal with that. I've had their pet article on my watchlist from an earlier request for intervention, but I'm frankly not keen to get involved in the dispute between Jasepl and Dimitree, because I know or care too little about the subject. Mediation by knowledgeable editors is certainly a good thing. There's not much more that admins can do but block if the edit-warring gets out of hand, in which case a report should be made at WP:AN3. Sandstein 15:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sandcastle worm

On November 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sandcastle worm, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Doughnut Drive 2009

Hi Sandstein. If you have any interest in being part of this event we would like to have more coverage of Swiss doughnuts including Ringli, Basler Krapfen, Chüechli, Öhrli. If you know of any Swiss editors who would like to work on these articles, related subjects, or other doughnut subject matter please let them know about this important event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cokemachineglow

Hello Sandstein. I went searching for a cokemachineglow wiki just now and was very surprised when there was none to be found. I then hoped to create one, and was referred to you. It has been over three years since you deleted the cokemachineglow wiki, unless I'm mistaken. In that time I believe it has risen enough in influence (in a way similar to pitchforkmedia..) to warrant a wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatfinback (talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article at issue. Sandstein 12:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi Sandstein,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Translation help

I am working on an article at User:Russavia/Sandbox1 for an Argentinian cargo airline, which was involved in the Iran-Contra Affairs in the 1980s. I have found a book (page 171) which has some information on the airline and its operation in arms smuggling between Israel and Iran. But it's in German, and as you know German, would you possibly be able to translate the paragraph relating to "Transporte Aéreo Rioplatense" for me please. I would like to take this to DYK as soon as possible, and would appreciate any help with the translation. Thanks, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Scrub that, I managed to find sources in English, and it appears it is covered by my topic ban, hence I can't add the info the article anyway. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

EddieRox

Hi, thanks for the block! There's another user almost [suspiciously?] identical, K-Kobus-K – though his previous block was not only for adding unsourced crap, but for uploading scores of copyrighted images. He's been up to both today... could you consider a block for him too? Cheers! ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. Sandstein 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta very much! ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 22:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Nokilia

Thanks for sorting that out. I'm wondering about the long rant still on his user page. Should it be removed? In it he names two people who may be living and whom he blames for his wife's persecution – one allegedly in the Securitate. (He also names the son of Ceauşescu, but he's dead). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Can you explain what, exactly, it is about you that WP:CIVIL does not apply? Specifically stating that you are refusing to read someone's unblock request is pretty much guaranteed to piss them off.Heqwm2 (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Where? Sandstein 06:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Question to SirFozzie

Hey Sandstein. I noticed your question to SirFozzie on his candidate discussion page, here. I'm thinking you actually meant to add it to the questions page, here. The formatting of the question page has a section for Individual questions, down at the bottom - so there's a spot for your question, if you like. I'd move it, but wanted to make sure that's what you wanted to do - Please advise, or refactor/move as desired. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 04:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've moved it - it was late in the evening... Sandstein 06:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dore

Concluded at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 6#Battle of Dore. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, the proper thing to do would be to notify me at the start of the discusion. Sandstein 06:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bismarck

Hi there, I have reverted your recent edit to the above. It has come up before so please discuss in Talk if you think we can't say that the ship (still) is one of the most famous from that period. Regards, bigpad (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question at my Arbcom candidacy

I have answered a related question at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Fritzpoll/Questions_for_the_candidate#Questions_from_AGK. Would you mind letting me know if my answer to AGK manages to answer yours? I think it might, but if you think I'm mistaken, I will happily reconsider and answer your question in full. As I'm sure you appreciate, I have a lot of questions, and don't want to copy-paste anything! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - in your answer to AGK, you note that support to administrators working in the enforcement arena is required. I'd be interested to know what support you think ArbCom should have provided in the situation I mention in my question. Specifically, would you be willing to sanction admins who undo arbitration enforcement actions without first obtaining consensus to do so? Sandstein 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, why you aren't running yourself?radek (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not enough time for the job, sorry. Sandstein 22:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Max Nomad

Hi. On 22 Dec 2007, you deleted a copyright-infringing article on this writer. I'm now creating a new stub on him which is necessary to link to other pages referring to him, eg, Sydney Push. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sandstein. You have new messages at Otterathome's talk page.
Message added 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=322064350, on judging Sarek's statement of non-involvement. Miami33139 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Allriskinrev

I'm not requesting that standard procedures be ignored, but in future dealings with this user please bear in mind the following:

He's a new and solely good-faith contributor
He's an extremely important source for content on the Philip Larkin page.

So in future please could you err on the side of carrot rather than stick. eg I'm sure he didn't mean to mess up the templates put on his talk page. It would be a great shame if, ultimately, we lost him from WP. Thank you, yours almost-instinct 12:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just passing by, and having an interest in poetry, and Larkin in particular, I had a little peek at this article. It's excellent work! Thanks Almost-instinct for taking the trouble to ease the way for volunteer contributors. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Misogyny

I've just been dropping a few notes into the Misogyny article. Naturally, you will understand that they are copyright, so although they are not final in any sense, they are still published with attribution to my professional reputation. So, of course, I imagine I can trust you to treat them with the respect the Foundation promises(CC-BY-SA 4d) to ensure we will all uphold. As a subject area expert, I can assure you that misogyny is associated with patriarchy, very narrowly conceived. As such, my contributions assume your apology for your prior breaches of copyright. Following your example, in future I'll maintain "radio silence" regarding your prior "indiscretions" and just get on with the job. Perhaps this will be our last interaction, but I'm always available should you need assistance. Best wishes and happy Wiki-ing.

PS this is your talk page, so feel free to make this message "self destruct" after reading it. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What breaches of copyright by me do you mean? And why do you think I am interested in that article, or in your contributions, at all? Sandstein 12:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess Alastair is in an exceptional state of mind. See PS here: [4]. Is he under some kind of topic ban? Hans Adler 12:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, from looking at his talk page history I see that I did topic-ban Alastair Haines from patriarchy, at [5]. No idea what the copyright thing is about, though. Sandstein 12:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bye

After reviewing my editing efforts in Wikipedia I have decided that Wikipedia is a gigantic waste of time. The effort it takes to add anything to articles, and the knowledge that it has no permanency, equates my time spent here to the proverbial "shovelling of the sand into the sea". I think judging from behaviour of some editors that they enjoy it as a sort of mental masturbation, and seem to spend all waking hours doing so.

Therefore I have decided to never edit Wikipedia again, or in fact even use it as a source of information. I am adding it to my list of blacked sited on my security application in case I should be tempted to return.

Best wishes--Meieimatai? 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Chrome OS Screenshot

Could you provide a version number on the screenshot description if there is one? Thanks.--Baina90 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen one on the source webpage, http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/user-experience. Sandstein 21:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for psyBNC

An editor has asked for a deletion review of psyBNC. 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. --Hm2k (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I remind you of this. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I stand reminded. Sandstein 06:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Sandstein. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Off2riorob_after_multiple_extensions_of_good_faith. Thank you. --Cirt (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ACE question

Hey Sandstein, just a courtesy note to let you know I've responded to your question here. If there's anything else you'd like to know, please drop me a line. Thanks! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough reply! Sandstein 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi Sandstein,

I need a second look for a permission from a fellow German speaker and with experience I'm still missing. Could you have a look at Ticket #2009112310043196 and judge whether the statement is acceptable? Thanks, MLauba (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I think that this is a sufficient (but only just) CC release for the text of [6], especially considering that they already CC-licenced their text by pasting it into Wikipedia to begin with. Sandstein 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the review. I'm still new with this stuff. MLauba (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

European Association for Distance Learning

While examining the editorial actions of a sockpuppet I ran across a number of bad faith nominations. This was one of the deletions I overturned after finding a significant number of sources pointing to its notability. Please let me know if you are not comfortable with this action. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

John Dwyer (professor)

John Dwyer (Professor)

Hi Sandstein:

Please clarify, via email if possible, why you consider the above page (which was not initiated by me) to be worthy of deletion.

Thanks.

John.

11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)~~ Professor John Dwyer PhD FIET CEng Faculty of Engineering (Office 126a) Roehampton Vale Campus Kingston University Friars Avenue Roehampton Vale London SW15 3DW UK Dwyer, John [KU42303@kingston.ac.uk] 11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aukeye (talk • contribs)

Because Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of curriculae of academics or other persons. We only carry articles about persons that are shown to be, through substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, of particular significance in one way or another. Our rules about this can be found at WP:PROF and WP:BIO. If you believe you meet these inclusion criteria, you can say so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor) (2nd nomination), but you should provide references to reliable sources for any claim to notability. Sandstein 11:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So your main contention is that you do not consider my professional experiences and qualifications to be particularly significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aukeye (talk • contribs) 11:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that the article about you, as currently written, does not indicate that you meet our criteria for the inclusion of biographies as explained above. I cannot (and am not competent to) evaluate your actual professional experiences and qualifications; all I can evaluate is the article. Sandstein 12:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Janette Smith deletion

You recently deleted my page though the discussion ongoing seemed to indicate that a page was justified (according to two other administrators) but needed cleaning up. As I was in the process of trying to make necessary modifications the page was deleted. Nonetheless - I continue to find colleagues with pages NOT in question.

[[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]]

..the list goes on. My point is that their accomplishments and contributions to media are noteworthy- equally do I feel are mine. I hate being put in this position to defend myself for the page was not reflection of vanity for me, but one of encouragement to other African American women.

I was also appalled by the seeming disregard for references given and made about icons in the gospel industry whom I work with (who also have pages in wikipedia) How can Dr, Creflo Dollar and Fred Hammond be considered NON notables? The lack of knowledge or research in the contemporary Christian arena seemingly added more fuel to the fire for the argument.

Respectfully I ask how can this page be speedily deleted when two other administrators say that the content and biographical events warrant a page and meet guidelines to exist?

Thank you.

15:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnette66 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Please be aware that Wikipedia has no central authority to determine its content or scope; as a result, inclusion guidelines may not be enforced consistently. Just because one article exists or does not exist does not mean that other articles should or should not exist. All articles are considered on their own merits. If you believe another article should exist but does not you may create it; if you believe that another article exists but should not, you may propose its deletion. See also WP:WAX.

If you believe the closing administrator erred in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janette Smith, you may appeal his decision as described at WP:DRV. But such a review will only overturn the decision if it finds procedural errors, not just because you believe the outcome was wrong. Sandstein 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Sandstein. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giant Snowman 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Which thread do you mean? Sandstein 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)