User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/December

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.

File:La Méditation Sensuelle.gif

The image will be used on the upcoming version of the Raëlism article. Please do not delete it again.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Kmarinas86/Raëlism

Thank you. Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 15:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, nonfree images may not be used in userspace. I've tagged it for deletion; you've got seven days to get it into article space. Since the draft has been around fo a month, I don't think that an exception should be made here. Sandstein 06:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Tuber aestivum

Hi Sandstein, I was wondering if you could move Summer truffle to Tuber aestivum over the redirect. More than one common name applies here, but the scientific name is unambiguous, and so should be preferred. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Sandstein 06:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

action cricket inter provincial tournament

Hi

I see that my page was deleted. I am new to this wikipedia and didnt know how to respond until I got your name. Please can you explain as to why this was deleted.

Regards Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.27.55.216 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted because a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Sports Cricket IPT Records decided to delete it. Please see WP:WWMAD for what you can do now. Sandstein 17:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

unblock request

I have great respect for you, but is it really fair to decline an unblock request while saying tl;dr ? If you did not read it all, you should not be acting on it. I call upon you to revert that decline and let someone respond who has read the material. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That I said that the request was too long does not mean that I did not read the request. Of course I did. Sandstein 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies--I should not have read it that way. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sandstein 07:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor apologized in their unblock request. What is the reason to keep them blocked after an apology was issued? I know you'd say there's discussion on AN/I, and there's no consensus for unblock. And I am asking you how many of the supporters of keeping the editor blocked actually read their unblock request? Yes, there is a discussion on AN/I, an usual AN/I herd effect. The editor was blocked with no consensus for a block.It only be fair to unblock them with no consensus for unblock. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of blocks to obtain apologies, but to obtain the understanding why (and commitment that) that the conduct for which the block was imposed must not reoccur. Such understanding and commitment was lacking in the unblock request at issue.

We don't know how many block supporters read the request, but the admin who evaluates any new unblock request after the discussion has concluded may be able to guess who did and who didn't by reading the statements.

The situation before and after the block differs in that before the block no administrator decision had yet been made, and that an administrator decision (which includes a block) should not be lightly overturned, that is, not in the midst of an active discussion. (Consensus does not really come into it, because policy requires no consensus either for imposing or undoing blocks.) Sandstein 22:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Flight Training Europe Page

Hi Sandstein,

I'm trying to get this page restored, as I believe that the reason for it's deletion is no longer valid.

tl:dr warning - my arguments for restoration

his article was deleted on the basis that the company was not noteworthy, the page lacked reliable third party sources and hadn't been updated recently. I don't believe that the first (and chief) of these reasons is valid. Flight Training Europe (now FTEJerez) is a major player in the Aviation Industry. The first pilots to complete the new MPL licence trained at FTE (citation) and went on to work for Flybe (who has strong ties with the school). It also trains pilots directly for Qatar and Emirates as well as having graduates leave to start with most major European carriers (mostly Ryanair, Flybe and recently 4 graduates to BA CityFlyer), GAPAN Scholarship students are sent to FTEJerez to complete their ATPL. It owns and operates 29 aircraft and 2 simulators, including an advanced 737-800 simulator. The Company has appeared regularly in industry news: (link)(link). The company also has a rich history as a BAE systems Flight Training School, which used to train BA Scholarship students at Prestwick. It was BAE that moved the operation to Jerez.

You can see that the company is by no means 'not noteworthy', and reinstating the page would be consistent with display of similar articles: Oxford Aviation Academy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.130.186 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Flight Training Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Training Europe for lack of sources meeting WP:N. If you want it to be restored, you should register an account and prepare a draft article that establishes notability through reliable sources. But per WP:COI, you should not do this if you are associated with that company. Sandstein 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hallo Sandstein,
ich habe dir auf deiner Commons-Diskussionseite geschrieben. Viele Grüße, --Jcornelius (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll address that over the weekend. Regards, Sandstein 15:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User 24.129.175.63

Hi Sandstein. Further incident at ANI for your attention as you requested. GoldCoaster (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice closing comments

Sandstein, I just want to say I am very impressed by your well written closing comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of McDonald's trademarks. They are penetrative and express the somewhat vague ideas I had in my nomination much more clearly than I was able to. —Bkell (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 13:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(Just passing through) I agree - this was nicely handled. There may be similar problems, though, with McDonald's advertising and List of McDonald's ad programs. Those are more likely to be able to be sourced to reliable and independent publications, but they also include lots of the same trademark phrases or advertising campaign phrases, though, crucially perhaps, they don't call them trademarks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as they aren't called trademarks, Wikipedia isn't taking a position about whether these phrases are trademarks in the legal sense. Sandstein 15:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

MigreLief Page - Deletion?

Hello,

I have a mentally ill daughter and have been out of touch for a few weeks. Just got back online and saw my page gone...redirected to a Feverfew page. I just saw the discussion for deletion and wondered if it was too late to rewrite the article to the bare minimum taking out any unacceptable content. MigreLief is a notable subject. I was following the exact format as the "Tylenol" page. Many months ago, an editor looked into the subject of MigreLief and said it was clearly notable and that he would write the article for me. I provided references and links to scientific journals, medical journals...medical experts etc. Months later, the editor told me he did not have time to write it. I worked really hard to learn to write it myself as no-one at Wikipedia would help. I would like a chance to make this article acceptable....as there is no basis for claiming the subject is not notable. Please advise at your earliest convenience. Is the complete article and all of it's references wiped out/deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallybass (talk • contribs)

Yes. Please see WP:WWMAD for further advice. Please sign your posts with four tildes with no spaces between them. Sandstein 23:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, the article was deleted because it read like an advertisement and contributors were unconvinced that it conformed to our inclusion guideline WP:N. If you want Wikipedia to have an article about this topic, you can write a draft at User:Sallybass/MigRelief and, as soon as you think that it addresses these concerns, ask the community for its restoration at WP:DRV. Sandstein 23:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It was difficult for me to learn the technical formatting of writing a Wikipedia article...sections, headers etc. Is there anyway you can put the original article back in my user box...so I don't have to redo image insertions etc... I can delete items and redo references etc...much more easily. Is that possible? May I request that you review it when it is completed? Thank you for your consideration. ~ ~ ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallybass (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not certain that you are up to the task, seeing that you have not followed my advice about signing your contributions correctly. I would be more comfortable restoring the content for you if you would first write a very short article about some other notable topic to demonstrate that you have mastered the basics of writing an article, as discussed in Wikipedia:Your first article. Sandstein 17:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

NATO flag

Why did you delete File:Flag of NATO.svg per CSD F8? The file has not existed on Commons for 2½ years, because it is copyrighted. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's back ... for now, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NATO flag.svg. Sandstein 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had found that after some digging (your edit summary on the original image didn't reference the new one). I've already commented there. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

ARBPIA, RolandR

You've written at WP:ARBPIA that RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted from using crossed-out flags on his userpage. Does the "substantially similar" restriction apply to crossed out text of Zionism (not a flag) and an ambiguous (yet clear given the context) crossed out picture comparing Zionists to Nazis? I have not informed him of this discussion, so if the answer is yes, I'm sure he'll want to defend himself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that this content violates my sanction. These are not flags. Sandstein 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please both note, for the umpteenth time, that the cartoon does not compare Zionists to Nazis. The character depicted is emphatically not intended to represent a Zionist; on the contrary, it is a caricature of a bone-headed antisemitic racist, who pretends to be anti-Zionist in order to attack Jews. RolandR (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Asa Takii

The article had at least one source, therefore the claim to "no sources" was a lie. Further, there is evidence that JJBulten has been actively campaigning against supercentenarian articles are recruiting others.

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

Therefore, stating the facts was appropriate.

Also, most material like this has, in the past, been merged into lists, such as List of Japanese Supercentenarians."

And the "one event" argument fails when someone holds a title. If someone is reported to be Japan's oldest person, then later to have died, that's two events, minimum. If a birthday intervenes, that might be three.76.17.118.157 (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

These arguments are specious and do not cause me to reevaluate my closure. If one thinks there is evidence for misconduct by others, one must provide that evidence rather than cast unproven suspicion on others. Sandstein 06:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there are ArbCom discussions going on until January 15, 2011 regarding this. JJ is just taking advantage of the time. See also comments below.76.17.118.157 (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tase Matsunaga

You closed this AFD, claiming that the only sources available were "self-published" sources, but that was a false characterization. Incredibly, someone cites "actually a ton of sources are available":

Actually a ton of sources are available, in that her death was widely and internationally reported [1]

but then she makes the SPECIOUS argument that Japan doesn't know who it's oldest persons are, anyway. That's specious because, while it's possible that some of the 110+ cases are false cases (i.e., someone died long ago and the family is collecting benefits), when Japan names someone their "oldest person," they confirm their existence with a visit. Also, the reality is that Japanese records are in far better shape than most nations, including the USA (that's a discussion for another day).

Finally, in 2007 it was established that if the material for biographies for national oldest person titleholders were not enough for a stand-alone article, the material could be merged into list articles such as List of Japanese supercentenarians. Thus, the proper action (if you felt there was not enough standalone material) would have been "merge."

Just because a baseball player died long ago doesn't make their article disappear. Neither is the death of Tase Matsunaga a "one event." Her age is higher than any living verified person today, and had people bothered to do a little research, they would have found plenty of sources.

Instead, we have recentist bias, English-language bias, and a tendency for persons who know nothing about an article to make decisions on it, decisions which are often not in the best interest of either the article or Wikipedia. Pruning is one thing; over-pruning is another.76.17.118.157 (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the AfD. Sandstein 21:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I believe this would be the AfD the IP is referring to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing in the above comment makes me reevaluate my closure. Sandstein 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Related request,

I hereby request then that you ask UK to stop trying to bait me.— Dæ dαlus^{+ Contribs} 12:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

They are currently blocked; simply stay off their talk page. Sandstein 12:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

RFAR notification on behalf of blocked user Anyuse110

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Cousin Marriage 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—

Thanks, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Closure of AfD

I was completely shocked to see the Ukrainian People's Militia vanish a moment ago from my watchlist, apparently after this AfD you just closed. Wasn't this nomination rather pointy, considering it is the same nominator as before, just three months ago, and the previous AfD ended in a strong keep? Furthermore, none of the people in the prior AfD were notified in order to help give insight on the article. Silver seren^C 10:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that may or may not be the case, but it does not change that the AfD was validly and publicly listed and did result in a consensus to delete. That's what matters to me as the closing admin. Sandstein 10:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Then, obviously, deletion review is not the way to go. I agree, you closed it properly for what the discussion was. What should I do in order to recreate this article? Silver seren^C 10:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Move it to userspace, make the improvements you think are necessary, and ask the people who participated in the AfD whether their concerns are addressed. Sandstein 13:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I was a bit alarmed as well. You stated "when in doubt, delete", which I don't think is a reasonable position for a closing admin. That said, there were two delete votes, but I don't think that really reflects a consensus. I'm not going to push for a review, but I do ask that you reconsider carefully, please. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was a bit of failed humor. Our normal approach is, of course, "when in doubt, don't delete." My closing statement used this figure of speech because in this case the doubt was not whether or not to delete, but that everybody who participated had doubts whether this article could be sourced. Sandstein 17:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please userfy the content for me, to User:Silver seren/Ukrainian People's Militia? Silver seren^C 19:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 21:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: your upholding the block of User:Uncensored Kiwi

Am I perceiving your stance correctly in that you are not upholding the block on the grounds of the "leave our brains at the door" at Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak but in effect upholding the block with a new rationale, that of edit warring on Viriditas' user talk page? __meco (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the user's talk page. I would greatly appreciate it if involved users would remove themselves from the discussion; their participation complicates the block review. Sandstein 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read what you write there. I assume your discouragement against involvement was primarily directed at me. I am sorry that I am confusing you, but I do not see any grounds for a would-be injunction against me being a non-admin making a calming comment to User:Uncensored Kiwi. I also find it curious that you seem to be upset at my inquiry here which seems to have led to you reversing yourself. Now, as you have deemed it impossible for you to decide on an unblock since you are unable to ascertain the full grounds for the block without the input from User:MuZemike, the blocking admin who by his schedule may not be logging on before another 7 or 8 hours, I suggest you make use of the provision given for such instances at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Block reviews and take the unblock request to WP:AN. __meco (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Meco, if you feel you have the support to take it to ANI, feel free - I can't see any positive success - there were clearly 2 reasons behind the block to begin with, and one of them will still be upheld. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have offered to User:Uncensored Kiwi to do that, and I am awaiting their reply. __meco (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just know that it is unwise, and often WP:BOOMERANG to get involved in such things as a 3rd party. There may be aspects related to any block that you are unaware of, and policies that you may not understand. There is a reason why the original blocking admin does not handle the same unblock requests - it's a neutral, 3rd party view of the events according to evidence and policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. As I haven't heard from the user in question still, my offer may be moot in any case. But should I make the proxy petition I would expect that any such undivulged factors would be seen as unbeknownst also to myself. __meco (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon review by the Wikipedia admin who had blocked me, I have been unblocked.

I remain clearly at a loss as to why admin BWilkins thinks I should still be blocked. What are the reasons he speaks of when he says "I can't see any positive success - there were clearly 2 reasons behind the block to begin with, and one of them will still be upheld"? I ask, so that I can have a clearer understanding of the rules. Uncensored Kiwi (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel fortunate, and act accordingly then. Good luck. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I wanted to thank you for unblocking Uncensored Kiwi. Let's be honest. We just don't have enough trolls with swastikas on their user pages who persist in making nothing but personal attacks on talk pages. This user will make a fine addition to Wikipedia. Thanks again for your great work. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but the user was unblocked by the blocking admin themselves after I asked them to review their block. Sandstein 13:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Kühntopf

I closed as delete, linking to your an/i comment. Please feel free to blank after a few days, but I think the close should be visible for a bit. If it gets recreated without major improvement, consider this my agreement for salting it, but --who knows--he might become notable. Stranger things have happened. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds reasonable. Sandstein 23:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

communist terrorism AfD

We'll have to see how it plays out, of course, but... I'm pretty sure you've just made matters worse and headed this straight down the road to arbitration. I don't really care about the deletion itself (that was ScienceApologist's idea, and I was pretty much indifferent to it) but your addition about reverts has made it far more difficult for me to improve the page. My tactic (in case you want to know) was to keep the article from being reverted whole-cloth to the 'long' (i.e. synthesis-filled) version and continually request case-by-case consideration of each source, forcing discussion of the contents and eventually ending up with an article (if any) that only contains properly sourced and considered material. Now you've made it impossible for me to do the first part; it will just take one sockpuppet or meatpuppet to revert the contents (which you and I both know will happen). once the old version is reasserted absolutely no one supporting the synthesis will show any inclination to discuss anything on the page at all.

You're putting me in the position where I have to decide whether it's worth the bother. I'm all about improving the encyclopedia, generally speaking, but if I have a block-threat hanging over my head if I try to remove unambiguous synthesis... scr@w that - this topic isn't important enough to me to get blocked over.

Honestly, I think you got hoodwinked here: you bought into the lie/delusion. This isn't a case of two differing view points struggling over the nature of a topic, this is a case of one side adamantly and unreasonably pushing original research. this is easy to see from the discussion (there are lots of people saying things like "there are many sources on this topic", but none of them actually have been able to produce sources on the topic). You did well by discounting all the irrelevant comments, but you fell back to a bean-counting vote for the main participants without actually examining the quality of their arguments

Pardon me for venting. I don't mind the closure to keep the article, but the threat that I might get blocked for following policy ticks me off. --Ludwigs2 16:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, one good way to follow policy is not to edit-war about what you believe policy requires. This is an issue that seems to have many ideologically motivated participants as well as many good-faith editors on both sides, and it would not have been appropriate for the closing admin to decide who among the latter is correct in a matter about which reasonable people can disagree.

The approach of discussing sources one by one seems reasonable to me. As soon as there is editorial consensus that a particular source or section fails WP:NOR, it can be removed individually without triggering blocks. What is not acceptable is the constant switching back and forth between long and short versions. No matter in which state the article temporarily settles, a lasting solution is only possible through focused, sources-based discussion, if necessary via an WP:RFC after the main points of contention are identified. Sandstein 17:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment, but I think you've failed to appreciate the motivational context. It is far harder to remove misleading or incorrect information from an article than it is to add properly sourced information. If we start from the synthesis-laden version we will see exactly what we saw for months (long before I arrived at the article) before the page content was moved - one side trying to remove content based on evident synthesis, and the other side stubbornly refusing to engage in discourse (by ignoring questions, avoiding reasoning, and otherwise refusing to cooperate with rational discussion). You can look back over the page history and see an endless stream of misapplied policy declarations, improper induction from sources, accusations of pov-pushing or other personal insults over any attempt to remove material, outright lies, and other seedy stonewalling tactics designed simply to make removal of material too frustrating for anyone who tries. By contrast, if the material is removed then the people who support its inclusion have a relatively easy task of demonstrating that what they they want to add is present in sources - If I or anyone else were to try to exclude clearly sourced material, the violation of both policy and the spirit of the encyclopedia would be self-evident. As near as I can interpret what you've said, this is basically going to end up requiring me to prove that something is not properly sourced - an impossible task; one can't prove a negative - and once that's the case the situation can no longer even potentially be resolved through reason.

Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to claim any moral high-ground here. left to my own devices I can deal with stonewalling tactics very effectively through some less-than-savory tactics of my own. I understand stonewalling well enough to know how to turn it back on the people who use it, and I can (over time) change the page dynamic by a sheer unadulterated application of Sun Tsu so that everyone eventually decides it is in their best interests to communicate and cooperate rather than stonewall. It's not pretty, but it usually works, and the page ends up better for it. But if you're not going to make any distinction between sourced material and synthesis and you are going to punish people indiscriminately on a superficial level, you tie my hands more than you tie theirs. synthesis is easy, reason is hard; treat them equally and you privilege synthesis. --Ludwigs2 17:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Its worth noting that the sources have been discussed one by one and there have been RfCs. We have one of the those wikipedia situations (like climate change) where there are incompatible approaches. For one group the existence of communism terrorism is an item of faith (and you can see that in the comments) and there will be no compromise on that. I would also point similar issues on various issues associated Mass killings under communist regimes and else where all involving some of the same editors. My gut feel is that this one is now stalemated and needs some investigation --Snowded ^TALK 18:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I do not think that it is a good sign that you discuss a content disagreement in terms of "tactics" and Sun Tzu. If you (or those who disagree with you) treat Wikipedia as a battleground, you will eventually be prevented from doing so.

Snowded, I think that these types of articles have been previously interpreted as being within the scope of the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions provision. If there is an actionable case of misconduct, sanctions can be requested and imposed via WP:AE. Sandstein 21:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein, I'll look up those sanctions, appreciate the information --Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't diss me on language idiosyncrasies, Sandstein - engaging in reasoned discussion is itself a tactic (the one that I prefer, where at all possible), and sometimes, on some pages, one needs to create a context in which reasoned discussion can occur. Creating that context does not always make people happy, because sometimes the last thing that people want to do (for a variety of reasons) is be reasonable. I trust that that fact won't be lost on anyone who reviews my behavior. You'll never catch me pushing a pov (I don't really have one to push), and so if some admin wants to block me for insisting that people be reasonable in discussions, so be it. That will be Wikipedia's loss, not mine.

Whatever... I've said what I wanted to say, and there's no sense dragging this out. If more synthesis gets added to the page, I'll post a note here and ask for your indulgence before I remove it. That way you can tell me whether I'm going to get blocked for the act. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not much related to what others have to say on the topic, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I later changed my vote for this article with this edit: [1]. Just so you are aware. That is all. Munci (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria

Why did you delete the page for Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.106.150 (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:CrazyMartini

As you were declining their unblock request, I was adjusting their block. I don't know if you would like to take a second look, but it is an adjustment from the block you declined. Cheers! TN X Man 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that blocking the account as compromised is correct, in addition to any arbitration endforcement issues. Sandstein 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello, I am curious of why you decided to keep and article that voters decided to delete. Is there a legitimate reason for your actions? Thanks! --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please link to the AfD in question. Sandstein 06:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Immigration and crime article. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I explained the reasons why I closed that discussion as "keep" in the AfD. Sandstein 06:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Greyfriars, London

Please do not delete valid articles. Even a moment's research on the subject would have shown it was a valid article and deleting it damaged Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CSD#G5, pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are deleted, whatever their merits may be. This is required in order to enforce our banning policy. In particular, per WP:BAN:

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. (...)

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them."

I also note that you have characterized my reversal of the banned user's edits at [2] as "vandalism". Moreover, your out of process undeletion of this article and restoration of the banned editor's edits violates the banning policy and the deletion policy. This conduct is unbecoming an administrator, and I ask you to re-delete the article and content added by the banned user. Otherwise, I intend to request that you be sanctioned for proxying on behalf of a banned user. Sandstein 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Exercising some basic competence or discretion would have shown the article was valid; hiding behind CSD#G5 will not change that. Also I didn't simply characterise your edits as "vandalism", but "vandalism or mindless, sloppy editing". As you seem to be slavishly following red tape rather than showing any of your own thought, I'm leaning towards the latter. The article stays. Do what you feel red tape compels you to do, but it will be damaging the encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein, may I please ask you to notify user:Gatoclass about Arbitration decision on the articles related to I/P conflict and log it in here? user:Gatoclass is involved in editing those articles as well as preventing their DYK promotion. The user inserts POV in the articles. Here's only one example Please see the name of the section "1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" while the main article's name is: "1982 Lebanon War". Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, sorry, that looks like a content dispute to me. I don't see the purpose of going into such detail about the war in an article about casualty ratios, but that is a disagreement that should be resolved by editorial interaction. On its own, that edit is not misconduct and doesn't warrant a warning. Sandstein 18:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean it as a warning. It is my understanding that all editors involved in editing I/P conflict articles should be notified, but if my understanding is wrong, he probably should have been notified back in April for his conduct (or rather misconduct) on removing DYK hook on I/P conflict article from a Queue. Remember you advised and he was not happy about this? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Notified", as used in that case log, is not the proper term. What matters is the text of the remedy, which uses "warning". Per WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, editors may be sanctioned "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". This means that a warning, as provided for by that provision, is only proper as a response to such misconduct. This means that, no, not every user editing in that topic area needs to be warned. A warning now for possible misconduct in April would not be appropriate: if there have been no more problems of this sort since April, a warning is no longer required. Sandstein 19:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I now found the template used to notify the users.This template itself is explicit that it is not a "warning", it says "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions." So I still cannot understand why you call this notification a "warning". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1. If the template is even inline with the decision has been discussed. Notification as you are requesting is not even needed since Gatoclass is demonstrably aware of the case with his comments at AE in the past.Cptnono (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, you've probably realised that this relates to a current AE case brought against Jalapenos do exist, but, in case you haven't, here it is. ← ZScarpia 20:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I've taken AE off my watchlist. Sandstein 20:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Comrade

I thank you for the welcome you have given me and appreciate the links and offers given.

I hope to help add to Wikipedia's "pool of human knowledge" and to "patrol" in order to correct errors in format/syntax and prevent/undo vandalism of articles.

I'm currently looking for images of Sicherman dice to improve its article and would appreciate any help in my search.

Again, thanks for the kind words and may the Force be with you.

Projects(Talk)

QtheAllmighty 17:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Arno Elias

Dear Sandstein,

your reasons of the deletion of my article about the artist Arno Elias are not accurate..i advice you to make more search before concluding to this deletion. or even your speedy deletion?? this is one of hundreds of evidence i found and with all due respect i do not think that you will know better about the music industry than MTV..MTV UK Link: http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/arno-elias
also please read the Notability required by wikipedia, please read article; http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music), best regards, Stephane B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3robinpuma (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please make these arguments in the deletion discussion. A brief mention on a TV channel website does not suffice for notability. Sandstein 07:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize for my over-linking and use of unnecessary links in certain articles and thank you for your warnings. QtheAllmighty 18:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC) (Talk)

No apologies are required, we all have to begin somewhere! Best regards, Sandstein 18:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Query

With regards to this, combined with a pattern of DRVs that appear to be a waste of the community's time, do you think that an RFC would be the next step? -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the problem with these WP:HEAR DRVs has some relation to the problems highlighted at the RFAR, or if these problems continue. I haven't checked either. Sandstein 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of my attempt to address the matter? -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable proposal, and it would be great if MickMacNee were to agree to it. Sandstein 17:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. We shall see what the response will be. Hopefully it will lead to an amicable resolution. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unfortunately, not even polite and friendly comments seem to work. What we're seeing here is a total refusal to "get the point". Hey Mid (contribs) 18:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

diff. Thoughts on where to go from here? The user seems to wish to reframe the issue against those that question his behavior - rather than agree to modify said behavior patterns. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is his disruption ignorable? I'm honestly wondering that. Also, maybe we should take a break from this issue? Hey Mid (contribs) 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to file an RFC, they are welcome to. At this point, I'll be stepping back for the time being. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Application by Koavf to have his restrictions lifted

Further to your close of the Admin Noticeboard discussion, there's an application at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment to lift the restrictions. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello Sandstein. I've got a quick question for you. What are courses of actions on the user if he keeps harassing, so to speak, another user with his language while he was warned twice already here and here, especially when the editor had previously been banned for his inadequate language [3] by an dministrator? Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs of the conduct that you object to? Sandstein 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. Absolutely. Here is one diff [4] where he says I'm sorry you're so ill-disposed to even good-faith suggestions (to see the whole exchange please see this section of my talk page) and here is the second one [5] where he says I ask you not to make such ill-faith edits (to see the whole exchange please see this section of my talk page). This is not the first time he does that. Last time he did it in derogatory tone with depreciatory words like "absurd questions", "cheap way", "stinky argument", "frivolous complaints" he was banned by you for 3 months for incivility. Now, he's doing it again. Frankly, I am getting very tired of his derogatory, sarcastic, disrespectful and inappropriate tone. Anyone would. Thanks for looking into this. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly perplexed as to what exactly Tuscumbia is taking umbrage to. Perhaps my wit and sarcasm come off poorly through writing and for that I apologize if my sarcasm is taken as being serious, rather than an attempt to make light of the already tension-filled situation. I felt that in the first discussion Tuscumbia and I had actually broken some ground in achieving a compromise and were about to work together in a collaborate, and amiable, manner. I was, to say the least, disappointed that was not so. That being said, there is nothing "derogatory" in my comments. I am not engaged nor have any interest in "harassing" anyone. Rather, my comments reflect a genuine concern that Tuscumbia's edits on that particular article are not being done out of good-faith. As such, I have informed administrators regarding this and am awaiting what judgment, if any, they may render. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, I do not see anything obviously objectionable with the edits you cite. You need to resolve this dispute by following the advice at WP:DR. MarshallBagramyan, in my experience, sarcasm, irony and wit seldom come across well in dispute resolution and are best avoided entirely. Sandstein 19:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein, I warned him already. Should he continue with that kind of unacceptable tone, I'll take actions in DR. Appreciate your help. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Although not directly related to the above discussion, my warnings to Tuscumbia and petitions to other administrators stem from the belief that he, as well as editor named Atabey, have been retaliating against the actions of a certain administrator named Buckshot08, who took the decision to delete three articles on massacres related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Buckshot08's actions are being discussed here). I can only direct you to the Maraghar Massacre and Kirovabad Pogrom, where both Tuscumbia and Atabey have added tags and questioned the notability, the sources, and the POV of the articles, the same three tags and issues that were placed and raised on the articles Buckshot08 deleted. My contention, and implicit admissions by Atabey on the Administrators Noticeboard and an edit here, is that these edits are violations of WP:POINT, i.e., they are being carried out in reaction to Buckshot08's decisions. I have already informed two other administrators, including Buckshot08, but having not received any response from them, would you mind weighing in on the matter or, barring that, direct me elsewhere to pursue the matter? Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you taken any steps to resolve the dispute about these tags and issues with these editors? Sandstein 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I, as well as editor Kansas Bear (see his comments and main space edits on the history page of Maraghar here), have voiced our concerns on the talk page, yes, albeit with little (otherwise unhelpful) to no response.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, it is difficult for an outsider like me to determine whether this is a genuine content disagreement or a mere POINT issue. I frankly do not wish to become involved in these content issues, since I may need to have to take sdministrator actions in this topic area, so I'll refrain from offering an opinion myself. I recommend requesting more non-admin opinions via a noticeboard or WP:3O. Only if there is clear evidence of persistent problematic conduct in this topic area, as shown by opinions from editors who are not involved in similar disputes, should sanctions be requested per WP:ARBAA at WP:AE. Sandstein 21:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, another editor has removed the notability tag but I suppose I'll first try my luck at the respective article page. In addition to the POINT edits, if I may borrow your attention briefly, there is also the rather contradictory manner the article is being written up: while there are several sources published by third-party authors that any editor would find acceptable, if not trustworthy, which unequivocally assert that a massacre took place and was carried out by Azerbaijani troops, there appears to be the disingenuous use of the word "allegedly" to discredit the notion of the massacre. Like I said, it's a contradiction of sorts; on the one, the lead clearly says that the massacre occurred ascribes the perpetrators, while in the body editor Atabey has made liberal use of the word "allegedly", for the reasons I stated above, instead of simply attributing statements to their sources.

I would understand if after this you are unwilling to take further action. But since you mentioned a noticeboard - which one would you recommend for such content disputes, should this one soon become difficult to resolve? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. After reading Kansas Bear's comments below and after further controversial additions to that article by Atabey, I think your presence in the article would be very much desirable at the moment. You should take a look at the article as it stands now. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't currently have time to address this matter in more detail. See, generally, WP:SEEKHELP. Sandstein 07:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some assistance

Can you direct me to the page to report a violation of 1RR[6][7](according to AA2) on the article Maraghar Massacre? Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be WP:AE if an arbitration-based sanction has been violated, or WP:AN3 otherwise. Sandstein 07:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, [8].--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)