User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/November

Thanks for nominating Simone Biffi for AfD...

That article was obviously one that needs to go... and I'll give you a heads up for a related article that I have just prodded: Adrienne Papp. All the external links connect either directly or indeirectly to... Adrienne Papp! You'll love the connections between Rapp and Biffi, too. B.Wind (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Eduard Spelterini, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

Had some issues with another account, seems ignorance isn't an excuse around here. I only have good intentions. --smadge1 (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't know it was inappropriate, nor did I do any harm. You make it sound as if I'm a troll or a vandal. --smadge1 (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No offence was intended. Sorry.  Sandstein  09:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Macabre

Good catch spotting that old vandalism when closing that AFD! I missed it completely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the text you restored duplicates material at danse macabre. Does this affect whether you think macabre deserves its own article? Potatoswatter (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether Macabre deserves its own article, but the AfD said it does. If the material is duplicative, a merger discussion might be in order.  Sandstein  20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You closed the AfD after restoring the text. There were two keep arguments, both arguing that it may be a dicdef but dicdefs may belong in an encyclopedia. Either you share that opinion or you believe the deleted text makes the article worthwhile. Typically AfDs aren't (shouldn't be) closed by someone who makes a major edit to the article, as you did. As for merger, that is what I proposed in the AfD: to merge the history with macabre (disambiguation). Potatoswatter (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism. That does not imply an opinion with respect to the content. But with the re-added content, the dicdef nomination was clearly moot. Insofar as I am concerned, you may do as you please with this article.  Sandstein  21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing I cannot do is a history merge. As the deleted text was a densely worded, unreferenced list of authors with macabre styles and danse macabre artworks, I would not consider it vandalism. In the interest of avoiding trouble, please do not close an AfD after otherwise participating in it. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to act differently in any future AfDs that present similar problems. If you think my actions were wrong, you are free to contest them at deletion review.  Sandstein  21:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

your deletion

I found that you have deleted an article that I started Aasis Vinayak PG. I think you have made a mistake. Please note that even wikipedia has articles that refers to his projects (see V language) . Though an SPA commend is made by a user, I was waiting for inputs from admins who have expertise in FOSS issues. I know that the person is a leading technology columnist and programmer. If you look at the user edits of the older article you will find that few FOSS stalwarts also edited the article. He has many achievements (and awards) to his credit also.

Please reinstate the article and let's wait for more inputs for its improvisation. Karthika.kerala (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, these arguments should have been made in the deletion discussion. But I'll restore the article to your user space if you want to continue working on it.  Sandstein  09:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But the AFD discussions were not complete and most the people involved where novices when it comes to computing. Please restore the article and retain the banner. Another factor is that though 2 people recommended deletion one of them later changed that to "rewrite" and there was no discussion after a person edited the article. Karthika.kerala (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As you have listed the article at WP:DRV, discussion will continue there.  Sandstein  09:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonian refugees

Dear Sandstein, while I was writing my comment you have closed the discussion on the nominated for deletion page. I just want you to take in consideration my comment on the subject, so I am re-posting it on your talk page. Thanks in advance. This is what I wrote on the talk page:

Nobody says that the ethnic Macedonian refugees from the Greek Civil War must be treated apart from the ethnic Greek refugees from the Civil War, but there are two main reasons why there has to be a separate article about the ethnic Macedonian political refugees. First of all the article is NOT ONLY ABOUT those ethnic Macedonians that were evacuated or expelled during the Civil War, but also those that refuged in order to be saved from the terror made by the PAO and Tagmata Asfalias during World War 2 (additional references and text will be added soon). Secondly, the ethnic Macedonian refugees were organized in their own organization (called ILINDEN, with a main newspaper called ILINDEN). Third, and also important, the ethnic Macedonians were TREATED DIFFERENTLY for they were looked upon as "Yugoslav agents", and they had different destiny from the Greek refugees - the GREEKS BY NATIONALITY WERE ALLOWED to settle back in Greece, while the ETHNIC MACEDONIAN refugees WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SETTLE BACK IN GREECE. These people had ethnic Macedonian CONSCIOUSNESS - namely because of their ethnic Macedonian consciousness the Greek state does not give them back their properties, because only Greeks by ethnicity are given this right. If you need more arguments, please ask and I will give you proof and answer, but we must not allow a referenced article to be deleted just because someone does not like it. Regards to all, and I sincerely hope this dispute will be over soon. --Revizionist (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. This does not change my assessment of the AfD.  Sandstein  22:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Header inserted here

It appears that you unintentionally caused an incident when you deleted the article Albion (Gundam); the article was apparently written by a user going by the name TomStar81 prior to his decision to create an account here. As near as I can tell, when a message appeared on his talk page concerning an image that I guess was used in the article he left a few messages and then abruptly took a leave of absence, which has shocked and saddened many editors. I am certain this is not what you or the nominator intended to do, but I was wondering if there was any chance that the article would be eligible for deletion review or some other venue for return. Like many others, we feel Tom's loss, and since he cited what I believe to be this article in his departing statement I was hoping that a deletion review may help encourage him to return (provided he still checks his account). Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.27.143 (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You may certainly nominate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion (Gundam) for review, but the decision will not be overturned unless the community is convinced that the closure was made in error. What you write above does not show any such error. The emotional impact of deletions on other editors is, frankly, not something that concerns me.

If you want to help this friend of yours, I advise you to rewrite Albion (Gundam) as a stub that indicates the subject's notability per WP:N (i.e. with references to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources). If you manage that, you may then petition WP:DRV for the restoration of the deleted content.  Sandstein  08:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Eduard Spelterini

On 7 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eduard Spelterini, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 06:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the AfD

I deleted the article What is Knowledge Management, but it's been too long since I was at Afd and was looking for the template to close the AfD discussion. What is the template? I think I used to have a javascript that did it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The templates are {{At}} and {{Ab}}. Best,  Sandstein  23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I should have known it was something simple. Thanks. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I punished myself for forgetting. [1] --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Grungust

Why was the Grungust article deleted? It refers to the major robot type in a series that has a major following in Japan and a fairly large one over here. I fail to see how it is "not culturally significant", and I don't get the feeling you should be the person to decide it either way. This is a blatant case of overmoderation. In fact you seem pretty determined to erase anything SRW related from the wiki that you can get away with. I'm not a huge SRW fan myself but as a friend of those who are, this is pathetic. (Little Miss Desu)

Please provide a link to the article or AfD discussion at issue. See the box at the top of this page.  Sandstein  06:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the same situation with the Huckebein page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huckebein. Is this an encyclopedia, or just a collection of articles you think are relevant/interesting? I don't see how major Japanese game series or information on them is not culturally significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.3.97 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden concluded that, cultural significance aside, the articles at issue were not verifiable. What you say does not address that issue.  Sandstein  06:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, It's sort of hard to check the articles now that they have been deleted, but by the content of the google cache article, all of the information there seems verifiable if not sourced. I would believe a videogame publisher a reliable source. If the SRT related articles are restored, I would have no problem with sourcing them myself, as long as the games from which the information is derived would suffice as sources. Since this is information from largely japanese games, most of what is in the english internet is unsourced translations, but I still think it would be desirable to have this information on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.3.97 (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If an article is unsourced, it is not verifiable in Wikipedia parlance (see WP:V), because it lacks references to sources with which readers can verify its contents. The games themselves are also primary sources, whose citation should be avoided. Your more general argument about it being desirable to have this information on Wikipedia should have been advanced during the discussion; it is not of a nature suited to overturn the discussion's result now that it has been closed.  Sandstein  18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that in this case, primary sources would be the best, since the information is about works of fiction, and not real life events or issues where a conflict of interest would be possible (aka, this isn't Ford reporting the performance of a car, where they may have an interest, this is a theorethical machine where nobody does). The only concern would be copyright, but the information is not word per word transcriptions, and is also available on other wiki like sites (which i understand, aren't really accepted sources either) However, dues to the nature of the information, it's very hard to find it in non third party translated form, this however doesn't make it unverifiable, just adds a barrier of entry to do so, however, since electronic sources are apparently accepted, then I would think a game would be as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.3.97 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that way. However, our rules say otherwise. They say that:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:SOURCES, a part of WP:V)

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (WP:PRIMARY, a part of WP:NOR)

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V)

That's why works of fiction are not sufficient as the sole sources for Wikipedia articles about themselves. You may disagree with these rules, but they are what we operate under. There are many other websites that have more liberal inclusion policies. You may be more comfortable contributing to one of them.  Sandstein  22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that refered to interpretations rather than textual quoting of plainly given facts such as specs. My prior comment referred to my belief about the spirit of that rule, rather than the letter. Third party commentary only would make quite a few works that aren't widely discussed imposible to include, particularly if other wiki type things cant be used as sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.3.97 (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed the case.  Sandstein  17:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Agavi

Hi, I feel that your deletion of the Agavi article didn't take into account some of the arguments I proposed on the AfD page for it regarding its notability. Would you mind taking a look at it again? I don't think it's considerably more or less notable than some of the other frameworks that Wikipedia has articles for, e.g. Simplicity PHP framework. Thanks! $nf->{'user'}; $nf->{'talk'}; 19:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This does not alter my evaluation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agavi. I'll userfy it, if you want to, so that you can gather a few more sources before taking it to WP:DRV for restoration.  Sandstein  20:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. $nf->{'user'}; $nf->{'talk'}; 21:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, at User:Nforbes/Agavi.  Sandstein  21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD/The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin

Hi. Your remarks in closing AfD/The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin seem a little ambiguous. I think you're saying that because there's No consensus for either outright deletion or merging, the article remains by default, at least for now. When you suggest that the merger discussion be revived [later], on the article talk page, you seem to dismiss the option of deletion; but if you do actually dismiss it, I wonder why you don't explicitly rule it out when you mention the possibility of a later merge. (If you don't intend to dismiss it, you might mention the option of a second AfD, preferably after at least so many months.) Further, I think that somebody might read your comment as allowing for either deletion or merging in the medium term, and disallowing long-term retention. Could you perhaps revisit and clarify slightly? Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was opaque. I meant that nobody wants to outright delete it, but that there's no consensus about whether it should be merged or kept as a separate article. Because mergers do not require an AfD, I suggested that any such discussion should take place on the article talk page first. If that discussion does not take place, or does not attain consensus, the article will be kept by default.  Sandstein  17:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Earth (Dragon Ball)

Not to bust your chops or anything, but there's a few more redirects left. Korin's Tower Kami's Lookout Kami's lookout Dragon World. Kind of a messy AfD, I'd have perferred a redirect & merge. Of course then someone would have to fix all the resulting double redirects, so there's work to be done either way I suppose.--Koji† 18:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All deleted, thanks.  Sandstein  19:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Acorn

please consider reverting you recent edit to ACORN. There is still healthy debate as to the neutrality of the article( it is disjointed from the section and continues below). Concensus has not been reached as the arguments ahve not been answered in any meaning ful way. Charges of some vast right wing conspiracy and desire to insert blogs ( which noone has advocated) are not debate. Again , please review the comments below the section in toto.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everybody but you agrees with the proposed edits. That's consensus enough for me, I have to say.  Sandstein  20:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry , the conversation was fragmented. If you will scroll down you will see other editors have voiced concerns, Most specifically Digital Ninja. Your removal of the template means that people will no longer have to examine the article in good faith, and I would encourage you to do a more profound examination. As friendly as I can make this, I was troubled that you saw fit to make the template edit with the tools , but choose to ignore the personal attacks of Lulu of the lotus eaters. You don't have to justify your use of the tools, but that such a flagrant abuse escaped your notice would tend to strain credulousness of even the most dispassionate observer.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus still looks clear to me, but I'll not involve myself in this drama. The protection will expire tomorrow anyway.  Sandstein  22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD Elise Sutton; why a redirect?

The idea of me suggesting a redirect in AfD/Elise Sutton was to preserve the revision history, so that a merge could be performed in the future. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the consensus was still to delete. A redirect to a page where the subject is not even mentioned would likely not make much sense to a reader.  Sandstein  06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not much of a consensus. A couple people said delete early on, but likely didn't look into the matter. I would think posting references ( mere hours before the delete closed ) should be enough to close as "no consensus", relist, or redirect, as well as countering the claims of "promotional" material. Would you have preferred I said "merge" when I ultimately wanted a merge? It's not very often an AFD actually gets closed as "merge". Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, a "merge" proposal would have been clearer, but would IMHO also have made little sense (why merge the article about a sex author to the article about a vanity press?) You are right that the article might have been relisted in view of the new information you provided. But ultimately, I think, this new information would not have changed many minds - a blog entry, a blog-style brief book review and a passing mention in other books might qualify the book for notability, but likely not the writer.  Sandstein  07:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think her books were one of the very top sellers. I envisioned a paragraph in the Lulu Press article that might talk about the top five or so books, each with a few references, to show the variety of topics they publish about. Of course, that wasn't going to be done hours before the AFD close. There would be no need to qualify either the book or writer for independent notability, because it would be a merged article. And the option would be available to restore the Sutton article from the history if editors dig deeper for references. Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you would like to do this, I undeleted and redirected the article.  Sandstein  12:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that there's not the slightest mention of 'Elise Sutton' in the Lulu.com article, nor the slightest indication why there should be, I'm rather mystified by this action. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, if there is not soon a mention of her for which there is consensus, the redirect will have to go again.  Sandstein  14:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I found an article about Lulu Press that can be used to make that mention. Just need to find similar overviews about a few other notable titles published by Lulu, write a paragraph about them, and all should be well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lulu (company) now has a densely referenced paragraph about breadth of subject matter. This avoids undue weight on the Sutton books and should pass consensus with the regular editors. This is what I had in mind for a merge. Thanks for help with the redirect. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing of AFD on article Sikh Extremism

Hi there! I noticed you have closed the ongoing AFD discussion here stating no consensus. The closing time according to wikipedia is not exactly 5 days, and if you feel there is no consensus then why rush to close the ongoing discussion?. I also do not seem to agree that there were not much reasoning given; specifically I've made enough clear why I feel this article is WP:POVFORK and WP:V violation. I would let the AFD discussion run for a few more days for other editors to weigh in. Let me know if you want some clarfications on my comments on the AFD. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was opened on 08:35, 11 November 2008 and was closed on 18:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC). Five days having elapsed, the AfD was eligible for closure. Given what a mess this AfD is, I do not think that further discussion would have brought it to a clearly discernible consensus. It might be better to re-nominate the article for deletion if the perceived problems with it have not been addressed in a couple of months.  Sandstein  19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for August 1, 2003

An editor has asked for a deletion review of August 1, 2003. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mandsford (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Unprotection Of Article "Zachary Jaydon"

I would like a chance to write a well sourced article on this subject. Article has been salted due to unverified submission of content. Please note that my article will be much shorter, but will include new and easily verifiable information. Thank you for your consideration. JessieNewman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

In view of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination), please post the references to reliable sources upon which you intend to base the article here.  Sandstein  06:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you want me to put here, but if you elaborate a little, I'd be happy to oblige. Would you like the article itself, or merely the references in which I'm basing my writing? JessieNewman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

Just the references, please. They should be reliable and detailed enough to support an article; see, in particular, WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS.  Sandstein  11:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003

Hi Sandstein, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003 with the comments: The result was no consensus. I'm taking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 1 into account as well. Some form of centralised discussion is probably required on how to deal with these articles on a general basis, not just on a per-month basis.

That central discussion has already occurred - see Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Removal_of_many_individual_date_articles. I'm fairly sure it was unresolved, though there were good arguments for all sides. It should definitely be noted nthough, as I pointed out during the Aug 1 2003 discussion, that many such articles have already been merged into their months. These articles were originally intended to cover individual days from a wide range of years, but only 2003-2005 were ever done before the project was abandoned. I'm not convinced, BTW, that the March 1 discussion is a valid comparison, since that is for a page covering all March 1sts, not one for a specific year, and as such, is never likely to remain as a simple two-line stub. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I believe the AfD does not prevent a merger, and indeed that may be the most viable option given the number of "merge" and "delete" opinions that were expressed. I was reluctant to call it a "merge" consensus, though.  Sandstein  06:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on what exactly? The vast majority of opinions on the AfD were for merging. Trusilver 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A majority is not the same thing as consensus.  Sandstein  17:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• No consensus?!!!! Do you have any idea of what type of precedent you've just set? I really wish you had conferred with some of the other administrators rather than making a decision like that on your own. I just don't think that one administrator has the authority to change longstanding rules on his own. Perhaps deletion review isn't the right place to go, but your handling of this should be reviewed. Mandsford (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, no, I don't. Even assuming that any AfD may set a binding "precedent", which it does not, a "no consensus" outcome strikes me as least suited to setting any precedent at all. I'm also unclear about what rule I am supposed to have changed. But do feel free to call for a review of my actions in any forum that you feel is suitable.  Sandstein  17:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with Mandsford on this. Your closing of a moderately hot-button and potentially influential AfD with zero comment whatsoever shows exceptionally poor judgment. There was a very clear consensus to merge the document. Trusilver 04:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, everybody at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 17 disagrees with you.  Sandstein  06:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've gone back over the last fifty or so AfD's you have closed. It appears that you rarely, if ever, put a rationale behind why you are closing very close and convoluted AfD debates and you have a very high rate of people calling you out on it. If you aren't capable of closing difficult AfD's, then maybe you should stick to ones that are more appropriate to your skill level, such as ones that are 100% in one direction or the other. Trusilver 02:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you find any AfDs that I have closed incorrectly, you are free to challenge them at DRV. None of my closures have recently been overturned there, if I recall correctly. If not, please cease your bickering, which I find is unbecoming an administrator.  Sandstein  05:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Precedent has already been set a long time ago - loads of similar articles get closed as "no consensus", despite the majority of comments usually being calls to merge. Boldness may indeed be called for... Grutness...wha? 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct my page

Sorry, I have no idea what´s going on here!!! I never add my name into wikipedia neither interested in. I have no idea who´s crazy people have written it. In fact if i´m notable i dont need to show myself in the wikipedia or any similar webpages. Awfully, if you search my name in the google, this deletion and similar links will be appear!!! Please delete my name from the history of your wipedia and also google. It´s better to respect the human right and don´t play with my personality. I´m talking directly to --Finngall,Fritzpoll, OhNoitsJamie, and so on. I´m waiting for your answer as soon as possible. My name is Soroush Nazarpour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazarpour (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article about you has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soroush Nazarpour. I've hidden the content of that discussion. We cannot do more, I'm sorry. I assume the Google search results will disappear with time.  Sandstein  18:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lifetime vs YOB and YOD categories

Hi. There is no consensus to have Lifetime or YOB/YOD categories. The only consensus is that BD should not exist. Since BD has to go, can go either way. Am I wrong? Right now there are far more articles without Lifetime. If we decide to add it everywhere, 20,000 articles won't change anything. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I am not substituting Lifetime or BIRTH-DEATH-SORT. Only BD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can check Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 3. I have this link already in th bot's page along with a short explanation. As I said I am not substituting Lifetime nor BIRTH-DEATH-SORT. I am not doing anything against consensus. You can also check the discussion in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 22 and there is no consensus to change everything into Lifetime. You can always check the discussion in Template talk:Lifetime. I am discussing the issue for a long time and I requested an approval more than a month ago. I don't understand what the problem exactly is. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussion carefully, you will see that "keep" just meant "not delete". Adding Lifetime where yob/yod categories already exist is considered nonconstructive. Moreover, this discussion resulted to the addition of a subst option to Lifetime. Finally, if you check the discussion for the bot, the talk page of lifetime there were many suggestions that the use of defaulsort within the template must be obvious to the editors. I did many actions for that. There are many examples of people keep adding defaultsort even if it's used in BD. I informed in the template of Lifetime what I want to do with BD and there was no problem with that. Finally, as I said since BD has to go, it can go either way. If you want to start replacing BD with Lifetime is ok to me. using my bot it's easier to substitute and I find many advantages in doing this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Granddukesfinances

Already unblocked. I honestly can't figure this one out -- it looks like an error on my part. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on article you were involved in AFD debate

Hi Sandstein! You had participated in the decision making on the AFD on Sikh Extremism. I've had some time to look into the article and have added some commented on the talk page here. Please find some time to read and comment. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:88.111.158.61

Thanks, I've lifted the range for now. --Rodhullandemu 16:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

World Security Forum reinstate please

Hi Sandstein, with regard to your deletion and subsequent userfication a few weeks ago of the article I wrote entitled 'World Security Forum',as I have now found a variety of more credible sources please could you reinstate this and I will edit it? Many thanks, Sherazade10 (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean World Security Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Please create a draft article at User:Sherazade10/World Security Forum citing these sources. I'll take a look at it then.  Sandstein  12:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the article has already been userfied, and is unchanged since its deletion. Please add your new sources to it.  Sandstein  13:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Nov 08

I am aware of the 3RR, and all that it entails and I feel compelled to inform you that I was not engaged in an edit war, or had no intentions of edit warring. If you check one of my edit summaries, I asked the opposing side to please discuss it on the talk page, instead of simply reverting me again. Thanks for the warning, anyways. Cheers! --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Copyright violations

Thank you for the comment. I thought it was a copyrighted screenshot on the Internet that wasn't allowed. Again, thank you. Besides, will you be blocked from uploading files as well as blocked from editing pages?

Please let me know if I've missed something. MHLU^talk 03:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Yes, blocks prevent uploads as well as edits.  Sandstein  08:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello, this is my first time contacting a moderator on Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I have contacted the wrong person. I have a small problem with another member Cmedinger who is making unnecessary total reverts of my edits on some articles, namely articles such as Top Thrill Dragster, Maverick, Mantis, as well as some others. I added pictures mostly to these articles, and created gallery sections at the bottom of the page to keep the article more organized, rather than have pictures scattered throughout the article. He completely reverted these edits to restore his pictures being the sole ones on these pages, and looking at this talk page he does this frequently. Is there anything that can be done? Thank you for any help you can provide. (Coasterman1234 (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

Hello. On Wikipedia, administrators do not have any special authority to settle disputes or to decide content issues (i.e., how an article should look). We're just normal editors with a few additional technical capabilities. That said, I can give you some advice on how you could proceed to settle this dispute (see also our general advice on dispute resolution).

• Both of you, it seems, are going about this in good faith and with a constructive attitude. That's good! I advise you to try to start by talking about it: On the talk page of the articles concerned, describe how you want the article to look and why. Then invite Cmedinger (talk · contribs) to comment. Ideally, you'll arrive at a consensus eventually.
• If you can't find a consensus, you should invite other editors to comment also. Try asking for opinions on WP:3O or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roller Coasters.

I hope this helps.  Sandstein  08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

page deleted: David Krikorian

Hello,

Had a few questions for you please regarding the page for political candidate David Krikorian. The candidate received nearly 20% of the vote in a three way race as an Independent and was the highest vote getter of ANY Independent or third-party candidate running for Federal office in the past election.

I realize the page is not about self promotion but the candidate has already declared that he will seek office in 2010 and has kept all website's operational which makes the wiki page not about self promotion as much as about current events. The candidate was endorsed by a major newspaper along with the Cincinnati Police. The candidate was featured on Lou Dobbs and was written about favorable in the national media.

Furthermore, I noticed that the Democratic challenger in this race has not had her page deleted even though she has never held office and has no other reason for being listed other than the fact that she was the Democratic nominee.

We would like to see the page restored so that the pertinent factual information about the OH2 Congressional race can be recorded and so that users will be aware of a candidate who is already in the race for 2010

Thank you,

David

72.49.200.66 (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. If you want Wikipedia to have an article about David Krikorian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I advise you to do the following:

• Familiarise yourself with our inclusion requirements at WP:BIO.
• Collect references, preferably formatted by means of the "{{cite news}}" template, which demonstrate that Krikorian has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of himself.
• Post these references here and I will evaluate whether they are sufficient to overcome the concerns that led to the article's deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Krikorian.

If you are David Krikorian, or someone affiliated with him, you should not write about this topic; see our conflict of interest guidelines.

With respect to his Democratic challenger, if you think that she fails WP:BIO, you are free to request the deletion of her article as described at WP:AFD. But if she won and is now a member of Congress, she will be deemed notable ex officio.  Sandstein  16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. In regards to the Krikorian article. I should be listed as the orignal author for it. My apologies, I've been a consumer of Wikipedia for sometime and thought that I would try to give back by writing about the candidate that I supported in my district. I did not realize that I was the only one who was watching the page. As you've requested I'm attaching a list of just some of the many publications that have written and reported on Mr. Krikorian. Since the election has passed, it should be noted that he has received 17.8% of the vote, unusually high by many standards for an independent.

Mr. Krikorian is reported on and referenced in several Wikipedia articles: United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2008, United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 - complete list Vic Wulsin, Jean Schmidt

These are sources that meet the definition of credible and notable. Please let me know if this is not the case or does not past the muster. There are also multiple Internet new sites and blogs listing reference to him as well as some Turkish newspapers, though I do not readily have that link. Please note that this office, while a federal office, is for a regional area that covers only Southwest Ohio.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Politico[2]

Lou Dobbs[3]

Politicker Ohio[4]

WLWT Channel 5[5] [6] [7]

WCPO Channel 9 [8]

Dayton Daily [9] [10] [11]

Cincinnati Enquirer [12]

Portsmouth Daily Times [13]

Georgetown News Democrat[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Ripley Bee[23]

The People's Defender [24] [25] [26] [27]

Waverly News Watchman[28] [29]

Clermont Sun [30] [31] [32]

Ryan 08:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan8403 (talk • contribs)

Okay, these references should be enough, collectively, to provide notability. Now, you should post a deletion review request in which you link to this discussion (User talk:Sandstein#page deleted: David Krikorian) and ask that the article be restored in view of the notability established through these references. You could also simply rewrite the article, but then, somebody might just delete it again.  Sandstein  23:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ASTROTHEOLOGY

why was this topic deleted from wikipedia??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.10.161 (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article at issue, as explained in the box at the top of this page.  Sandstein  23:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

page deleted: Saami Shaibani

Hello, I had a few questions on the Saami Shaibani page. It went through some major changes and I think it is getting close. Some of the comments were made at an early stage, I didn't get much feedback after the major edits. I really don't see how it is soapboxing, if anything it reads negative. Can you give me some advice on how it is soapboxing? Also, at the end of the discussion it was agreed that Shaibani was notable. The article even got a weak keep vote. I believe the article is neutral now after some edits. Any corrections or advice you can give me would be great and appreciated. I have started the test version of the article on my talk page, and there is a place there for comments. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

Well, we have to take into account all of the discussion, not just the final comment - which was, at any rate, expressed as weak. The soapboxing problem is caused by the article being nearly exclusively focused on the man's trial work, to the point of reproducing 26 pages (!) of a court document. This leaves the impression that the article is intended to further some purpose, either in support or against Shaibani or a party in a trial he may be involved in. That's not what we are here for.  Sandstein  23:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand having all 26 pages in the article may be too much, but an external link or reference would (I think) be needed. In a previous version I had a patent and many, many publications of his, and I thought that was the reason for soapboxing? His trial work is what makes the case for his notablity. In particular the Peterson, O'Brien, Aesoph, and Plude trial. All four have been or are being appealed due to his testimony. The Peterson trial was also made into a movie, "The Staircase Murders (2007)" starring Kevin Pollak. The thing that makes Shaibani interesting is that it is rare for an expert witness to be accused of perjury, especially in a trial like Peterson. If you google "Saami Shaibani" you get about 774 hits, the comments on the AfD page agreed near the end his notablity has been established. If you read the article now, I think it only presents facts from the trials. Thanks again for your help on this, it is my first article and much more difficult than I imagined. Your advice has been very helpful. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

The matter of the subject's notability has been discussed in the AfD, and this is not the place to re-open that discussion. Sorry. But see my advice below.  Sandstein  17:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyway for me to post this article somewhere and get help on it before it goes live? Is the sandbox the place for that? I would like to get comments from other users, so I don't use too much of your time. Thanks again. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

Sandstein, fyi jvfulcher has now recreated this article on his own talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page is for others to communicate with you, not for drafting articles. I've moved the content to a page in your user space, User:jvfulcher/Saami Shaibani. If you think the rewritten article has improved to the point that the AfD's concerns are addressed, I recommend asking editors on WP:DRAW for feedback.  Sandstein  17:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good deal, thanks for the help. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

British Malays

Hi. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Malays. However, if you read the discussion there you'll notice that much of it focused on whether Malays and Malaysians are the same. I'm not sure that a redirect to Malaysian British is the appropriate decision. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that such a distinction, if there is one, can be made in the target article. But you're free to change the redirect target, of course, if there's consensus for such a change.  Sandstein  20:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I think it can be left as it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Today's Pioneer Courthouse Square sock

This guy: [33] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, Philknight took care of it. Potrid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). But can something be done to stop this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI, possibly asking a checkuser for a rangeblock if it gets too bad. Sorry, I don't think that we can do much more.  Sandstein  16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The "ignore" part doesn't work too well, as he keeps turning up. However, Philknight semi-protected the page until March 1, which ought to choke that guy off for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for David_Krikorian

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David_Krikorian. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ryan8403 (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Tobacco smoke enema

On 30 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tobacco smoke enema, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• Sandeep Unnikrishnan (AfD discussion)

After much prodding and pushing, people have finally started citing sources. Please revisit the discussion and read and evaluate the sources. Show the single-purpose accounts and novice editors how established Wikipedia editors will have a proper AFD discussion, focussed upon looking for, citing, reading, and evaluating sources. You'll have to navigate a lot of irrelevant chatter to find the citations, and the actual discussions thereof, but I've tried to make them prominent. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Airwolfe31

I gave the user a deal. I would like you to comment please and see what you think of it. I however do not think he is being honest about the sockpuppets because of evidence presented here. Specifically the edits from the user account and IPs are all to Airwolfe's userspace..and some other random things.Rgoodermote  01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Kinda forum shopping. But as you were the one who kicked sense back into my mind. I would like to request that you place the Wikibreak code and set it for 1 month. There is a personal story as to why I should not do this myself. I would like to apologize for my behavior. In the last month a lot has happened and it has been really stressful for me and I haven't been able to keep my personal life out of my life online and the stress has started to make me paranoid and just unwilling or unable to to tolerate things and that results in my hyperviglants and my need to be authorative..because well the stress stems from an authority who should not be an authority..well anyways I would rather not tell you the personal reason behind why I should not add the code myself..but please I would love for you or another admin to add for me and put it for 1 month. Thank you, happy editing and again. I'm sorry for how I have been acting the last few days. Rgoodermote  20:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please close discussions properly

You redirected Operation Black Tornado while there was a discussion about the article going on. If you redirected the article unilaterally while ignoring the ongoing discussion you violated a whole bunch of WP policies and you should self-revert. If you redirected the article based on the consensus at the discussion then please close the discussion. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which discussion? The talk page was empty.  Sandstein  14:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The merge template at the article linked to Talk:November 2008 Mumbai attacks#Merger proposal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, per WP:MM, "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed." I'll neither close the discussion nor revert myself. The discussion may well continue; if it decides against a merger (which seems unlikely now), the redirect may be reverted.  Sandstein  14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Further in the foregoing link you would come across the following:

“ If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merge ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages. ”

(emphasis added). I have probably made over a hundred redirects here on WP, but I knew that this is a controversial redirect so, per the WP:MM guideline, I initiated a discussion on the topic. An afd discussion should last 5 days unless WP:SNOW applies. This is clearly not a SNOW. So the discussion should go on before any action is taken. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Local mail and rayon stamps of Switzerland

On 30 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Local mail and rayon stamps of Switzerland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the article. An anonymous user had deleted major portions of it, but I reverted it. Chris (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Bill Chadwell

Behavioral and CheckUser evidence indicate that he is evading the ban of ClarkLewis (talk · contribs · logs · block log). I have asked two other CUs to review my conclusions. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks!  Sandstein  22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)