User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/January

DYK for Prosecco

On 1 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prosecco, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK process

I apologize if I disrupted the DYK process. The source in question uses the wording "perhaps" the name relates to the growth pattern. That didn't seem convincing nor did the explanation. So I was curious if there was a good source with a better explanation, perhaps supporting the very reasonable idea that the kidney shaped mushroom with a distinctive appearance that to my eyes resembles a brain cross section might have been named "clever" for its appearance. The editor didn't seem to agree or be interested, so I've gone looking myself. I'm learning more about the mushroom genus in the process, but haven't found any sources that indicate any reasoning behind the mushroom's name. As the DYK process is related to the encyclopedia, I treat it as part of the effort to build a better encyclopedia. In my experience this is often achieved by asking reasonable questions. In answering them, clearer more complete articles are often a result. I'm sorry if I erred in this case and I will try to do a better job in the future. "Perhaps" the explanation that is offered from a single source and inconsistently explained in the article and the DYK hook explanation is right. I don't know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but I would point out that I didn't propose my explanation be added to the article. I was proposing an alternative explanation that made sense to me and would need to be sourced. When I read an article and I have a question about it I ask. Often there's a reason it's not clear or the original author didn't realize how it came across. Other times editors don't like to be questioned, so typically I leave it be. The best editors welcome questions because it hones their editing and offers an outside perspective. In this case, the author of one source made a speculation, which seem bogus to me, and it's being reported in the introduction to an article. I questioned it, and when the answer came back, I followed up. Had a better explanation been found in a good source, that would have been a good outcome. I can't find a better source, and I'm not an expert in the field, but I don't think pursuing enquiries to make sure articles are accurate and use the best sources is disruptive. I still think the "perhaps" speculation is dodgy. In my opinion it's been given undue weight in the article, and frankly I was mostly curious and wanted to find out if there was support for a better explanation. There isn't. So no harm no foul. I'm not especially worried about it. I've seen your work on Wikipedia and I've been impressed, so I take your criticisms seriously. Take care. Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Herr Sandstein, could you do me a favor and look into the AfD on Centrist Party? It doesn't appear to me to be listed with the other AfDs. As it's a couple days old, I'm not sure where to add it. Maybe I'm just missing where it's listed? It's from a newish user, so they'd be happy to have help if they didn't do it right. Anyway, I'm going to try not to make a fool of myself again until at least until 2009, so your help is appreciated. ;) Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be listed now. AfDs are generally transcluded on the log page for the day on which the AfD was created, so one would have to transclude {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrist Party}} on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 2. Sorry, I didn't see your message until now.  Sandstein  07:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy

I see you have been monitoring User:DreamGuy. He vandalized an article with this edit. He deleted dozens of changes to an article including the adding of a half dozen references by multiple people. I think he wanted to revert the article back to where he had voted for its deletion. I am glad I caught it, it represented the reversal of a full days work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good faith disagreements about whether content (including sourced content) is suitable in an article do not constitute vandalism.  Sandstein  07:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Switzerland in the Roman era

On 2 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Switzerland in the Roman era, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Political Dweeb's explanation

I wanted to explain to you user: Sandstein that I've Google searched for newspaper articles discussing about the American Centrist Party to support that article. The only problem is there is one newspaper here [California Chronicles] where the American Centrist Party is discussed in an article called "Unity 08: PAC or Party?" thats created by its chairman and not the newspaper. Apart from that the chairman of the American Centrist Party had an interview here [Interview Addresses U.S. Meeting Challenges in Its World Role and Relations with China (II)] with Dr. Sheng-Wei Wang who is the president of the China-U.S. Friendship Exchange, Inc. which is an organisation that maintains good relations between China and the United States.

However this was not an interview that was started by the China-U.S. Friendship Exchange, Inc. but was a transcripted interview adapted from the an audio file from the American Centrist Party's http://www.blogtalkradio.com/centerlane. I want to ask you therefore if these sources are suitabke for the American Centrist Party article and what could I possibly do to improve this article so I can have the deletion tag you put on that article taken off. Please reply to me here or on my discussion page, thank you. Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

Hi. These sources do not establish notability as defined in our guideline WP:ORG. Please read that page and add the required sources to American Centrist Party. You may contest its deletion by removing the proposed deletion template, but it may then be nominated for regular deletion; see WP:PROD.  Sandstein  12:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Plese Upload New Federal Council Pictures

[1] replace in last year picture -- Thank you ~~ User: Nonpawit —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

That would best be handled by Commons:User:Dodo von den Bergen, who uploaded the last versions and probably acquired permission.  Sandstein  12:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Next update

Hi Sandstein! Thanks for helping out at DYK lately.

I notice however that you had a little trouble reformatting the next update page after promoting an update to the queue. The best way to do it is to simply copy the entire page at Template:Did you know/Next update/Clear and paste it to next update. There is actually a link to the clear page in the middle of the next update page. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Very odd - I did a "subst" of that page, but apparently not everything seems to have come across.  Sandstein  13:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M._Cupertino

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M._Cupertino/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M._Cupertino/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Evening, could you please advise why did u redirect the above mentioned article to The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (book)? Yamanam (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it appears to be about the same subject. The phrase "Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" seems to have been put forward by Pappé and expounded in his book of the same name. It is therefore appropriate to cover the use of the phrase there. We do not need yet another article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself.  Sandstein  17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

First the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine indicate to the cleansing of Jewish back in the Roman time no only to the cleansing of Palsetinian people, so it is not term coined by Pappé, second, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict didn't discuss the conflict from this angle, third, Ethnic Cleanisng of Palestine is a theory, why won't we pin point it in our wiki?Yamanam (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the opinion that there is (currently) an ethnic cleansing going on in Palestine is a controversial one, held by what appears to be a minority of historians, and represents one particular point of view; per WP:NPOV, we can't just write an article about it as though it were an established historical fact. Instead, per WP:UNDUE, we may cover this point of view in the existing articles for Iudea and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but as for the theory itself, it does not appear to be independently notable from Pappé and his book.  Sandstein  17:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of controversial articles in Wiki, and this opinion is not only held by minority of historians, there are other parties other than the new historian who supports this opinion, furthermore, this opinion is supported with sources in the books and researches, no one was able to refute these sources (IDF archives for instance). Yamanam (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this theory, it is essentially a point of view about what happens in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and should first be mentioned or developed there. It can be turned into its own article, per WP:SS, if its section there becomes too large, and if it is notable enough for its own article - that is, if there are many reliable sources discussing this theory. You see, with a topic as broad as this conflict, there are very many theories and points of view about it, from both sides of the conflict, and if they each had an article, we would have thousands of articles each discussing the conflict from its own narrow point of view. Please read our guideline WP:POVFORK, which guides our approach to such subjects.  Sandstein  17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What u said makes alot of sense, I'll start a new section in Israeli–Palestinian conflict and wish it will not be disturbed. Thank you for your advise and support. Yamanam (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Be advised that it may be best to develop the subject in the article about the book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, or in the article about Ilan Pappé, with only a brief mention of the theory in the article about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. A section of its own is likely to be contested, and probably correctly, as undue weight given to a minority opinion (see WP:UNDUE). As alway, all coverage of the subject must be from a neutral point of view, as defined in WP:NPOV.  Sandstein  18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:JJJ999

Hi. This is the second time I have been notified of this. There must be some new practice I'm not aware of related to this. What kind of comment are you looking for? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern. My reason for the length was that he had been previously blocked and the page protected for edit warring on this article. While the page was protected he declared his intention to continue reverting and that he was not interested in mediation. The moment the page protection expired he began to revert again. Because I believe that I'd exhausted all other avenues to prevent him from revert warring, I am trying a longer block this time to see if he can use the time to grasp the fact that edit warring will not be tolerated. If you decide not to overturn the block, you may want to mark his unblock request as declined since you are now the third administrator to review it. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Last American Pirate

Sandstein: I did not realize I was editing an archival page; I apologize. How do I post my comment elsewhere?Eliphaletnott (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What was your previous username?  Sandstein  15:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have one; I simply signed my actual name (T. McFadden). I still don't have the hang of responding to a comment or post without editing it.Eliphaletnott (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I don't remember having been in contact with you before and can't help you without knowing what your problem is. Could you try and explain it again, while providing links to all relevant pages? Thanks,  Sandstein  16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem. I contributed a comment about the deletion of the Edward Owens page, in which I said it should NOT be deleted because it was the only place (apart from the class project blog) where the true story was told, with the relevent, edited Wikipedia page. But it turned out I was editing an archived page (which you noted), and I apologized for that. If the discussion of deletion is over, then I won't comment anywhere. But if it isn't, then I'd like to repost my comment there. I don't mean to be taking up your time.Eliphaletnott (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Edward Owens, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Owens, and this edit? You were not editing an archived page at that time, as far as I can tell, and have nothing to worry about. If you want to make further comments about the article, Talk:Edward Owens is the place to do so.  Sandstein  19:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I somehow thought the comments about not editing an archived page were aimed at me. I am both a college library director and teacher, and as both have some real concerns about what this class project did, especially given the general intellectual dominance Wikipedia now exercises on the Internet (especially for students), for better or worse. Even the kids remarked, with little sense of irony, that if they hadn't exposed the fraud, the Wikipedia article might well have stood the test of time, even without inline references. I don't know. Thanks again for your clarification.Eliphaletnott (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin
• Criticism of Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. I would like you to reconsider your closing rationale for this deletion debate. Your rationale stated:

This discussion reflects WP:POVFORK, which states that "there is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork." That opinion, also voiced here, is distinctly in the minority, while the majority of contributors maintain that a "criticism of..." article, if written from a neutral point of view, may on occasion be required per WP:SS to keep the main article balanced and at a manageable size.

Your reference to WP:POVFORK is arguably selective; what that guideline says in full is:

There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.

The article in question contains no such rebuttals; it is a simple hatchet-job.

Since you explicitly state that such articles must be written from a neutral point of view, this may be seen to imply that this article must be neutral, since you are closing the discussion as keep. Obviosuly, this makes things difficult for anyone trying to edit the article to a more neutral state.

I would ask you to modify your closure of this debate to make the following points:

• The article contains no rebuttals of the criticisms
• The article is not written from a neutral point of view

I am not necessarily asking you to modify the decision to keep the article, but primarily to address the implicit conclusion that the article is neutral. However, I do personally think that persistent lack of neutrality in a biographical article is grounds for deletion but I also recognise that not everyone shares this view.

Finally, if you were wondering why I did not comment in the actual AfD, I declined to do so because I was canvassed.

CIreland (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. My closure should not be construed as an opinion about the merits of the article in its present state, especially about whether or not is is written from a neutral point of view or whether rebuttals exist in reliable sources and should be added; if any such defects exist, they can be remedied through editing and do not require deletion. For these reasons, I see no need to change the outcome of the AfD. Since it is not the job of the AfD closer to issue authoritative opinions of any sort, but just to determine whether or not consensus to delete exists, I also see no need to modify the closing statement. Best,  Sandstein  18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - I'm not asking you to change the 'keep' outcome. I merely wish it to be explicit in your rationale that you are not stating that the article is neutrally written; currently it is implicit that you believe the article neutral. Adding verbatim your words above:

My closure should not be construed as an opinion about the merits of the article in its present state, especially about whether or not is is written from a neutral point of view or whether rebuttals exist in reliable sources and should be added; if any such defects exist, they can be remedied through editing and do not require deletion.

to the closing statement would, I think, be sufficient to achieve this.

I intend to move the article to more suitable title ("Opinions on Vladimir Putin" or "Commentaries on the actions of Vladimir Putin" or somesuch) and do not wish to be reverted on the basis that you have said there is no significant neutrality issue with the status quo. CIreland (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think that my opinion (or lack thereof) should have any particular weight in that matter, I've done as you requested.  Sandstein  20:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Soggy biscuit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Soggy biscuit. 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. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

Hi Sandstein,

I've been working on the "Nick Savoy" page that was previously deleted. With this new and rewritten article I would like to put it back up again. I would appreciate your feedback on the page of Nick Savoy before I put it back on DRV. Thanks in advance.Coaster7 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks adequate in terms of sources to me now, particularly with the Radar Magazine coverage, but biographies of this sort will probably always be more contested than others. I'd ask the deleting administrator first and take it to DRV if he doesn't agree.  Sandstein  06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Message

Sandstein: I left you a message here: [[2]]. Thanks. Syntacticus (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Underground culture

Hi, IMHO, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underground culture was more along the lines of a no consensus. That aside it certain is a notable subject and I missed the AfD discussion. Could you please userfy it so I can try to build a policy-compliant stub? -- Banjeboi 10:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, at User:Benjiboi/Underground culture.  Sandstein  11:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! -- Banjeboi 11:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock of Lightbot

Thanks for the unblock of Lightbot. It will take some time but I am working on it. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have rescanned the target articles and believe all false positives of that kind have been corrected. Thanks again. Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Vael Victus

Hey, don't forget about this one :-) [3] Tan | 39 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

John P. Ordway

Do you feel that this article meets notability requirements yet? If so, you could remove the tag you added. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, but you should format those references with {{cite book}} or {{cite news}}.  Sandstein  21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I find doing proper refs on Wikipedia a confusing and tedious process, but I will work on it. At least the links are up there for now... Brianyoumans (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous AfD

I have noticed that you have participated in the AfD of this article that keeps on coming back. In actuality other articles (specified below) related to it were already merged and redirected to the main article Miss Tourism Queen International but the other three articles (annual competitions of the pageant) keep on appearing. Please check these articles that were reverted in their original form by an editor, after the merging and redirection were performed:

Miss Tourism Queen International 2004 Miss Tourism Queen International 2005 Miss Tourism Queen International 2006

The articles above were decided to be merged to Miss Tourism Queen International. The articles have only 2 references, one from a personal website and the other is from the official website of the pageant. Here's the AfD discussion of the 3 articles above here. The Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 was deleted

I don't think the pageant is notable enough aside from these comments made by the delegates of this pageant:

"Two contestants spoke out against the mistreatment that they and other contestants had experienced in Miss Tourism Queen International 2008 that was held in China in April. First, it was AMY LYNN HOLBROOK, Miss America, who complained about bad food, minimal security and poor medical attention, and rude organizers. Holbrook was forced to withdraw from the pageant and inspired the wrath of MTQI organizers headed by ALEX LIU and JEROME TOO who accused Holbrook of blatant exaggeration. Holbrook's complaints were echoed by HODA KAISER, Miss Egypt, who claimed that the contestants were no longer treated like beauty queens as soon as the pageant ended; the remaining contestants were forced to pay for extra luggage even though they had been promised that they did not have to. Then a week later, SAIDIA PALMA, who represented El Salvador, painted a harsher picture of the 2007 pageant. She wrote that her fellow contestants were lodged in a one-star hotel with poor security and that they were treated as if they were in a circus tour. Palma, a pageant veteran, exclaimed that MTQI was the worst pageant she has ever attended." source

Further reading: 1. MISS BOLIVIA SPEAKS OUT/SAIDIA SPEAKS OUT/SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT/THE AMERICAN GIRL 2. ON MISS TOURISM QUEEN INTERNATIONAL 2008 3. MISS EGYPT'S TURN 05.05.2008

With the above info, I'm thinking that the Miss Tourism Queen International 2008 be nominated for deletion also if not to merge to the main article. I also wonder waht to do to those 3 articles that were merged and redirected already to the main article but continually being reverted. What do you think?--Ped Admi (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this long comment, I'm sorry to say, but in their current state it's unclear why any of the Miss Tourism Queen International are notable.  Sandstein  16:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re WP:ANI#User:Setanta747

Apologies if you've already seen this, but given Black Kite's and my comments on the above thread, would you have any objections to increasing your 48-hour block to reinstate the previous (provisionally reduced) 1-week block? All the best, EyeSerene^talk 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies (again!) - I took your previous post ("OK, I'm from continental Europe...") as permission to extend the block, and had done so before you posted your most recent comment on the thread. If you want to reset, no worries - I'll leave it alone from now on :P EyeSerene^talk 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no problem, I'm still not objecting to someone else lengthening it. Best,  Sandstein  20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your understanding is much appreciated. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for tellng me

thank for telling me that sandstein is sandstone in german! thats cool! Shadowwolfs (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

My thanks for the assistance in dealing with Swatjester. Oh and for the record, I'm a he ;) Prophaniti (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I'd not appreciate being "dealt with", and I'm sure neither is he. Please consider adopting a less confrontative tone in your future editing. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, true, but I didn't much appreciate an unjust 1 week block either. If others are fair with me, I'll be fair with them. Prophaniti (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

World Security Forum - restoration

Hi Sandstein, I would like to put up again the article on the World Security Forum that I wrote but you deleted, as I think I now have sufficient sources to make it a credible contribution to Wikipedia. I think you 'userfied' it but I can't find it on my Userpage..please could you tell me how to access it again? Thank you! Sherazade10 (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can find all pages in your user space with this link.  Sandstein  07:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pane ticinese

On January 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pane ticinese, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy

We are working on a consensus revision on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Suggestions_and_compromise_versions and need more eyes. We'd be happy to have your input on this whenever you're able to contribute to the discussion. Cheers, --05:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Officeholder

There is a pressing issue at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Long time problem which you may not have seen when you updated the page earlier today. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry and I will not copy it again by Aparna rajesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.208.196 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Ship infobox request

Thanks, but it needs a further tweak. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a note; it's messing up every talk page this thing is on, which is a lot. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Montclarion

I am new at this wiki thing and just feel now that the Montclarionis an independent newspaper it deserves it own page. If you help create it that would be awesome I was not intending to break copyright I am unsure how to reference things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Montclarion (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tropenhaus Frutigen

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tropenhaus Frutigen, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC) 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Header inserted here

Very disappointed in the deletion of the reality shift article sandstein. I have personally experienced many of these phenomina, often in the company of others. And studied particularly the category of implausible by conventional biochemical process time dilation as commonly called "crash time" in a number of National champion and world champion extreme athletes. the Reality shift article was excellent and should be reinstated. Dismissing anything you cannot personally explain and denying the experiences of what may be as many as 50% of the worlds population because you have not shared them is willfull ignorance. Aaron Franklin State of the art-ist and world championship winning high performance chassis designer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.56.142 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article at issue.  Sandstein  07:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Miss Pakistan World

Can you just make one line to this name - Miss Pakistan World is the only pageant for Pakistani girls in the world and takes place in Toronto, Canada. References = December 19, 2008 - New York Time Page A30, half page article on Natasha Paracha, Miss Pakistan World 2008. Natasha Paracha featured in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/nyregion/19bigcity.html?em

December 14, 2008 - Natasha Paracha on CNN Live Sunday at 8:00 PM. Please watch CNN Eastern Standard Time - USA and Canada. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/12/14/coren.intv.paracha.world.cnn?iref=videosearch

There is no need of deletion for at least this line. Thanks (Sonisona (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)).

• Please see my comments at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Miss_Pakistan_World. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Subversion attempt re-write

Hi, thanks for your response here. While I am not the person who brought the issue to the noticeboard, I am involved as the editor who probably started what appears to me to be an edit war. Without revisiting the details of the dispute, can you suggest ways, including use of the noticeboard, to resolve this dispute in such a way that the article will end up better than it started? I have never been involved in any Wiki administrative actions, so I would appreciate advice. cojoco (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of advice at WP:DR. Have you tried this?  Sandstein  21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read the advice there before I hassle you again. cojoco (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please reopen AfD for Jock Sanders

Hello! I noticed you were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Sanders. I'd like to ask you to re-open that topic for further discussion on the following grounds:

1. The discussion was not posted on the college football project page, and our members were not aware of its status
2. It is very common for prominent players in college football to be the topic of good, quality articles
3. One of the reasons that you gave was discounting user:Iamawesome800's comment as not a pertinient argument--but being named to the "All Big East" team is a pertinent argument. Granted, one that you are free to disagree with (and heck even I might disagree with!) but it is pertinent.
4. A quick google search of +"Jock Sanders" +"west virginia" yeilded 17,600 pages, including articles on ESPN.com, NBC.com, Sports Illustrated/CNN, USA Today, MSN Sports, and New York Daily News. There's something there worth looking at.

Please re-open the AfD for additional discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. To address your points in order:

1. Notifying any projects is not required as part of the WP:AFD process. Moreover, the AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football, which should suffice. It was also on AfD for 13 days, long enough for you to take note of it.
2. See WP:WAX. The existence or quality of any other article about this type of subject does not influence the outcome of AfDs; at any rate, this is not a reason why the AfD was incorrectly closed.
3. "All-Big East=NOTABLE" is a random string of characters to me, not an argument. I have no idea what "All-Big East" is, but it is not mentioned in our notability guideline. See also WP:ITSNOTABLE.
4. See WP:GHITS. Also, arguments concerning the notability of the subject should have been raised in the AfD itself; they are not reasons why the AfD was incorrectly closed and should be reopened.

Accordingly, I'll not reopen the AfD. If you think the subject is notable, you should write a well-sourced stub at User:Paulmcdonald/Jock Sanders and ask for its restoration at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If "All Big East" means nothing to you, you probably should have left it well enough alone and stuck to topics you have an understanding on. Mind you, I'm not saying that I think the subject is notable, I'd just like to see the article and make a call-at least someone from the college footbal project should have some input on a college football article. Heck, I might come to the same conclusion once I see it. I'll be asking for a Deletion Review on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not intend to stick to topics I understand on AfD. Our deletion policies involve rules such as verifiability, notability and no original research, all of which require the referencing of reliable sources, whose evaluation requires no particular expertise. It's up to you to provide good arguments and references in AfDs if you want articles to be kept.  Sandstein  15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps next time rather than just dismissing an argument you don't understand, you could instead ask the editor for clarification. Just because you don't understand an argumentative position does not make it incorrect.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, AfD closers assess whether there is consensus based on the strength of the existing arguments. They don't engage in discussion. Anyway, "he's notable because he's X" is a generally invalid argument no matter what X means, because (with limited exceptions as described in WP:ATHLETE) notability requires substantial coverage in reliable sources.  Sandstein  16:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You admitted to not understanding the arguments, so you dismissed them. If you don't understand the argument, you cannot fairly judge the strength of the argument. That is not a fair assessment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that the argument was of the sort "he's a X, so he's notable." As I noted above, that's a weak argument.  Sandstein  22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. I think you missed this one. (p.s. don't take it personal, I miss a lot myself).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NAC

Hi, thanks for your message. WP:NAC, whilst being based on WP:DPR, is still an essay, and whilst it is one that I certainly take heed of and adhere to to some extent I do not take it as the word of God. WP:SNOW is based on the future, and the inevitability of a certain closure pre-empting the need for further discussion. By that point there were four solid keeps with good rationales, and a fifth which suggested snowball keep, which I agreed with. WP:NAC suggests over six votes and over one day's listing. I would have voted keep for what it was worth as well, so that makes six, and it was one day and one hour old. The statistics are irrelevant to me - it was clear that the consensus would have been to keep the article. There was no reason why I shouldn't just help in clearing up potential backlogs by closing it early. If you are disputing my close on other grounds, please explain why you believe it to be "ill-advised" and I will comment further. Thanks, and have a nice day. :) — neuro^(talk) 08:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article would have very likely been kept anyway, except that we now have to jump through procedural hoops to get a result that is perceived as legitimate by the nominator and maybe others. WP:SNOW is seldom effectively applied to ideologically charged AfDs, especially by non-admins, whose closures tend to be questioned more often regardless of their merits. Besides, WP:NAC as an essay has no authority. WP:DPR#NAC has, and it advises non-admins to leave "controversial decisions" to an administrator. Please do so, or stand for administrator.  Sandstein  19:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

At no point did I consider the discussion to be a "controversial decision", as evidenced by the five keep !votes. Whilst I do wish to ease the situation, I do not see how I am liable simply because someone wants a review of the situation - that could happen with any and every AfD I close. I do not understand your point. — neuro^(talk) 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it had a "no consensus" AfD already. That's quite enough to make the issue controversial. Also, I'd consider a deletion discussion of an article about a torture method named after a WP:BLP (and head of government of a sovereign state) prima facie controversial and deserving of a full five-day discussion, except if WP:BLP itself were to call for a speedy deletion. (It's on WP:DRV now, where many seem to agree.)  Sandstein  20:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I thought you were saying the discussion was controversial, not the article, or did I miss something? — neuro^(talk) 20:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is controversial on account of its subject. The issue of its deletion is controversial for that reason as well, and also because of the prior AfD.  Sandstein  20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. — neuro^(talk) 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just saw this, seems like it is relevant. — neuro^(talk) 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like that may be happening here a bit, although to be frank, your approach would at least have saved us the pain of megabytes of Eastern European-themed drama on AfD #4, DRV #2, ANI and RfAr that may now ensue :-) Thanks,  Sandstein  22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Was that a joke? I didn't get it. :| — neuro^(talk) 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant to sarcastically phrase my opinion that, while your SNOW closure was inappropriate from a procedural point of view, I'm not sure that the continued discussion about this issue (which is likely to be well-frequented by people either strongly supporting or strongly opposing contemporary Russia) will be an altogether pleasant experience or indeed a benefit to Wikipedia. Oh well, such is life.  Sandstein  22:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sauce boat

Dear sandstein,

I had edited that sauce boat is used for feeding babies in India, But you had reverted it. It is well known that such kind of kitchen ware is used for feeding liquid and colloidal foods for babies in India.

waiting for your reply

sriram.aeropsn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram.aeropsn (talk • contribs) 08:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Do you have a reference to a reliable source for that information? If you do not, we cannot include it, because of our verifiability policy.  Sandstein  09:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you protected your user page…

		The Swiss Barnstar of National Merit
		For your many outstanding contributions to articles about the beautiful country named Switzerland. I can't believe you don't have a bunch already! Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Sandstein by Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) on 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it here!

Thank you very much!  Sandstein  21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Winged Fist and Greater Astoria

Dear Sandestein, Thank you for unblocking my account. Can you tell me how I can resolve this apparent conflict of interest, as a member of the Greater Astoria Historical Society, I created an article with this name and a similar login (Greater Astoria). I attempted to keep the article completely neutral, and in line with other historical society articles. Do i need to cease from using this account?Winged Fist (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should not use Greater Astoria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has now been blocked anyway, because it seems to be a role account. Use your own account and keep the conflict of interests policy in mind.  Sandstein  23:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

my block

I disagree with your reasoning for not reverting my block back to 48hr because I never did edit with anonymous IP's, I always said who I was and even signed with my user signature! I would like somebody else to take another look. --intraining ^{Jack In}

You are editing as an IP and evading your block right now], 219.90.179.47 (talk · contribs). I have changed your block duration to indefinite.  Sandstein  08:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

my block

Um no need for that I want to vanish but I need help because I don't know how to do it.--115.166.3.113 (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just stop editing (and evading your block) and that is all you need to do to vanish.  Sandstein  08:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, can you delete my talk page as well? Cheers.(sorry but I had to change my IP again.intraining ^{Jack In}--122.49.140.153 (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, talk pages are not deleted.  Sandstein  10:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No you are absolutely wrong talk pages are deleted here is Wikimedia's stance on the matter [4] User and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted.. When you are an administrator you have responsibilities that includes upholding Wikimedia's legal policy's. I have asked for 'ALL' of my user space to be deleted and that includes my talk page. I WILL be taking legal action personally against you if not fulfilled and believe me this is not a threat it is an absolute promise, look you don't know me one bit my Dad bought me a house when I was 21 I now have three cars and a boat and an interstate apartment and enough money and time on my hands to defend my privacy which I will. Ecoleetage's page was deleted, and I have seen it done many times before. Don't try and be the tough guy here you will NOT succeed outside Wikipedia.org. So I leave it up to you. I advise you not to be stupid here. Believe me I am more than happy to go ahead with my threats just fucking try me you piece of shit. I have already started the ball rolling by contacting and paying for lawyers before writing this. Now you may be thinking "oh it's a courtesy thing we don't have to do it" now that wording does not stand up in court the fact is Wikimedia offer this courtesy and I am asking for it you are nobody to go against Wikimedia's legal policys. Now I've reached my level of dealing with Wikimedia. I warn you one last time do it or your fucked.intraining ^{Jack In}--122.49.151.145 (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And I want all edits on your Wikimedia page (this one) done by me to be deleted also.intraining ^{Jack In}--122.49.151.145 (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last time I am personally contacting you if you ask me any questions it will not be me who you hear from next.--122.49.151.145 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was told I need to give you 30 days to fulfill my request. I want it done immediately though --122.49.151.145 (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not respond to threats. We are done here.  Sandstein  13:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

He's gone and pouted at User talk:Jimbo Wales#this admin needs someone to talk some sence into him, but that IP address has been blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am done with Wikipedia for good I am going, maybe someone will eventually delete my talk page, I just do not care anymore I have bigger fish to fry. I am formally letting you know I have withdrawn all legal action. It was never anything personnal, good luck with whatever you decide to do in 09.--219.90.147.189 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fangz and DegenFarang

Fangz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DegenFarang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not saying these two are connected, but their IDs are vaguely similar, and their interest in the Roberts article is parallel. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Thank you for looking a little deeper into this issue. And following your advice since you're here, could you please remove the links that Nik Wright2 added without discussion before you banned him [5] and [6]. Thanks.Momento (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Already done by others. Thanks.Momento (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, spoke too soon. Link has been added again [7]Momento (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I think you were correct to ban Nikwright2, but you should have also banned the other parties to the edit warring. WP3RR was clearly violated in a case under ArbCom probation.   Will Beback  talk  15:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In my judgment, Momento's editwarring is mitigated by his aim to bring the article into compliance with the WP:EL section relating to WP:BLPs. That's why I chose to only warn him. You may, of course, provide him with a topic ban under your own authority as an uninvolved administrator pursuant to the arbitration remedy.  Sandstein  16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't beleive that the situation is sufficiently clear to allow an exemption to the 3RR, especially in an ArbCom-probation topic. WP:EL iis just a guideline, and addig the link does not itself violate WP:BLP. I would not make any enforcement of my own because I am an involved admin.   Will Beback  talk  16:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While I do not endorse Momento's editwarring in any way, I do not believe - for the aforementioned reasons - that a block or topicban is needed at this point, in particular because he seems to have heeded my warning so far (see above). I'll not object if another admin comes to another conclusion.  Sandstein  16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may comment, BLP violations are exempt from 3RR, even though we do suggest in WP:3RR that editors may want to use BLP/N if there is any doubt about whether material is compliant with BLP or not. In this case, the site in question is nowhere near complying with the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. Many parts of it, notably the forum, are full of the most rampant vituperation, calling the subject a f*ckhead etc. Please. Momento deserves a medal. Jayen466 19:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is never a good thing. He handled the situation incorrectly. He has been here long enough to know how to properly handle a situation, and clearly violated the ArbCom order to avoid edit warring.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, please don't forget to update the log of bans in the ArbCom case. I suggest that you also include your warnings in the log.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As an involved admin WillBeBack shouldn't you have removed the link and warned the 3 anon editors and Nik Wright2 instead of joining in Nik Wright2's dishonest complaint? And when an independent editor comes to the only possible conclusion why would you push to have it overturned? And still not warn the 3 anon editors and Nik Wright2.Momento (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento and Jayen466, please continue this discussion elsewhere. Will, I've logged the actual sanction - the ban - in the ArbCom case [8].  Sandstein  06:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. I edited the above before seeing your reply. Apologies.Momento (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

'Whoops' from me too. I see now that Sandstein had already posted to the log in a timely manner, and I'd overlooked that when making my request. My mistake.   Will Beback  talk  14:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 200

Good closing rationale. I'm glad it was detailed. far too few are closed with too much brevity. I suspect you will catch flack from it because your username implies ethnicity or religion which may or may not be the case in reality. I doubt you will be intimidated or upset by it, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have named myself after de:Sandstein (sandstone). I've yet to hear of stones with a religion or ethnicity :-)  Sandstein  07:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It'll be like the old family, the Icebergs, who obviously conspired to sink the RMS Titanic. And, of course, there were the Rolling Stones, who are English. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You wrote that one of your reasons to delete was WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. It says:

Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.

I think you extended the meaning of the guideline far beyond what it actually says. Your interpretation was "which we tend to understand also as prohibiting the excessively detailed reporting of incidents resulting in very numerous deaths (such as large-scale accidents, massacres or wars), whether or not the people who have died are actually named."

And "excessively detailed" is a matter of opinion. Even so, the article should not be completely deleted. The editors could agree to limit the number of details as was done at Talk:List of Qassam rocket attacks. But I don't think a single admin should make that decision. It is an article along the lines of Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. It begins the day the war began. There is much history to this war.

Timeline of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

• Israel-Gaza conflict
• Timeline up to 2006 Gaza crisis
• 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict
• 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict
• 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties timeline
• 2007–2008 Israel-Gaza conflict
• 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict

You also wrote: "much too inadequately sourced". I am not sure you noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 that I had written this: "B'Tselem is the source for all the entries according to Trachys in a previous comment. It is a very reliable source." The exact source listed in the article, and on the AfD page (Nudve listed it) was to:

• http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties_Full_Data.asp?Category=1&region=GAZA

I also pointed out on the AfD page: "B'Tselem is the source for casualties in the infobox of Second Intifada. See: http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp It is considered to be a reliable source."

I can understand why you may not consider this to be adequate sourcing if you did not know what else it has been used for, and its nature as a trusted source among editors in this topic area. That Second Intifada article has been through some very contested editing, but overall all sides consider B'Tselem to be a reliable source.

Also, I believe Fiddle Faddle is incorrect about names not being allowed in such an article. I think both of you are making incorrect interpretations of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Names are necessary for finding more references. These events preceding the war led to a war that killed 1300 people and wounded 5300 out of a population of 1.5 million in the Gaza Strip. The names of the people killed in November 2008 when the truce was broken by both sides are especially important to finding articles relevant to the war history.

For all these reasons I think you should undelete the article and relist the AfD, and let another admin have a look after another week of discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed comments. To address the issues you raise in turn:

1. "Memorial": What I described was not the WP:NOT#MEMORIAL rule as written, but rather its practical application by the community in this and other AfDs, mostly about lists of victims of massacres and the like; an application of WP:NOT#NEWS and more generally WP:NOT#IINFO if you want to put it in terms of formal policy.
2. Unsourced: The complaints raised with regard to sourcing generally focused on the lack of adequate (i.e., inline) sourcing; such complaints do not appear to be prima facie invalid. The reliability of the B'Tselem source wasn't questioned much.
3. "It is an article along the lines of ...": see WP:WAX.
4. "... the article should not be completely deleted": The discussion determined otherwise. "I don't think a single admin should make that decision": I didn't, the editors participating in the discussion did, and closing such discussions is my job as admin.

The reasons you provide do not cause me to believe that I misinterpreted consensus, and accordingly, I'll not change my closure. Relisting, after this amount of discussion, would at any rate be ill-advised.  Sandstein  23:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply so soon. As someone with many edits of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png I see this list as a very necessary timeline of events before the war, and not a memorial list from a single massacre. Therefore I don't see that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:NOT#IINFO apply.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 you wrote in your closing decision "much too inadequately sourced." So you agree that sourcing is adequate now? Inline sourcing is not always necessary for a list article that states that the data comes from a particular source at the beginning of the article. It is a trivial matter to add inline sourcing, and so it is not a reason to delete the article.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does matter when the other articles are also timelines and not memorials of single massacres.

"The discussion determined otherwise." There were many varying opinions. Many keep, and many delete, and many comments. The reasons you provide do not cause me to believe that I misinterpreted consensus. There was no consensus as far as I can tell. Rather than relisting maybe you would consider undeleting, (or undeleting the article history temporarily), and asking other admins to have a look at the existing AfD discussion, and this discussion here. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure no-one will raise an objection to a Deletion Review on this, Timeshifter. Well, obviously one cannot object to one, but I think you know what I mean.. I understand that you feel strongly over this. Please forgive me for seeming to hijack this discussion here on another editor's talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not do a deletion review if Sandstein and I can agree on WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and sourcing. I just don't see how either applies. As for the amount of detail, I think we should let the article editors edit the article. For example; Talk:List of Qassam rocket attacks where the editors worked this out. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it is necessary for us two to come to an agreement on these issues, because I, myself, don't have a strong opinion about the applicability of these policies to such lists. It's my job to note by closing the AfD, though, that the community does. If you think I have established consensus erroneously, you may raise the matter at DRV. Alternatively, I can userfy the content so that you can do whatever editing you think is necessary.  Sandstein  06:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I assume you mean putting it on a subpage of mine. Please do so. I will point out the subpage on the talk pages of articles that cover the 2008-9 Gaza war, the background for the war, and the 2008 period in Gaza (such as 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict). Why not just unSALT the history? WP:SALT. I, or others, may need parts of some of the previous edits, too. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, with history, at User:Timeshifter/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008. Please restore this content only after all issues raised in the AfD have been addressed, or it may be speedily deleted again. You may ask for restoration permission at WP:DRV if you are unsure. The page is not salted.  Sandstein  16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have listed the article for deletion review. Trachys (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Pr D Philip

As blocking admin I have given this one the benefit of the doubt; although sockpuppetry is likely it is not certain (co-members of some external forum might also explain it), plus it's a new user and the disruption was not of long duration. Thanks for your support on the talk page, I will watch and see what happens with that particular user. Their emails to me were among the most polite I have received, which rather encouraged me to assume good faith. Maybe I'm being played for a patsy again, but I hope not. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the notice. I have received E-mails that I assume are similar to yours, but I have not acted on them in view of what seem like strong behavioural indications of sockpuppetry.  Sandstein  22:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Hello, thank you for your good and concise application of principles in the recent Arbitration Enforcement. Unfortunately not all editors seem to have taken the result to heart. The dropping of the external link is now being described as consensual, rather than because of its defamatory nature. A few month's experience with this article has shown me that if allowed to, this attitude will become writ, and down the track we will be fighting the same battles yet again. Can you help? I will give you the Talk Page diffs if that would help. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, sorry, as an administrator engaged in arbitration enforcement, I am concerned only with preventing disruption (such as edit wars). As long as such disruption does not occur, for instance because there is perceived to be consensus not to re-add this link, I see no reason to intervene. Consensus about this issue actually strikes me as a good thing, because the addition of that link does not actually violate policy (such as WP:BLP), just a guideline (WP:EL), which means that its removal could probably not be enforced given a consensus to the contrary.  Sandstein  07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Roblox

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Roblox. 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. --Briguy9876 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleland/Wehwalt

Diffs have now been provided, in particular [9] tho not the most recent, is the most disturbing of his edits on the page. (Wehwalt, an admin, should not need to be reminded of BLP) And other editors, particularly FayssalF had already stated that there was more to it. Would you consider further action by yourself appropriate in the interests of fairness? And given the circumstances is following the letter (ie escalating block) most appropriate? Thanx  Misarxist 14:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see anything blockable in that diff. The controversial content is attributed to an article in the "Palestine Chronicle, January 29, 2002", presumably a newspaper and as such an acceptable source for reporting a statement (allegedly) made in it. Yes, it was "reprinted at" a personal website, which is not a reliable source and should probably not have been added, but the actual citation is to the newspaper and appears OK. Or do you mean to say that no such newspaper, or no such article exists?  Sandstein  14:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean reverting to BLP-breaching content 'Shapiro called for the State of Israel to be "razed to the ground, the Jews expelled, and the seeds of a new stronger Palestine to be planted."' As I said there is more, diffs have been provided on ANI, furthermore you probably should have checked all of this before acting in a seemingly partial manner. I simply wanted clarification as to whether you were prepared to do anything further, I guess this means s/one else will have to. Thanx Misarxist 15:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That assertion is also sourced, albeit not specifically enough; it should be removed and Wehwalt cautioned. If you want an administrator to take action, you will find that you will be successful more often if you are as specific as possible and do not assume bad faith.  Sandstein  15:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies: I believed a mistake was made, that of not looking into the background of the dispute, but I realise what I've said could easily be taken as an accusation of partisanship and I should have been more careful to avoid this. And yes, I will try to be more precise about what I think is the "obvious" problem in future. Again apologies.  Misarxist 15:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Another reason why this edit doesn't seem to warrant sanctions at this point is that Wehwalt was reverting someone else's edit; it's not clear that he did so specifically to preserve that questionable content. Since he has now admitted at ANI that he was in the wrong with respect to the content, and has also been warned by another admin, I see no current need for additional sanctions against him.  Sandstein  16:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewhaha@noclue.net

Thanks for shutting down his email. I just got a rambling, mostly incoherant attack email from him, and have no desire to receive any more. I was just about to reblock him before you got to it. Pardon me while I take care of his talk page as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Declining Terrakyte's unblock request

Why have you declined it? There was a consensus on his talk page to unblock it. Yes, checkuser evidence is strange, but checkuser is not everything, and most users and admins agreed that he should be unblocked. I was just about to do so - there were and still are no objections to my note that I will be doing so - when I've noticed you've declined his request. I would appreciate if you would either reconsider your declination, and either reinstate the original request so I can accept it or just give me a green go to do so (I don't want to wheelwar, certainly). PS. Please note that even editors within the small minority who considered the original block to be not totally out of place criticized the indef lenght. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, sorry, as I said, I will not undo a checkuser block as a non-checkuser, and frankly, I think that no non-checkuser should. My declining the unblock request does not prevent you from doing, under your own authority and responsability, what you think is necessary, although there does not seem to be a consensus for unblock at this point and the lifting of a checkuser block without clear consensus for doing so may very well be viewed as a sanctionable misuse of administrator tools.  Sandstein  06:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect to wheelwarring: if you lift the block, you would not undo an administrator action by me (because declining an unblock does not involve the use of admin tools) but by the blocking admin. It's he who would need to give you the "green light".  Sandstein  06:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: NAC

Actually, it's a good few more than two. I will refrain for now until I feel my judgment has improved. — neuro^(talk) 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.  Sandstein  23:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)