User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2006/April

Thanks for the tip
Thanks for the tip on how to use the prod template. I'll be sure to do so next time I run across an article that fits its use. --Impaciente 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ala archa unsourced
I was wondering why you taged to Ala archa even thou it has an exteranl link. I didn't actually read what it links to see if what is said all comes from that sight so im' not positive it is a sorce but i would asume it is.--E-Bod 21:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, you are quite right. I meant to add, but caught the wrong tag when copy-pasting. I have now removed the tags after cleanup. Sandstein 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for collaboration.
Hello,

If you would, could you please   tag instead of the    tag? There is an effort underway to make it easier to sort through articles that may require wikification.

Your assistance with this effort will be greatly appreciated. Folajimi 07:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do. Sandstein 07:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

PROD
Hello there. You have proposed the article AE Magazine for deletion without providing a reason why you think the article should be deleted. Please consider adding your reasoning in the future when proposing articles for deletion (see: How to propose deletion of an article). This will aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. Thank you. Sandstein 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I did leave a comment with my reasoning, both in the edit comments and at Talk:AE Magazine. I agree that my edit comments could have been clearer, but I did also write them more clearly on the talk page (the edit summary field is a bit too small).  Overall, I fail to see the problem... where do you think I should have placed my comments?   Cleduc 15:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah... I see. Thanks for the pointer!  Cleduc 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you left me a message similar to that you left Cleduc, I'm replying under this header; I hope you don't mind... Thank you for noting that my PROD tag was missing reasoning; when fixing the tag, I inadvertently removed the reason I'd previously given (although I did include the reason in my edit summary as well).  In any case, I'll be more careful in the future; sometimes one clicks "save page" and fails to check the page (perhaps that's why we have the "show preview" button, of which I need to take better advantage).  Cordially, Joe
 * No worries; I didn't perceive you as improperly or untowardly chastizing. You were wholly correct and, in any case, your campaign to encourage editors to provide reasons in their PROD tags is altogether good and productive.  Joe 19:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've updated Articles_for_deletion to show how to use the prod tag: -- since that's where I originally saw the example, I did just what I saw there.  Hopefully that will educate people who are new to this procedure (which is just about everyone at this point). Cleduc 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have proposed Avangate for deletion due to reasons listed on the talk page. I didn't even know that prod supported adding a reason, now I know, and will use that instead. Thanks. -Mulder416 19:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 15:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag explanation.
Hello,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Bryan Schmidt entry. Although I had initially tagged the entry with, an anonymous user removed it. My guess is that the entry may very well be a vanity article.

At any rate, what I eventually did was include an tag — to avoid an edit war. Could you please review the entry and see if it qualifies as a legitimate entry in Wikipedia? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Folajimi 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on his talk. Sandstein 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. You are the third person who seems to be of the opinion that the entry in question has all the markings of a vanity article. What are the odds of successfully pursuing AfD with this entry? (FWIW, the subject is a "Production assistant" not a producer — whatever that means...) Folajimi(talk)
 * P.S. Thanks for informing me of the tag's additional features.

Prod
Thank you the information. Wasn't sure I could edit the template. Glad to know now that I can. I have got more experience with AfD. Thanks again for the information.-- Dakota ~  °  18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, me too. I figured it out later on my own, but it's good to have a reminder. Thanks. --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 19:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR caution. == ==

Hello there and welcome to Wikipedia! Please refrain from posting your own research/opinions/philosophy to Wikipedia. This is not allowed. Please remember that all contributions must be verifiable and cite reliable sources, or they can be deleted. Cheers, H0riz0n 01:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Note for the record: I posted this very message to H0riz0n in reaction to his creating a number of WP:OR articles such as Distributive Unconsciousness and Unified Theory of Cycles. After receiving a verbatim copy of the message in reply, I have enquired further. Sandstein 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell from Harmonics Theory, he seems to be editing in good faith, but is having trouble getting a handle on Wikipedia's policies. I've pointed him at the deletion/undeletion ones. --Christopher Thomas 05:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * After taking a look at his edit history, he also seems to have swallowed Ray Tomes' "cycles theory" stuff hook, line, and sinker. I'm attempting to explain "don't take pseudoscience at face value" to him. Time to put up a few AfD notices. --Christopher Thomas 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've noted this whole cycles theory stuff of his too, but decided to wait for now. I would support AfDs as non-notable pseudoscience cruft. Sandstein 05:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's up, at Articles for deletion/Cycle theory, though I've avoided touching the articles that date from the original debates, as I'd _really_ rather not burn out again. --Christopher Thomas 06:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Donlee
I thought you might like to look over what I have said at User:Donlee's talk page in reference to his additions to Wikipedia considering your question that as far as I can see has gone unanswered. Dismas|(talk) 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Unless verification is provided, I assume that Quantum idealism, Thought-Space and Interpretive reality are pretty obvious WP:OR and merit deletion. Best, Sandstein 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's late here and I just got in. I'm not going to reply to Donlee just yet as I have a stomach to fill and sleep to get to though I thought you might like to read what he has to say about my message to him.  It's at the bottom of my talk page if you'd like to read it.  If you feel that action should be taken for his articles, don't worry about stepping on my toes. Dismas|(talk) 03:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Soggy biscuit
Hallo- I noticed that you posted a 'Delete' vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (2). I have recently posted some new material that I feel satisfies the requirement for WP:N and WP:V- hopefully you may feel the same. In any event, best wishes and apologies for the intrusion. Badgerpatrol 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Prod
Thanks. I actually came across the articles that I put the tag on while I was patrolling and performing speedy deletions. I had my doubts whether they qualified for a speedy, so I put the proposed deletion tag on them as a less drastic alternative. Personally, I have no strong feeling regarding them either way. Elf-friend 06:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (Whose ancestor actually came frome the Bernese Oberland.)

Kusma's RfA
Hello, Sandstein! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. (I really wasn't an admin before today!) If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know prod can have a param, forgot to add one to '88 Games A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Added param. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, just thought you might not know it yet. It was simply advertised as prod for some time. Sandstein 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to add a parameter, and assumed the other templates listed gave enough reason. Oh, and could you use the User discussion pages (User talk:) to post messages to a user, and not the user page itself (User:)? That is what the discussion pages are for. Thanks again, Sir Isaac Lime 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thought you should, User:WoodDaver added an insult to your user page, most likely as a retalliation for your AfD nomination of one his pages. I undid it, but I wanted to give you a heads up, in case he does it again. Sir Isaac Lime 01:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? prod can have a parameter.
Hello there. You have proposed the article Harefield, Southampton for deletion without providing a reason why in the prod template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that:. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ow, wow! I didn't know that - thanks for letting me know.  However, in that specific case, the article was marked for speedy deletion under the criterion "no content".  I felt that the article did meet the requirements for speedy deletion and, hence, I could have deleted it, but, as I put in the edit summary, I felt there was room for expansion.  (For example, notable events that occurred in Harefield, famous people born there, census figures, etc.)  Therefore, I removed the CSD tag and added PROD.  I have not, though, readded PROD because you removed it, but if you feel that it deserves to be PRODed, feel free to readd it. -- M  @  th  wiz  20  20  22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for the reply, but it was not I who removed the PROD, but User:Punkmorten. I have no ide about the subject's notability. Plus, PROD is not allowed to be re-added once removed - next stop in this case is WP:AFD. See WP:PROD for more details.


 * Incidentally, could you tell me where you got the idea to add prod without parameter? Nothing against you, of course, but I see several people doing this and I wonder whether we have a information text somewhere on Wikipedia that needs to be amended. Best, Sandstein 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Same problem here Sandstein. I had been using prod with a parameter then I stopped doing so because I believed I was making a mistake in doing so - I couldn't see my reasoning appear anywhere, so assumed that actually it was different to db. If the parameter appeared more clearly, then I would have continued to use it. TheGrappler 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've initiated a discussion on Template_talk:Prod. Sandstein 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, on WP:PROD, under "Details of the process", bullet one says "you can tag them with undefined". (I didn't actually read the next section, so, well, there you go.) -- M  @  th  wiz  20  20  23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! I've now slightly modified WP:PROD to avoid this. Sandstein 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Airbus tag
The tag was not related to the A380. It was related to the BAe sale. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. Maybe move the tag down to the relevant section, then? Sandstein 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Prod
Hi! Thanks for the heads up! I hadn't been very active in Wikipedia for the last year and when I used the old VfD the prod procedure didn't even exist :) I'll tag the articles including a reason from now on. Sarg 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles
Thanks for "Welcoming" me to Wikipedia, but, as far as the two articles I started, Its a work in progress like all of Wikipedia's work. I would like it fif you would stop trying to delete my work and give me to the end of the weekend to finishg these articles. In talking about Minority Partnership programs especially when so many programs don't have thenm, I say since you happen to like to be a fan of my "work" that you wait until the aritcle is finished sometime today before making any more comments on it. Please and thank you! Awhitfie
 * Replied at Awhitfie's talk. Sandstein 21:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

if you want to nominate them for deletion, you are more than welcomed. Obviously you are not from the Dallas Fort Worth Area, so how you figure they are not notible ise the opinion of somebody who is in Europe compared to somebody who lives in America. Not all business in America are known to companies in Europ. Take for example The Irvine Company They are both the same company with same causes but that article isn't up for deletion. Maybe you should think about that before you nominate aritcles from deletion thereby discouraging people from editing or contributing to Wikipedia Awhitfie
 * Replied at Awhitfie's talk. Sandstein 05:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did some reasearch and have some newspaper sources and I'll add them on Awhitfie

Original Ideas---Quantum Mechanical Laws?! and Quantum Philosophy
You may want to do some research before making dumb remarks such as: quantum philosophers/philosophy and Quantum Mechanical Laws as being my original ideas. Distributed Unconsciousness is my original idea, as it has more evidence than Jung’s collective unconsciousness idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H0riz0n (talk • contribs)
 * Please read WP:NPA, provide links to what you are talking about and sign your messages. Sandstein 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Aibotteam
You have the patience of a saint! I noticed that one of the sockpuppets in Articles for deletion/Aibotteam, User:64.9.205.95, was also involved in the Articles for deletion/Astroseries puppetfest. Given that Astroseries was subsequently recreated, do you think it meets the criteria for speedy deletion? -AED 22:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * By all appearances, yes. I'm not an admin, so I can't see the previous article, but it does appear to be a repost (WP:CSD G4), and it's still not notable under WP:SOFTWARE. I've tagged it accordingly. As to Articles for deletion/Aibotteam, it appears I saw too late that I was talking to puppets... Sandstein 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

New user
Hi. I've created a new user name for the reason I state on my user page. While thinking about what to use, I saw your name on AfD and it reminded me of Sandestins, magical creatures from some of Jack Vance's books. I hope you do not think I would try to impersonate you or that the name would be a source of confusion. If you object, I will change it. Sandestin 00:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cross-posted to your user talk. Please continue disussion there.
 * Hello! Thanks for notifying me. I had no idea that I am a mis-spelt magical creature...
 * Frankly, since Username prohibits "names that can be confused with other contributors", I'd much prefer it if you would change it via Changing username. I think that would be beneficial for both of us in the long run. Consider this AfD, where a newbie suspected that Fagstein was a sockpuppet of mine just based on the similarity of our names. We'd have to spend a lot of time clearing up confusions like "but you voted already".
 * Best regards, Sandstein 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

CSD:A7
Thank you for your support and encouragement in the db-web TFD debate, when you wrote: "Keep, but ideally adjust to incorporate the consensually accepted CSD A7 wording." There was some resistence to creating a template that didn't exactly match the policy description, but I have discovered that the policy description does not fully reflect the policy proposals that have been approved. I have begun a discussion here. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling
Hi. You recently converted the citations on J. K. Rowling using cite.php. I'd like to point out a discussion to you that I started here, where I would offer that the consensus of the discussion was that there are a group of editors (myself included) that strongly oppose using the cite.php system in certain articles, and that it would be better for now to not convert articles from ref to cite.php without discussion, and that some articles should go ahead and stay formatted with {tl|ref}} for now. I'd like to ask you to not convert any more articles to cite.php without verifying that A. No one has done something similar recently in the page history (as has happened several times on J. K. Rowling and B. Leaving a note on the Talk page prior to making such conversion. Thanks, and best regards, &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for the message. I'll not endeavour an opinion as to the consensus of the discussion you cited, but I agree with part A of your request. I have no intention to force any purely technical change on any article where the editors involved don't agree, although I submit that the general consensus among those Wikipedians interested in footnotes does appear to be in favor of deprecating the older system, insofar as most of the conversions do not provoke any opposition.


 * For this reason, I don't really see the point of part B of your request, as on all other articles that have been converted so far by me there has been no controversy, and leaving a talk message prior to conversion would amount to un-bold formalism. A revert is all it takes if someone disagrees - I won't insist. Best, Sandstein 18:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good response. I admit that I don't understand why we should have to "ask permission" before converting references.  For one, there's WP:BOLD, and two, there's WP:OWN, which states that nobody owns an article and you don't have to ask permission to make edits.  Obviously if there is a contentious page then we should stop and discuss, but otherwise, posting messages to random article talk pages asking permission to convert references is absurd.  -- Cyde Weys  22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well personally I see the Be Bold guideline slightly differently. Basically what I would offer the policy is saying is: "If you are unsure if making a change is the right move, feel free to go ahead and do it. If there's a problem, it can be dealt with". However, if you do make a change that is questioned, it's probably a good idea to rethink your strategy. Don't also forget the section of the page that says"...but don't be reckless!": "But please note: 'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion, without carefully looking at your edit...An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily." The Be Bold guideline is not a catch-all excuse to do whatever you feel like doing to a particular page. Further, while the Ownership of articles policy is worth keeping in mind, I again will quote from the relevant page: "When making large scale removals of content(or changes), particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not." You need to be willing to respect that certain editors have contributed heavily to certain articles, and we willing to give some leniency to those editors if you run into a difference of opinion if you've not contributed heavily to that article before. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Tabdulla and Eonycteris
Hi. I notice that you asked (several weeks ago) Tabdulla whether his insect articles (specifically Eonycteris) were from copyrighted sources. I would like to ask if you ever received any sort of response? Some of his recent contributions seem rather suspicious to me. He has not responed to a copyright warning I put on his talk page. I'm just trying to figure out what is going on. —Veyklevar 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. No, I have received no communications from Tabdulla. In fact, I had forgotten about the matter until now. It would certainly be useful to look into some of the odder stuff he or she writes, e.g. Megadermatidae, which is just a bibliography that shows up verbatim on other articles he or she writes. Until something shows up, though, I'll just WP:AGF. Sandstein 04:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My concern was that some of the stuff he has posted on the topic of Malaysia was clearly copied and pasted from other websites. This may be well-intentioned and stem from some misunderstanding over copyrights, but it is still time consuming to clean up after.  He has now posted on Talk:Eonycteris, unfortunately he seems insulted. —Veyklevar 11:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

good page
I think the five generations of computing pages just needs editing and its fine allot of education instatutions have this as a assesment ite
 * Please link to what you are talking about and sign your posts. Sandstein 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Overuse of refconverter
Unreflective use of refconverter is causing many problems, and in many cases actively harming Wikipedia. The tool is nice to have—in fact, it's the impetus for me creating my own "Citation Tool" (still alpha). But it is nice to have to aid editors who are actually involved in editing a specific article, and who have reached consensus about making a given type of change to an existing article. Unfortunately, the semi-bot is largely being used to make "drive by 'improvements'" to articles where editors either have not considered the citation style, or where they have actively decided on something different from what the tool produces. This is extremely disrespectful to other Wikipedia editors, and a gross violation of process.

I have not looked at your specific changes made using the semi-bot, but I strongly recommend that you follow a guideline along the lines of: "Use this tool only after consensus for a change has been reached on the talk page of the article to which it is applied!"

You may also want to take a look at User:Evilphoenix/ref conversion. This is a sketch of an RfC that may be filed to try to resolve this problem (I see no reason you might not opine there, even while it lives in userspace). Ideally, Cyde will back off his insistence on changing all articles, even where against editor consensus. But unfortunately, his attitude has only become more belligerent when I have repeated requests in this regard. I think a positive involvment of well-meaning users of the semi-bot might help matters resolve amicably. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ref converter RFC
You are receiving this message because you are on the Ref converter spamlist.

Hello there, I'd just like to make you aware that Lulu has filed an RfC against me and "other users of Ref converter". Since Lulu has previously contacted you regarding Ref converter I think it is safe to assume that you are one of the people named in the "other users of Ref converter" bit, so you may want to get involved. Just a heads-up, Cyde Weys  18:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra edit buttons
Hi. Thanks for pointing out that the extra edit buttons were not working. I have updated the script and it seems to be working for me. I have also added some more information to the Village Pump. If you still have problems let me know. --MarkS 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, now they work fine. Thank you! Sandstein 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Friedli ref on Copyright law of Switzerland
Hi Sandstein, I see that you added a link to a new ref about Copyright law of Switzerland, and it looks interesting (and very relevant to the page). Given that I don't have access to Weblaw, and that the abstract I found there was not particularly helpful, do you think you could summarise shortly what Friedli says on the topic (in comparison to, say, the fair use rules that we use on Wikipedia). Sorry for pushing you if that was part of your plans; no urgency if it was not. Cheers, Schutz 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to do that when I have time. Sandstein 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)