User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2007/August

Užican speech
Hello. You have recently deleted the article Užican speech with no regards to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Užican speech. Your point was lack of references in the article, which according to you as a core policy overrules any consensus and ends the discussion. If you had read the discussion, however, you would have seen that even though there are no extensive sources on the subject, there are references to support the article after all. And although you proclaimed end of the discussion, can you please comment on this, concerning that at least some verifiable sources can be found? --George D. Božović 12:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I did have regard to Articles for deletion/Užican speech, since I closed the discussion. According to WP:DGFA, three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates these policies. According to WP:V, material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.
 * In this case, since there were no references cited in the article even at the end of the AfD, it failed WP:V and had to be deleted. In the event that you find accessible reliable sources documenting this dialect, you may recreate the article and cite them. Sandstein 12:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know the AfD ended. Alright then, I'll recreate the article (a stub likely because of the lack of time) at User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић/Užican speech and I'll provide references in it, so I would like you to check it for WP:V and WP:RS before I put it back in the main namespace. Is it OK? --George D. Božović 14:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but you do not need me to check it for verifiability; see these instructions. If it gets re-deleted as a recreation, you can appeal this to deletion review, explaining that your new version addresses the problems highlighted in the AfD, namely WP:V problems. Sandstein 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. Thank you very much. :) --George D. Božović 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Timeline of Futurama
This article was clearly delete material while the discussion appeared to be leaning toward keep. Instead of keeping it on a non-consensus, you said that WP:NOR issues override consensus. I don't understand, could you elaborate? This is not a challenge. I am just trying to understand the reasoning. ~ Infrangible 03:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Our deletion guidelines for administrators stipulates the following:
 * Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates these policies, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching these three policies, these policies must be respected above other opinions.
 * In the instance of Articles for deletion/Timeline of Futurama, it was not in dispute that no reliable source exists that provides a timeline for the series, and that the timeline as provided in the article was made up either by interpreting the show's episodes directly, or by relying on works by fans who had done this. This is original research, and in the absence of a reliable source, no article on that topic can currently exist without original research. Accordingly, the deletion of the current article was mandated, no matter what the result of the discussion was. Sandstein 05:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that would seem to put a lot of power in the hands of administrators, but Looking at the discussion, all the dissenters called it WP:OR, so it's not like you made the decision unilaterally. Thank you for the link. ~ Infrangible 14:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић/Užican speech
Alright, you can check it out now. :) --George D. Božović 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that certainly looks like a well-sourced article to me. Nice work. But since I don't speak Serbian, checking the references is beyond me. One thing, though: per WP:V, it would be desirable to cite at least one English-language source if one exists. However, I think you can safely move this article to article space without having to fear a speedy deletion under WP:CSD. Sandstein 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. Thank you very much. ;) --George D. Božović 12:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD
Following your recent participation in Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:MilletsFarmCentre.png
Seeings you so quickly deleted the article Millets Farm Centre, could you please delete the image I uploaded as well. I was going to expand the article to make it notable - I really hate writing an article in one go, I like to do a tiny bit, then add a bit more, then add a bit more etc. etc. However, I really can't be bothered now - this has taken the wind out my sails somewhat. The Islander 20:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. I can, however, restore if you wish to work on it. It is better to develop such articles in userspace to prevent just what has happened here. Sandstein 20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, thanks anyway. I'll work on it for a few days, and then maybe submit it again, in the hope that it's not deleted within 5 minutes. I would just like to ask one thing: if the article had been left 30-45 minutes, it would have been completely notable. Also, on a slightly different topic, taking a look at my contributions would make it quite clear that I'm not a vandal. Taking those two into consideration, why was it deleted within a time frame so short that no other editing could be done? The Islander 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because what was posted met the criteria of WP:CSD. I'm sorry to appear curt, but it is up to you not to post speediable content. We get so much crap at Special:Newpages that we don't necessarily have the time to check every editor's bona fides – not that I question yours. Sandstein 20:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Red 7's deletion
I understand why the page was deleted. How can I provide evidence of the importance so that the page gets undeleted? The band Red 7's released an album (which is still for sale), performed regularly, had album and concert reviews and even a following of fans etc. Should I recreate the page and provide all the evidence, or which way should I proceed? Thanks for your help.

Shiftedreality 21:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The best way to proceed would be to recreate in a form that clearly meets the requirements of WP:BAND and includes external links to reliable sources that support whatever claims to notability this band has (e.g., media coverage, tours...). The deleted content follows below for your convenience. Sandstein 21:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Red 7's is the artist name of Hilde Sevens, who founded the band with the same name in 2001 together with Gina Ulness.

Red 7's Band
The members of the band were: Hilde Sevens (lead singer and rhythm guitar), Gina Ulness (backing vocals and keyboard), Brad Howard (bass), Philip Charlton (lead guitar) and Dave Stewart (drums). After the band split in 2003, Hilde Sevens continued as a solo artist.

Violation of WP:ATA
I'm always trying to be a better editor. Where did I violate WP:ATA in the deletion discussion for Socionomics? -- Orange Mike 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First, be assured that I meant no offence. You expressed yourself as follows:
 * Delete - A case may be made for the need for an article on "social mood in economics" with socionomics as one of the terms for it; but that would be Original Research.
 * Since your proposal had no bearing on the actual article at issue, Socionomics, but rather on a potential new article, Social mood in economics, your opinion to delete Socionomics was just a vote, as it was not accompanied by a deletion rationale. (You can't technically violate WP:ATA, though, since it is only an essay.) Sandstein 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I felt my reasoning (that the article was inappropriate in its present form, but might form part of a larger article not yet existent) was implicit in my remarks. (Indeed, I think I more or less said so.) -- Orange Mike 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did make a good argument for merging earlier in the debate - which is a different outcome than deletion, though. My comment regarding ATA related to your delete vote only. Sandstein 15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics
Thanks for closing this messy debate. Do you think the Socionomics redirect should be protected so that potential new evidence has to be presented at WP:DRV first before the article is recreated? ~ trialsanderrors 05:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the event of the article being recreated in a form that would merit a WP:CSD deletion, yes. I would not do it preemptively. Someone may write a "Socionomics" article or dab page that has nothing to do with the usage of the term as it was discussed on AfD. Sandstein 05:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pie Factory @ mediacity:uk
Hi there, I wrote this page for information purposes of a new business which has started in Salford, it precedes the mediacity:uk project which is due to launch in 2011. It's worth of inclusion, I believe, as it represents a fair proportion of the BBC moving to the North of England and possibly other media companies too. Can you recommend how I would go about writing a viable article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsharma (talk • contribs)


 * Certainly. First, if you are involved with this project, you should not write an article about it (see WP:COI). To be viable, an article must be written neutrally (see WP:NPOV) and its content must be attributable to reliable sources (see all of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS). In addition, the article must show why the topic is significant enough to have an article. See WP:N for the general notability criteria or WP:CORP for the notability criteria for corporations. Sandstein 12:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the information, I think I'll leave it for now as I think the content needs to be in a more detailed and sourced state before uploading to wikipedia and time's not on my side! An idea might be to edit the mediacity:uk page that already exists on Wikipedia with further information and build from there? If so will do so in due course and submit for evaluation. Thanks for your assistance.


 * Yes, mediacity:uk would probably be a better place to put such content, but of course the rules referred above about neutrality and verifiability also apply to such edits. Content that is deemed too advertisement-like may be speedily deleted. Sandstein 14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

IVIRTUA - THANKS
Thanks alot for deleting my article on the community ivirtua which i am member of - i just wanted to create an article about it cause i like it - only to discover that you come along and delete it - why? do you have a life? seriously. do get one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiesmith 07 (talk • contribs)


 * Please keep a civil tongue, or you will be blocked. See WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:CSD. Sandstein 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The first powerball importers in europe
I am not a editor and don't understand wiki but info should be correct and so on, it is not for powerballs! You can call u by the phone nr ore mail from that website emailadress in Deutsch oder Nederlands)

powerball pages violates against many rules of wiki but also against european laws.

As for sure we are importer from 1994 and some brand holder and so ons. Lawsuites won by us in Benelux people have to pay for improper talk about other brands then nsd because it is not true they are copie from nsd powerballs because they where years before nsd powerballs on the market also powerball is a simular name for a lot of powerball gyro's this is in a lawsuite proven to be so.

"nsd powerball" "nsd power" are brand names but "powerball" itself is not a brand in europe ( only china or so) for powerballs dynabee powerballs and gyrotwister powerballs are other brandnames

so if dynabee on wiki is changed or deleted or pointed to later powerball wiki pages then there should be also dynabee and other brands on it otherwise thes powerball pages are only used as hidden advertising for one brand and also abused in a lot of languages to talk bad about other powerballs and brands and yes also a lot of information links and so on is commercial or pointing / hosted on commercial sites.

When we did point links to independed sites for some proof they get them of so what is wiki a independed encyclopedia or a commercial advertising board where people can damages other brand names and talk bad about other whithout any proof of that this is true and so on.

We have a lot of proof after 3 years lawsuites and so on.

see for info dynabee.de and powerball.cc

please take some real action clean all mess and untrue unlawfull info!?

regards john

i don't understand why when with proof ( lawsuites and other independed) information is placed on that pages that is removed and "the crap" is comming back

80.140.228.136 11:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. I do not understand what you are talking about, because you are not expressing yourself clear enough. Your contributions indicate that you disagree with some content in the article Powerball (exercise tool). If so, I have no authority to help you. You should discuss any changes you want to make on the talk page of the article. You should also read the following pages to help you understand our rules: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:EL. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I did for years now makes no sense at all because of some guys changing deleting and or replacing just one brand commercial stuff. Thast why. Also i complained by mail and phone to wiki staff and so on, again i am not a wiki person / editor so its not my responsibylte to check and keep wiki pages clean from mess. But there should not at a lot of powerball gyory wiki pages in different languages you can read the wiki rules if i change them back to or the same commercial stuf the others do or place just proof hostes on non commercial the wiki banned me and or lockout  adn so on.

So just one side /is on the pages because these guys like to edit wiki, thats good but not good is that its damaging to others brands and real commercial.

You say yourself read the wiki rules commercial is out they asked me to change my links and documents of proof to host on a non commercial url.

if you take a look you see even then the deleted them, also the commercial links for that companay's / persons keeps in wiki.

So why is wiki doing nothing about this only protecting one side to abuse the wiki rules???? I am not good in typing so i dont like to be on wiki as editor and reading this stuf yes i must react ofcourse if someone is calling yoy ore wiki a lier or doin g bad then you and wiki react also i did  this is normal.

We had some lawsuits about almost the same issues we won them all, if wiki is saying that they are serious they should serious react and not doing the opposite, wiki is in the end responsoble for what is on it, important in Europe is therefore wich language / country and so on, then that country / european law is counting for these articles. Not hiding sofar behind yes we are not responsible for what is on our side and the American law is counting, this is so easy sofar for simple to check stuf, ( i did mention before the oppposite is done a lock or ip ban if i say something about that with a lot of documents yes in dutch or german . Should not be a problem if you count the wiki pages / editors for that languages, but is seems to be read the articles because the proofing thing are from other countrys / languages the delete the links but also the in english comment of me and other person that have made some parts in the articles translated if a real university doc in german, lawsuit papers with a stamp on it are not true and important at all to proof what is right and or wrong!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.228.136 (talk • contribs)


 * I still do not understand what your problem is. Can you get someone else (an adult maybe, if you are a minor?) to explain what action exactly you want me to take? Sandstein 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry minor!!!?!?!?!?! I am adult only not good in (typing) and english, Exactly you can have a look at the powerball gyro gyrotwister and dynabee pages in all languages then you see yourself if you take some time what is wrong with these pages against the wiki rules! It seems to me you don't like to spend some time if needed to read this articles ? If you did read ( history and talk pages and so on) then i think you will understand A lot of it is obvious breaking the wiki rules. Feel of course free to do so. I think if it takes time for wiki admins/editors then they takes to most easy way? ( and therefore not to edit or administrator the true correct way?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.228.86 (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry, I cannot help you if you cannot state what action exactly you want me to take. Sandstein 16:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak
I must say I am (obviously, since I initiated the discussion) disappointed in your administrative decision. I'm not sure what you think consensus means -- surely not sheer agreement? Informed disagreement, shouldn't that be the only "no consensus" ruling? Otherwise, the low signal-to-noise ratio of many AfDs will totally impede the discussion, as I argue it has here. Also, you mentioned that "both camps are of roughly equal size", which sounds troublingly like vote-counting. And then you assert that both arguments are "plausible", without getting into the nitty-gritty of just why you think that is the case. Comments? Pablosecca 09:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume you refer to Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (4th nomination)? WP:DGFA#Rough consensus means that a substantial majority of participants, excluding those discounted for being sockpuppets, anons, or for making no substantial arguments, are in favour of deletion. There simply was no such consensus to delete the article, no matter how you look at it. Sandstein 09:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you insist on counts, there were 13 arguing for delete or redirect versus 7 for keep, discounting bad arguments on both sides (eg, one lines like "seems notable," WP:NOTAGAIN, etc). It had been my hope that we'd find an admin that would be willing to go into each argument, one by one, in detail. It harms Wikipedia a lot to have these things decided through systemic laziness -- I believe in "no consensus" decisions, but I thought they were for when official policy genuinely seems to contradict itself, causing agreement to be impossible. Pablosecca 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, no, "no consensus" results result when there is no consensus, not if there cannot be consensus. It seems we disagree about what bad arguments are, or one of us is bad at counting. Either way, I do not think a discussion of individual arguments is worth the time. You may find more sympathetic ears at WP:DRV, but since this was the 4th AfD, I would be surprised if that forum would be more willing than I to find a consensus either way. Sandstein 17:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I must respectfully disagree: "An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review." Pablosecca 07:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

your comments at my user talk page
Hi - If you read on the talk page and the template pages you would find I was perfectly within my rights to do so. --Bennyboyz3000 10:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didn't realise page existed, sorry -Bennyboyz3000 10:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY ARTICLE?
The article about Dvar has the right to be here, and its new and i still had information to add to it. Return it imediately!!! M.V.E.i. 20:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the article has no right to be here as long as it meets WP:CSD, i.e. it dos not assert notability (see WP:BAND). Sandstein 20:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is importent because the band is well-known in Russia among the fans of the genre and very influencing. Their also known in Italy, because they worked with an Italian lable. M.V.E.i. 20:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you know what?? If your so smurt in deleting articles, why wont you do something useful and halp editing and improving it. Easy to delete, try to create. M.V.E.i. 20:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is up to you to add this assertion of notability to the article, and to back it up with reliable sources. Sandstein 20:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As i can see on your talk page, im not the only one not hapy with the way you are administrator. Try to listen to people and not to delete whatever you see as not importent, i personaly see it as somthing importent. M.V.E.i. 20:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable. Their offical record-lables, and interview. M.V.E.i. 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion of notability does not matter. Our policies do. Fan websites and corporate websites are neither reliable nor independent; see WP:RS. Sandstein 21:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But those are not the only web-sites i gave. I also gave their OFFICAL record lables and an interview, with the mambers of the duo. My personal notability opinion does matters. People decide everything. M.V.E.i. 21:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not read Russian, so I will leave it at that. But the website of the record label is not an independent source; it does not count. Sandstein 21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem
Youve deleted the articles on Bi-2 (band), Piknik, Voskreseniye. Those are 3 of the most importent Russian rock bands. Please return the articles because its importent to have those bands, they are very influensial. Bi-2 ibfluenced on the whole 90s Rock scene in Russia. Voskreseniye and Piknik are classical. Its importent to have those. Deleting them is like deleting Pink Floyd or The Beatles. For you they are maybe not importent, but for the history of Russian Rock and those who are interested in it it's very importent. Wikipedia is a free edit place. Now the articles maybe are not high quality, but with more users coming and editing they will be. M.V.E.i. 21:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will certainly restore these articles, if you can produce an indication of their notability, i.e. substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Without such sources, the articles fail WP:V anyway. Note that it is your responsability to make sure the article meets these minimal standards before you post them. Sandstein 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Im a student and i dont have much time. I cant give you English-speaking sources, but i can tell you myself (Plus they are all told-about in the Russian rock article). Voskreseniye and Piknik are 80s band but are active today two. Both have the status of classic in Russian. Piknik created a style which combines Russian rock, Progressive rock, and Jazz. Voskreseniye creates Rock N Roll and Blues. Bi-2 came in the 90's, and all of it's singles are always at the tom of the charts. They have, much like Splin, a sound which is influenced by original Russian rock but also includes modern Alternative rock elements. M.V.E.i. 21:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You will need to find the time to find sources if you want the articles back. Russian sources are OK, as long as other users can check them (i.e., they are ideally online). Sandstein 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Heres about bi-2 in English: http://russmus.net/band.jsp?band=Bi-2

heres their Russian site, that wont help you much, but anyway: http://www.bdva.ru/

Heres a Voskreseniya sait, but it's in Russian: http://www.voskresenie-club.ru/

Hers the Rus-Wikipedia article on them: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%28%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B0%29

Heres the Piknik Rus-Wikipedian article: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA_%28%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA-%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B0%29

And heres their site: http://www.piknik.info/

Most of the refferences are in Russian so it wont help you much, but you could at least geat a sort-off picture. M.V.E.i. 21:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User College Watch
Hi. You declined the first unblock request of. He has submitted a new one. I am willing to give him another chance given his history of otherwise fairly positive contributions but I'd like to make sure it's ok with you and blocking admin Kinu. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I agree with Kinu: he should be unblocked only if we are sure he understands what the is blocked for (sockpuppetry) and credibly says he won't do it again. This does not seem to be the case right now. Sandstein 05:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester2
Hey Sandstein, personally, I still see four reversions (and I'm pretty sure that Raymond Arritt who also reviewed the case did as well), but I've looked through that page history so many times I'm going blind, so I'll leave it up to you. I think he should sit out some of the block for edit waring over "During the campaign, Howard used the now-famous slogan" but if you want to reduce it, go for it. Sarah 11:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, can you hold off doing anything. I just got an email from him that had been snagged in my junk mail filter. I'd like to respond to a proposal he made which I find agreeable and would be willing to unblock. Sarah 11:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I gave you the links
They are in the previous discution here on your page. Hope you could get an at least distorted picture on who they are and why are they importent. M.V.E.i. 22:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look at them in the course of the day once I have time. Sandstein 05:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Wikipedia and the bands' own websites are not reliable sources, and neither is http://russmus.net, which appears to be an enthusiast-run website. Because these sources are not reliable, they are insufficient to establish notability and to warrant a restoration. Sandstein 10:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Every band-article in Wikipedia gives the offical web-site of the band as the main source. It's reliable because the information there is being aproved by the band. M.V.E.i. 13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Band websites are in Wikipedia as a useful link, not as a source. To establish notability, sources must be independent from the subject of the article. From footnote 1 of WP:BAND:
 * "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist. (See Attribution for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. he rationale for this is easy to see -- someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, etc. does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory." Sandstein 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

David Oh
Should David Oh be tagged as a db-bio? I am sure it's a conflict of interest here and the article creator (it appears the IP is him as well) is constantly removing it. -WarthogDemon 20:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Deleted. Sandstein 20:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I sometimes feel I'm too nice with these guys and thereby making them feel like they can just slip under the radar. :P Oh well. -WarthogDemon 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, his persistence has earned Mr. Oh a place on Wikipedia now, if only on WP:PT. Sandstein 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To that I could say "Oh my" or "Oh dear" but puns that bad are probably not allowed. :) Anyway, thanks for the help! -WarthogDemon 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:HDWitch
Why did you unblock that guy? His contributions consist solely of harassment, which has continued since you unblocked him. Baseball Bugs 20:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not unblock him, - the blocking admin - did. I just removed a residual autoblock. Sandstein 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger. I'll take the case to him. Baseball Bugs 21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cathcart
I didn't even get to read a copy of the Cathcart article's edits before it was deleted. What you saw was a largely POV and often ill-informed anti-CAM editors exercise a "majoritarian" trampling that doesn't aid WP content. I would appreciate a copy of it to read and improve since a number of issues will require dead tree library time. I haven't decided which course(s) of action will be appropriate, but this AfD showed some serious POV problems at WP. Its initiation started after a statment of a COI by a med resident a little over a week ago about the vitamin C topic in a flare up of the altmed/vitamin C wars and began a POV run on the vitamin C articles that will take a while to straighten out and clean up, filing an AfD against a quiescent, underdeveloped article, seconded by all the anti-CAM type editors, many all too familiar. Thanks for your patient understanding.--TheNautilus 23:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the dispute you are referring to, and I will not restore an article based on a generalised personal attack against a number of other editors. See WP:AGF. Sorry. Sandstein 05:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: your deletion of Voluntary Sleep Deprivation
You have deleted this without reasonable cause - It was not recreated, absolutely no copying and pasting, was excellently referenced and started from scratch. Please undelete! Cheers --Bennyboyz3000 03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * An editor has asked for a deletion review of Voluntary sleep deprivation. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I have nominated this for undeletion as I spent ages referencing and writing it, was a good article and not recreation at all. Bennyboyz3000 03:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? Why are you setting this up to seem as if content was copied from all-nighter, when it obviously was copied from Voluntary Sleep Deprivation? Please, don't set me up. --Bennyboyz3000 08:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A personal attack? Where did I attack you? I just pointed out that you were lying! --Bennyboyz3000 19:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lying? That is a substantial charge, one that you should not make lightly. Please explain more clearly. Sandstein 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ladb2000
I have unblocked this User. Thanks for drawing my attention to it - although I have some doubts about his/her explanation (the User has deleted lots of warnings from the User talk page (see ), I will take the User at his/her word that it was a mistake. Carlossuarez46 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

PatPeter
I saw you agreee that PatPeter has been blocked with no real reason. The strange thing is that the the blocking admin hasn't replied to both your and mine requests. Tomorrow I'll report him. Feel free to email me.--Doktor Who 11:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not inclined to intervene here; two other admins have declined the unblock request of on reasonable grounds. Sandstein 19:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which reasonable grounds? have you changed your mind?--Doktor Who 10:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I chnged my mond myself, it seems a joke account, I cant believe it's a real person, II'm sure he's been invented just to hurt vegans/vegetarians, strange world.--Doktor Who 10:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam
The vandal has started using a different IP, maybe sprotection is in order? -- Jeff3000 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Sandstein 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Jeff3000 20:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks very much for the unblock, 'preciate it. I actually asked a while ago for this IP to be softblocked for a while so something like this wouldn't happen, 'cause I kinda knew it was coming. Personally think it should be longer than it is, 'cause there's a lot of people that use this IP, and the vandalism is just gonna continue every time the block expires. Is there such this as a softblock for an indefinite amount of time?  Lychosis  T / C  20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible, but IPs are on principle never blocked indef. If vandalism recommences after the block expires, a notice on WP:AIV should do it. Eventually, the vandals will move away or grow up. Sandstein 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll keep that WP:AIV thing in mind. I just really don't think the vandalism's ever gonna stop from here, whenever it's unblocked.  Lychosis   T / C  20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Bennyboyz3000
I could be mistaken, but I think he's gotten your point; any objection to unblocking at this point? – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied at his talk (and now I'm off for lunch). Sandstein 10:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Leavepower
Regarding my WP:AIV report, the vandalisms by Leavepower were due to his content blanking.

This diff (at 10:08, 16 August 2007) includes the final warning (together with other warnings blanked by Leavepower). This edit (at 10:23, 16 August 2007) clearly occured after that final warning, and deleted contents from the Karate article.

Also, if you look carefully, there are 4 recent warnings in his talk page related to vandalism, all of them are due to his continual blanking of contents or tags.--Endroit 11:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, blanking of warnings on one's talkpage is frowned upon but not forbidden, and removing unsourced content is often a good thing. If you want the content to stay, you should add it back with a reliable source. See WP:V, WP:RS. Sandstein 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation. I now understand your WP:V concerns in the Karate article, and understand the reason for your decision not to block the user.  However my 3 initial warnings in User talk:Leavepower should still remain valid as follows:
 * 1st warning: Sourced contents removed from Koror-Babeldaob Bridge
 * 2nd warning: Sourced contents removed from Koror-Babeldaob Bridge (repeated it after 1st warning)
 * 3rd warning:  tag removed from User:Replystay
 * Please let me know otherwise if you disagree. Thank you.--Endroit 21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by saying the warnings should be "valid"? That they should remain displayed on the talk page? I'm sorry, but no policy requiring users not to blank their talk pages has ever gained consensus, although it's admittedly bad practice (see generally, WP:TPG). The warnings are preserved in the talk page history, anyway. Sandstein 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe my 3 initial warnings were legitimately made against content removal by this user (as described in each case). Do you agree or disagree?  (I'm not talking at all about when he removed my warnings later.)--Endroit 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it matter? If these warnings were in fact valid, do you want me to take administrative action, and if yes, what? Sandstein 06:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't matter, and you don't need to take any action, especially since User:Leavepower was indef blocked already. However, this message you left in my talk page was uncalled for, since you had no evidence of my being in any content dispute with Leavepower at that time.  That's the only reason I'm having this discussion with you.  Perhaps you were confused.  But that's OK.  Let's just forget about it.--Endroit 09:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your e-mail
Hi. In reply to your e-mail of August 16, I am afraid I cannot do anything since you did not suggest any specific action to take. In the event of any future problems, please use WP:DR or post on WP:AIV, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:SSP etc. as appropriate. Also, I prefer communicating on-Wikipedia unless private information is involved. Thanks. Sandstein 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't turn snotty on me. I asked you, in your admin capacity (with information that was private because it a) was personal opinion and and b) can only be verified by CHECKUSER) to monitor a dispute where there are long-standing contentious editing issues (like an editor who is in long-term breach of the WP:AGF guideline). Isn't that what admins are for? Watching the dispute and user was the specific action I asked for. Gordonofcartoon 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I am afraid I must decline. I will not "monitor" another editor based on the unsubstantiated allegation that he may be doing bad things in the future. If you ask for intervention based on concrete, actionable evidence, I or another admin will be glad to assist you. Please remember that admins are volunteers, like all editors, and calling them "snotty" when asking for help will not generally yield better results, either. Sandstein 06:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you that when asking for help. That bit related to your bureaucratic and totally unhelpful response. Remember WP:NOT. Even if you don't believe my take on it, there's an ongoing situation where I don't think it was unreasonable to ask you to monitor to see fair play. Gordonofcartoon 08:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to be perceived as bureaucratic. But I will not expend my time monitoring another user based on unspecific allegations that he may be doing something bad in the future. You do not need administrator tools to do that on your own. If you have concrete, actionable evidence of misbehaviour, provided in the form of diffs, I or another admin will be ready to help. Sandstein 08:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of some Banpresto Original articles
I find it rather unfair that if you suggest to delete the articles of several Banpresto Original pages, you only delete a select few. If you want to delete, delete them all, otherwise I will start recreating some lost pages in conduction of the newly created Banpresto Original Characters page. If several pages such as the Axel Almer and Folka Albark page can get deleted because it 'lacked cited sources', I don't see why the rest shouldn't be deleted because they blatantly suffer the same problem: lacking cited sources.

Do notify about your decision about it. Thank you.

~N J B —The preceding  signed but undated.


 * I don't understand what you are talking about. Please provide a link to the articles whose deletion you think was unfair. Sandstein 08:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Those pages are deleted already, but I'll provide you the link to the discussion pertaining its debate for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AS_Alegr%C3%ADas. Well, the characters Axel Almer and Folka Albark are just as important as the other characters listed in the Banpresto Originals Category. I'm saying that if these two pages are deleted because of 'lack of citation', you should also propose the other pages of the Banpresto characters to be deleted as well, because most of them also lack of citations. If you think you can't do it, then please don't stop people from recreating the pages, even if they lack citations, because other similar pages are like that as well. (In fact, the Alt Eisen & Alt Eisen Riese got reuploaded, only merged into one). I am aware that a few pages such as the Cybuster page do have citations, but unfortunately, most of them do not. ~N J B


 * I may not delete other "Banpresto" articles on my own, because they do not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. If the articles listed at Articles for deletion/AS Alegrías are recreated, however, they will be deleted per WP:CSD. In other words, every article is considered on its own merits. If you want the other "Banpresto" articles to be deleted, you must nominate them for deletion on WP:AFD. If you want to restore the deleted ones, write them again - with good sources - and submit them to WP:DRV. Sandstein 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All right then. Well if in any case I want to give out a sample page where there is at least a 'reliable source', is there a way to show it to you first before actually uploading it there? N J B -

Protection on Rex Germanus’ talk page
Hi, Rex Germanus’ talk page is still protected, and users are trying to communicate with him. I would appreciate it if you could un-protect. --Van helsing 22:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody already did. Sandstein 08:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, thanks for checking nevertheless. --Van helsing 11:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WritersUA deletion review
I posted the following question on the review page: Question, The process document does not provide us with any guidelines as to where/what/when you needed to have references. In the challenge I said I could provide numerous references. Do you want them now? How many? What types? Where should I deliver them to the reviewers? We can provide references from academics, corporations, professional societies, notable experts, etc. Google has 20,000 references to our organization from sources all around the world. Most of the hits are referencing original articles that have contributed to the knowledge-base of the user assistance community. Over 800 hits reference survey results alone. Most of the hits referencing the annual conference are not advertising - rather they are describing industry news and insights that came out of the technical sessions. Approximately 40-50 industry experts speak at the event each year. With respect to the authority of referencing entities, I would assume the size of the pond should not be as important as an organization's relative size in that pond. User assistance is a relatively small part of the overall IT industry. It does not regularly receive notices on large, mainstream web sites. But it is vital and vibrant. The numerous organizations and individuals that reference WritersUA may not be well known in the mainstream but they are certainly well=respected within our community. Joe Welinske 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Request to reconsider Unblocking Balu2000
In this link you can see Elias persistent efforts to post hateful remarks, about a subject that doesn't relate to the article!. And he should not be punished just because he replied to a hateful insult with a default insult that doesn't carry any direct threat, If what Balu said was a threat then the same applies to Elias.
 * I don't agree with what Balu said, but User:EliasAlucard started provoking him with hateful comments and accusations. And I don't see the threat in what he said?
 * I am A a Christian Arab and a Congress of Truth Anti-Islamist activist, but I dont hate muslims and I dont want to be associated with the EXTREME hate speech that user: EliasAlucard promotes. I hope you reconsider unblocking User:Balu2000 because he is a good contribuitor to Mizrahi and Arab articles, he simply was provoked by User: EliasAlucard hate speech
 * I never agreed with Balu on many subjects, but I had a similar experience with User:EliasAlucard trolling and provacative spamming. You can see his threats and vulgar language in Assyrians, Arameans, Syriac, Ancient Arabia related talk pages--Skatewalk 01:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * EliasAlucard may well have been guilty of misconduct as well, but that in no way justifies the conduct of or is grounds for his unblocking. See the discussion on his talk page. Sandstein 05:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samaka GPMG mount
Hi, I see you are working on AFD today. Could you have a look at this Articles for deletion/Samaka GPMG mount botched nom? I don't know how to fix the transclusion thingy. Leibniz 16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Sandstein 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! By the way, you restored my faith in WP with the Pribor. For a moment I thought arguments like "my own poking around" would prevail by sheer mind-numbing repetition. Leibniz 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was amusing to see that cited as a source. Sandstein 18:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LogMeIn (2nd nomination)
Hello! I noticed that you speedily deleted LogMeIn earlier today. Unfortunately I am unable to review the page to judge for myself if it meets WP:CSD G11, but from everything I can tell it probably did. Regardless, my reading of the discussion suggests that in contrast to your comments, a consensus was indeed reached to keep the article. A significant majority of the editors felt that the subject was notable and the article should be kept, and acceptable references were cited. Since it is likely just a matter of time before someone recreates the article, might I suggest you consider undeleting the article and reducing the article to a stub in keeping with the WP:CSD policy, specifically the section that reads: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved or reduced to a stub; if so, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." Thanks for your attention! Ccscott 21:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. Please see the "LogMeIn" thread below. I'll restore it so people can work on it. Sandstein 06:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

LogMeIn
Hi, Sandstein. That was clearly a rushed decision. The article might've had a promotional angle, but it was a far cry from blatant advertising. Certainly not sufficient to qualify for deletion under CSD G11.

I also fail to see the lack of notability consensus. There are two comments that question notability, both countered with arguments and with no follow-ups from their original posters. Notability is so trivial to check, it is simply not a question at all. Just type LogMeIn in Google, it will take 5 seconds, you will see what I mean.

Please reverse the deletion and let current editors complete the clean up. As you probably well aware, restoring the article (even with a brand new content) after it was deleted is a very long and painful process. Thank you. Alex Pankratov 00:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I would like to second this. I do not think it is right to delete an article on what is admitted to be a notable subject just because the article is imperfect while people are still working on improving it. I think that an abnormally high quality threshold has been applied in this decision and there are plenty of articles which are of considerably lower quality which are allowed to exist in peace. I think that the article should be brought back, minus any parts which are felt to be really inappropriate, so that work can continue.


 * I also strongly depreciate the behaviour of those who have simply advocated deletion without even giving a clue what their specific objections are. I removed everything I regarded as blatantly promotional and I was left floundering wondering what I had to do next. I have no interest in advertising LogMeIn. I am simply interested in remote access technologies and I think it bizzare that Wikipedia should have articles about many such systems, including some very minor ones, but refuse to allow one on one of the major players in that area. If you doubt this then check out my work on RFB Protocol.


 * I believe that this decision would benefit from a fuller review by multiple admins. I assume that there is a process for this. Please advise. --DanielRigal 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. I can restore the content to the user space of one of you (e.g. User:DanielRigal/LogMeIn) so that you can work on it, making it read less like an advertisement, before restoring it to article namespace. OK? Sandstein 06:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please do this. That location is fine. Also, if you have a moment, please take a quick look at the article GoToMyPC, which is about a similar product. To guide me towards an acceptable article structure and tone, I could follow that as a template. Does that sound like a good way forward? --DanielRigal 09:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. The other article you link to reads a bit less like an advertisement. Try to write about more than just the features and advantages of the product, and ideally use only reliable independent sources for any content. Sandstein 11:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reconsideration of Aristean calendar
Dear Sandstein,

I noticed that you deleted the article Aristean calendar on 2007 August 25 19:40 (UTC).

Could you please read what I wrote in the Talk page of the Aristean calendar? I am appealing to your decision. Are the newspaper articles that are in Flickr not reliable enough to the authenticity of what I said? The text of the article, if the picture is illegible, is in my website at Geocities.

The article on Macarthur Chronicle on 1994 September 13 attest to the fact that the Perpetual Calendar, later known as the Aristean calendar, was presented to the Australian Parliament by House of Representative MP the Honorable Chris Haviland on 1994 September 1. His speech was recorded in Current House Hansard, page 949. How about the academic evaluation of the calendar by academicians of the University of Sydney? Do they not qualify?

Aristeo Canlas Fernando 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As the closing admin, I do not decide whether the article on your calendar system has merit. I only decide whether or not a community consensus exists to delete it. In Articles for deletion/Aristean calendar, there was such a consensus, and your arguments do not address that issue. Accordingly, I cannot reconsider my decision. Please read WP:DP. Sandstein 06:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that you were just doing your job as Closing Administrator to delete articles based on the community consensus. Could you please re-read the arguments that Nhprman made regarding verifiability of newspaper articles which are not uploaded on the Internet?  I have scanned the original newspaper articles to show that what I put in my geocities website is the transcription of the true newspaper articles.  The scanned materials are in Flickr in this address: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11976828@N03/


 * My heartfelt thanks goes to editor Nhprman for pointing out the verifiability of the newspaper articles I cited. I feel that other editors became mum to the issue that he raised.


 * Could I upload the Aristean calendar again on Wikipedia for the editors to have a second look at it?


 * Aristeo Canlas Fernando 09:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if I would agree with you that these articles show the notability of your calendar system, I may not restore the article, because the community consensus was that your calendar system is not sufficiently notable. If you restore the article in its previous form, it will be speedily deleted as restoration of deleted content and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Because of your conflict of interest, you should not restore the article at any rate. My advice is to wait for someone else to write a completely new, better-sourced article about it. Sandstein 09:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sandstein, for you prompt reply and advice. I may contact the SBS anchorwoman, Richie Valencia-Buenaventura, or the writer Rob Clemett, or one of the calendar’s staunch supporters, Hans Hollenstein of New York City, to write about the Aristean calendar in Wikipedia.


 * To avoid any Conflict of Interest, they may just contact me to supply them with the info that they may need in writing their manuscripts.


 * Aristeo Canlas Fernando 11:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That will not do either, I am sorry. Recruiting others to edit on your behalf is called meatpuppetry and is forbidden. Sandstein 11:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that I cannot present my own manuscript about the Aristean calendar that I devised. The people that I mentioned can write.  If they are interested to write about it, they may do so, or anyone for that matter.  What I can do is lend them my support.  If they need info from me and  I have them, then I will just supply it to them.  They have their own free will.  They can do want they want.  I cannot force them to do anything for me.  One thing that they should understand—that I do not have any money to pay them.  It will be gratis and they do it for they believe in it and support it.


 * Aristeo Canlas Fernando 16:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Aristeo Canlas Fernando

Edit protection on Tamil Tigers page
Could you please consider placing the edit protection back on the Tamil Tigers page. Within 4 days of it being removed there have been 10 edits where different editors have been deleting/adding the {totally-disputed} tag. -Share Bear 12:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a level of persistent edit-warring requiring full protection. In individual cases, try WP:AN/3RR. Sandstein 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Peroxisome
Dear Sandstein

I note that you are uninvolved in the Milloy fiasco, and that you have lifted my block by Raul654, for which I am grateful. However, I cannot help but notice that you upheld the reason for the block, i.e. trolling on a talk page.

I have no wish to be a bad wikipedian. I have striven to accurately reflect reality, in the face of numerous reverts with little or no justification. I have raised what appear to be important issues, mainly on the talk page. I am struggling to see how to proceed, and I would appreciate your advice.

Re; criticism of me over the exchange with mastcell, again I appreciate your advice. I am particularly piqued that another editor has directly and explicity accused me of making legal threats, when this is not true. What did i do wrong in my response ?

Peroxisome 12:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a try. Since I am not involved in what you call the "Milloy fiasco", my advice will be unspecific, since I don't know what's gone on. Raul is a very experienced administrator who does not indef block people on a whim. Since he did block you, and people at WP:CSN have mostly agreed that you probably did deserve a block, if not an indefinite one, chances are that the problem is really with you, not with others.


 * Browsing your last few contribs to Talk:Steven Milloy, I see phrases like "I suggest you read up on basic english grammar", "i do not believe that your reading comprehension is as bad as you make out" and "who is interested in the truth of the matter, when you can maliciously throw slime ?". Regardless of what the others might have said, such conduct is not acceptable under any circumstances . Ad hominems will never, ever get you anywhere. Instead:
 * try to be suaviter in modo, fortiter in re - calm in demeanour but firm on the merits (see also the other advice at WP:DR),
 * if you are at an impasse, do not try to argue your head through the wall, but instead try to get third-party input through WP:3O or WP:RFC,
 * if consensus is in fact against you, accept it.


 * As to MastCell's question, which was reasonable under the circumstances, you should have simply stated that you do not have anyting to do with these other accounts. You have still not done that. Accusing others of defamation may be a legal threat or it may not, depending on the circumstances. It is sufficient to state that you, personally, do not mean to take action against anyone in order to insure that you do not fall under WP:NLT. Sandstein 15:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

fair comment.
 * if consensus is in fact against you, accept it.

this is a tough one to swallow ! I must think on that.

I find your rubric to be useful (I, "personally, do not mean to take action against anyone"). Maybe I will use it. Just as a question, isn't there a distinction between saying that that which is written has a defamatory meaning, and accusing a named individual of defamation ? Oh and by the way; I do not have anything to do with the other accounts, nor NCDave. Peroxisome 15:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the point with respect to WP:NLT and accusations of defamation is whether or not other editors feel as though they are - explicitly or implicitly - threatened with legal action. This applies no matter whether or not you accuse a particular editor of defamation. However, the latter can also be a personal attack, if it is not very' clearly warranted. Sandstein 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also: about consensus: In the end, consensus determines what goes into the encyclopedia, not individual editors' opinions of right and wrong. If you cannot accept consensus when it is against you, then I am afraid to say you will leave the project at some point, whether by choice or not. Sandstein 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I found your comments on what I did wrong to be helpful. While I feel I was baited, it was wrong of me to bait back.

I am a little bit confused by your advice, but maybe because you are answering a different question. There is little I can do to control how others "feel", particularly if it is premised that their feelings do not have to be reasonable. It seems to me that there is a "firewall" between calling text defamatory, and accusing a user of defamation, and yet again between making a threat; but I am not sure what you are advising me.

Re: consensus. I may have had a particularly unfortunate baptism with Steven Milloy and John Brignell. I think you are right. I, personally, do not mean to take legal action against anyone on wikipedia 18:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Alex Kov
Hi, Sandstein.

User:Irpen is fairly certain that and  are not sockpuppets of  as everybody would think, but in fact sockpuppets of  who for some reason prefers to use multiple accounts. See Requests for checkuser/Case/Alex Kov and WP:AN/I. The reason is similarity in the edit patterns and the "combination of poor command in Ukrainian language with the Ukrainian nationalistic POV-pushing". I have less experience with KPbIC and Kov than Irpen, but I find his hypothesis quite possible. As far as I know Kov is a prolific editor on the Ukrainian wiki, so I assume his command of Ukrainian is quite good.

Assuming Irpen is true, then Kov's block should probably shorten to reflect his own 3RR violation and disruption, not the misunderstanding of the editing by another editor. Alex Bakharev 05:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The KPbIC account has been inactive since 2006. I see no immediately compelling reason to assume that the person behind it is more likely to be the sockmaster of the Zgoden socks than Alex Kov. After all, the first thing the Zgodens did was to support Alex Kov, not KPbIC, in a dispute. The multiple admins who have commented on this matter on both ANI and on Alex Kov's talk page have concurred that it is overwhelmingly likely that Alex Kov is the sockmaster. Under these circumstances, I decline to lift his block. Sandstein 07:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is KPbIC, believe me. He was not inactive as there are several other accounts of the same user that popped up since he seized editing under the Krys's name. KPbIC was neither the first nor the last account of 134... IP that I know. I am 100% certain. I am not calling for Kov's compelte unblock. He was disruptive enough to be sent for a break. I just want to clear him from this one narrow accusation, which unless lifted, will remain unchallenged in his block log. If the chekcuser is accepted, it will only prove what I have already said. It just quacks here and it quacks KPbIC, not Alex Kov. --Irpen 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not really a matter of whether I believe you or not. I just don't see enough hard evidence to override the strong prima facie impression that Alex Kov is indeed the sockmaster. I recommend opening a WP:SSP case against KPbIC and presenting your evidence there. If consensus at the SSP investigation concludes that KPbIC is the more likely sockmaster, I may reconsider. (I assume that you also have evidence that can rule out that KPbIC and Alex Kov are the same person?) Sandstein 07:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to prove anything on Krys since there is no option of checkusering an inactive for months account, account as you know. I know Krys is 134.. IP. Checkuser on Zgodens will show that 100%. Kov is 133 and 202 IP. I happen to know the whole IP's which reveal their institutions but I will not disclose them onwiki to protect their privacy no matter how abusive they were towards me in the past. So, SSP is useless. Anyway, do as you like. I am no friend of both of them and they are quite annoying in their revert-warring and bad-mouthing myself. I don't see the block as unfair, only the Kov's accusations of socking. Krys is asockmaster allright. Kov is just a regular disruptive user. --Irpen 07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sandstein. I have unblocked Alex Kov for the sockpuppet violations per information from Irpen, but re-blocked him for one day less (6 days in all instead of 7 days) for inveterate edit warring, personal attacks, disruptiveness, and turning Wikipedia into a battleground. I hope you don't mind. Please see the ANI thread.  Bishonen | talk 10:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the message. I have not seen Irpen's evidence, but I trust that you have done the right thing. Sandstein 16:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Sandpiper7
Thanks for your message. The editor mailed me and I am inclined to agree with you. I have suggested that he make contact with a Poetry WikiProject (I'm sure there must be one) to get advise on how he can ensure that the site can be linked to and if there is any question of copyright/GDFL issues on any of the material. I am now off to perform an unblock. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cansei
Thanks for your attention to Cansei. I was the one who posted the speedy request -- I agree that it now asserts notability, but unfortunately the link that does so leads to an article in Portuguese. Does that count? I can't tell if it's notable or not. I looked for ways to improve this article myself, but there's nothing in English that I found. And, frankly, reading through the article, it's a bit "off" -- almost like it might be a hoax. Whatever you decide is fine with me. Accounting4Taste 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Non-English sources are allowed. If you think the topic cannot be sufficiently sourced, nominating it on WP:AFD would be one way to proceed. You may want to give the author some time, though. Sandstein 20:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment and for making the policy clear -- I'll ask the creator on the article's talk page to try to find some sources in English, but that's as far as I'll take it. Accounting4Taste 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re Chris Roddick
You beat me to the banhammer for the editor. Do you have salt cellar for the article? LessHeard vanU 20:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well pickled. Sandstein 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hindu/Comments
Can you please clarify whether adding speedy tag was the nonsense or discussions held in that page? Also can you please remove this transcluded page from WP:Pakistan banner in Talk:Hindu? I'm unable to figure out where it's being transcluded. Gnanapiti 21:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)