User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2007/July

Internet
Actually the internet has been around for more than 20 years - in a more rudimentary way than now and not the WWW - but your sentiments were correct anyway. By the way, it appears the user used to edit from an IP, if that is of interest to the case. Tvoz | talk 21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. If he continues as an IP or under another account, WP:AIV is the place to go. Sandstein 22:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, will keep an eye out. Thanks Tvoz | talk 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ehy you.. !!
Ehy.. if you bring back Vitra Germany to the disambiguation page I created, how can people know about the existance of another Vitra company, with the same name?

No way man.. you gotta put in a disambiguation page, jusst like I did, where people know about the two different companies. I wanna open a discussion and debate if necessary. --J mcandrews--

eat my chocolate, you bloody swiss Gugliel Motel.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J mcandrews (talk • contribs)


 * Replied on your talk page. Sandstein 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Irving Schwartz, Order of Canada receipent
Could you please revert your deletion. He is notable for being a member of the Order of Canada. I'll fix the rest of the article in terms of the Junior achievement stuff, but he does not deserve speedy deletion.--Abebenjoe 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'll not restore copyvio text; see also your talk page. Sandstein 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not write the Geoff Sheerin and Chirinjeev Kathuria articles, I merely took them out of the wikipedia article about PlanetSpace, since one of the founders of the company posted it on wikipedia, which means they have the copyright, and are discharging it to wikipedia. As for Schwartz, you were way too quick to delete it before I fixed it up. I have many articles on wikipedia, that started like Schwartz, and then were properly wikified, but you deleted the page before I could perfect it.--Abebenjoe 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you mean this? It was posted by one guy who calls himself "Co-founder of Canadian Arrow Dan McKibbon". Even if that is true, we don't know if he has copyright on that content (which is WP:CSD-eligible anyway). We lack an OTRS copyright release, for instance, and you have violated the copyright further by failing to provide attribution, as required by the GFDL: you only wrote "Started article" when copying the text to the Geoff Sheerin and Chirinjeev Kathuria articles. — As to Schwartz, there is never any excuse for posting copyrighted text. You must clean up content before posting it. Sandstein 06:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Petition for the unblocking of User:KillerPlasmodium.
I believe that the user has been blocked for personal reasons by a band of extreme leftists who find his political beliefs to be intolerable despite his having references. He is an example of a common American with beliefs engendered by the majority of Americans, and thus he will bring a semblance of neutrality to many of the most biased liberalist articles. Gold Nitrate 03:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Declined. The user was not blocked for his political views but for his inability to work constructively with others. Incidentally, this is an international project and I am Swiss, so the "beliefs engendered by the majority of Americans" are not relevant either to me or to the project. What is relevant are our policies of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Sandstein 06:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this petition. The admin who blocked him did so without discussion, the user had no previous blocks or banns, and the blocking admin has been involved with improper blocks before where he banned users on his own authority based in personal feelings rather than Wikipedia regulations. -38.119.112.189 07:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Closing AFDs
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process. The result of that AfD was unanimous. I think I closed it correctly. -- Boricuaeddie hábleme 21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You did close it correctly, but you should not have done it, under current policy. I've commented further on the policy talk page. Sandstein 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, at the time of closure, this was the version of the guideline, and, therefore, my actions were justified. -- Boricuaeddie hábleme 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see... well, by now it's back to the old version, apparently. I respectfully suggest you should wait until consensus, if any, develops to change the policy before closing any other discussions as "delete". It's really not that good an idea. There are many other tasks that you can do that do not require an admin to assist you. Sandstein 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bubenberg-Denkmal.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bubenberg-Denkmal.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 12:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Canada fixtures and results
Well perhaps not a test page, but the page has no reason to exist, is a left-over from stuff on the Canada men's national soccer team page and should be deleted. I was just using the precedent set by another speedy on a similiar page created by the same persion. Oh well, I really don't care - page needs to go - and if you don't want to remove it this way figure out how to remove it. Nfitz 01:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you could make a redirect out of it, or nominate it for deletion. If you want it gone, that's up to you, not to me. It's just that speedy deletion is not possible here. Sandstein 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever ... I'll just leave it there - nothing links to it and it doesn't do any harm. I'm sure there's way's to get rid of it, but if people don't want to do it, I've got better things to do.  I used the same procedure on this, that had already been done on a similiar page created by the same user. Nfitz 18:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just remembered there is another method apart from a speedy, or an AFD. I gave it a prod.  Not sure why you didn't do that actually ... honesly, I don't know how they expect us to remember all these arcane Wikicommands. Nfitz 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

vitra
hello

i created a turkish vitra page (at the moment still under construction). Then i moved the original vitra page with the move button, just like you suggested. Finally i created a disambiguation page.

I think i did everything in the right way. Correct me if i am wrong. regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by J mcandrews (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you. I fixed some technical errors. Sandstein 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) (EastEnders storylines nomination)
How did you come to your decision on this AfD? --Phirazo 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8 people advocated keeping the articles, 4 people wanted to delete them. While AfD is not a vote, there was clearly no consensus to delete these articles. There was also no overriding policy concern that editing could not fix. On the merits, I would have agreed with you that we should not carry these articles, but my job as closing admin is simply to determine whether or not a consensus to delete exists. Sandstein 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An editor has asked for a deletion review of Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) (EastEnders storylines nomination). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I would normally have tried to work this out with you first but the exchange above is pretty much the same exchange we would've had. Otto4711 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine
Hello Sandstein, The request was to 1) remove a referenced quote and 2) insert two referenced quotes. The referenced quote being removed is one which I added. The two quotes being added are to illustrate a point, i.e. that there is suggestions of gencoide in relation to the famine. Now you will have to explaine to me how that "thoroughly fails WP:NPOV." Such an emphatic answer deserves an equally emphatic explanation don't you think. Take your time there is no rush, it takes time to read the whole section so one knows the context. You my reply on my talk page if you wish, --Domer48 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Assertions like "England’s oppression of Ireland", "genocidal campaigns by English rulers", "long catalogue of British crimes against Ireland", "most abominable atrocities ever committed" are enormously broad in scope and partisan in tenor. Needless to say, they are quite certainly hugely controversial (although I know little about British/Irish history). As an encyclopedia, we refrain from using such sweeping, emotional terms to characterise even events such as the Holocaust, let alone a 19th century event on which there are a great many competing viewpoints. See generally WP:NPOV. — Also, protected edits must be based on consensus, which is not apparent in this case. It is better to settle the current dispute about this famine on the talk page in order to allow us to lift the protection. Sandstein 21:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These references are being used in the context that, some users were of the opinion that there was no such “suggestion as genocide.” I consider that I have adequately demonstrated that this is not correct. If you read the article and this particular section you will notice this. In addition, I neglected to put the quotes in inverted commas. So therefore I can understand you opinion up to a point. I will address that now. In conclusion, I would still like the reference removed which there is consensus on as illustrated here . Now I have added the commas, could you look at the quotes now. --Domer48 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what you say does not make much sense to me. For simplicity's sake, I'll only make edits that are clearly spelled out on the talk page and signed by all parties to the dispute. Sandstein 07:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It dose not make sence? How about I put it this way, the two referenced statements I wish to add are quotations! I did not write them. They are the opinions of the authors. I wish to use thoses opinions to illustrate a point. They are therefor not NPOV, because I did not quote myself. So for simplicity's sake why do you not srtike your comment Re:NPOV on the discussion page also. Thanks --Domer48 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. Still, you should not have changed your comment after posting it, even to add quotation marks; see WP:TPG. Rather, you should have posted a new edit request with the amended text. I or another admin may honour such a new request once it becomes apparent that it has consensus among all involved. Sandstein 09:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I’m Sorry! A verifiable referenced source, relevant to the subject, has to have consensus? The consent of whom? Wiki is open to anyone, and no editor or group of editors have ownership of any article. There is no content dispute which would exclude edits which meet policy criteria. So would you give me a link for these policies, so I can read up on them. As you can see here, this was agreed, and caused the dispute. So can you perform that edit, thanks. I’m glad you pointed out the error I made in relation to editing my request, I will of course remember that, thank you. The fact that the article is still locked is beyond me though. --Domer48 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As is obvious Sandstein, I'm being stalked, and have become to almost feel sorry for them. But if it was not for this and this, prevents me. Now can we have the block lifted. If this user acts the goat, they will be dealth with through the wiki policies. Thanks --Domer48 20:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This wasn't "agreed" as Domer48 puts it. It was "agreed" by Domer48. As regards why is the page still locked, it is locked because you won't discuss things in a reasoned way and stop using dishonest tricks and phony references to back up sweeping POV arguments Domer. When you stop doing that and come to the table and discuss things in a reasonable way, we will all listen to you. Until then you are totally wasting both your own time and ours. Clear? MarkThomas 18:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Article on Skweezer deleted for notability
Hello! I work for Greenlight Wireless, the company that makes Skweezer. We recently noticed that the article was speedy-deleted in March, and we'd like to see what we can do about getting the article fixed and restored. I've been reading today about the notability guidelines and I think I can fix that article up to show that Skweezer is notable and important enough to have an entry. Rather than just paste it back in there, I'd like to get your thoughts on what's my next step to get the article up to spec. Thanks very much. Barnabask 02:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for your notice. Per our conflicts of interest guideline, you are strongly discouraged to create articles about your own product (i.e., your edits may be held to a higher standard of, e.g., not being promotional). You should also disclose your affiliation on your user page.
 * If you still want to recreate the article, the cautious way to proceed would be to do so in your user space (at User:Barnabask/Skweezer), and to have other users check that it meets WP:CORP before moving it to Skweezer. To establish notability, be sure to include links to multiple substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Sandstein 05:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for your help. I appreciate your caution against bias and understand the difficult line we're trying to walk here. Skweezer is one of the oldest and most advanced mobile transcoders and as such we feel it has historical and technical interest. The notability links are no problem for that reason. I will follow your suggestions and proceed. Barnabask 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mapiwef
Hi! Would you please block that user? The only thing he/she has done is to do exactly the same as the IP 142.150.161.182. Thanks &mdash; H92 (t · c · no) 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Such requests are often handled faster at WP:AIV. Please remember to sign your warnings. Sandstein 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This vandal has turned up repeatedly under slightly different IPs, and is now active as 142.150.205.228. I don't know if there is any automatic way of stopping it.JQ 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's helpful if you link to IPs provided like this: . – The vandal has a dynamic IP and is difficult to stop. If it gets too bad, we can block the whole range he uses; until then there's nothing to do but report his IPs individually. Sandstein 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oshare kei deletion review
The article Oshare kei was deleted by Cyrus XIII and turned into a redirect page. Since I felt this was a work around to the WP:DP, I reverted it and requested for the user to nominate it for deletion. I think if the article fails WP:N it should be deleted - if it is non-notable there is no reason to make it a redirect page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oshare_kei&oldid=146787958 <-- This is the last revert with references intact. Each reference is to a web page that is well researched and written. Despite Cyrus's assertions, JAME is not a fan-page, and bases their articles and news releases on primary sources such as interviews. Visunavi [Visunavi.com] is a well respected source of information. The best source would be Japanese music magazines, but I do not want to commit the amount of time required to search through to find small tibits for this article, just to have them removed because some else does not have a copy of the magazine to verify the information.

The other issue is that Cyrus XIII has reverted every attempt to edit the article Visual kei since January 2007, (including things like adding stub tags). I'm a bit at a loss what to do about that. I certainly do not want to cause more revert wars (it has had plenty of them!) but I think the article should be improved and expanded. If Oshare Kei is merged with Visual kei - it should actually be merged. Denaar 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:AIV
My apologies for the report against } regarding List of The O.C. episodes. It was a typo. The user in question is actually }. I gave the user his/her/their final warning on 13 July 2007 regarding the article in question. On 21 July 2007, they vandalized that article again. Thanks. - Kindeditor 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the typo was mine; you did report 82.4.200.152. However, we only block vandals who have recently vandalised. That user's last edit was a week ago, so, no block. Sandstein 04:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Online
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yu-Gi-Oh! Online. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. VDZ 19:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

bdort
what makes you think what you wrote on my Talk page? Richard Malter 149.135.106.36 12:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You,, are blocked, and so is your IP now, for block evasion. Sandstein 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Smack Jeeves Deletion
Could you please explain why the Smack Jeeves article was deleted? 216.37.131.4 12:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * was deleted according to WP:CSD because it was an article about web content that did not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Sandstein 16:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

 * Thanks! Sandstein 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics recreation
The article on Socionomics has been recreated after you closed the AfD with a "delete" decision. It looks to me as if it suffers from the same substantial problems as the original article: creation by an editor with CoI, insufficient evidence that the subject is notable as a neologism (i.e has gained currency in the financial industry/research), and NPOV violation by implying that since the idea builds on notable research it must be notable itself. I would say it's a recreation per WP:CSD, but since I opted to delete in the original discussion I'd like to hear your unbiased opinion. Thanks! ~ trialsanderrors 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You (and Bucketsofg, see here) may well be right; one would need to examine the sources provided in the article. Certainly, the WP:COI of the creator is an indication that this may indeed just be someone's vehicle for self-promotion, but I know too little about the subject matter to have a well-founded opinion. I've refrained from deleting the recreated article as G4 since the article now features numerous sources that were previously not present, but I would not object if you were to delete it. A new AfD may be the more transparent process, though; the first AfD had relatively few contributors. Sandstein 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK (and sorry I didn't see the exchange in your talk archive). I'll send it to AfD with a reference to the prior discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)