User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2007/November

Favor please!
Hello there!

I need a favor from am administrator. In the past, you have helped me with semiprotecting articles that were being vandalized, and I greatly appreciate that. :-)

An article that I researched and did a major cleanup of this week was recently deleted. I respect the deletion process, however, I did not get the chance to save the information I contributed before the article was deleted. What I would like to do is save that information on my hard drive so I can someday create a personal webpage containing the information.

I noticed that administrators can access deleted pages. Is there any way possible you could pull up the deleted wiki page for Lebanon Valley Mall and either leave the article information on my talk page, or, email it to me?

I know this is probably an annoying favor for me to ask, but it will mean a lot to me. This is a one time request and I will not annoy you with such requests in the future.

Thanks so much. PanzaM22 21:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)  Mike




 * Certainly; it's no trouble at all. Feel free to make such requests from me or other admins in the future, it's what we are for. You can access the deleted content at User:PanzaM22/Lebanon Valley Mall. You may even move it back to article space once the AfD's concerns have been comprehensively addressed, i.e., once the article clearly meets our notability guideline and has the links to multiple substantial coverage in reliable sources to back it up. Best, Sandstein 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, I greatly appreciate it. PanzaM22 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)  Mike

The Teaching Company
You may be interested in this discussion. Regards&mdash;G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 20:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sandstein 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Blanc
You closed it just as I made some comments. Edit conflict. The votes where balanced, but I think my arguments were not all weak (of course:). Would you consider reviewing it?victor falk 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not modify the AfD once it is closed. You may comment on the AfD talk page, of course. No, your arguments were not weak, but I can still not see a consensus to delete in this discussion, so the article is kept. This seems to be your preferred outcome, so... what action would you like me to take? Sandstein 16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see in the history that you closed the afd earlier and that I missed that; probably I came into an edit conflict with myself... so nevermind--victor falk 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Prince Pierre of Orléans
In accordance with the instructions on Deletion_review, I have determined to "courteously invite the admin to take a second look".

The Afd showed that five editors believed that the article should be deleted, while another five believed that the article should be kept. The general notability guideline says that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The guideline further says that the coverage should be "substantive" (not "substantial" as you say in your justification for deletion).

I pointed out that when this child was born one of the most popular French weekly magazines had a quarter-page article on the birth. When the child was baptised several months later the same magazine had a FOUR-PAGE article on the baptism. I think that a four-page article on a baby counts as significant coverage. No other editor replied to my comment, showing how this was not notable.

A number of the editors who were in favour of deletion seemed to base their opinions on the fact that this child is in line of succession to the French throne which does not currently exist de facto. It seems to me that that merely shows a lack of interest on the part of these editors. I'm not interested in professional wrestling, but that doesn't mean that I should vote that all professional wrestlers are non-notable.

Finally, let me point out that I am not a supporter of the rights of the Orleans family. I actually support another candidate to the French throne. But I still think that this child is notable. Noel S McFerran 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that I voted Delete in the Articles for deletion/Prince Jean of Nassau discussion which you also closed. Noel S McFerran 21:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message, which presumably pertains to Articles for deletion/Prince Pierre of Orléans.
 * You were, in fact, the only contributor to raise a valid argument for keeping at least Prince Pierre of Orléans, if not the other articles, by arguing that Pierre has had at least two articles dedicated to him in fr:Point de vue (hebdomadaire), which is apparently a tabloid magazine about royalty.
 * On review, I agree that my AfD closure was in error with regard to this article, insofar as I did not take into account that argument, as well as the lack of reactions to it by the editors who wanted to delete the article. This means the discussion features a prima facie policy-based argument to keep the article, and no such argument to delete it, since personal achievements (or the lack thereof) do not feature in WP:N.
 * Accordingly, I am amending the outcome to "no consensus" as regards Prince Pierre of Orléans. Since the other deletions are not contested, the AfD remains unchanged with regard to them. Sandstein 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that the child only got such coverage in general because the Orléanist French Royal Family and its notability as a whole, not on the notability of any singular member of it. Pierre, himself, is wholly non-notable. As such, the coverage truly does not convey notability on Pierre himself, but is a testament to the nobility on this former French royal family as a whole. Charles 22:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If the subject of the article(s) is Pierre himself (his birth, his baptism), then he would appear to meet the general notability criterion of WP:N. No arguments to the contrary have been advanced in the AfD. Sandstein 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My argument is that an announcement of birth and baptism rendered solely because of the notability of the House of Orléans as a whole does not render Pierre, as an individual, to be notable and that an article about him falls under WP:NOT for a genealogical entry. Also, regarding WP:N, I do not see evidence of long-term notability. Charles 22:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That argument is new; it has no bearing on the correctness (or not) of my closure of the AfD. You are certainly free to request a deletion review of that closure. Sandstein 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I erroneously thought it was apparent as it is logical, but I thought that keeping Pierre's article was because of Mr. McFerran's resquest for a second look. That is what I am replying to. Charles 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was. What action would you like me to take? Sandstein 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the proper action would be to, while regarding what Mr McFerran has said, make note of the situation (the nobility of the House of Orléans as a whole and thus mention of Pierre's baptism vs his individual notability) and delete the article accordingly. Any relevant information to the baptism of Eudes' children is solely because they are members of the House of Orléans and not notable in their own right. Any differing information between the articles can be merged to Eudes' article. Charles 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I won't do that. The argument you have now made (about Pierre's media coverage being derived entirely from his family's status) was not made in the AfD, and accordingly I may not (again) reevaluate my closure of the AfD on the basis of it, even if I were to agree with it.
 * Let me put it differently: the job of administrators is to evaluate whether or not consensus to delete exists in an AfD discussion. Your argument has no bearing on the only question that matters here, which is whether or not a consensus to delete existed at Articles for deletion/Prince Pierre of Orléans at the time that discussion was closed. I have determined that it did not. Sandstein 22:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Such an argument was not made at the time because it was stated then, as the present argument states now, that Pierre derives whatever nobility he has only as a member of the House of Orléans and not as an individual. Given that Mr McFerran's sole request was for a second look, I don't think it is fair to say that's that and keep it without consideration of my argument, which only came into play the moment Mr McFerran claimed notability for Pierre on the basis of Pierre's baptism, etc. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise because it is not reasonable to list every single instance where he would not be notable when it is notability itself which has to be shown to exist. My response is that the presumption of individual notability for Pierre is incorrect and that should have just as much bearing, weight and consideration as a response to Mr. McFerran's request as it would if I were to nominate Pierre's article for deletion again. In determining consensus, it seems that there is undue weight being given to one side even to say if consensus did not exist when there are guidelines to be followed. Consensus or no consensus, the note of a "rationale" brings up legitimate reason for discussion and reconsideration. Charles 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but what you say does not impel me to find a consensus for deletion in the AfD. If you want to pursue the matter further, you will have to request a deletion review of my closure, but that request will likely be unsuccessful. Sandstein 06:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"SIG P220" article
Hi there. Not sure but if I read the "history" to that article correctly, you're the one responsible for the mistake in that (otherwise very good) article. I already put my remark in the discussion sheet... Please take care of it if that's within your responsiblity. The idea that good quality 9mm pistols go on the private market for only 30CHF is ridiculous, even in such a strange country as Switzerland.

Greetings, 77.239.59.140 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought so too, but that's what the paper reported. Every year, some 10,000 soldiers are discharged and get one free, after all. Sandstein 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

From England
You have an answer on my talk page. Sorry, I've got to rush; I'm already late! Speak to you later. Love. Clio the Muse 20:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Teammazur
They left you a message. Max S em(Han shot first!) 13:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sandstein 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dearest Sandstein, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your support is very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow  and  Phoenix-wiki  for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.  Lara  ❤  Love  19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by  The Random Editor 's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel 's RFA thanks.

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA
I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sparrowman980
Hi, as I have filed a SSP report on Sparrowman980, I am required to insert a notification in his talkpage. Will it be possible for a temporary unblock of his talkpage or something so that this may be expedited, or are there any other options possible? Thanks in advance!--Huaiwei 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know if there was any on-goings in the background, but I figure this would be of some interest to you: .--Huaiwei 04:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been taken care of. Sandstein 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfair deletion of Mixx J & Brigga Daa
whyd you delete that? im still in the process of writing it, and yeah were not THAT notable but give us a break, please restore it?


 * No. Please read WP:COI and WP:BAND. Sandstein (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re the edit to that archived page of mine
No problem, I just wanted to save a copy of that revert is all. Disable away. Jtrainor (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bernard Hopkins
The talkpage Talk:Bernard Hopkins is getting a bit out of hand now. I notice you refused a page protect before. Can anything else be done ? Hammer1980 ·talk 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I declined an edit to the protected page. There's a lot of silly disruption by an IP editor going on that talk page. What would you like me to do? I can semiprotect the talk page for a while. Sandstein (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfair Deletion of Manuela Darling-Gansser
Sandstein, you deleted the page that i authored for reason of CSDA7, lack of notability. Who are you to say such a thing, just because you haven't heard of the renowned australian cook Manuela Darling-Gansser does not give you the right to delete it. It was impartial, as i'm just one of her many fans, and factual only with relevant bio info. She is very well know in her home country australia, has been on Aust TV shows, written articels for major australian weekly mags as well as newspapers and has appeared as guest speakers for charities, including cancer society. There are numerous reviews from journalists that i could quote. Her books have been translated into Dutch and she sell them in numerous countries. I thought wikipedia was an encyclopedia for the people and this is information that i know thousands of people will benefit from. Please reinstate Darling-Gansser's page, if you have specific problems with content tell me and i'll work them into changes but to just delete a page like that is unjustifiable, there is demand for that information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birri85 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The specific problem with was that the article did not tell us why this person is notable. Please read WP:N to learn what "notability" means on Wikipedia. Writing books and appearing on TV is not enough. Articles that do not assert notability can be speedily deleted under the rule WP:CSD. I will restore the article if you show she is notable by providing references to multiple substantial coverage of her by reliable sources. Sandstein 06:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See Nov 16th Deletion Review, administrator Jreferee agrees that there is no ground for CSDA7. I have also provided specifics on articles and will contact others to edit in their citations once the page is back up. I too will reference my input but you can't just delete the entire entry alltogether. let me assure you that Darling-Gansser IS NOTABLE, much more than numerous others on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.160.19 (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can delete the article, I do have that ability. To show why the deletion was wrong, you will have to provide references, as I told you. If you have listed the article on WP:DRV, you should have told me so. If the community determines the deletion was in error, the article will be restored as a result of that process. Sandstein 06:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sanstein please see the deletion review for a list of sources that should put this matter to an end and see the re-establishment of the Manuela Darling-Gansser article. Thanks --Birri85 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please wait for an admin to close the deletion review. The closing admin will restore the article if the deletion is overturned. Sandstein (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination)
With respect to your closure on this, my understanding is that this is a deletion of the content not just the articles in that location. Am I correct in this? I ask because one editor is insisting that the content remains valid due to a community consensus of it being on every other airport article. I understand that consensus doesn't override an AfD except at Deletion Review otherwise an AfD is a pointless exercise if the content can just be inserted elsewhere. Is there some kind of guidance/policy that would be informative on this? Thanks for your help in advance Regan123 (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I had not considered that question before, and I am not able to immediately find a pertinent policy or guideline. Off the cuff, I would say it depends on the reason for deletion. If, say, an article about a particular street is deleted because the street is not notable, I would say that the information about the street may still be included in the article about the respective city if there is a consensus for it. On the other hand, if the content itself is the reason for the deletion, e.g. because – as here – it is found to violate WP:NOT, I would argue that this content must not be included in another article either, unless there is a very solid consensus for it, such that the deletion consensus in the AfD is clearly overruled.
 * Generally, consensus rules everything, because AfDs are just a formal procedure to determine consensus on the issue of deletion. Only the core policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV may not be changed by consensus.
 * There are also licencing issues with merging text from deleted articles; see WP:MAD. Sandstein (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I have seen plenty of people say that consensus cannot override an AfD but cannot find it anywhere codified.  Whilst I agree with your point, I want to see if there is anything to back it up. To ask at another angle, do you think that the previous consensus to have the material there is broken by an AfD and a new one have to be found or does the old one (which seems to be from WP:Aviation, though again I can't find it) hold? Regan123 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) An addendum regarding this particular situation: In my opinion, the argument that the deleted content should be merged because consensus has established that airport articles should have similar content is unpersuasive. This is because the mere fact that such content is present in such articles is, at least, not indicative of a positive consensus in favour of such content (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS); in the present situation I would hold the consensus established in the present AfD (i.e., that this is generally an inappropriate sort of content) to be determinative.
 * Moreover, I would agree that the removal of such content from such articles based on the consensus established in this AfD would be appropriate, although I don't really have an opinion on the merits. Sandstein (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree with what you say, I want to avoid an edit war and being shouted at on several occasions. I have also posted at AfD talk to get an opinion there. I really think that this is something that needs to be codified. Thanks for taking the time to reply - most appreciated. Regan123 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The material in Manchester Airport deleted at List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd AfD nomination) should be deleted per CSD G4 Recreation of deleted material. -- Jreferee    t / c  07:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point: if the content is substantially identical, do go ahead and delete it. Sandstein (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

About 366 geometry deletion
I sincerely regret your decision of deleting the article about Megalithic geometry, because I believe Alan Butler's now 8-year-old amazing theory deserves at least an article here. His hypothesis, again, has been covered by renowned British and French media. What is more at least 3 people in the Wiki discussion (apart from me) supported the idea of merging the 3 articles into one rather than deleting the whole. Maybe 366-geometry is not as famous as UFO's or Nessie, but still, here it is, whatever we can do or think. For example, as far as I'm concerned, I came to know about it back in 2001 - six and a half years ago (!) So why not merging the articles into one, for example by deleting the superfluous and adding more details of the hypothesis? And may I stress that Butler's theory is very convincing. What is more it seems (to my knowledge) unassailable. In Britain, for instance, it counts many supporters. So what we have here is a coherent, well-supported, covered-by-reliable-and-independent media (such as the London Daily Mirror, Radio France International and the Guardian) hypothesis that offers a plausible explanation of the origin of geometry (366-day calendar giving birth to 366-degree geometry, later transformed into 360-degree geometry). I'm sorry to say that none other single theory I've read either on Wikipedia or in countless historical mathematics books seriously explains the origin of the 360-degree circle. So again, why not leave at least one article on Wiki?--Snicoulaud (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link to the AfD at issue. Sandstein (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Megalithic+geometry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.217.235 (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry. Anyway, merging the content of the three articles into one will not address the problem of the insufficient notability of the three subjects, as determined by the AfD discussion. Arguments about whether the subjects are notable or not should have been made in the AfD discussion, not here. If you disagree with my determination of the outcome of the AfD, you can appeal it at WP:DRV. Sandstein (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Tuffins‎ AfD
Sandstein,

I notice that you closed the above AfD with a delete. Thank you for your time and effort with regards to this. The only lasting issue I would have with respect to this is the conduct of User:Maxburgoyne over the course of the AfD.

The obvious infraction is his canvassing which is highlighted in the AfD, fair enough he may not know the policy with respect to this but he should be given a warning about it so that it does not occur again. I did leave a polite message on his talk page about it but he wipe it leaving an relatively uncivil edit summary. Infact much of his comments with regards to this have been to either attempt to personalise or be uncivil.

We have just been through a long and painful Arbcom and maybe a word from you would nip this in the bud.

regards--Vintagekits (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Can you please provide diffs for the edits that you think are objectionable? Sandstein (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi sandstein, incidents of canvassing See can be seenhere, here, here, here, here and here.


 * I posted a polite notice for Max to stop canvassing here to which he simply deleted without response and the edit summary "You are the expert on blocking" - refering to my chequered history, which I considered an unecessary remark given the situation. His remarks in the AfD about "look at my history and you will see why I am unwilling to engage with him" are also unfounded as you can see here on his now wiped talk page where I attempt to tutor him in adding references.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He has apologised for the canvassing in the AfD, and the deletion of your message is not really offensive enough to warrant any administrative action on my part, sorry. Please see WP:DR, but it may be best if you two just disengage from each other. Sandstein (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have disengaged and disengaged from the AfD also because I didnt want to enflame. I am not asking for the guy to be blocked or anything I just consider that canvassing relatively serious and Max doesnt seem to appriciate that. I am just asking that he is warning about doing it in future from someone that he might have a bit more respect for and not just think it was me doing it to provoke him, that way he would know it wasnt "cricket".--Vintagekits (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing administrators may disregard contributions that have been canvassed, so, again, I see no need to intervene here, given his apology. Sandstein (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I didnt realise canvassingwas acceptable behaviour - noted! I'll drop it now. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He does seem determined to achieve my chastisement. I am contrite! --MJB (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I do hope that because User:Maxburgoyne canvassed me on my talk page my comments were rejected. I believe that for an article on the scale of Harry Tuffins, obviously few people are aware of the company. In this case contributors to the article may have a valid point to make, but because I for one don't check pages like this regularly I wouldn't want to miss out. All I want to know is if there is anywhere that some of the article could be put, like for example on NISA or another similar page, just beacause quite a lot of work had gone into the article. I would like to thank you for your time. --Fuelboy (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What would be the point of merging the deleted content into Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency? At any rate, I will provide you with the deleted content if the editors of the appropriate target article do not object to the merger. Sandstein (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He may have intended Nisa Today --MJB (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry about that. Not trying to start an argument but been as you closed the AfD would have thought my little slip up was quite obvious? --Fuelboy (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, I had no recollection of a "NISA" being referred to in the AfD. I do notice now that a link to Nisa Today was indeed provided. Sandstein (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll stop now beacause this could go on for a long time. Could you please provide me with a copy of the final page before deletion (or whatever it is that is left. Putting it on User:Blue73 will be fine. Thank you. --Fuelboy (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The content has been restored at User:Blue73/Harry Tuffins. Sandstein (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. --Fuelboy (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Megalithic geometry. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee   t / c  19:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your deletion close of Megalithic geometry is being question at deletion review|DRV because Megalithic yard has not been deleted. -- Jreferee    t / c  15:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. He's wrong, as you pointed out, but I don't particularly care about what happens to this content. Sandstein (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Trident Charter Company
Hi. I'm sorry to complain, but I think you were a bit fast speedying Trident Charter Company. I'm not the author, but I came across it while looking at Special:Newpages. I thought it had promise so I started to tidy it up a bit, and as I was doing so you zapped it under CSD A7. The article had three references (one of which was dodgy), but there are at least two others easily available via Google - e.g., , both of which, I suggest, assert its significance. There is also a pre-existing unlinked reference to it in Herm. Could I ask that you reinstate it, so that I can work on it, please? I wouldn't complain if you AfD it if you're still unhappy. Thanks for your time. —S MALL JIM   20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Done! Sandstein (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll see if I can make it an FA ;-) —S MALL  JIM   20:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Brennsto
See Special:Undelete/Swalwell%2C_Alberta. I still don't see what he's done. Or why anyone who creates this page is considered a troll and blocked as such.  Lara  ❤  Love  20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the page creation log, it looks like someone once tried to troll a particular user with it, by stating that this user lives in that village. But still, that's a reason to oversight that revision, and not really a reason to block this user. Sandstein (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like Crum is online. I agree, I don't see what this user has done to be blocked. His version of the article is more complete than the previous versions. I don't think this is the same user.  Lara  ❤  Love  21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll unblock the user and notify Crum. Sandstein (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I sent both of you emails. Please reblock. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the e-mail, which sounds plausible. Still, I am not quite persuaded and would prefer to WP:AGF (although that may be because I don't know the background). The blocked user could not just create a new account because you blocked him with "account creation blocked". Even assuming the user is in fact a troll whose only purpose is to create some sort of disruption by creating an article about a nonnotable village, what would be the point of re-blocking him now that the article exists and is protected? (I have no objection to a re-block if a checkuser reveals a connection to a banned user, or something similar.) Sandstein (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick response
I appreciate much for your quick punishment on the malicious user Jjk82. I just can't believe all those myriad malicious revisions and additions he had done to the [South Korea] article with full of hatrism. I have no idea where this user Jjk82 came from, but one thing is obvious is that this guy is so pathetic.Patriotmissile (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not punish anybody, or indeed do anything. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You should not call other users "pathetic" even if they have been vandalising Wikipedia. It is quite enough to report the vandalism to administrators. Sandstein (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

From France
Hi, Sandstein. I've been approached by, guess who? Yes, that's right, dear old Dr Nemeth (from France)! Nothing too serious, though I would be grateful if you could keep the situation under watch. Thanks. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Clio. Sure, I'll keep your talk page on my watchlist and I'll intervene if there is more funny business coming (from France). The technical problem is that this "Mr. Nemeth" uses an IP address that keeps changing, so there is no easy way to warn him. I can semi-protect your talk page, though, if you would like me to, so that only registered users can edit it. I apologise for having brought your name into this. Sandstein (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, there is absolutely no need to apologise, Sandstein. I was more than happy to help with this, and not purely for altruistic reasons, I assure you!  Thanks for keeping an eye on things.  I'd much rather that my talk page was left unprotected, though, as the approaches I've had from anons have all been very nice.  One even awarded me a bronze Wiki!  Besides Dr Nemeth (from France) seems a little less sabre-rattling than usual; more anxious to establish his credentials.  If he tries anything more he will quickly find that I am not prepared to feed the fire.  All the very best.  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

5W Public Relations
When you closed 5W Public Relation's AfD, you closed with No Consensus; I want to point out that among the votes to delete were sockpuppets of the AfD originator. Would that change the result? Thank you. See User_talk:Agavtouch
 * Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because the socks voted to delete the article, but it was kept nonetheless. The difference between "no consensus" and "keep" is purely cosmetic. Feel free to make a note on the talk page to the effect that the AfD was tainted by sockpuppetry, though. Sandstein (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian nationalism
I STRONGLY BELIEVE that the Hungarian nationalism has forced the redirect of the article "Romance Pannonian language" to "Pannonia". Wikipedia should not be influenced in this way....I believe we all have lost useful and interesting information -with precise and serious references from JSTOR- about a language (the Romance Pannonian) that developed in the lake Balaton area and that was "cut and destroyed" in the beginning by the Hungarian barbars. By the way: not one single evidence has been given AGAINST the evidences of the existence of the Romance Pannonian language! Why the decision against the article is based on elementary and not academical opinions? Where is it the proof that the Romance Pannonian language did not exist? In the doubt, the article should have remained (may be with some commentaries against the existence of this romance language by some wikipedians with contrary opinions). There are many other articles that can be erased, if we apply the same logic! Tom R.W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.200.129 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not a Hungarian and do not care about anyone's nationalism. The article was redirected according to the outcome of the AfD discussion. if you think this redirection was in error, see WP:DRV. Sandstein (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The redirect was done because of arguments not based on academical opinions from Hungarian wikipedians (like Hunadam) and this is absolutely not fair. Their superficial opinions and their lack of evidences against what is written in the article are real negative proof fallacies! I want to repeat:Where is it the proof that the Romance Pannonian language did not exist? In the doubt, the article should have remained (may be with some commentaries against the existence of this romance language by some wikipedians with contrary opinions). I hope the authors of the article will request a revision of the redirect (WP:DRV) .Tom


 * I believe we can request a WP:DRV because the article has been erased on arguments not based on academical opinions (but only on contrary POV, mainly from Hungarian wikipedians), and there it is a reasonable doubt of "suspicion" of nationalism in the decision. Furthermore, I even want to pinpoint that one of the "delete" requests in the RfD discussion came from User:Sambure, a banned sockpuppet. Tom R.W.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.204.127 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Swiss copyright question
Hi Sandstein, this time I am wondering about [http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/231_1/a31.html art. 31] of the law (about unknown authors). My question: can it be of any use for Wikipedia ? I don't know if this article requires a solid proof that the author is unknown (e.g. someone who wrote under a pseudonym, and noone has ever known who this person was), or if a pragmatic reading is possible (e.g. for a random photograph, it is almost impossible that the author could be found, and it can be assumed to be in the public domain after 70 years). What is your opinion about this ? In any case, the first case seems unlikely to happen very often in practice, and the second still seems too pragmatic for WP, so I don't think it is of any use.

This is related to a question asked to me by a contributor on fr about old photos (see this section of my talk page for more info)... Thanks in advance ! Schutz (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. I'll do a Swisslex query as soon as their database is back up. Sandstein (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Swisslex yields no interpretation of this article, and I don't have immediate access to a URG commentary. Here's my own opinion: Par. 2 of art. 31 deals with the consequences of the authorship of a work becoming public knowledge ("allgemein bekannt", "publique", "pubblica ragione") before the 70 years are up. In my opinion, it follows that the author of a work is considered unknown in the sense of par. 1 if his identity is not public knowledge. Of course, this leads to the question what "public knowledge" means. Is a random website indexed by Google "public knowledge"? I have no idea. Still, even this would give the rule of art. 31 a relatively wide field of application, especially to random unsigned photographs whose authorship is certainly not "public knowledge" in any sense of the term. Sandstein (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting... It can be quite tricky indeed (one fake example I had in mind: an anonymous photo and a copy of this photo displayed in some (little known) museum with the name of the author... more or less public, but impossible to find). In any case, it still seems unlikely to be enough justification for using such image on commons (proving the absence of public knowledge would be hard... Or, in other words, "absence of proof" is not "proof of absence"...). Thanks, Schutz (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bassetdor
I know the vote went against me here, but I think the Kilcommons book mentioning Bassetdor is a reliable source. Can you please review the discussion again and let me know under what conditions, if any, can the article be restored? Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the consensus was to delete even though you referred to this book as a source. One editor said: "Mention in one book by one author, notable author or not, does not a breed make". Accordingly, you may only recreate this article if substantially more reliable sources than just that one book turn up that recognise this breed. Sandstein (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your swift reply. I guess if you quote the above comment I have to interpret it as a sign that the debate is over. Since I happen to respect your opinion I will bring this chapter to a close. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl Zinsmeister -- TNR link deletion
TNR link

Is there a particular reason why the link to TNR keeps being deleted? Sandstein (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Surely by now it must be obvious that Mr. Zinsmeister himself has been tenacious about whitewashing his own listing on Wikipedia over the months, or at least orchestrating the changes. It is clear that "Tenthfirst" is Mr. Zinsmeister or a member of his immediate family. Other IP addresses have also been used for the removal of "controversial" items, but Mr. Z's fingerprints (and editing habits) are all over them.

The TNR article that Mr. Z finds so distressing was very well researched by TNR, and was itself toned down greatly from its authors earlier drafts because so many of Mr. Z's former co-workers were silenced by fears for their careers, or bought off outright by American Enterprise Institute. TNR's legal people insisted that all info. in that article be backed up by hard evidence and / or vouched for by multiple sources.

I'm sure that many people would say that Mr. Z's bio at the White House link is perhaps even more politically tainted ... Mr. Z has long been prone to exaggeration and twisting of facts to suit his own (or his employer's) purposes. Witness his current stem cell research comments.71.245.94.92 (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)