User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2007/October

Block
Thanks im now unblocked Y2J RKO 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Xerpi
Hi,

I noticed that you deleted my posting about Xerpi yesterday, because it does not state it's relevance. Can you explain to me how the other postings on the social bookmarking list state their relevance?

Thanks, Jen Jenyipnyc 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry, but I can't; each article is judged on its own terms. See WP:WAX. If you think these other articles also do not merit being kept, you can submit them for deletion at WP:AFD. Sandstein 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Airpoints
Hi, firstly, thanks for your comments on my RFA. I've given a brief reply there but wanted to elaborate a bit more here. In your comments on the closure of this AfD, you seem to accept that the article subject is notable but you've deleted it based on it failing WP:V. However, once notability is established, primary sources can be used to reference the article and therefore I don't believe the article warranted deletion since it was sourceable. → AA (talk) — 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I think you are mistaken. It is a fairly common mistake for newer users (that's why I brought it up at your RfA) to think "sourceable" means the same thing as "verifiable" in the sense of WP:V. It does not. WP:V is fairly unambiguous about what "verifiable" means:
 * "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. ... All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."
 * This shows that content is "verifiable" only if it is sourced as soon as it is challenged. However, content for which it is merely shown that it could be sourced is not verifiable. This is because merely linking to a bevy of potential sources, such as Google News archives, does not enable readers "to find the text that supports the article content in question", and they are thus not able to verify its content. Sandstein 05:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your explanation. I take your point on the distinction between "sourceable" and "verifiable". WP:V was mentioned in passing by the nom and no actual arguments were made by any of the "delete" !voters with reference to WP:V - only to WP:N. I was therefore trying to establish firstly, whether there would be consensus on it meeting WP:N - since if it's not notable then updating the article with reliable sources to satisfy WP:V would be a moot point - and I agree that it was borderline. Where I fully believe an article meets WP:N, I do update the article to satisfy WP:V (see for example). I hope I've allayed your concerns but as I've alluded to in my RFA, I wouldn't perform a task unless I am confident that my actions would be correct. → AA (talk) — 08:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the EuroBonus article, would you care to revisit it? I have updated the article citing Dagens Næringsliv, one of the largest business newspapers in Norway. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You blocked this user as "sockpuppet or otherwise a single-purpose account", and he is requesting unblock. Could you elaborate why this account violates WP:SOCK or some other policy so as to merit an immediate indefinite block? Yes, he seems to be here only to edit Instant-runoff voting, but he does not appear to be particularly disruptive about it. Sandstein 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When you consider the actions of him in addition to the actions of, , and (all of whom I indefinitely blocked), and in light of the recent indefinite block of , who Moreschi believed was a sockpuppet of now-banned , the disruption becomes a bit more obvious. Perhaps a checkuser can be done to confirm or de-confirm the blocks, but I'm willing to block first and then check; the occurrence of so many SPAs and socks on one (rather unusual) article can't be a coincidence. --  tariq abjotu  07:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that makes sense. Thanks. Sandstein 07:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ask10questions block, thank you
I see that you attempted to intervene on behalf of User:Ask10questions. I also attempted to intervene; I was the target of the 3RR complaint that got the complainant blocked as well as other sock puppets, a meat puppet, and, unfortunately, Ask10questions. I too was blocked, but the block was lifed immediately. User:Tariqabjotu did get it wrong with Ask10questions. She had done nothing at all to violate Wikipedia policy. The sole reason, as far as I can see, is that she had a "single-purpose account," though it was not a new account. She was a *victim* of the edit cabal that got rooted out through the blocks. Tariqabotu has responded on my Talk page. To a newcomer, his response would seem stubborn and frustrating, since he just repeated, effectively, the charge that she had been doing something wrong. I just bring this up because this kind of thing does damage Wikipedia, leaving a sour taste with a newcomer. I understand his position, he is being efficient. And he did give the correct advice: she can just start a new account, blocking a single-use account is really pretty harmless. I just wanted to thank you for your efforts. Abd` —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

hi
Hi, I noticed you deleted my page on the late film maker Bhaskar Bhattacharyya, I understand I may have made a few mistakes regarding copyright laws as I am new to this but could you please tell me why you deleted the page?

Regards, AB Pooteeweet 07:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because you copied the text of his Guardian obituary. This is a copyright infringement, which we do not allow. Please see WP:C. Sandstein 07:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, so can I write my own obit instead? Pooteeweet 07:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC) and i assure you, i know the author and have full permission to recreate his text(Mr. Kevin Rushby) Anyhow, I'll recreate the page with my own text. Pooteeweet 07:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can write your own text, but please take care to observe WP:V. Sandstein 07:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
You may wish to comment. Davnel03 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Sandstein! Just kick me as you pass ;op I don't disagree with your ultimate decision, but 35 minutes and no further discussion doesn't say much for my relisting... ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Since the AfDs were not yet listed on the new AfD log page, I saw them on WP:AFD/Old, did not read the relist date and assumed the relisting period had passed without comment. Feel free to undo my closures if you want to (but I think it is unlikely the outcome will change much). Sandstein 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

About deletion of Flashme
I saw you didn't merge the article because of lack of "sources". Can you explain to me what exactly do you want for sources? As I wrote on the discussion page, there can't be "university, mainstream" article about this subject, because it is not widely known. Thus, you can only rely on homebrew websites (gbadev, etc..).There were two main sources for the article : the author websites (with informations about the software), and the main board about NDS homebrew, where the author himself releases his software, and write informations not available on his website. How can it be more reliable? I just want to understand...Jidoo 21:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read our policies on reliable sources and verifiability. Homebrew websites are not reliable sources under these policies. If there are no reliable sources for a topic, we should not have an article on it at all. Sandstein 21:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read these policies, and I find the term very biased. So, if it is not "famous", it doesn't have to be in Wikipedia? There are articles about Flashme. But where do you think they~ get their informations? From the websites which were linked on the Wikipedia article. But, according to Wikipedia policy, these websites aren't reliable. Thus, theses articles are not reliable either? Can you see the absurdity of all this? Who can speak better of homebrew things than the people who makes this scene living? Instead of deleting in one weeks a 2 years old article, maybe you should ask for more sources (to "comply with the wikipedia policy"). But if you want to keep the things they are, just search for "homebrew" on Wikipedia, and delete half (yes, Half!) of the 420 articles which don't have "reliable sources"... Jidoo 08:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These sources appear to be reliable, but they are provided too late: they should have been cited in the article or in the deletion discussion. At any rate, they do not tell us much more than that such homebrew devices exist, which is not enough to support an article on them. You are free to dislike our rules stating that self-published sources are not accepted, but they apply nonetheless. You may, of course, publish articles based on such sources on some other website, but you can't do it on Wikipedia. Sandstein 10:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Teaching Company
A template has been added to the article The Teaching Company, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I've added links to reviews indicating the subject's notability. Sandstein 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Spiritual Agnosticism
I noticed your ruling on the AfD page. Now I have no vested interested in this article beyond voting keep because I agreed with the reasoning given, but given the idea is to get consensus, I don't understand how the AfD was in any way supportive of deletion, either reason wise or based on consensus. The overwhelming opinion seemed to be keep. Now if everyone was a sock, fine, but I am assuming those votes would be crossed out of removed, and all I can see left there is a clear vote for keep. as such I feel you should change this to no consensus and return the page based on the principles wikipedia is supposed to uphold. How many of the keep people turned out to be socks? Scanning the page I don't see this mentioned.JJJ999 10:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone on Suspected sock puppets/Kpkambo. Apart from that, most "keep" opinions (including your double vote) had to be dismissed because they did not address the core WP:NOR policy problem. The "opportunity to add references", as you put it, was right there and then during the AfD. Sandstein 12:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your message about someone not receiving a final warning.
I received your message that User talk:167.206.140.11 had not yet been given a final warning. It was my understanding that the following warning...

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

was a final warning due to this official policy on wikipedia which shows vandalism4im as the final warning and highest under the "complete list of warnings" section. Will you please explain what the final warning is if I have misinterpreted vandalism4im as the highest warning? Thanks User5802 15:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the final warning all right, but they did not vandalise after receiving the warning. Sandstein 15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are stating "and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given" appears to be wrong. This user has been warned multiple times. Look at the following: here


 * and here


 * and then here!


 * Please explain how these three final warnings and this ip address vandalizing after 2 final warnings does not constitute vandalism after the final warning. If you don't feel his vandalism after 2 final warnings over a period of approximately 3 months is sufficient for admin intervention than I suppose there is nothing else I can do. But I would highly disagree with that position and your decision on the matter User5802 16:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We do not block users (and especially IP addresses) if they do not vandalise relatively soon after receiving the final warning. In the case of your two IPs, you issued the final warning two days after their last edit. Such reports are not actionable. Please take time to read the instructions carefully. Sandstein 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

SpigotMap
Hello Sandstein,

This is a response to the request for information related to the blocking of SpigotMap. Basically, it's not hard to find his uncivil edits. Just look at all the edits the editor has made since my original block warning (around Oct 10 20:00 or so to present), there are some golden edits in here:


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DSLink&diff=prev&oldid=163953260
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DSLink&diff=prev&oldid=164024220
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DSLink&diff=prev&oldid=164220241

I thought my explanations left on the user page were very complete. I declined to leave additional information for the editor because they haven't listened to a single thing I've said. I've seen them quote things like WP:CIVIL when they either haven't read it (then they are gaming the system) or after reading it and understanding it (at which point, it's vandalism). CIVIL is very clear: edits are required to be made in a way that is not going to increase the stress levels of other editors. By engaging in edit waring and not attempting to rectify disputes on talk pages (even after warning to do so) the editor has proved themselves to be disruptive. Additionally, the editor refuses to integrate into the community process (until the community process was in his benefit by appealing this block) despite my many efforts to not only steer him that way, but to have the community send him feedback as well (through a posting to the Wikiquette alerts, where no one elected to post him additional feedback).

If the user had gone back, struck out the offensive edits made in the bong talk page or had attempted any other community participation (I have not been able to find *any*) in their attempts they would not have been blocked. Additionally, the editor seems to have a problem just dealing with reality, as evidenced by the comments left on their talk page:


 * You have not offered suggestions, you left me one message stating I would be blocked if I continued being, what you consider uncivil.

The editor would be wise to go back and re-read the entire conversation I've had with them. I'll just paraphrase the important parts:


 * My suggestion is that you.......
 * My suggestion to you is that you..........
 * What you need are the people who specialize in difficult editors...........

Basically, I can sum up my feelings about this situation like this: I saw this editor being uncivil on a talk page. I warned them being uncivil on a talk page is not welcome; they stopped being uncivil on the talk page (and, subsequently, they also stopped the editing process on the article and failed to strike our their uncivil edits). The editor then continued on to make other non-civil edits on various pages after being clearly linked to the CIVIL policies. I felt I had no option left as the editor had been clearly warned, had changed behavior just enough to skirt the warnings, and I believed the user was specifically gaming the system.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if you can provide feedback to me on how to handle this situation better. However, I can't think of anything better than trying to refer the editor out to participate in the larger community (only to have the editor spit it into my face again, even). I completely believe this situation could 100% be a misunderstanding, however, the editor has done very little to try to demonstrate cooperation with others or integration into the community as a whole. One more thing, the editor consistently tries to tie this back to being "uncivil against vandalism, etc" - which has never been the point. Triddle 10:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I cannot follow your argument that the user was incivil without the relevant diffs being provided. The three diffs you provide above involve the deletion of unsourced material, which is not incivil, but required under WP:V. Please see my further comment on your talk. Sandstein 21:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Abir (Martial Art) Article
Closing the Abir (Martial Art) article as "No Consensus" was a good idea. The current article is very different from the article that had the AfD request. jonathon 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Joseph Bruce = Joseph Bruce?
Hi... I looked at his user page. Doesn't it seem a little implausible to you? Moreover, he's now running around editing articles related to Joseph Bruce, adding unsourced information that seems more or less all OR. There also this edit, which could be read as WP:LEGAL. --Rrburke(talk) 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'll block him for now. Sandstein 19:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Nintendo 64 Games
Hello I was treated to a deletion of article notice, for my page of Japanese games for this system. The normal page had users that where deleting them whenever anyone tried to add them. I did notice a few days ago going back and rereading the talk page that they had that trouble before, and a administrator began warning people about doing that. My page deletion was changed to a merge, which is fine with me, but I think the others maintaining the page it is to merge with might not like having to add this information. I wanted to ask if you'd help be a sort of Mediator for the change over. Sometimes its difficult to find a administrator when you need one, and if its OK with you I'd like we could have a link to your talk page if someone has a administration question about the page or Wikipedia guidelines, I also asked the Administrator that first warned people about the problem if they'd help mediate also, I'm not sure if we'd need even one, but sometimes having two or three people we can turn to with questions seems like it'd be helpful, and if one doesn't get back to use in a few days, or is on vacation or something we'd have another to ask. I'm asking because you where the one who posted the discussion closed notice on the deletion requested page, if you have no interest in it that's OK also. Thanks again for helping keep Wikipedia with the useful information that it already has. (Floppydog66 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Sure, I'll try and answer any questions that you might have. (You know, I assume, that even as an administrator I have no power to issue binding decisions.) I recommend discussing the terms of the merger on the talk page of the target article. Sandstein 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Attachment therapy
Thanks for the advice. I'll get back to you! Fainites barley 20:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to Image:Comint-switzerland.jpg...
Hi Sandstein, I'd like to ask a question to your  :-). We have actually discussed this already at Talk:Swiss copyright law, but I'll rephrase the question slightly differently: all things considered, do you think I can upload Image:Comint-switzerland.jpg on commons ? Schutz 20:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no, I still don't think a good faith case can be made that the image is PD under Swiss law. (Unlike Lupo, I think the Meili ruling enables us to exercise some discretion with respect to the originality of photographs, but as regards text documents, it appears impossible to argue in good faith that a document such as this one is not original enough for copyright.) Sandstein 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok (I was not really relying of the originality threshold, though, only on the "official document" exemption — as you mentioned in the previous discussion that it would not be a clear cut case, I was wondering if it was fuzzy enough that we could have a good faith case). I can still try to get an authorization from Bern, but for some reason, I don't think it'll be as easy as for the Parliament pictures (I don't even expect a reply, even if I carefuly phrase my request so that they don't have to confirm that the document is real) :-) Schutz 05:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I still think this cannot be reasonably construed as an "official report" not subject to copyright. I also don't think you'll have much luck with the request for permission. I considered pointing you to the new Federal Freedom of Information Act, which provides for a formal process to requesting access to official documents. But even if this process is successfully followed (which it might well be, since the document is already public), article 6 of that act explicitly reserves the provisions of copyright law. Sandstein 05:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I remember well (I did not manage to find the relevant part of the law after a quick look), the Freedom of Information Act applies only to documents created after the law became effective, which is not the case of this document. I'm glad to see that you consider that such a request (barring the date question) may be successful, though; I would think that even if the document is already public, the army would still consider it "secret" so as to never confirm that the document is genuine or not (in the other hand, the fact that they sued the journalists who published it pretty much settles the question :-). Thanks for your (interesting, as usual) insight ! Schutz 07:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re Attachment therapy images
Its a bit difficult to find images of people doing very controversial things to children! I have here two clips of attachment therapy which someone posted on the talkpage from YouTube. Firstly, can a YouTube clip be used, and secondly, is it possible to create a still from these? http://youtube.com/watch?v=i5qZrVzqGO8, http://youtube.com/watch?v=YzS7x-qKYfU 86.158.134.53 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)that was me Fainites barley 21:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, Youtube is not a reliable source, and the clips are copyrighted in any case. They lack source info so proper attribution info would be hard to get. If there are no images, well, there are none, that's not a big problem for GA. Sandstein 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. There is actually an editor who recognises both the child and the therapist - but I can't see how that could translate into verifiability either. Its difficult to think of an image that encapsulates physically coercive 'therapy! Thanks all the same. Fainites barley 21:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeq
I left a note on Zeq's talk page saying I would remove the block provided he agrees to abide by both the letter and the spirit of the ArbCom probation. Kaldari 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Zeq has agreed and I have removed the block. Kaldari 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and for keeping an open mind.
best, Zeq 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

New deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of web.py. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ ( contrib ) 15:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Enoch08
Have you read his contribs? I'll grant that the autoblock hit someone it shouldn't have, but stuff like "VANDALISM IS FUN" and "JIMBO YOU AND WIKIPEDIA ARE FUCKERS" would seem to be "user hates Wikipedia", yes?

"Overdue for block" - that's what I use for people did severe vandalism several months ago and haven't contributed since. DS 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I certainly agree that the block as such was in order. It's just easier to figure that out on unblock review if you use more easily intelligible reasons such as "vandalism-only account" that have a bearing on blocking policy. After all, being an idiot or hating Wikipedia are not blocking offences, but vandalism and disruption are. Calling blocked users idiots, even if deserved, is also unlikely to deter them from continued disruption and block evasion. Sandstein 13:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)