User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/April

Ouze Merham AfD
You should have been bolder. There are too many "no consensus" closes these days; its almost as if if people make enough noise, guarantee enough of a trainwreck, then the article is kept. That's is a very problematic incentive structure.

Consensus has to be looked for sometimes, and that's where closing admins are supposed to come in. I have more specific grouses with parts of your rationale but people are never interested in that after the fact, so I'll keep them to myself. Relata refero (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't find a consensus for deletion where, plainly, none exists - our rules say that "when in doubt, do not delete". If people make a lot of noise, that's just an indication that there is likely no consensus to delete. You'd need to change the whole deletion process to come to a different conclusion. Yes, the strength of arguments must be weighted, but this was essentially an editorial decision - is this Ouze Merham issue notable enough? - with good arguments on either side. Sandstein (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understood my point. Consensus is not a headcount. Noise, disagreement, etc., does not represent lack of consensus among arguments informed by policy. I'm not going to bang on about it, but please think about what I said. We don't need to change the deletion process, we need slightly more ballsy closes. (And forgive me if I think that while we are under seige from CoI-ed editors, its a little more than a simple editorial decision. Pick a side. We're at war.) Relata refero (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know what sides you refer to, and I am not on either. If you feel my closure is in error, I  ask you to seek consensus for overturning it at WP:DRV, instead of going on about my supposed lack of balls. I do not take kindly at all to such comments, and I see no point in continuing this discussion on such a level. Sandstein (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear God. "Pick a side. We're at war" is a catchphrase of the humorous character linked to. The "war" I was humorously referring to was Wikipedia's against CoI, where I, naturally assume you are on Wikipedia's side. I made it quite clear that I don't want to "bang on about it", which would preclude an exhausting DRV where the same arguments would be rehashed. And if you object to the term "ballsy", which on reflection is not universally considered polite, please re-read the above sentense as "we need slightly more courageous closes." Which is true. Finally, I apologise if I have offended you. My points, however, stand. I strongly urge you to try and take somewhat more of a stand in future. Admins are supposed to get their hands dirty, that's why they have tenure. Relata refero (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for paying attention to both consensus and policy in that close, Sandstein. If you had ruled the other way, but done it with a good interpretation of policies and guidelines, I'd have still thanked you, even if I took it to DRV. It was one of the longer and messier AfDs, and I appreciate any closing admin who steps up to hsndle them, especially when the admins explain their reasoning and are trying to follow closing policy. Noroton (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki article
Is there a way that you could send me the version of the article before it was deleted? Thank you. DrWho42 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will save it under the sub-page: User:DoctorWho42/Battlestar_Wiki. DrWho42 (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Lois Lowry page
As an administrator I thought you might be able to advise me on what to do. First, changes made to the Lois Lowry page are not showing in the articles history list. The article does in fact change but such changes are not being recorded and are therefore also not showing up on other people's watch lists. Second, over the last year there has been an incredible amount of vandalism attempts on the Lois Lowry article, usually by anonymous IP addresses. Is there a way to allow only wikipedia members with actual names to alter the article? I would aprriciate you responding on my talk page. Thank you. Nrswanson (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Sandstein (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Classical language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Classical_language

I was thinking over and over again, but i couldn't understand, why did you made this comment. Please explain it in all details in context of my contribution of sources in this article. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Edits to protected pages require consensus. Our policy WP:PROT states: "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove inappropriate material or to make changes for which there is clear consensus." Such consensus was not apparent at the time I evaluated your request, therefore I declined it. The merits of your proposed edit do not matter. Sandstein (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clear explanation. Sorry for any inconveniences. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a break here!
re: 11:51, 21 March 2008 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) deleted "1632 Editorial Board" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance)


 * ... "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."

The criteria itself is flawed for Christ's Sake... if, and I doubt this is true to anyone that took time to read it in context, such importance couldn't be gleaned, then certainly the fact that it was linked to from very nearly every other article related to the 1632 series should certainly have given someone pause on this!!!

By definition, any article(s) on literary matters are, in this video dominated age, a niche thing. In this series, we are however seeing multiple best sellers being produced to a great historical fidelity (sic) given the alternate history's beginning premises at a very rapid pace... all of which are canonical within the series. By any measure, the success of the series is large [the first book continues to GROW in sales after ten years... reminiscent of JRR Tolkien's epic to one who recalls when hardly anyone knew of it!] and the current rate of production of sequels is downright explosive, since the one author best seller turned into a shared universe (and IMHO, a historic) exercise in collaborative fiction... in which, the Board stands at the center (along with the Research Committee, which is nearly, but not exactly the same group of people).

This particular article is/was the surrogate (redirect target) of several other related terms from past deletion actions by people mistaking activity with wikipedia progress... 'More to the point, the series is very complex and convoluted and the information posted in this article allows uncluttering and a link reference in passing so that the other articles may better stay on point. That makes it both significant and important to this institution' BY THAT MEASURE ALONE, I question the fitness of whomever hung the original speedy tagging to consider themselves a qualified editor, much less someone with common sense. It also indicates strongly that criteria seven is severely flawed. Sigh... can't even take time to live in RL around here!

Please undelete ASAP, including repairing any broken links you caused in administering this matter... and if you can't state clearly why, what the hell you were thinking to endorse the original tagging by acting in such a harmful manner, why someone that can read couldn't just fix the 'importance factor mention', and what recourse I have if you don't. Further, why the hell doesn't this community grow up and enforce a mandatory notification of interested parties on such as this by email and talk page posts? If a tag hanger were required to put that minimal time cost into defending his judgment to those who've put their free time into building such, this kind of message would all but disappear! You and I would both be ahead in time freed up for planned and hopefully more important matters!

I really am getting fed up with some of the bullshit around here like this. // Fra nkB 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not having read the article before I can't comment on its actual content but, may I say that perhaps instead of "going off on one" at people that perhaps asking for a deletion review may be more appropriate than the above statements. And please I know that somethings get on all our nerves but, there may be matters of civility to look at. If you disagree with my suggestion about deletion review or any of my comments than please feel free to comment back in "venom-free" way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to discuss the appropriateness of WP:CSD. After reading the above, it remains my judgement that the deleted article does meet WP:CSD and was properly speedily deleted, because it did not even assert why this organisation or website was notable as defined by WP:ORG or WP:WEB, respectively. Our speedy deletion policy does not require any prior notification or discussion (that's why it's called "speedy"). If you still think the speedy deletion was improper, you are free to request its reversion at WP:DRV, Also, I agree with Jasynnash2 above. Sandstein (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As a fellow admin - but also a biased fan of 163x verse - I'd like to ask you to restore this and go through AfD to eliminate any doubts of notability. Personally I'd probably merge this article with something more notable, like 163x article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to do either by yourself (i.e., restore and AfD - or restore and merge), I've no problem with that, but I won't do it myself. I've read one or two of the books, I think, but Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and not an exercise in fandom. Thus, in an AfD, I'd have to opine for deletion if there is no substantial third party coverage of this "board". Sandstein (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So sorry you misapprehend any of the above as going off on you. Considering how this travesty had me feeling (and the time it took me to get back to follow up on this for example), that was a polite comment on out of process idiocy. As far as your suggestions, you missed the whole point. There is a fundamental difference between "notable" as WEB/ORG define, and useful as part of other coverage. In this case and similar others WEB and ORG don't really apply, the article is part of wikiproject NOVELS coverage, and is an INTEGRAL page belonging to coverage of all these: 1632 series, simplifying and improving all related articles in the process. This is by rough count at least the third time WEB has been misconstrued to cover all cases to the detriment of other articles herein. Tell me why I should continue to volunteer precious free time when some continually tear down what is put together? What the hell, lets just delete everything and we can all spend our time in recreation instead of taking painstaking care to organize and simplify things so they're clear to a reader who happens bye.  // Fra nkB  03:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but may I suggest that if you would like to write about subjects that do not fall into the general encyclopedic scope of Wikipedia because they have insufficient third party coverage, there are a number of alternative outlets available. On the matter of the deletion, I have no additional comment to make since your statement does not address the application of the relevant speedy deletion criterion, WP:CSD. If you still disagree with the deletion, you are free to request its review by the community. Sandstein (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point reagarding your decline to unblock User:Dwrayosrfour
I am a bit curious to why he was singled out though, one cannot edit war alone. Even if the others did not violate 3RR they were obviously edit warring, he at least had consensus to fall back on. Also, the admin that blocked him had a false since of what was going on. User:GlassCobra told them that he was the one making the change to the article and he wasn't. GC thought dw was removing metal and adding rock, that wasn't the case user kaiba was removing alternative all together which went against consensus of multiple users. The explanation of why he was blocked was this misunderstanding. It was because he was the one making a new change, well that wasn't the case. That happened because GC failed to actually look at the edits that had been made. DW was clearly making good faith edits and was acting on behalf of several involved in the consensus. Kaiba did not even discuss his change, he just overrode consensus, yet he is still editing. It is grossly unfair that he was singled out like that. It is even worse that what they (the admins) thought was happening was not. They listed the reason for not blocking Kaiba because of the position user dw actually had, they just did not realize it at the time. The fact he is blocked at all is horrible, and looks bad on everyone involved, let alone 3 whole days for violating 3RR to enforce a consensus of several users. I have never seen anyone blocked that long for 3RR. Landon1980 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, however that may be, is there anything specific you would like me to do apart from unblocking the user, and if so, why? Sandstein (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I just wanted at least one admin to know what actually happened. This just seems very unfair to me, not sure why I'm letting it bother me it just is. If you think he deserves to be blocked I will accept that, because you at least know what actually happened. It isn't like I can ask you to do something and you will do it now is it? Landon1980 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins exist to enforce policy at the request of users. If you can tell me that there is something specific that must be done, and you have a good policy-based reason for it, I will do it. It is not that I think the user deserves to be blocked – I have no opinion on that. The point is that no one has provided a good policy-based reason why he shold be unblocked. As I explained, "enforcing consensus" is not a valid reason to violate WP:3RR, and the unblock request was therefore not actionable. Sandstein (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy says to block both participants in an edit war, correct? Also, you do not have to violate 3RR to edit war, right? If he was edit warring so was User:Kaiba This user was the intended target in the first place, the admin confused the two of them. This the user he was edit warring with, dw at least had consensus to fall back on and was acting in good faith. The other user was overriding consensus of multiple users to make a controversial change, did not even discuss this. So block the other participant. Landon1980 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific? If you want me to block User:Kaiba for edit warring, you need to prove (with dated WP:DIFFs) that he was warned beforehand not to do it, that he did violate the WP:3RR rule, and you need to argue why blocking him now is necessary under our blocking policy to prevent present harm to the encyclopedia. Sandstein (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You want me blocked for reverting three times a couple of nights ago? I would also love to hear how the administrator was 'confused' when the editor who was blocked reverted seven or eight times within 24 hours, and when I had stopped long before he reverted a fourth time. I suggest you quit your crusade against me now, otherwise your stalking of my contributions and your words added here will be reported. —  Κ aiba  08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tail furry unblock request
Hi, thanks for asking. The block was because of his edits to Namdaemun came in the middle of a big revert war, apparently coordinated at least in parts off-wiki on a Japanese online forum, whose users have had a longstanding pattern of stalking Korean User:Appletrees and blowing up more or less any article he edits into a big edit war. In this instance, the Japanese crowd had decided the article on this Korean architectural monument absolutely needed a photograph showing it during the time of Japanese occupation (apparently, as far as I can make out, in order to imply how the Japanese had actually tidied up the space and how ugly it was before that, but who knows what the motivations in these edit wars are. These guys are capable of nationalist edit wars even about topics as innocuous as fruit or flowers.) - Deal with it as you see fit; I have no proof this particular guy was an off-wiki meatpuppet or an accidental passer-by; given his poor English I don't really quite see what he wants here though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Islamophilia (third nomination)
Thank you. That's precisely the sort of rationale that all closers should look very hard at and learn from. -- Relata refero (disp.) 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish to express my gratitude of your contacting to blocking admin for my unblock.
Thanks to you, the block was released. I want to express my gratitude for your having contacted blocking admin. I saw the explanation of details of the block by blocking admin. I did not intend to have edited it with such an intention. However, it has given a false impression consequentially. It will carefully edit it for the article in the future. --Tail furry (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AndyCook's Block.
Clearly my wikify of Norwegian_Refugee_Council did not impress you, do you have a suggestion of something i should do, such as expanding a stub comparison to wikify'ing? --76.66.68.120 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC) (anon for AndyCook)
 * The issue appears to be moot, as your account has now been unblocked. Best, Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting AfD Close
Your close of Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act was no consensus, but the edit summary of the close stated "closing AfD, result was delete". Just bringing this to your attention. Alansohn (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the edit summary was a mistake. Sandstein (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of companies of Pakistan
Re-opened the Afd on this here. I think you are basically wrong with closing it as a keep. Can you explain any of your decisions? Keep, move, delete, they were all discussed but you moved for no consensus? why? Bp E ps - t @  lk 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "No consensus" means that not enough editors have voiced reasonable opinions to delete the article, so that we do not have a community consensus to delete it. Please read WP:DGFA for a more thorough explanation.
 * I see that you yourself have withdrawn the nomination in favour of a move. The "no consensus" closure just means that the article is not deleted. It does not hinder you from moving the article, if there is consensus for it. Sandstein (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if you disagree with a AfD closure, please consult with the closing admin first and then consider seeking review at WP:DRV. Do not immediately re-open an AfD, because it will be speedily closed, as as in this case. Sandstein (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Swiss Finance Academy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Swiss Finance Academy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Swiss Finance Academy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Kindly note my response to your comments. We respectfully disagree with the above assessment. Swiss Finance Academy is a school of substantially larger size (as measured by student enrolment) than many other schools already listed in Wikipedia, and therefore it would be unfair to delete this entry. The school is also endorsed by a very large number of respectable educational institutions who send their students to the Academy. For example:

UK's Durham Business School: http://www.agora.org.uk/news/newsitem.asp?id=431 Carleton College: http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/career/news/?issue_id=100792&story_id=100804 Trinity College: http://internet2.trincoll.edu/TrinExchange/Default.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=2&aid=8700 University of East London: http://www.uel.ac.uk/employability/latest_news.htm

I believe these qualify as independent verifiable sources. Further, the president of Swiss Finance Academy is also president of the Dartmouth Club of London, an alumni organization representing Dartmouth College in the UK:

http://www.dartmouth.org/clubs/dcle/

The Academy's website in itself is a rich source of information with photos of past programs, participating investment banks, and alumni careers: www.SwissFinanceAcademy.org. While this in itself may not be considered an independent source, it refers to other independent sources, and this is not uncommon for other private schools listed in Wikipedia as well.

I have noted the criticism and made the language of the article more neutral. Gosiamadej (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I'll endeavour to reply at the AfD discussion, which is the place for such arguments. Sandstein (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument that it should be deleted because it is a summer program does not make sense because Wikipedia has a host of summer camps listed which grant no degrees and are no more notable. Take International Astronomical Youth Camp for example. There is hardly any independent coverage about the camp, and there are dozens of others which offer even less notability. I have looked at Wikipedia entries for dozens of schools, including small private colleges, high schools and summer programs. Vast majority of the content on these pages seems to have been written by the schools themselves and is not independently verifiable. Swiss Finance Academy is a substantial organization in public domain that is even undergoing formal accreditation process so that attending students will be able to receive credit from their home universities towards a degree for the work completed at the Academy. To be fair, the same standards for inclusion across the board should be applied. Gosiamadej (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please keep this discussion to one place at Articles for deletion/Swiss Finance Academy. Also, if you post here, please keep the discussion to this section. I've moved your comment here from a new section at the bottom. Sandstein (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rashadtyler
Sorry for not responding earlier (I wasn't online at the time) but the reason why I blocked the user was not just because of the making of a non-notable musician page but also, putting up false (at least, unsourced) on various other pages. It's too late to respond but just letting you know.  Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but unsourced what? Anyway, a warning might have been worthwile for a user who is not clearly a vandalism-only account. Best, Sandstein (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you
I do appreciate your taking an interest in my complaint on AN/I, but would you mind checking in there again for my last couple of comments? User:Viriditas has escalated things by templating my talk page, and posting comments that seem focused on getting at me rather than what is best for the article. All I ask if that you take a look there, and at Bibliography of Philip K. Dick. Many thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the pages and left Viriditas a note. The refactoring issue, while confusing, does not appear to need intervention; talk page refactoring can be acceptable under certain circumstances and the issue is too minor for me to spend much time investigating it. The 3RR template may be construed as rude, yes, but then you are approaching 3RR on Bibliography of Philip K. Dick. I'm watching that article now and if edit warring about the lead continues, I may decide to protect the article or block all involved. Sandstein (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. Thanks.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD Close
In my opinion at least, your close of Articles for deletion/Eric Lerner was quite thoughtful and did an excellent job reflecting the views of all who participated. "No consensus" was, I think, the right conclusion, as was the push to discuss the "move" option on the article talk page now that the deletion debate is finished. It was a somewhat dicey AfD and I think you handled it very well. Kudos, as they say.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. Sandstein (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Viriditas
You've accused me of threatening an edit war and being aggressive. Meanwhile, the facts show the following:
 * 12:29, 17 April 2008 - A new editor, User:Roogroog adds a lead section to the article.
 * 17:43, 17 April 2008 - Ed Fitzgerald blanket reverts the new addition with the edit summary, "rv There's no need for that amount of narrative, there's a full article on Philip K. Dick, this is simply a bibliography, a list"
 * 00:01, 18 April 2008 - Viriditas reverts to the version by User:Roogroog with the edit summary, "Restore. All good lists have lead sections."
 * 04:25, 19 April 2008 - Ed Fitzgerald blanket reverts again with the edit summary, "removed biographical sketch of Dick, which duplicates the main article, and is therefore unnecessary"
 * 06:58, 19 April 2008 - Viriditas reverts to the version by User:Roogroog with the edit summary, "Rv ownership issues by EdFitz. Use the talk page to explain why a list should not have a lead section like every other FA list"
 * 07:03, 19 April 2008 - Ed Fitzgerald blanket reverts again.
 * 07:18, 19 April 2008 - Ed Fitzgerald copies over part of the lead section from Philip K. Dick which has nothing to do with the bibliography

Ownership issues and edit warring instigated by Ed Fitzgerald. Nobody can can get an edit in or a talk page discussion about the subject without Ed making the final decision. No discussion is needed, because Ed Fitzgerald has the final say. And you call me aggressive? I suggest you take a good, hard look at the discussion on Talk:Philip K. Dick, where I made an initial polite request for clarification from two editors, and was met with multiple attacks from Ed Fitzgerald for the next few hours. Diffs available on request. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, my advice is to ignore the personal issues you may have with Ed – yes, there was the start of an edit war, but I cannot see any prima facie indications of ownership issues – and focus on discussing the content issue. Sandstein (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What are my personal issues that I have with Ed? I don't even have a dispute with him.  The irony is that I've gone out of my way  to help him and defend him in the past.  He's apparently invented a sob story about me and him and he's sold it to you and others.  You want prima facie indications of ownership issues?  How about his statements on Talk:Philip K. Dick where he explicitly states that any evidence I offer will not be accepted by him, and as such, a category will not be allowed in the article.  How much more of an owner can you get than that?  Again, I don't have a single personal issue with Ed, so you must have received bad information. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's difficult to evaluate without diffs. Please take what I have said into account. Sandstein (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's easy to evaluate, and here's just one diff:  Please make note of the condescending behavior, the accusations, and his words at the end where he says "it will prove nothing, and never can".  Also make note of my polite and courteous edits prior to and after his continuing attacks.  Ed is emotionally invested in this issue and is using and abusing the administrative process to edit war and own articles.  You are being used. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Ed Fitzgerald

 * May I say that I was not attacking, I was discussing the issue, by posting citations from various places that supported my viewpoint. I'm really at a loss for what I did wrong. Sorry to clutter your page - I won't respond here again. (BTW, plenty of diffs on my AN/I complaint.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to break that last promise so quickly - it's really quite difficult to retain equanimity under these circumstances. Anyway, here's the diff for the comment Viriditas is referring to above, and in it I conclude, after giving a bunch of quote from various places:"So sure, trot out your 'evidence'. For every example of Dick as a 'Christian writer', I'll bring out 5 others that show he's Gnostic, Manichean, Zoarastrean, Jewish, Jungian, whatever he happened to be into at the moment. It will prove nothing, and never can, because Dick is not a Christian writer."That's not an attack on V., or a sign of having ownership issues, that's an indication that I hold a strong opinion on the subject and feel I have the evidence to suppport it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I just note that V. just refactored your talk page. My three comments above came in posting order when I put them up, and he's just moved them to a seperate section, on your talk page.  This is precisely what he did on Talk:Philip K. Dick. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont) 
 * And I did it because I was in the middle of replying to Sandstein in a discussion with him, when you showed up to share your two cents again, leaving me with an edit conflict. I feel I have every right to continue my conversation with Sandstein without you interfering again. Your own section is right above this one, Ed.  It has the title, "Sorry to bug you".  Now you want two sections to discuss yourself?  I feel I have the right to discuss something without having to be constantly interrupted by you.  Now go edit in the section you started, and I'll edit in mine. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, stop it. My talk page is not the proper venue for this. I do not feel particularly used, I have no problem with a refactoring of my talk page if it aids the flow of discussion – but your tone in this thread, Viriditas, is again needlessly agressive. At any rate, I have no interest at all in evaluating your past problems, because they do not seem to require action now. My previous advice stands. Sandstein (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. You've advised discussing the content.  Ed has made it clear above, that any discussion will be fruitless, because it's his way or the highway.  So no discussion is possible.  He won't accept any evidence for a category, and only one paragraph that he writes is appropriate for a lead section.  That's not a discussion.  That's Ed, owning two articles. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fashion Royalty
Please add back my page. It was NOT an advertisement.Kingkevin (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because it was written like an advertisement, and because it was also a copyright violation of http://www.fashionroyalty.com/biostory.html. If you continue to post copyrighted content or advertisements, I will block you from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks
Hello Sandstein, you were involved in the AfD of the related article, the result was "not delete". And now we are discussing merging the article. The problem is that, some editors claim the article cannot be merged into International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks unless there is consensus, and consensus will never be reached with their POV motives. Any advice on how we can resolve this dispute? thanks, Imad marie (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that a merger, like every other edit, ultimately requires consensus. To begin with, I advise you not to attribute "POV motives" to other editors. This can be perceived as a personal attack – and more importantly, it achieves nothing. Instead, consider involving more people. So far, the merger discussion seems to have involved relatively few editors. You could ask for opinions at the subject-specific noticeboards, for instance – preferably all of them, so as not to give the apearance of canvassing.
 * I also strongly advise you not to proceed with any mergers or redirections before consensus is clearly established. In my experience, this leads to edit wars, which lead to blocks all around. Sandstein (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I already opened a thread on the COI noticeboard here, but it was closed as "not a COI issue". And now I'm unsure what noticeboard would be relevant to our dispute. Imad marie (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is indeed not a COI issue, as I doubt that these other editors were somehow personally involved in these celebrations. It's a run-of-the-mill content issue: should these celebrations be covered as part of a larger article, or on their own? I advise you to ask on the talk pages of the Wikiprojects dealing with Israeli/Palestinian, terrorism, or geopolitics issues; or on the Village pump. Sandstein (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not personally involved in the celebration, but some are (including myself) personally involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anyway thanks for the advice :) Imad marie (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's fight!
Lol, just kidding. Might I ask why you were closing the AfD discussion on Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Allegations of state terrorism by the United States]]? It appeared that discussion was still occurring. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of closing it, which can occur at any time after five days are up, irrespective of whether there's discussion going on. At any rate, one or two comments more are unlikely to alter the outcome. Sandstein (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept your close and will not revert it. Jtrainor (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For future reference, per DPR, only administrators should overturn non-admin closures, except in cases of patent disruption. Sandstein (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to thank you for a most penetrating analysis summing up in a logical way the debate over the Afd nomination. It’s clear you considered all the arguments presented, juxtaposed against core WP policies, which I think will actually help stabilized article, as much of the problems stem from not understanding many of the WP policies that you clarified. Well done!Giovanni33 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually, your argument was among those I discounted because it was way too long, it addressed irrelevant issues (such as stuff being deleted from the article) and featured irritating references to "POV warriors" and such. An effective AfD argument should be brief and to the point; it should focus on the policies at issue and not on the assumed motives or editing behaviour of other editors. Best, Sandstein (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, and your analysis that explained this was instructive. I actually knew this but felt the things I said needed to be said, and were relevant in the larger context of what has been happening with the constant disputes from a dedicated party that wants the information suppressed despite policy. In any case, your analysis was, I thought, quite thorough and accurate.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say I also think your closure of this AFD was excellant, well explained and considered. Davewild (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on a particularity well reasoned and articulate closing rationale. It's much more than many closers provide. I !voted to keep, so I'm biased, but I'd like to believe that I would still say that I appreciated your closing even if I had been a deletionist, after I got over being really disappointed. I appreciate cogent and thoughtful writing, whether in comments or in articles. One of my pet peeves is "Delete per nom", for example, so even when I also vote delete, I provide a reason. I learned from your closing, and I hope others do also. And I agree with Giovanni that this has to help with the article editing process. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks both for your kind remarks. I would appreciate it if my comments could contribute to a more productive editing environment. I'm personally very uncomfortable with this sort of article, because they're really, really difficult to keep policy-compliant (if this is at all practically possible), but our current consensus seems to be that we have to keep trying. Sandstein (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't AfD votes usually displayed? It doesn't matter to me whether its delelted or not - the swift sword of SYN will carve away all the uncited and the cruft in short order. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "displayed" ... the discussion is noted in a box at the top of the talk page, though. Sandstein (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for not being clearer - I meant, how many folk were for keeping and how many for deleting? I imagine such deletion discussions are different from, say RfA discussions, but I was looking for a vote count, so as to weigh it against the many other times to anticipate how long it will take for it to be nominated for deletion again - if it weren't fixed in a year, it likley isn't to be fixed anytime soon, and will likely trigger another AfD. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have provided an opinion count in the closing statement. Normally, one may also count heads oneself. (For complicated reasons, they're not supposed to be "votes".) Sandstein (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

unblocking
Thank you for your note. I am new to Wikipedia and can't understand the instruction to unblock the IP address. The notes say I will find the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" Can you please tell me what the template is?--Ruloo (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As you are able to edit this page, you are not blocked and do not need to issue any more requests. Sandstein (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Magic: The Gathering rules
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Magic: The Gathering rules. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Very thoughtful
Very thoughtful response on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. This is something that is sorely needed on this article. Thank you. 4.249.201.67 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. You went well beyond the call of duty to tread carefully on a touchy subject, and to bring hope of mediation. Good show. --Kiz o r  16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Returned vandal
User_talk:24.31.243.62 has been vandalizing again. -- Evertype·✆ 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see any recent vandalism by this address. Sandstein (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords
I'll take the contents if nobody else asks for them...I meant to transwiki it anyways. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Recreated at User:UsaSatsui/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords. Sandstein (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Magic: The Gathering keywords
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Magic: The Gathering keywords. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying me. Sandstein (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Brugg
Hello Sandstein. I am going to take a bit of time to finish the Brugg page. I work the following 5 days and worked today as well, so my time is rather limited when it comes to translating a rather long page. I lost my touch with "Wikipedia's rules" after spending a long time, with a different nickname, updating the Chechnya page some years back. I am sorry if you have to "clean up" after me and I do appreciate the help. I was confused as to whether or not I was required to place a period after "mi" as one of two "mi" in the table on the right side of the page had done, for example. I was unaware of the fact that the titles of sections should contain small case letters.

On a side note: The Vindonissa is still closed. It has been closed for quite some time (it was closed when I moved to Brugg, and I will be leaving again within a few months), although it is supposed to open again soon. As you speak German, you should considering adding this to the introduction of the German version of Brugg, as I had attempted to translate as directly as possible. This information was not in that introduction! There are a few deliberate differences in the "Geography" section, but they pertain to the fact that they would be seen as a bit unnecessary outside of the German speaking world -- i.e. I cut out a sentence or two.

I disagree with your decision to change "grown together" into "fused." They grew together over time. They are not one community, they did not suddenly "fuse" (merge). I find this inappropriate in light of the German word "fusionieren" -- partically as Brugg is once again facing another "fusion" with a neighboring community. It shall be decided at the polls. We'll see what the voters say. With this in mind, it was in fact an organic development that occurred over a longer period of time, hence my word choice for the translation. --Ami in CH (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I apologise if you have read my edit summary as a criticism of your editing. It was not meant that way. I have made many additions regarding heritage sites today, and for the sake of simplicity I have used templated edit summaries that say "cleanup" if I make any changes unrelated to the heritage sites issue. I agree that "grown together" may be better, and I do not object if you want to revert this change. Best, Sandstein (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now modified my default edit summary to avoid such misunderstandings. Sandstein (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I am just a bit intimidated by Brugg's German-language page! It is going to take me quite a bit of time to translate, especially as I am working a lot. I do appreciate you help. --Ami in CH (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Feel free to ask if you need any help. Sandstein (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting deleted articles
I do not know the guidelines for doing so. I believe that the magic keywords list has the potential to be a much better article than, say, Pokemon (141-160), and I know it says that if an article was deleted in the past you have the ability to rewrite it in order to make it comply with Wikipedia guidelines and make a good, quality article (though it seems like when people do so immediately after a deletion discussion, it is almost invariably seen as an attempt to evade consensus, though I'm sure oftentimes it is) without being acting in bad faith. However, I have never -done- so before, and I don't want to seem like I'm trying to evade consensus. I agree with the closure and deletion of the article as per the AFD conensus (I wasn't a part of it, but that's my own problem, eh?) but I do feel that the article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and can do so without violating WP:GAMEGUIDE. How should I go about doing this? I assumed that challenging the deletion was the correct path, but perhaps it wasn't? Should I wait a few months before doing it? Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The way I closed it, the discussion determined that this topic was outside our project scope because it violates WP:NOT. This means the article can't be reposted on its own unless it is rewritten very thoroughly so as not to focus on the rules themselves, but on the real-world impact or third-party coverage of the rules. If you think I closed the discussion in error, DRV was probably the right venue, but your nomination was unhelpful as it did not address any procedural errors of the closure (which is all that DRV is supposed to review). An alternative would be to integrate the material (possibly in shortened form, or as a collapsible table) into another Magic article, if you can get consensus that this does not violate WP:SS. Sandstein (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally think the article subject matter itself is notable, and am sorry I didn't quite understand the proper procedure - I didn't mean to impugn your decision but rather say that I think the consensus itself was in error, and that I can prove otherwise. However, I think that outside of writing an article in userspace which actually works under Wikipedia guidelines is the only way to actually demonstrate this, so I think I'll work on writing up a version of the article on my userspace which does not violate WP:GAMEGUIDE and is an informative article, work on it for a while, then put it forth as evidence of its notability and appropriateness in Wikipedia, but without such an article in hand, I'm not going to change anyone's mind. Thanks for your help. I'm going to withdraw my DRV. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Vadalism
After reading what is, and what is NOT vadalism, it is clear you do not have an understanding of what is NOT vandalism. You previously and incorrectly blocked me from editing, I suggest you read up on what is not vandalism before making anymore of these mistakes WP:VAND#NOT Freemasonx (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I blocked you for disruptive unblock requests, not vandalism. Do you really want administrator attention drawn to you? From looking at your recent edits, you will not like it. For instance that does look loke vandalism, and so does that (breaking a perfectly fine link). Additionally, that violates WP:PROVEIT. In sum, you do not seem to be a productive editor, and I will block you if you make any other unproductive edits of this type. (This warning is copied to your talk page.) Sandstein (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one bumping into problems with this user's edit patterns (see User talk:Freemasonx). Mlaffs (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So am I right when I see that since I'm new and still getting used to this, you are saying I need to be a pro rigth from the start. I do things in good faith, yet you are holding me to a very high standard after only a couple weeks. Why are you so hostile toward me just because I am not the "best" editor yet. Don't take what I am saying personally, constructive critisism versus just pointing out flaws would help me much more. It's like telling a 16 year old they are a horrible driver, but never explaining to them what they are doing wrong. I'm doing my best. Freemasonx (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, what was your intention in making this edit and that edit? Sandstein (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I was adding parenthetically that mt. juliet is a nashville suburb, i thought it was a good addition, if people don't want to know this then i guess just remove it, and i put in that mu330 article is a lot of original research and there are no references. everyone seems to want citations, such as with things i have added, so i was applying the same standard to this article. i don't understand why some articles need references, and others don't. Freemasonx (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to be more careful and use the preview function before committing an edit. In the first edit you broke an existing link so that it did not work anymore. The correct code would have been "Mt. Juliet (a Nashville, Tennessee suburb)". In the second edit you re-inserted a piece of code garbage, " {{ambox <!--{{N ", that served no purpose and had nothing to do with the article's perceived need of references. Be advised that you need to be more receptive to the advice of experienced users; continued edits in this vein may be interpreted as vandalism and acted upon. Sandstein (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Public good project
Hi, I just noticed this speedy delete of the article Public good project. Investigating this topic I see that there is some evidence of notability, and wonder if you could please resurrect the article, and/or run it through an AfD process? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose you mean Public Good Project, which was deleted in accordance with Articles for deletion/Public Good Project. If you think you can write an article about this topic that clearly addresses the AfD concerns, please do so in userspace and ask at WP:DRV for permission to move it to mainspace. Sandstein (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hema Sinha
Hi... we EC'ed... here ... I am going to go ahead and close this as a delete, per my reasoning. ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, ignore my message below TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Lar, for notifying me. With respect, my closure was committed first and, as such, should stand. In addition, I disagree with your closure. First, I determine that there is a consensus to keep the article on the basis of her media coverage; two "delete" opinions can be discounted as pure WP:JNN assertions without any real argument. Second, it is not currently our policy to close BLP AFDs as "delete" absent consensus to keep. Please revert your closure and the deletion. If you think my closure is wrong, I have no problem with you raising the matter at DRV. Sandstein (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert me and I'll take it to DRV, or alternatively, let me know you are taking it to DRV yourself, and after you've done so, I'll revert (the deletion, noting same in the close). The timing matter that you raise, really, is just coincidence, for if I had used closing I would have been first to save. My close was, I am almost certain, started first, since I took the time to write a rationale... This is pretty clearly a delete given the utter lack of notability on offer. (the tide is turning on that matter, BLPs have recently been closed as delete absent clear consensus to keep) I am definitely open to working through this however you feel most efficient, though. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, let's keep discussion in one place instead of both our talks, here works for me if it does for you... ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. As the consensus either way does not appear to be very strong, would you agree to unclose and relist the discussion? A consensus either way may yet eventuate. (Had I contributed in the discussion, I'd probably have opined for a weak delete.) Sandstein (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unclose and relist? Sure. If I don't get to it right away, please feel free to do so yourself if that's more convenient. Seems a good compromise to me. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, I am just too slow today, I went to put in a relist note and ec'ed with you again. I see you undeleted the article, and I undeleted the talk to go with it. Do you think we should both recuse from the re-close so we can comment? ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's probably appropriate. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll be commenting. I usually refrain from acting in my capacity as editor in any matter in which I have taken administrative action (even transiently, as here). Sandstein (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done to you both. It would have been very easy to stick with your close, and create some extra drama.  Excellent compromise, and an example of what works at wikipedia. Pastordavid (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with David - more wikidrama is the last thing we need, and you two managed to avoid it with style. Good work. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to comment in line with Pastordavid and Hersfold. Excellent adminship :) -- vi5in [talk] 05:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind comments. It's a very minor matter, though, and I couldn't care less about the wikifate of local TV starlets. Sandstein (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hema Sinha
Leaving you both the same message Lar closed it as delete, and Sandstein closed as keep without an edit conflict. No further comment since it's clear where I stand on the article. FWIW, I think whichever way it goes, it needs to be clearly explained. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked  "Should the addition of this box [example right] ''be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" '' (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.