User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/September

Deletion review for Slowrun
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Slowrun. 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. Banime (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mana World
I just wanted to drop you a quick note about this article. It was deleted via a AfD here, which you closed. It has recently been recreated, but I do not have access to the deleted version. Are the versions similar enough to qualify for speedy deletion via G4? Thanks in advance. Also, as a side note, I appreciate your input on my recent RfA. Cheers!  TN ‑ X - Man  12:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's worse than the deleted article. Actually, it was: I deleted it again.  Sandstein   12:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mitch Ratcliffe
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mitch Ratcliffe, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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.  Sandstein  21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm moving this conversation to the article's talk page. First, may I suggest you do a Google search on someone before you propose deletion for a "notability" concept that isn't official WP policy. It's not policy because some segments of the population are usually not "covered or reported on" much by "reliable sources" - because in the case of established journalists - like Mitch - they ARE the writers who work for the reliable sources. May I suggest it would probably have taken you less time to find the notability yourself on Google than to initiate the process of deleting stub articles wholesale by tagging and notifying folks by editing WP pages. It may be more productive to start improving and expanding WP stubs than just outright deleting them. As an administrator of WP, I'm sure you support this concept that is a foundation of the project. To help you out in improving this article, may I suggest the following examples of his notability: Microsoft,Amazon.com,ZDNet Audible, CNet, PBS, Executive Travel (magazine), BusinessWeek, IEEE, Red Herring, NYU, New York Times, BizJournals.com, Salon, TIME, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, State of Arkansas -- Davodd (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Video game rank
I don't' understand why it was deleted. you say:

"This article is about a video gaming neologism..." - These ranks are not new at all "...that has no notability outside of video gaming." - Why does something have to have notability outside of its genre to be on wikipedia? "There have also been no verifiable, third-party sources establishing the term's notability." - there were several references on the article itself.

Again I don't see a very good reason for the deletion of this article. But if you can explain it to me perhaps I will understand better. I do know that the first time I got an S Rank I thought I did really bad, had there been an article here at the time I would have found very easily that it meant you did very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikryn (talk • contribs) 06:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link to the article or AfD at issue (see the box at the top of this page).  Sandstein   07:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Video_Game_Rank is the link but I give up you guys are Nazis. Apparently I need a signed document, notarized by Shigeru Miyamoto before you feel you've established notability I figured official vidogame sites like IGN would be enough to establish it. Perhaps if I get times square to display the ranks and take a video of it that will work. I'll just have fun reading the articles because I need a masters degree to add anything I guess Ikryn (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate being called a Nazi and will take no action.  Sandstein   07:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Email
I have emailed you. Prodego talk  12:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read your e-mail. Do you expect a reply?  Sandstein   12:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Only if you feel you need to make one. Prodego  talk  16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe...
I've debated so much today! Unfortunately, it's time for me to mop up my work and return to the barracks, I'll have to leave the debate as it is.

I do agree that some kind of admin damage is hard to repair. What I'm more concerned about though, is much older admins that cause chronic, subtle abuse over extended periods; The young cover their mouths when they lie, but adults are sophisticated enough to able to minimize it to just touching the nose. (Body Language, Pease)

And yes, I'm above 18... :o) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mix up
I made an edit request for a non controversial edit (link maintenance) where I asked to change the media report with an official link because they tend to be more permanent and are official after all. Something we did before and which was edited immediately as non controversial. I think you might have mixed it with highly controversial requests below. Here is the link you might want to recheck and see that it's nothing nasty there Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo just maintenance. Cheers --Avala (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the recotd I didn't strike your comments. Actually I am fighting with some other users altering (or even erasing) my comments on that talk page too.--Avala (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding when consensus allows dismissing an objection
Hello. You declined to execute an editprotected request in the matter of China's position on talk:international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo, declaring there is no consensus. Yet, the only opposition is by the author of the text which the community otherwise unanimously (so far) wishes to transform with NPOVization in mind. Question: When, per Wikipedia guidelines and policies, is a lone unmeritorious opposition not to be taken into account as breaking up consesnsus? The editor in question is basing his opposition on unfounded accusation of OR in the replacement version, and his version (other than being opposed by the community) fails WP:VER and WP:COMMON by lending undue weight to an outdated, partisan-sourced event of questionable importance and meaning, which this editor wishes to hold us as iconic for defining China's international reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence. I was hoping that any administrator serving this request would end up reading the discussion and necessarily conclude, that indeed there is consensus, based on meritorious discussion, with the qualification of (chronic) baseless opposition by one party, who, incidentally, caused the article to be locked up, by reverting NPOV improvements in an unmarked revert (including the China content), marking his edit summary as "rm OR". I think these events, their sequencing, and the content of the consensus-building discussion in their aftermath all merit careful re-examination. Please advise. Best wishes, --Mareklug talk 09:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you made the request too early. What you should do is first p propose an edit, second wait a few days for objections to appear or consensus to be established, and third make an editprotected request. If you make the request too early, it may be rejected. Please try again.  Sandstein   11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Inclusionist
I've unblocked this user per his request. Sorry your time was wasted and sorry the user in question was a little rude to you. I can go into detail about this particular block/unblock by email, if you like. --Duk 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that won't be necessary. Best,  Sandstein   21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jason Mongan
I take threats of death pretty seriously, even if they are a joke from Youtube. If you wish to unblock him then it's your call. I'd advise, however, you keep an eye on him as he has yet to make a single constructive edit. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that unblocking this user is not against my wishes, it's simply something I would not wish to do myself. If someone else assesses that this editor could be constructive then, by all means, unblock his account.  I would not consider it wheelwarring nor would I be upset either way.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Declining the unblock request
Sandstein, do you know anything about centrifugal force? Do you know why there was an edit war in the first place? Did you look into the abuses of administrative authority that went on in that edit war? What kind of a flippant response was that to make

this appeal is too long?.

As for the so-called sockpuppet abuse, there was none. There was block evasion using an old experimental username. Big deal. The block evasion was done purely to communicate on somebody's talk page just like I'm doing right now. Try and learn to see the higher picture. David Tombe 81.152.111.182 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree that this reason seems flippant. One wishes for decisions to be well-argued. Brews ohare (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the reasons explained at WP:GAB, unblock requests should be brief and to the point. We are administrating Wikipedia in our free time and are disinclined to read very long texts that do not address the block reason. This IP is now also blocked for block evasion.  Sandstein   07:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein, your reason WP:GAB was rubbish. It wasn't a reason at all. You merely showed me the guidelines for appealing blocks. Either you have read my appeal, in which case you would have realized that it was absolutely to the point. Or else you have not read it in which case you should not have made a judgement. You further exposed your whole blinkered attitude by blocking the IP server that I used to communicate with you. David Tombe 86.161.232.201 (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"TL;DR" isn't always a good reason to decline an unblock request. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is for me, unless the request clearly indicates why it must be long. You may, of course, run for adminship yourself and try to address such requests more satisfactorily.  Sandstein   22:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't wish to read it then you leave it alone for someone else to look at. I suggest you do that unless you want me on your back on the time, double checking unblock requests. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do so. That won't change their result.  Sandstein   08:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request on User talk:91.108.206.230
Hi! I noticed you declined the unblock request as "This address is not blocked": that's not strictly correct - it's rangeblocked. Try to remember to check rangeblocks too. Thanks :-)  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  17:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed; thanks.  Sandstein   19:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)
Hi. You were the closing admin on the History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) AFD. I was wondering if you could userfy the page for me so that I may transwiki it to the Warhammer Wikia. Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, at User:Falcorian/History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000).  Sandstein   19:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's all transwiki'd, and the userfied copy here has been marked for speedy. --Falcorian (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ENBau
Ich verstehe den Grund für die Löschandrohung nicht ? --Docmo (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that under our notability guideline, a subject must generally have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to qualify for an article. You should add references of that nature to the article if you want to prevent its eventual deletion.  Sandstein   10:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Und - wo besteht das Problem ? Es ist eine einzigartige nationale Kampagne und Umsetzung der Ziele des Kyoto-Protokolls. Ich verstehe leider den Sinn der pauschalen "Anklage" nicht und vermisse eine individuelle Begründung. --Docmo (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please make your comments in English; this is the English language Wikipedia. I refer you to the reasoning I have given above - please read WP:N.

Jim Neilly proposed speedy
I have removed the prod tag from Jim Neilly, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. Jim Neilly is a notable sports commentator, who recently commentated on the UK coverage of the Olympic Games boxing events. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Articles for deletion. Thanks!


 * Timestamp to allow archival.  Sandstein   09:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Process physics
An article whose deletion debate you closed (discussion) about two months back was recreated about two weeks later by one of the editors involved in that debate. Can this be speedied as G4 (recreation), or do we need another discussion? - Eldereft (cont.) 03:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done.  Sandstein   05:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandstein, I appreciate that you are trying to keep things clean, but can we please reconsider the deletion of the Process Physics article? I know physics article editors are very competetive, but it seems bizarre to me that trivial topics in other areas are able to persist while PP (which forms a significant body of academic work at an Australian university) has such a hard time even keeping a mention. Would it be possible to keep the page if it just had one sentence, the references and that's about it? Danwills (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was hoping to have a look at the last version just before it was most recently deleted to create a proposed new version of the page in my user space, but I can't figure out how to see it again, would you be able to help me with that? Apologies for recreating the article without discussing it. I believe that I have enough references to show it's notable (for example there is an article in newScientist about it), but perhaps not as a physics article, since the criteria for that seems to be too stringent, but perhaps as a culturally relevant topic or as an academic area of study at an Australian Uni? I'd love to hear your thoughts. Danwills (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've userfied the article at User:Danwills/Process physics. Feel free to restore it once the AfD's notability concerns are clearly met; you may also ask for restoration at WP:DRV if you are unsure.  Sandstein   05:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Sandstein! I will work on it and ask your opinion once I think I've addressed the notability issue. Danwills (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)