User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/September

Why was "Polarity therapy" deleted from Wikipedia?
Why was "Polarity therapy" deleted from Wikipedia? Did you do it? I'm trying to research its history. Thanks, David

76.97.234.181 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC) David Oliver 76.97.234.181 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC) djoliver1@comcast.net


 * Hi. was deleted because that was the outcome of the community discussion at Articles for deletion/Polarity therapy.   Sandstein   22:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wilmamassucco/Life_does_not_lose_its_value
Please can you check the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wilmamassucco/Life_does_not_lose_its_value? Since April 2012, the date when this page was shifted to "Userfy condition", till now the Documentary Life does not lose its value got many public credits. As consequence I wonder if the data collected in the page are now sufficient to shift the page from "User:wilmamassucco" to a public page of wikipedia. Thanks. Wilmamassucco
 * Can you be more specific? Which WP:GNG-compliant sources are now in the article that were not present at the time of the AfD?  Sandstein   22:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Carl Hirschmann
Please see the article's talk page for an update. You are requested not to revert my latest edit in the article proper. Thank you. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Liste des traditions vivantes de Suisse
Hi Sandstein,

following your comment here (I guess you're more often available here than on fr.w.o). We have *finally* managed to arrange a meeting with the director of the Swiss Federal Office for Culture. And not only did he like the idea, but he actually mentioned it as a possible collaboration before we actually mentioned it! In a nutshell, they have a press conference on 10.9.2012 to present the work they have done, and we will interact afterwards with the people who are actually responsible for the project. It's looking good. I'm happy to give you more details by email if you wish. And of course, other potential projects were discussed as well. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's excellent news. Thanks for the feedback and your good work in the WM chapter. Let me know if I can help editorially or otherwise.  Sandstein   13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

General note: Adding spam links on Membrane switch
Dear Sandstein, Noted you have regarded the link added to Membrane Switch as a spam link and removed it away.

I think you may again consider adding it as an external link on this topic, Membrane Switch. Reasons are:

1. Reference or academic to this topic is absolutely weak. So more relevant supports are required for this topic;

2. Link http://www.yanchuen.com/en-GB/factory/membrane-switch shows a valid reference to this topic as it is talking about the design and structure a membrane switch and membrane keyboard with detailed and scientific description and illustration though it is presented in PDF file.

3. This link/drawing is from a professional manufacturer in Hong Kong with manufactory in Jiangxi Province, China. It has over 20 years solid experience in designing and producing membrane products and providing to internal brand products such as Haier, Panasonic and Honeywell ( http://www.yanchuen.com/en-GB/rubber-manufacturer).

4. In the previous link, I might use an improper clause "design of membrane switch". I think the right and proper title should be “Structure of a membrane switch". It provides convincing evidence to illustrate how and what a membrane switch is.

Thank you very much for your kind attention and reconsideration! Fwmchan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwmchan (talk • contribs) 12:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry, but as explained in WP:ELNO, links to pages written by manufacturers of a product are normally not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Sandstein   06:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a reference link on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beret
The reference link no. 18 on the Wikipedia Article Beret was like below:

^ "Bluebonnet". Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. Retrieved 9 July 2012.

While the earlier contributor mentioned Collins English Dictionary details, he/she has linked it to other website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bluebonnet

My point is that the link should be a relevant as well and the link is: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bluebonnet

How can it be logical that we provide all the details of Collins English Dictionary and link it to another website?

Moreover, the online collinsdictionary.com is the latest version (11th edition) and the original source from where information has been retrieved and that the site link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bluebonnet is not the original one (it is based on the http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bluebonnet). ThanksBhupalBist (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry, your edit did not include a summary of what its purpose was, so I didn't understand what you were doing.  Sandstein   06:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD of Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Can I prevail on you to support an extension of the AfD? I've been out of Internet access since before the AfD started, and haven't had a chance to do any work at all on the article--really, only just noticed that it was up for deletion a few minutes ago. I'll try to find more detailed sources and add them to the article, but I give you my assurances that there exist plenty of reasons to keep the article and clean it up, vs. deleting it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem.  Sandstein   06:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fictional Conference Interpreters
Dear Sandstein,

I've worked a bit on the translation of the french page I created (well, I'm the main contributor so far).

See here: Fictional Conference Interpreters

Would you care to have a look? I'm not a native english speaker and the editing rules might be slightly different on en.wiki. I haven't seen all the films nor read all the books and I hope other people will fill in the gaps. As long as the main structure is ok. I'll keep on translating what's left, just give me some time ;-) Is there a way to indicate that the page is a translation from the french original?

As for the non-fiction bit, I'm not sure it's the right place, but there are a lot of interesting books in that section. Where should I put them? Thanks a lot!

--BiiJii (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC) (BeeJay on fr.wiki)


 * Well, the main problem is WP:IINFO and WP:N. That is, the subject of an article (interpreters in fiction) must be the topic of discussion in reliable sources. If that condition is not met, the article is likely to be deleted as failing the WP:SALAT criteria.  Sandstein   09:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks, but what about this (I haven't finished the page and would rather check before I go on):

Sources[modifier]

(de)Wortklauber, Sinnverdreher, Brückenbauer, DolmetscherInnen und ÜbersetzerInnen als literarische Geschöpfe (Pedants, traducers or bridge builders. Interpreters and translators as literary creations). Ingrid Kurz, Klaus Kaindl (editeurs), Im Spiegel der Literatur Band 1, LIT Verlag Vienna 2005 - ISBN 3-8258-8495-3

(en)Translation goes to the movies. Michael Cronin, London, Routledge, 2008, ISBN 0415422868

(en)Daniel Pageon on Voiceoverworld

(en)Article de Phil Smith sur le site de l'aiic

Voir aussi[modifier]

Conférence sur les traducteurs fictifs au cinéma et dans la littérature, Vienne, 2011

(source: fr.wiki)

The page exists on fr.wiki and has received this comment from a contributor:

(actu | diff) 10 août 2012 à 00:26‎ 178.197.233.111 (discuter)‎. . (23 646 octets) (+441)‎. . (Ajout d'une oeuvre qui sortira dans quelques semaines, merci pour cette page passionnante! :-))

And what about a page like this one? I believe mine follows more or less the same pattern.

I do believe there is an audience for this topic. As for the notability guidelines, nearly ever line relates to a film or novel that appears in blue, i.e. already exists on WP.

Thank you for your patience and understanding

--BiiJii (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, if these sources do cover the topic in some detail, then I recommend that you cite them in the article as the basis for a short lead paragraph that summarizes what they say: why is the topic important hand how has it been addressed (rather than merely incidentally portrayed) in fiction? If you can do this, the article should be ready to go live.  Sandstein   07:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Ok, I'll try and do so but - I was taught to take example on what other pages do - the page List of fictional extraterrestrials doesn't explain in any way why such a list is supposed to be of interest or important. I'm afraid that if I start writing about the relevance of the topic, I will be told that it is subjective and not encyclopedic.

Or take the List of fictional medicines and drugs: it only says as an introduction: ''This is a list of fictional medicines and drugs from works of fiction (usually fantasy or science fiction). Some of the items listed as medicines or drugs, may be used as both or in other capacities, but fictional works are often vague on such distinctions. Grouping is done by what seems most likely.'' So why should I write a whole song and dance about the importance of the topic and how and why it has been handled?

As I say, I'll try and write something but am fairly sure I will be told that I'm out of order ;-)

Affaire à suivre...

--BiiJii (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula
Articles_for_deletion/Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula ''The result was keep. Closed early because it is evident that this discussion will not result in a consensus for deletion. This is without prejudice to continuing to discuss a possible merger on the article talk page. Sandstein 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)''
 * A merge discussion would be the same as the deletion discussion you just closed. Any information about the guy that could be "merged" is already in the other article.  So you'd just be deleting the article(or replacing it with a redirect, same thing).  Also he does meet WP:CREATIVE #3 as I stated.   D r e a m Focus  14:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See? Merge discussion which is just the AFD all over again.  That's gaming the system.  Its rather insulting to tell everyone who participated just the day before that it doesn't matter what they said, someone didn't get the result they wanted, so they are just having a do-over.   D r e a m Focus  23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula - Merge
This is a request to close the merge proposal at Talk:Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula for the same reason you closed the AfD - "Closed early because it is evident that this discussion will not result in a consensus" Currently, there are 20 editors who oppose the merge and 18 who support it. I feel that many editors may be reluctant to spend their time improving an article while it is subject to being deleted or merged. Thank You, IP75 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, the discussion is only a few days old and still ongoing. Content RfCs normally run for 30 days. A consensus one way or the other may still emerge. I don't see a compelling reason to close this one early.  Sandstein   07:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Carl Hirschmann atricle
Hey Sandstein,

The user Asav has reverted your entries into the Carl Hirschmann article. It seems like he tries to cover up the whole prison thing Mr. Hirschmann is involved in. Is there a way to report this user? Maybe he gets paid to do this. That seems to be the only explanation for commentless removing your entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.39.131 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No the explanation is that Mr Hirschmann's lawyers wrote to the Wikimedia Foundation and complained about the article, and Asav is one of the volunteers who acts on such requests. I think that he was mistaken to delete as much of the article as he did, but I am not interested in getting involved in a conflict involving great numbers of highly paid lawyers. If you are, you'll need to discuss this with Asav.  Sandstein   07:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Selena Kitt's page
Hello,

I am here to dispute the deletion of Acclaimed Romance Author, Selena Kitt's page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Kitt

For some reason no one could seem to find information to her being a legit author. Well, upon my google searching I alone found the awards she has won from EPIC. http://epicorg.com/competitions.html Epic is The Electronic Publishing Industry Coalition. Which means ALL publishing. Best Selling authors are entered in these awards and do not win. Selena Kitt has had these all as finalists.(2009), The Real Mother Goose (2010) and Heidi and the Kaiser (2011) were all Epic Award Finalists. Her only Gay Romance, Second Chances won the 2011 EPIC Awards for outstanding erotica. She also had her story, Connections, was one of the runners-up for the 2006 Rauxa Prize, given annually to an erotic short story of "exceptional literary quality," out of over 1,000 nominees, where awards are judged by a select jury and all entries are read "blind" (without author's name available.) Selena Kitt is admired and a role model for all authors that strive for anti-censorship. She has appeared on my review website more than once and I have not given one of her books below a 5 star review. I am a third party source, and I am extremely disappointed that wiki would delete not just an established author, but an award winning one as well. If this is an issue about her 'banned books', a lot of authors have had banned books. Including The Perks of being a Wallflower which has sexual abuse, rape of a minor, and intense situations. So that should be a nonissue. She is not famous for her banned books, but by her high quality of writing. Not to mention Selena is not self published. She is published with Excessica. http://excessica.com/ Which is labeled as a valid book publisher in the industry. They accept submissions when they are open. Excessica also finished in the TOP 10 PUBLISHERS in 2008 AND 2009!

LLKitten (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)LLkitten


 * Hi. The article was deleted per consensus in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Selena Kitt (2nd nomination). Per our inclusion criteria, which you can find at WP:N, what matters is not how good or successful an author she is, or whether her books have been banned, but whether she has been covered by reliable sources. You do not make an argument that the discussion assessed this requirement incorrectly. As to the awards, we do not have articles about the Electronic Publishing Industry Coalition or its awards, which makes it likely that whatever this is, it is not so significant as to convey notability through its awards alone (and, again, it would need reliably-sourced coverage to convince Wokipedia's editors of the contrary). Finally, notability does not depend on what publisher an autor is published by, although I note that Excessica has no article either. On that basis, I have no grounds on which I could reassess my closure of the deletion discussion.  Sandstein   07:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I'm supporting the reversal of Selena Kitt's page deletion as well. The following articles point to the author's notability in several arenas: the fight against Amazon's arbitrary censorship http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/12/amazons-latest-kindle-deletion-erotic-incest-themed-fiction/ and http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/12/guest-post-by-selena-kitt.html and http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-selena-kitt-part-2.html and http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-43447859/get-rich-quick-let-amazon-ban-your-book-make-big-sales-at-barnes--noble/ ; support for independent publishing http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/smashwords-courts-publishers-with-free-e-book-service_b9147 and http://blog.smashwords.com/2012/03/inside-mind-of-best-selling-erotica.html ; and her bio is listed in multiple places http://www.paperbackswap.com/Selena-Kitt/author/ and http://redroom.com/member/selena-kitt/bio. Part of the reason her notoriety isn't so visible in a Google search is precisely because she's published so many books, those listings drown out her participation in various elements of news coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmycann (talk • contribs) 06:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. Per our standards, coverage in blogs and other self-published sources (WP:SPS) does not convey notability, only coverage in editorially supervised published media. That only applies to the Ars Technica and CBS stories above, and these are about Amazon's censorship, not about this author, who is only mentioned by way of example. Overall, I don't see evidence of notability yet, but if you think I assessed the deletion discussion's closure wrongly you can appeal it at WP:DRV.  Sandstein   07:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Note
Due to this note I informing you that I reverted this rather awkward edit, by adding necessary quotes of those sources. feel free to investigate. M.K. (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Permission to use a photo
Dear sir, I am writing a book about art and design and would like to use a photo which appears in Wikipedia. This photo is of Claes Oldenburg, Balancing Tools. it says that you are the author of this photo. from the text I could not if I can use this photo for free in my book or not. I'll be most grateful if you could tell me.

thanking you,

Prof. Tsion Avital, email: tsionavital@bezeqint.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.173.53 (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Prof. Avital, the file File:Claes Oldenburg, Balancing Tools.jpg is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, which allows anybody to use the image for any purpose, provided that the author is credited and the license it is subject to is indicated. For detailed information, see Commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia.  Sandstein   15:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

calibre rename
Hi. In this edit you've renamed the calibre software package name, in the process breaking version release template inclusion from LSR/calibre, citing WP:MOSCAPS and MOS:TM as reasoning. Please don't. Besides the fact that calibre isn't a trademark, the very next section in the MOSCAPS article, namely WP:MOSCAPS clearly allows names to start with a lower case letter. If you feel that you really, really, really must make such changes, please compare the original revision to your edits and check if you didn't break anything, as happened in this case. Thank you. Moocha (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Addition: If you really feel you must make this change, go ahead, but please make sure to rename LSR/calibre to LSR/Calibre (perform a page move.) Thanks. Moocha (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)