User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/December

FYI about a recent block


See User:Newyorkbrad's comment at ARCA [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&curid=22747419&diff=584067837&oldid=584062788 regarding the block of Lecen]. We both participated in the AE thread. If Lecen wants to appeal we should of course consider it, but he hasn't done so. The three-way issues among these editors don't show any of them in a good light, but Lecen's block is one of the longer ones that's been issued recently. NYB has noted that Lecen's 'please block me' may have been an exasperated comment. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Their comment wasn't really important, but their repeated and serious violations of the interaction ban were. I'm of the view that the duration of the block isn't all that important because a block of any length should be lifted as soon as it's no longer necessary. For that reason, I'll always consider an appeal if the blocked user shows that he understands the reason for the block and won't repeat the conduct that led up to it, but that's not been the case with Lecen so far.  Sandstein   17:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William C. Dietz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Visual History redirected
We feel (with other students) that you did a big historical mistake, even if the English was not very good. Visual History is a science, part of Global History. It is not a part of Visual Culture (or as the general History of Visual Culture). History of Art or History of Arts are a part of Visual History, as History of medias or images are also. So, be logical, are you going to redirect History of Art in Visual Culture as you did for Visual History ? This is really a historical mistake, sorry. MalexartMalexart (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion: help to do it in a better English and call it Histiconologia (or General History of Visual Culture). malexartMalexart (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if the English is bad, it is strange to redirect Visual History to Visual Culture. Will you redirect History of Art or Art History to Visual Culture ? Visual History means the global History of Visual Culture (including Art or Images). You may call it Histiconologia or History of Visual Culture, if you feel it is better. The "Dictionnaire mondial des images" (Nouveau Monde), even if it was published in French, was written by 475 authors worldwide about all aspects of visual culture from Prehistory. Sorry, but scientifically, it is a mistake to delete or redirect it : change the name if you want and help to write it in a better English, but keep it please. ArgemediaArgemedia (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I read your comment. In fact, I just think that it is a big mistake to redirect or delete Visual History. The only problem was the English and maybe to change the name (History of Visual Culture or Histiconologia). But Wikipedia must know that it is impossible to have something about History of Art (which is a real problem because it is difficult to say that the European word "Art" has anything to do with Prehistory or Aborigine Culture) and nothing about the new global history of all the aspects of Visual Culture (Art, Architecture, Landscapes, Objects, Images, Medias...). I wont struggle but I am sorry to say that it is a historical mistake for our common Encyclopedia and this only because the main books and websites are written in French. In the 1930s, the Ecole des Annales made all their texts in French. So, would you consider that something new done in Mexico in Spanish has no interest for the Wikipedia in English even if it is completely new but made in Spanish by 475 authors from all over the World as the "Dictionnaire mondial des images" is ? Sincerely, it is a wrong and very outdated decision. ArgemediaArgemedia (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Everybody: I didn't redirect anything, I only offered an opinion in a discussion. I've nothing to say beyond that, except: If you want Wikipedia to retain content, you've a much higher chance to succeed if that content is written competently and in accordance with our standards and practices.  Sandstein   11:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for undeleting Morphological_computation_(robotics)
Please accept my apologies if that is not the correct approach to request the "undeletion" of an article.

In any case here is my line of argumentation to show the concept of morphological computation is a well know one and that it represents a very active field of research.

[1] Looking up the term in Google results in 3,770,000 links. Just looking through the first couple of page their are dealing entirely with the concept I am referring here to (i.e., context of robotics) rather than morphological computation in the context of computational linguistics, which is an existing Wikipedia entry.

[2] Looking up morphological computation in Google Scholar leads to similar results. Morphological Computation in robotics is much more prominent that in computational linguistic.

[3] There are fully funded EU projects that use the concept of morphological computation as a basic research assumption: - LOCOMORPH (http://locomorph.eu/) - OCTOPUS (http://www.octopusproject.eu/) - eSMCS (http://esmcs.eu/) - and other...

[3] There have been a number of international events dedicated to morphological computation

- eSMCs Summer School 2013 "Embodiment and Morphological Computation": http://www.ifi.uzh.ch/ailab/summerschool2013.html - Two international conference on morphological computation (both in Venice) - 2013 International Workshop on Soft Robotics and Morphological Computation with invited speakers from Japan, US (e.g. Havard, MIT, etc.), and Europe (EPFL, ETH, Oxford, etc.) - http://www.softrobot2013.ethz.ch/

[4] We had a special issue on morphological computation on the renowned MIT Journal Artificial Life http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ARTL_e_00083

Having said that I agree that the original article was not well written nor structured. I would like to suggest to start from scratch and invite our morphological computation community to allow a broad picture of all different aspects of the concept.

All the best, Helmut 130.60.75.64 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. Hauser, the best way to recreate the article such that it is not deleted again would be to write a short, well-sourced draft version and let it be reviewed via our process WP:AFC. You'd need solid, published, peer-reviewed third-party sources per WP:GNG for that. However, per WP:COI, it's not recommended that you as a person involved with the topic do it. Our general rule is that if this is a topic fit for an encyclopedia, someone else will be interested enough in it to write the article. If on the other hand nobody but the inventors are interested in something, we generally don't need an encyclopedia article about it.  Sandstein   18:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Sandstein, thank you very much for your fast reply. I will then set up draft version and let it be reviewed via WP:AFC, as you have suggested. However, for full disclosure I want to point out that I am involved in this research topic. My approach to avoid a skewed view is to draft an article and to invite the rich morphological computation community to contribute to improve the article. It is a highly interdisciplinary field of research including people not only from robotics, but also from biology, control theory, computational theory, cognitive science, philosophy, chemistry, even from architecture and art.

85.52.107.73 (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for undeleting beach bunny
Please restore the history of the article prior to its deletion so I may see what was there and work to expand the original article. --evrik (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you nominated the page for deletion. I'll deal with that separately. I'd still like the original text back. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the information provided at Requests for undeletion, there wasn't anything else.  Sandstein   15:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I went there first, and they instructed me to ask you first. I have now expanded the disambig page. Would you please restore the original history, and perhaps merge the history of the two articles? I'm going to be AFK for the rest of the day. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No - as indicated, there's nothing useful in the history, and the text has already been provided for you. If you want to write an article about this, as opposed to the questionable dab page, you should start over and establish the topic's notability with sources.  Sandstein   18:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

TickPick 2.0
Hi,

I created a page on my profile for editing and discussing TickPick (I contacted you earlier about creating such a page). This way I can get your feedback before publishing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Portlandiaman/TickPick

See the talk page for my comments and research. I would love to hear what you think!

Thank you so much, Portlandiaman Portlandiaman (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it is possibly viable, but sounds a bit promotional ("TickPick's low fees have been mentioned by several media outlets"). I'd recommend running it through WP:AFC, which has experts for new article stubs. Try also to format the citations properly with cite news.  Sandstein   18:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's actually something I wanted to ask you about. How do you state something which was brought up in several articles on the company and is relevant information and important (as pertains what differentiates one company from another - their business model), without sounding promotional? Portlandiaman (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You impart the information in a neutral, non-promotional manner. See generally WP:NPOV.  Sandstein   16:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request
The case request involving you has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You noted to Neotarf that the warning shouln't be interpreted as as a slight to your honor, but the template you used contains the phrase If you continue to misconduct yourself, which is a clear statement of judgment about the recipient's actions. I hope that clarifies Neotarf's concern about reputation/etc, if that is something you had missed.  Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a contradiction.  Sandstein   22:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is your point that it is not a slight to someone's honor to imply that they misconducted themselves? Also just FYI I've mentioned you in an embarrassingly tardy comment about the case here. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a judgment about conduct, but these happen all the time; they're subjective in nature. I've been accused of misconduct of the ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE variety lots of times and don't feel particularly dishonored, that's of course because I consider that these accusations were quite misguided. Generally, editors in a collaborative environment must tolerate a certain degree of criticism, particularly by functionaries who in this case are tasked with such criticism. They can criticize back, of course. What's more problematic is casting aspersions of misconduct without offering evidence, but that's a different matter.   Sandstein   23:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but the accusation in this case was in some sense "official", so it seemed like an Official Pronouncement of Wrongdoing to Neotarf/Noetica, even though, like you, they consider the judgment in question to be quite misguided. Consider the difference between an arbcom decision admonishing me vs. an editor whose page I deleted telling me off on my talk page.  There's a difference, right?  No matter how misguided I think they are; that is orthogonal.  The template you used, especially considering that it was used in conjunction with the official closing of the AE discussion, has a bit of an air of the former; my only point here is to try to explain why Neotarf might feel like this was a reputation hit.  I'm very glad the template has been reworded to clarify the true purpose! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Argentine History (MarshalN20)
You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK  [•] 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - since I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about the scope the topic ban should have.  Sandstein   12:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Beach bunny
Now will you please add the history back in? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because it's the history of a non-notable article, and not useful for the dab page.  Sandstein   17:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, because you expressed an opinion in Articles for deletion/Beach bunny (2nd nomination), you are not allowed to close the discussion.  Sandstein   17:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

One more Evlekis-sock to block...
Admits it's him on my talkpage. Thomas.W  talk to me  20:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for three days. Favonian (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing Cut the Rope: Holiday section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_the_Rope#Cut_the_Rope:_Holiday_Gift
Your editing of CtR:HG has some grammar errors. "also" isn't allowed to be stood at the end of a sentence, the use of "subsequent" isn't correct, because ctr:hg is only released in Xmas holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhatlinh1704 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete my files?
I've uploaded 2 files to let people know Cut the Rope game's icon. But you've deleted them. If so, which copyright option you selected for the file Cut_the_Rope.png which you uploaded? I don't know and I don't understand those copyright options. So, in oder not to violate copyright when upload game logo/icon, which copyright option I should choose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhatlinh1704 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Before you upload anything to any Wikimedia site, you need to understand the concept of what copyrighted works and licenses are, and which are allowed on Wikipedia. The pages Commons:Commons:Copyright and WP:NFC contain what you need to know. In brief, images such as game icons are copyrighted, and may be uploaded and used on the English language Wikipedia (but not on Wikimedia Commons!) only with a specific non-free use rationale, such as is present on File:Cut the Rope logo.png. If you do not understand this, please don't upload any images, because you will very likely get it wrong and somebody will have to delete the images again.  Sandstein   15:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Avatar the Last Airbender characters
Outside the main character, I have serious doubts about the notability of all characters listed at Avatar: The Last Airbender. Interestingly, only the flying bison has any significant coverage discussed; all others as written fail at GNG pretty badly. It is not impossible one or two may be saved, but I think most will have to go. Preferably we could just incorporate them into list of characters, i.e. merge them - there's probably enough minor notability for that. Your thoughts? (PS. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're likely right, the fact that the articles are almost only (excessive) plot summary and written in an in-universe style is an indication of that. I'm not a fan of character list articles myself, because characters are plot elements, and no article should consist only of that. A brief list of the most important characters in the series article should suffice. Either way, we would probably need individual AfDs to determine the notability of the individual characters if a merger idea has no consensus.  Sandstein   10:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Amit Goswami page deletion
Hi Sandstein,

I understand it was your good self that deleted the page about Amit Goswami, an action I discovered today to my great surprise. I have been aware of Goswami's ideas for a long time but it was today, while wishing to gather up information on his whole "school" of non-paradigmatic scientific thinkers (Fritjof Capra, Lee Smolin, Rupert Sheldrake, David Bohm, etc.) for my masters thesis in philosophy of science (I'm a student at La Sorbonne, Paris), that I wished to access a simple portal that would give me some succinct details about his ideas - viz. my searching on wikipedia.

Apparently you considered him "not notable" enough. To be honest, I don't particularly rate his ideas on existence and consciousness, but I did see a documentary about him a few years ago, he has appeared in such "new-age" films as What The Bleep Do We Know?, has authored several books and, according to the deletion discussion page, his professorship at University of Oregon has indeed been confirmed. The guy may indeed be a Quantum Woo crackpot, but if he is a crackpot then in those ranks he is at least en route to being as notable as Velikovsky, Sheldrake, Hancock, or many others all of whom have their wikipedia pages left intact.

In the "battle" against hoodwinkery and charlatanism, there is nothing worse than giving the impression that there is censorship of "out-there" ideas going on, and, unfortunately, this is exactly the impression given by the deletion of this wikipedia page... fuelling the fire of the conspiracy theorists and really playing directly into their hands. If I may quote Carl Sagan on the Velikovsky affair: "The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly, or in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there's no place for it in the endeavour of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. And the history of our study of the solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."

For all these reasons, and for the benefit of open scientific discussion where people are encouraged towards critical thinking and not conspiracy theories, I think it would be in the best general interest that this page be restored.

Thank you for your time, Erachris


 * was deleted based on the result of the discussion Articles for deletion/Amit Goswami, rather than because of any opinion of my own. What you say does not call that result into question. Our inclusion criteria (see WP:N) define "notability" as being the subject of substantial coverage in reliable published sources, which in this case was deemed inadequate to base an article on. It's got nothing to do with the merits of the subject as a scholar or thinker.  Sandstein   16:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A list of his scientific revue publications taken from the University of Oregon website: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~dmason/grad/fac/goswami.html The appearance of just one of these articles on Harvard's Smithsonian site: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986NuPhA.448..469R A link to another in the revue "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3035899 Photographic evidence of his tenure as professor at UoO: http://alumni.honors.uoregon.edu/content/clark-honors-college-1980-1984 Although, as I pointed out, I think his real notability today comes from his public position as a spokesperson for what is affectionately called "Quantum Woo". If the decision must stand then, so be it - but the decision seems to be based purely on his academic standing (even though this is at least partially contestable), when in fact his real notability is not as an academic but as a "controversial" disseminator of new-age ideas that tens of thousands of people have bought into via his books and the documentary about him The Quantum Activist. I did read the discussion by the way; it seemed to equally disregard this aspect. Please direct me as necessary if this should be taken up elsewhere than on your talk page. Erachris (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, his academic standing or the number of his publications wasn't relevant in the deletion discussion. What's principally relevant is whether reliable published sources written by people not affiliated with him have written something about him . If you want the community of Wikipedians to review the deletion decision, you can ask for that at WP:DRV, but you should provide evidence in the terms relevant for notability per WP:PROF or WP:GNG.  Sandstein   18:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)
I have issued a general warning on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name).

Having done that and trying to clarify the situation I am now involved. However it is clear from the posting shortly afterwards by 14.198.220.253 that (s)he has not got the message. As you have taken an active role in warning editors about the discretionary sanctions in place for the "article titles policy, broadly construed", please could you have a look and see if you consider a formal warning to 14.198.220.253 to be in the interests of the project. -- PBS (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not apparent to me why the post by 14.198.220.253 might warrant a warning. But I've warned both IP editors involved in the earlier edit-warring because of that.  Sandstein   12:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the problem is this: "If anyone thinks that wording in the policy is incorrect, then fix it, see WP:Bold. If you want to enforce some obscure specific procedure, then lock the article." What the IP address is saying is that (s)he will be bold, if I don't approve then I should protect the page (which is clearly not the way forward after the page has already been protected against an edit war by this editor by third admin). -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the IP is clearly mistaken, but that's not in and of itself grounds for sanction. Only actual misconduct such as edit-warring is.  Sandstein   17:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why I suggested a warning :-) -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Asking about uploading logos with "non-free logo" copyright option
I'm going to upload logo of Cut the Rope: Holiday Gift, Time Travel and CtR 2. Is that OK when I choose "non-free logo" copyright option when I upload them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhatlinh1704 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In principle yes, if you are up to the task of writing a correct non-free use rationale.  Sandstein   20:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

ec on ae
Beg pardon; I'm not sure how I screwed that up. I was trying to fix it but you were always a step ahead. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for your input on AE, we always need more admins there.  Sandstein   20:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

AE request for talk page semi-protection?
Hi, appears to back at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake again, evading his block for the third time. The other agitator will no doubt be back, as off-wiki info suggests. Is an AE request always "against" a user, or can it include other requests? Or should I go through the normal RFPP process? vzaak 21:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet blocks should be requested at WP:SPI, they have experts for that there. There aren't recent IP edits to the talk püage, so what would semiprotection be in aid of?  Sandstein   21:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There are recent edits by which carry the Tumblemanian signatures. My question is: If I can make a good case for talk page semi-protection, is AE an appropriate place to do that? vzaak 21:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, you should try WP:RFPP first, in my view.  Sandstein   21:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks
Every second spent trying to help Barleybannocks edit the Sheldrake article productively, is a second wasted. I tried it, I bought books to understand the background ($39 and eleven hours of my life I will never get back), this is a time sink with no payback. Just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... at least you're qualified to edit the article now :-) I think that issue will shortly be resolved.  Sandstein   21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bio deletion
I'm curious what happpens to the articles with red links to John_Michael_Greer after the bio deletion? Does someone unlink them? Otherwise someone will end up trying to create a new stub! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And well they may, if by doing so they demonstrate the topic's notability with new sources... No, red links aren't routinely unlinked.  Sandstein   21:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an idiotic position. I'm glad I don't waste my time on bios. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin Block
I notice that blocked editor Arthur Rubin has posted a list of suggested edits on his talk page, inviting other editors to "comment" on them. The "comments" are acknowledgements that the edits have been done. I'm not sure this quite rises to the level of WP:EVADE just yet, since he's not exactly "directing" other editors to make the edits, but it seems like it's not too far away from that. This is probably worth keeping an eye on. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK... if you think this warrants action, please submit it to WP:AE for examination, with diffs.  Sandstein   06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it quite rose to the level of a violation, and he has since posted a notice making it clear that he's not asking other editors to make changes on his behalf, so I think he's fine. I don't think there's any issue with a block violation. SimpsonDG (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Notifications and warnings
There appears to be considerable confusion regarding DS notifications and DS warnings. Last month, citing the 2013 DS draft not yet in effect, issued a round of notifications to those editing the Sheldrake article. confirmed to me that the draft was not applicable, which means that Bbb23 technically gave out warnings for misconduct, whether or not that was intended. The uw-sanctions template Bbb23 used is explicitly for misconduct, as the Discretionary sanctions page says and as AGK confirmed to me. However Bbb23 avoided saying that the notifications were for misconduct, and actually stonewalled my request for clarification and resolution.

This is all enormously complicated by the fact that Bbb23 had apparently been concerned about reverts, saying, "Technically, any change, no matter how small to the text of an article, is a revert." This prompted a discussion on clarifying EW policy. Thus after all I can't really tell whether the notifications were for. Bbb23 will not communicate with me.

The reason I mention all this is because it actually becomes relevant here. You should be aware that the people notified by Bbb23 were not engaged in misconduct, or at least that Bbb23 has avoided saying so and has stonewalled the question. vzaak 05:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm, that sounds like something that would need to be discussed with Bbb23 rather than with me.  Sandstein   06:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 has stonewalled questions, per the links I gave, so I don't know what to do. It's all completely weird to me. vzaak 06:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see how anything needs to be done, or what I might do.  Sandstein   06:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's confusion in the AE. (1) Bbb23 chimes in to say that Barney was already notified. In fact you warned Barney, not notified, right? Bbb23 is equating notifications with warnings, or thinks warnings do not exist, or there is some other confusion. (2) The AE complaint says that Barleybannocks was warned by Bbb23, which may not be the case. Bbb23 indicates that Barley was notified -- like the rest of us -- but not warned for misconduct. (3) These factors may play a role in whatever final AE decision is made.


 * Since Bbb23 refuses communication, I suppose the next step is RFC/ADMIN or something else. In the meantime you should ask Bbb23 what is going on, if it affects the AE. vzaak 07:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason this pertains to the AE request is the following. Though I support strong action against Barleybannocks, it should not be done on the false pretense that Barley had received a DS warning for misconduct. Similarly for TRPoD: the initial complaint by TRPoD was explained poorly, suggesting that TRPoD was just wanting to ban disagreement, or worse. If there are any boomerang effects, they too should be free of the false pretense of a prior misconduct warning. vzaak 07:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The notices/warnings are just to let people know that the articles are under discretionary sanctions. We don't want to sanction someone under discretionary sanctions if they don't even know there are discretionary sanctions.  People can receive those notices even if they haven't done anything wrong.  They aren't sanctions.  No big deal. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

WER
Hi Sandstein. A discussion is taking  place at  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention about  a block  you  recently  enacted. Please understand that this is in no way  a criticism  of your enactment, but  you  may  find the discussion interesting. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * Timestamp to allow archival.  Sandstein   16:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Some questions for a senior wikipedian
As a senior Wikipedian supportive of the recent indefinite banning of a user for defending what appears to be Wikipedia core values, I would like to ask you a few specific questions, and I would be very grateful for some specific answers.

1. Is Wikipedia primarily supposed to reflect: a) what reliable sources say; or b) can multiple reliable sources be overridden by a few editors’ opinions?

2. If the answer to the above question is (b), then should this not be made much clearer in policy etc, because as things stand they give the impression that Wikipedia should primarily be a reflection of what reliable sources say?

3. If the answer to the first question is (a), then why is it inappropriate to say, for example, that “Sheldrake’s work has received a small degree of support from academics” in light of the following sources which are a sample of sources supporting/showing both the fact of, and the content of, some of Sheldrake’s academic support?

Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:

Sources stating there has been support for Sheldrake within academia:

David F. Haight, Professor of Philosophy at Plymouth State University writing in The Scandal of Reason, published by the University Press of America says, “that Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields have been taken seriously by more physicists than biologists is to be expected.”

Bryan Appleyard, writing in the Sunday Times (a source already used in the article) says “Morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported”.

Adam Lucas, writing in 21.C says that “of all the scientific journals, New Scientist has undoubtedly been the most supportive of Sheldrake, having published a number of sympathetic articles on formative causation over the years." And this: "when he has not been ignored, however, Sheldrake's peers have expressed everything from outraged condemnation to the highest praise."

'''But are these sources true? Yes, as it happens, here are some scientists and academics who have supported Sheldrake’s work:'''

Nobel Laureate in Physics Brian David Josephson writing in Nature.

Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder writing in Psychology Today.

Menas Kafatos, the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University – Huffington Post

Stuart Hameroff Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona – Huffington Post

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital – Huffington Post

Neil Theise, Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York – Huffington Post

All four of the above wrote a letter, published in the Huffington Post supporting the scientific content of Sheldrake’s TEDx talk (which included a discussion of morphic resonance) and about which they say "there was not a hint of bad science in it". Hameroff also said that Sheldrake’s work could be accounted for by his own theory of consciousness developed in association with Roger Penrose

Further scientific/academic support for Sheldrake.

David Bohm FRS, who collaborated with Sheldrake on connection between his implicate order and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance with a dialogue published in the peer-reviewed journal ReVision

Hans-Peter Durr Physicist, who wrote about Sheldrake’s work in connection with quantum Physics

Theodore Roszak Professor Emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay writing in New Scientist

Mary Midgley writing in the Guardian

Paul Davies Physics professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science

John Gribbin Atrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex

A final point

One other similar area where the sources are overwhelming concerns the well known (and extraordinarily well-sourced) fact that Sheldrake is a biologist - a fact which his constantly removed. contra BLP and clear Wikipedia precedence. If needed I can provide 100 reliable sources for this from every conceivable type of source/individual/institution. Here are four from the New York Times alone which, I believe, are not included in the more than 25 currently cited on talk. 

Again, then, I would be grateful if you could answer the specific questions above in relation to this particular content. I eagerly await your response. ThanksBarleybannocks (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind if I make a TPS comment. Wikipedia has a fine balance between WP:CONSENSUS and reliably-sourced information.  The balance usually weighs in favour of consensus - which normally means that if based on policy-based discussion, the majority of editors do not accept the inclusion of any material (sourced or not), then the material will not be included.  So yes, the opinion of a few can outweigh the research of one  ES  &#38;L  13:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying facts noted widely/universally in the world may be deemed "non-facts" by Wikipedia editors? Barleybannocks (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't mean they're called "non-facts", it means they're called "unwanted in the article by consensus". ES  &#38;L  14:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you're saying that editors can exclude, for example, massively well sourced basic biographical facts from a biography of a living person - even if it means a person is in virtue of that misrepresented in a negative way - solely in virtue of certain editors wanting that to be the case. Is that your understanding of how the Wikimedia foundation functions as regards the information it hosts about living people. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "how the Wikimedia foundation [sic] functions" - the concepts surrounding consensus were developed by consensus on this project, which may indeed vary on the German Wikipedia and/or the Hindi Wikipedia, etc.  ES  &#38;L  19:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is indeed about how the wikimedia foundation functions. It is about whether the core values of that organisation are genuine or bullshit. It turns out they are bullshit. The information in articles is not determined by anything beyond the views of various editors, even when (misleadingly) sourced, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. I suggest a disclaimer to that effect should be placed on all articles so that readers may not get the false impression that wikipedia is striving to be a serious and respected reference source rather than, say, a large blog.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't need disclaimers - it's already well-known that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. Anyone who teaches grade school and above knows it cannot be used as a reference.  We have perennial suggestions about how to make it "reliable" or adding "disclaimers", but they're unnecessary ... and every single person who clicks "Save page" is agreeing to that when they edit this project  ES  &#38;L  19:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the point. Wikipedia says it aims to be a serious encyclopaedia and many of its core policies give the (now known to be false) impression that its articles should reflect this: ie, they should be fair, accurate, and written from an NPOV. Since you acknowledge that nobody believes a word of this (because, as you point out, it's utter bollocks and known by most to be utter bollocks), then I fail to see the problem with a simple disclaimer to that effect lest anyone who is not aware of these facts be confused by the fluffy (and false) promotional materials that are presented as if they are as bona fide policies, guidelines and core values.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna be blunt: if you don't like it, don't edit here. Don't get your undies in a knot about it.  Yeah, we try to make it more and more reliable.  But (since I'm 100% certain you read the article I linked to) it's not.  Is consensus the problem?  No - consensus keeps some of the stupidest yet reliable information out of articles - it actually solves more problems than it causes, so there's no intelligent person who would "throw out the baby with the bathwater".  Look, you got yourself into a kerfluffle on an article that's controversial to say the least.  That happens all the time - especially from "newish" editors who don't understand the philosophy of the project.  A topic ban is temporary protection - and I do mean both "temporary" and "protection".  The fact that you think we need disclaimers shows that you're not advanced enough with the philosophy of Wikipedia, yet.  Yeah, I recognize you have things to add ... but those additions have to meet the philosophical components of the community that you joined.  ES  &#38;L  19:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You do need disclaimers. You admitted so yourself - the articles are not as the core policies suggest they are, and no real attempt is being made to bring them into line with those policies. On the contrary, administrators are regularly ignoring flagrant abuses of policy for one reason or another. If you don't think so then you're not advanced enough in the philosophy of some of they key stuff, and the reasons behind the key stuff, on this page here. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As an admin, I'm well-versed on the philosophies about and around WP:BLP. I'm also, as an editor, well-versed in the "not everything belongs in an article" philosophy, especially when WP:NPOV and balance come into play.  Don't make suggestions or accusations otherwise.  I agreed to uphold the core policies - as did YOU when started editing.  WP:CONSENSUS is one of the - so unfortunately, live with it  ES  &#38;L  20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't seem very well versed in it at all. Quite the contrary. You appear to have a very childlike understanding of the issues here. And if you've agreed to uphold core policies then uphold them here Rupert Sheldrake, and here Don't say you weren't told. 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleybannocks (talk • contribs)

Barleybannocks, your dispute does not concern what our core policies say, but how they should be applied to the Sheldrake situation specifically. I have no opinion about that situation, because I am not familiar with the sources and have no interest in the topic, and so I can't give you an answer. You should accept that your editing in this topic area has been deemed nonproductive and drop the matter, or you may be made subject to additional sanctions if you continue in conduct that has been deemed to match the description at WP:HEAR.  Sandstein  14:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Take it as a general in principle query. If what I said above was true, should that content, in your opinion as a senior wikipedian, be included in the article. For further information about the nature of this question please see my response to ESL just above. Thanks again for your time. Barleybannocks (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Henry Earl
While I think that the use of BLP1E here was verging on ludicrous, I think your close was a reasonable one given the discussion. Just wanted to say thanks for the detailed explanation.Hobit (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here. I am worried as well about the stretching of 1E in that case, but your closure of the DRV is very good, Sandstein.-- cyclopia speak! 21:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Sandstein   21:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but as a whole, the system failed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but Sandstein did what he could, given the system, and he explained his decision at length. That is already something. I am disappointed by the end result as well, but alas, that's what you get.-- cyclopia speak! 16:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with A Quest For Knowledge in accepting it was a reasonable close given the discussion but feeling that the system failed us. The implied licence to canvass for meatpuppets on Wikipediocracy is rather alarming.— S Marshall  T/C 19:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. I think it's time to rewrite WP:CANVAS. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

fan mail
You don't seem to get a lot of that, it seems. Fan mail, that is. :-)    Appreciate you taking on the hard job of working AE, and all that such entails.  Came over here to apologize for my 1800 words in the BarleyBannocks case, and my grumbling later about your revert.  On further reflection, you are correct to have done it as you did it.

I am also tangentially connected to the saga of 63 and 14, who were not actually edit-warring during November over MOS guidelines at all, but were really just carrying their low-grade conflict of October concerning Categories, over into other areas of the encyclopedia. They both just have a couple hundred edits, so I wish you had of left them a more-personalized note rather than a template, but they both kept on editing afterwards, so there was not actually any WP:BITE in practice. Annoyingly, once again you were proven correct, and I was proven wrong. :-)    Anyhoo, thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Sandstein   16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

S. John Ross
Hi Sandstein,

I have a good source for S. John Ross (writer), which you deleted after closing the AFD. Do you have any objections to userfication so that I can do some work on it? BOZ (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, go ahead.  Sandstein   16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing the case
You just closed the case before I was even informed of the actual charge. The original charge by TRPoD being rejected almost immediately and so that can't be it. What is it I am supposed to have done? How do I defend myself when there is no clear or specific charge? Barleybannocks (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the results section of the AE thread, where the grounds for the sanction were discussed for about three days at considerable length. In addition, the sanction concerning you had already been imposed a day before I closed the thread, so the closure didn't put you at any disadvantage. If you want to appeal the sanction, you have received instructions about how to do so.  Sandstein   17:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you see, almost nobody could work out what they were. Perhaps a straightforward statement would be in order. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have further questions pertaining to your sanction, you need to ask the admin who sanctioned you. That's not me.  Sandstein   17:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why, don't you even know the charge? Barleybannocks (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The admin who banned me is refusing to tell me what it was for. Can you tell me? Barleybannocks (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see above.  Sandstein   21:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

RedPenOfDoom
Hello, I noticed you recently made a sanction against this user for another topic. I was recently editing an article (David Acorah - not that it's particularly relevant) however I noticed within a few seconds of my changes that they were reverted, with nothing more than a statement by the user that they were 'reverting changes by ' almost botlike in appearance. On reviewing my edits I realized their revert was nonsensical, so I reverted that and then waited to see if it was a rogue bot. Nothing happened. So I went and took a look at the user in question. Their talk page shows that they're ... well, for lack of a more polite description, batshit mental? They are reverting thinks in a blanket fashion for no reason all over the place, and have dozens of users complaining on their talk page.

Perhaps as an administrator you could intervene or look into this persons behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason to their actions besides being a pain in the arse. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a sanction, a warning, and I'm warning you as well for making personal attacks on them here, which are not allowed. If you think admin action is needed, I'd need to see diffs.  Sandstein   21:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I too have some issues with this administrator. I created a page for Divya Gopalan, a key figure with Al Jazeera English. I don't know how 'Notability' is assessed, but there are many entries for people on this channel, and this lady a) anchors and read news b) hosts more than one studio show c) reports from the field, from more than one country, including some ie. Tajikistan, for which she is the Subject-Matter Expert (SME). I have not noticed this channel being eclipsed on Tajik coverage by, say, BBC World, so if you are English or German and want info on Taj., then AJE seems as good a source as any, and she is the go-to for that.

In addition, her employers state she had an Emmy nomination, and gave detail. This reference is given on the links on the article. RPOD removed the ref., saying no source given. He then slapped a 'lacks notability' tag. I restored Emmy nomination (nomination, mind: she didn't win!) with hint that even a short-list nomination is pretty good and pointing out ref is sourced. RPOD reverted this, quoting 'Burden'. Al Jazeera is a globally recognized brand, Red Pen of Doom is not. As credible source is given, suggest the administrator must now give Burden of proof that AJE are lying, as that appears to be the implication.

Likewise, either delete all AJE articles as 'channel too obscure' or delete 'lack of notability' tag, or at least justify comment, in relation to her colleagues for whom there are entries.

RPOD creates no content, and edits about every 2 mins. for c.12 hrs. every day, which indicates a truly phenomenal endurance, but hardly a reflective approach to the subject. He normally explains each action and so I would not describe him as a vandal (Am no longer surprised by the number of administrators who are now blocked), or consciously malicious, though I sympathize with the sentiment - rather than the words - above.

No objections to being edited, others have edited the article and am inclined to agree with their alteration: after all, WP is theoretically a community and collaborative.

Protozoon (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Without links and diffs of the edits you deem problematic I can do nothing. See WP:GRA. Also, in general, if you disagree with others, you should proceed per WP:DR. Individual administrators such as I can take action only in rare cases of clear and egregious misconduct.  Sandstein   06:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you - to you as well!   Sandstein   09:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Feathercoin
why did you delete the article Feathercoin when the votes were some 11-6 to keep not delete? Just curious. 174.58.148.241 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions are not votes. Administrators assess consensus based on strength of argument, not only by counting opinions, especially in cases where opinions might have been solicited outside Wikipedia.  Sandstein   09:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tritonia khaleesi
Thanks for your nice new article on a nudibranch! WP:WikiProject Gastropods very much appreciates your contribution! Invertzoo (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

ARBPSEUDO
I haven't been able to find any discussion of why morphic resonance is listed as pseudoscience. I see it listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it on the talk pages. I'd just like to understand how this decision was arrived at. It's certainly not justified by the bulk of reliable sources. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * AG, papering other people's talk pages with discussion of a topic is certainly going to be characterized as violation of a topic ban. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is, and I am issuing an enforcement block.  Sandstein   22:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Alfonzo Green AE case...
Hi Sandstein, regarding my closure here of the AE case regarding Alfonzo Green, it was brought to my attention that perhaps enough time wasn't given for further consideration of Alfonzo's comments due to the holiday yesterday. Did you have any intent on making a substantive change in your position regarding that case after Alfonzo's comments and before my closure? Please let me know if so... Thanks. 21:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page, thanks for asking.  Sandstein   13:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake
Sorry to bother you, but I don't know where else to ask. Alfonzo Green was blocked, and got his hand slapped for continuing. I understand that. The Red Pen of Doom voluntarily withdrew, and is continuing to discuss Sheldrake in the BLP Noticeboard. Is this OK? Lou Sander (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, it's not my place to judge whether the actions of others are "ok". I can only determine whether they are sanctionable, and the answer to that is, in this case, no. As an individual editor, I wish not to express an opinion about matters related to Rupert Sheldrake because that is an area in which I may be called upon to act as an administrator.  Sandstein   13:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Red Pen of Doom promised to voluntarily stay away from the Rupert Sheldrake page and its associated talk page for six months, and also said that he intended to "focus his "efforts on other areas of the encyclopedia". However, he did not promise to stay completely away from the topic of Rupert Sheldrake.  Cardamon (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. I'm not very knowledgeable in this stuff, so please AGF (which you have done). Lou Sander (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom
Thanks. I think I was in the process of editing when you closed the discussion. I missed the archiving. – S. Rich (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How does this improve the encyclopedia? Seems to me to be bureaucracy which serves no useful purpose and has the potential to alienate editors. NE Ent 22:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TPO asks users not to remove the comments of others. In general, there is a community interest that discussions that have been appropriately closed or archived do not continue to be edited, because our processes become much more difficult to administer and to follow otherwise. For this reason, edits to closed procedural discussions such as to closed AfD discussions are routinely reverted.  Sandstein   22:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The MilesMoney AE request
I discovered that there was edit-warring involving MM (and some of the others) in an article on an Austrian School economist. I don't know whether this would impact the close or not. Frankly, I wish they all would give it a rest, but... Mangoe (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless it's edit-warring in a topic area covered by ArbCom sanctions, it's not relevant to the AE board and hence the closure. The place to report edit-warring is WP:ANI.  Sandstein   20:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't Austrian economics one of those areas? Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of.  Sandstein   21:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They're under community, not ArbCom sanctions: Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions NE Ent 22:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I'm putting my oar in at the AN/I case. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yozer1's violation of AA2 restriction
Per this:Yozer1 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from all topics covered by WP:ARBAA2 on all pages of Wikipedia including talk, per this notice, after a discussion at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yozer1's edits to Adana,, are clear violations of his topic ban concerning AA2. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please report this to WP:AE with all required information such as dated diffs, the links to the prior sanction etc.  Sandstein   20:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Richard Thieme
Hi Sandstein, this isn't a huge deal, but I thought I'd drop you a note to ask if you could take another look at the Richard Thieme Afd? I saw that you closed it as "no consensus", but I wanted to point out that the article was in a very different state at the time the AfD was launched, with a poorly written article, no References section, and nothing but primary sources on the article. I did a complete rewrite of the article halfway through the AfD, and after my rewrite, 100% of the new comments were on the "Keep" side of the line (and none of the previous commenters returned). So I was thinking that a "Keep" would be the more likely outcome. If you still think the discussion should be closed as "No consensus", okay, and I don't feel strongly enough to take it to DRV, but I did want to check that you saw the point at which the opinions changed? --Elonka 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, you're probably right... I'll change the closure.  Sandstein   16:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking another look, much appreciated. --Elonka 01:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)