User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/January

National Lampoon's Dirty Movie
On what grounds did you delete the page? Lucyconlon (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide an internal link to the deleted article.  Sandstein   21:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons
I'm not sure how you came up with delete given that not a single editor actually attempted to address whether WP:GNG was achieved or not. Personally, I'd like to see some proof that the nominator performed WP:BEFORE before nominating this for deletion, but unless I missed it, no such evidence was presented. Correct me if I am wrong, but WP:GNG was not at all addressed in the discussion, so I don't understand how consensus was reached over an issue that was not addressed. Perhaps you meant "No consensus" or "Relist"? I forget which policy says this, but when in doubt, admins should keep the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * GNG was not cited or addressed in particular; rather, other and more specific guidelines were. So I don't see how the discussion's failure to discuss this general guideline has any bearing on my closure. – As to WP:BEFORE, it is not a policy or guideline and at any rate whether it was followed or not is irrelevant to the closure of the AfD: What matters for the closure, in the light of the various policies and guidelines that require that articles have sources, is whether the sources are actually cited in the article or AfD, not who has searched for them at which point in time. If WP:BEFORE has any relevance, it is as a conduct rule: if somebody persistently does not heed it, and nominates many articles for deletion, which are then kept because others easily find the sources, then the nominator can conceivably be made subject to community sanctions. – In the situation as presented, with opinions 5:1 and the article completely unsourced, there was no doubt as to what the AfD's outcome should be.  Sandstein   01:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether WP:BEFORE is a policy, guideline or essay, but it is generally accepted as good practice as far as I know. I re-reviewed the discussion and I could only fine a single editor which attempted to look at WP:GNG and they only looked at Google Books.  How did you find consensus when only a single editor examined the core issue and only examined a single category of sources?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There was clear agreement that the article failed the notability criteria for lists and the requirement that articles be not only plot summaries. Considering that the article consisted only of unsourced plot summary, it was evident why editors reached consensus about this. GNG was not discussed in depth because it didn't need to be. It would only have mattered if there had been any sources whose reliability etc. could have been discussed.   Sandstein 

FLC for Game of Thrones (season 1)
Are you available to help with this if I decide to try and get this promotable? Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly, as regards improving the article so that it is more useful to the reader. Though I have to say that I've never been able to motivate myself to make the endless minute adjustments to articles that are apparently necessary to comply with arcane MOS minutiae in order to attain FA status. I consider that sort of thing rather a waste of editing time, because it brings little if any benefit to the reader, and therefore leave it to others.  Sandstein   11:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way about FA as you do. However, TV season articles are featured lists, and have much more reasonable criteria. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, then let's try. Though I wonder whether an article with that much prose qualifies as a list at all.  Sandstein   14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

wishing to recreate a page that was deleted
Hello! You have deleted a page whose subject was me, under the title Vasile Baghiu, my name. It has passed quite a couple of years since then, and now I am interested to cooperate with you hopping that we could clarify together the matter of the subject's notability (as the most important one claimed in sustaining the deletion) so that I can recreate the page. If interest, new data are available on request. As an example, you can have a look on this webpage in English promoting contemporary Romanian writers. I would add that I am willing to contribute in the future to other Wiki projects in English. Thanks for your time and attention! My best! Vasiba (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mr. Baghiu. For the reasons explained in Autobiography, writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. Accordingly, I do not think that it would benefit the project if I were help you write one. I recommend to wait until someone else is interested enough in your work so as to want to write about you. In that event, they would have to cite independent reliable sources about you, as per WP:GNG. The website you cite, for instance, does not qualify, as it is by a publisher - presumably yours, and so not independent from you.  Sandstein   14:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Brace Yourselves" meme
Hi Sandstein, I am wondering how to properly cite the change I made to the "Game of Thrones (TV Series)", found at . I added mention of the "Brace Yourselves" internet meme to the Cultural Influence section. I had trouble inserting the template photo of the meme, found here: . I came back a couple hours later and saw that you had deleted my edit, based on the (understandable) argument that I didn't cite it. How does one go about properly citing such an edit/adding that photo? The meme has become quite popular, and I definitely believe it deserves mention.

Lordskeletor (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for asking. Basically, all Wikipedia content must (if contested or likely to be) be supported with a citation to a reliable source. The policy page WP:V describes this requirement in general. The page WP:RS describes in more detail what we mean by "reliable source". And the page WP:CITE describes how to cite a reliable source once you've found one. Please feel free to ask further if these pages don't clarify the matter for you. As to the photo, that's a separate and rather complicated matter, but the gist is that because it's copyrighted, we can't use it unless it meets the very restrictive criteria at WP:NFCC, which it's unlikely to.  Sandstein   01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That cleared it up. Thanks!

Lordskeletor (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Da-Wen Sun
Dear Sir, I am very very sorry to offend you, I edit the page hoping to improve it by removing quotes that may be promotional. I had no intention to affend you, I do apology if I offend you. Please teach me how to creat a proper page, thank you very much.Mayonglan (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am not offended and if I were that wouldn't matter. The problem with the now-deleted and salted article was that it read like a promotional brochure or a CV. Per our rules WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING, our articles must be written neutrally and may not be used to promote anybody. Excessively promotional articles may be deleted per WP:CSD. Please tell me whether you are acting on behalf of Mr. Da-Wen Sun, and whether you have used other Wikipedia user accounts in the past.   Sandstein   14:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Sandstein, I am letting you know that I have reverted your salt and delete of the article, as it did not meet the speedy delete criterion G11. Although the purpose is promotional, it can be edited to remove promotion.  Many editors over years have not considered that this needed deletion.  AFD is the place for this sort of deletion proposal, where deletion is controversial, rather than unilateral action. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider this action ill-advised and have replied on your talk page.  Sandstein   21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Hi, Sandstein. You participated at the Articles for deletion/List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill discussion. The result of that discussion was to merge the List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The list was merged. However, there is a related discussion if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion are this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not really interested in the topic and therefore have little to contribute in the way of advice.  Sandstein   21:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Working out the details at Today's article for improvement
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Norden1990
Hello, I read your intervention here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AE.3F where you raised the possibility of a WP:AE investigation against User:Norden1990. I will not respond on his absurd false personal attacks there according to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, because I respect WP policies. You also affirmed "All editors commenting above have already been warned about this case, except for Fakirbakir", but I can't find User:Norden1990 on the list of warned users ARBEE. --Omen1229 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to give the discussion more time
The discussion hasn't been open that long. I highly recommend giving the discussion on Rich F more time so that others may comment. Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

AE
You undoubtedly missed my explanation that under these restrictions I am not allowed to follow the instructions to raise an amendment request. Rich Farmbrough, 21:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Perhaps, but I don't see how that pertains to the currently open AE request. It's not about any amendment request.  Sandstein   22:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "This is not the place to discuss the merits of arbitral decisions. The place to do so would be an amendment request, or the Committee's talk page." Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC).


 * I don't see why you can't make an amendment request by typing it into the edit box. At any rate, this has nothing to do with the edit that is the subject of the AE request.  Sandstein   23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you back
...at AE. Your presence has been sorely missed. (Belated thanks, too, for your kind words on my talk page earlier.) T. Canens (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I think with you on the Committee things may be a bit more ... foreseeable.  Sandstein   22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A request
BLP issue. Myself and others have been attempting to keep a lid on the user's posting of BLP violating info on the article, (Its been rev-del'd numerous times now from the article talkpage) but he has persisted and switched to posting it on his own talkpage. The last time he did everything short of pasting a giant signpost going 'HERE IS THE PERSON I AM TALKING ABOUT'. There are open sections at ANI and BLP but no one has actually blocked the editor yet despite the clear intentions to keep posting it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef as a problematic SPA.  Sandstein   08:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica
Hi. On occasion, I read ANI to get a feeling for the community and how things are done. As a randomly chosen, previously uninvolved admin, I wonder if you might have a look at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the subject user's talk page (or refer it to another uninvolved admin). It looks to me that, while the user definitely could use a little attitude adjustment, the way he is being dealt with by the involved editors and admins is unlikely to produce anything more than a permanent block of someone who may have something useful to contribute. His supposed "personal attacks" while uncivil and the wrong approach, did, in fact focus on actions by the targets, not any unrelated personal issues. It's not nice to call someone incompetent, but it may not have necessarily been untrue, and blocking someone for it seems, well, extreme.

Again, I've got no "skin" in this – I don't know any of the involved parties and haven't dealt with any of them as far as I can recall. It just seems like a user is being ganged-up on and could use a fresh pair of eyes on the situation. Thanks. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 11:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, as Xero called someone a "liar" and said that that multiple editors "sole goals" were to "delete things off of Wikipedia", I'm trying hard to actually see how those are not personal attacks? Trust me, I've been trying (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * AlanM1, sorry, but this request is a bit unspecific. It's not clear from the ANI thread what I or any other individual administrator can or should do there.  Sandstein   13:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Hello.

This message is to inform you that you are being mentioned ... no, just kidding.

But pls see my concern at WP:AN/I about the possible need for revdel'ing the user's talkpage.

Cheers

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here are some history versions needing revdel in my opinion:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Cheers

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Done.  Sandstein   20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

inre waaaay old news
Thirty-five months ago you brought a poorly sourced article on Jami Floyd to AFD. While I am in full agreement that the deleted version contained only one deadlink as a source and her awards were not explained, expanded, nor themselves sourced... I felt back then that issues were addressable under WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Sorry to say, but still feeling the issues were addressable, it took me until now to actually get to improving it (with help). I'd much appreciate your looking at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Jami Floyd to see if your concerns from 3 years ago have finally been addressed to the point where we have something to serve the project and its readers. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly looks much better and, er, notabler now, so I have no inclination to renominate it for deletion if you restore it. Although I find the lead sentence – "Jami Floyd is a Multiracial American attorney" – rather irritating; our biographies normally don't begin with a racial label as though the color of a person's skin were the most important thing about them.  Sandstein   09:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Point well made.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

AE
Wasn't that a bit quick on the close, I just plowed through most of the thread just now, and everyone seemed to be divided on the matter. Just out of curiosity.— cyberpower ChatOffline 04:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The editors commenting were certainly divided, but that's to be expected in the enforcement of a case that's apparently been very divisive (though I'm unfamiliar with the background). Normally, both sides of arbitrated disputes tend to show up at AE threads to support their respective side or friends. That's why I don't take the views of commentators into account very much, and that's why arbitration and its enforcement process aren't based on community consensus. Rather, uninvolved enforcing administrators are authorized to use their own discretion to determine whether an enforceable breach of sanctions has occurred. Consequently, what I principally look to are the views of other uninvolved administrators, which were rather less divided. At any rate, there are venues of appeal, either to the Arbitration Committee or conceivably to the community, in which the opinion of other people becomes important again.   Sandstein   09:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a truly disappointing statement Sandstein considering you allowed a deeply involved editor/admin to submit the AE. I would also note that Arbcom rarely support appeals and historically it has been judged that the Arbcom cannot be overruled by the community. Kumioko (talk)
 * I would've let the discussion go on for a little longer if only to see if consensus would've cleared up a bit. Oh well.  Perhaps it's time to fine tune Rich's automation restrictions to make it a bright clear line instead of a dull vague one.— cyberpower ChatOnline 03:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and I posted a note as such on Rich's talk page. Although some in the community would try to argue otherwise I am less concerned about the sanction than in how it was created, how it was written and what its vaguely written verbage and openess to interpretation represents to the 5 pillars and our general editing policy.Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirect into a stand-alone list
Hi there. You closed this Afd, and redirected the article title to a stand-alone list. Wikipedia's Manual of Style Guideline for Stand-alone lists explicitly discourages redirects into Stand-alone lists: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia". Could you please explain why you added a redirect into a stand-alone list even though Wikipedia's Manual of Style Guideline explicitly forbids it? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:CSC ("common selection criteria") is only an illustrative list of possible selection criteria; its subordination to the more general provisions at WP:LSC makes it clear that the criterion you cite is not the only possible selection criterion. What criteria to choose is up to editorial consensus.  Sandstein   15:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bechdel test
Hi, the reasons for the edit were given on the talk page, straight after I edited the main article. I'll restore my changes for the time being, and if you wish to discuss it further on the talk page, I'm happy to do so. Thanks for contacting me. Saint91 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Question
I have been working on this in preparing a comprehensive article for return to mainspace. An issue is the person's age. Many reliable sources have the birthyear as 1961, and the subject wishes that this be corrected... hopefully here, and eventually elsewhere. In communication with the subject I was sent copies of her birth certficate showing the birthdate to actually be September 10, 1964. As no media source can be cited for this information, how do I go about citing it to the birth cert copy, as I hate seeing a " [citation needed] " tag in a BLP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, my opinion is this: if there is no reliable published source for the date of birth, it should be omitted altogether. If there are such sources saying 1961, these should be used. It is up to the subject to have them corrected if necessary, or they can publish their correct date of birth on their website, in which case we can note the discrepancy. Per WP:V, under no circumstances can we in any way rely on unpublished material such as e-mails or privately communicated birth certificates.  Sandstein   20:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My thought is this: It is generally accepted is that not all facts are available online, and being in media (reliable or not) does not necessarily make them true. Even if not posted online, Her birth is a matter of public record, with the original held in Division of Records, Department of Health, Borough of Manhattan, New York City... with their keeping of such records making them perhaps "reliable" enough as guardians of such records. And too, rarely does someone from the Lower east Side have a birth announcement in the newspapers. Perhaps a matter for OTRS?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose public records may be cited if they are publicly accessible, but as primary sources they should be used with care. OTRS is not helpful in this matter because it is private and therefore unciteable.  Sandstein   23:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I did seek an opinion over at the OTRS noticeboard anyways. Hmmm... a public record created by someone other than the newborn subject would seem no more "primary", than would an article in a newspaper. And too, WP:RS tells us "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred", Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. In the lack of a published secondary source actually giving her birth-date, and so long as I am giving a non-controversial, accessible specific fact and not a large block of information, I think I'll be okay.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

RENE JOYEUSE
Thank you for creating a page regarding my Father RENE (VEUVE) JOYEUSE I have corrected several mistakes and i also ask that my name be left off of Wikipeida should you have any questions feel free to conatct me at marc(at)joyeuse(dot)net thank you respectfully M. Joyeuse 108.50.131.135 (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment
Hey - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/1 gigametre
I re-closed that AfD, as I think the original close was correct, but mislabeled. It should not have been a keep, but rather a procedural close with a pointer to the larger discussion about the entire set of articles at Articles for deletion/1 metre. I apologize if I have misinterpreted procedures for a situation like this. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 16:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Del Rev
A deletion you have made Da-Wen Sun (now blue=linked because I temp-restored it for deletion review) has been appealed at Deletion review/Log/2013 January 29. I have made some  comments there. I have great respect for your work in general, but this was a mistake on several grounds.  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh, wasting editors' time on account of a vanityspam piece... not the best use of your time, if I may say so.  Sandstein   20:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly meets WP:PROF, and I know how to fix it. Dealing with this sort of bio is so very easy, for it mainly take some quick cutting, that I'll even do that for just slightly over borderline in my fields of interest.  I know this means the notable & vain get articles ahead of the notable & modest, but that's the way of the world  in & out of WP.  DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jami Floyd
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jami Floyd. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Richter vs Frassanito
Some time ago, I added a second sentence to the single-sentence paragraph which announces John Richter's proposed identification of Lincoln upon a horse at Gettysburg on Consecration Day, November 19, 1863. Possessing no photographic expertise of my own, I am compelled to rely upon the opinions of those who actually possess this expertise and are also recognized authorities.

Until I received the letter shown as a thumbnail at right, I was content to accept Richter's assertions. Today, searching for published works by John Richter at Amazon, I find none. The author of the letter shows seven publications on Amazon with 4 of them on the subject of photography at Gettysburg.

Weighing the quality of the website which announces Richter's finding versus the quality of the website which posts Frassanito's refutation is a difficult matter. When I entered the second sentence, I held the authority of Frassanito, as compared to Richter, as an overarching consideration. Might I add, I am not a personal friend of Frassanito and have never met him face-to-face.

Faced with a a single sentence and a assertion which, unless it is challenged, stands as uncontroverted fact, are we not obliged to present responsible opposing opinions? Is the intent implied by the Wikipedian rules governing 'source quality' to crown kings whose greatest claim-to-fame is a single sensational flash-in-the-pan? It is certain that Frassanito's refutation, removing the sensation and restoring the status quo, is doomed to media indifference.

The tortoise and the hare have taken altogether different routes to fame. Frassanito is not sufficiently threatened by Richter's assertion to re-issue one of his prior works with an appendix on Richter, but he could. Similarly, I am not personally bothered enough by your removal of my insertion to do more than type out my thoughts here.--Donaldecoho (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi - what article does this relate to and what do you want me to do? See also WP:GRA.  Sandstein   12:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Gettysburg Address You removed a sentence, and I'm asking you to reconsider it's value and efficacy. That's all.--Donaldecoho (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your decision on Articles for deletion/Garadaghly Massacre (2nd nomination)
Hi, you have decided that a principal argument for deletion of the Garadaghly Massacre article was the national origin of the sources. Unfortunately your statement is not true and this was not the principal argument. The principal argument was, that the sources (no matter what national origin) used for the article are non-independent, governmental or pro-governmental sources and dead links. Thus the article's content severely fails the verifiability and neutral point of view policies. I therefore kindly ask you to revise your "result keep".--Markus2685 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, these concerns were also voiced, but there was no consensus that the article should be deleted for these reasons. And assessing the reliability of sources is an editorial decision based on consensus. Accordingly, I can't change my conclusion.  Sandstein   12:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you said, the result was "no consensus" and not "keep" (which you have declared as a result).--Markus2685 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the result was no consensus about the specific argument you mention, but a "keep" overall after discounting the weak other argument about the national origin of sources. At any rate, the outcome is the same.  Sandstein   13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerning the reliability of sources I would like to hint to this section on information about Azerbaijani news agencies. These facts have completely been ignored in the discussion. It is provably false to treat Azerbaijan as any other Western Country when it comes to "national origin of sources".--Markus2685 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)