User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Shad Helmstetter

Hello, I'm wondering why my article was deleted. Dr Shad Helmstetter is a noted self help speaker very similar to Tony Robbins, which I see his page is still active. He is most definitely a verifiable reference. Please explain why the page was removed.

Seth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selftalk (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the article read like a glossy advertising brochure; see WP:CSD#G11.  Sandstein  22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was still working on it. This is not blatant advertising. Please allow me to finish the article before removing it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selftalk (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No. In fact, if you continue to spam Wikipedia with this type of content, I will block you from editing.  Sandstein  22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And verily, he recreated the article - Shad Helmstetter. I have cut it back to 2 sentences and a list of books & tapes. You might want to give it the chop again, for all I care. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for putting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference out of its misery. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.  Sandstein  19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was just coming by to say exactly the same thing, but davidwr beat me to it :) Indeed, thanks for that. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, its just going to come back and haunt us. There was precedent for those 27 articles to be deleted. While it looked long and painful, it will be much, much longer now. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether there was precedent, but what matters is that there was certainly no consensus.  Sandstein  19:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There was precedent. Cincinnati Hills League is from the same list of disputed conferences. The fact Pioneer Conference's edit history just says reverted my edit for the AfD, just says the last week was a waste of time. That is not cool, I would ask for a decision based upon the list UWMSports provided after Arbitrary Break #6. The fact an admin can come in and close the discussion after not having participated in it is wrong. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the AfD was a waste of time, but I can't help that. As I said, precedent on its own does not matter, consensus does. As to my closing the discussion, our guidelines actually say: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."  Sandstein  19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree someone on the outside (outside being neutral, not outside being completely out of the discussion!) should close it, but that's after getting together with another admin or two or three should have gotten together and assessed the situation to a tee before simply putting a no consensus tag on there. A no consensus decision does absolutely no good as the articles will just come back to AfDs eventually and waste everyone's time again. Huskies pointed it out, I broke down the articles under Arbitrary Break#6 which show which articles are duplicates from a main central list. That could have easily been looked at thoroughly by an admin in 10-15 minutes tops. Now we will spend months evaluating each article. Thanks. --UWMSports (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That list at "Arbitrary break 6" also does not indicate community consensus about the fate of these articles. Admins can't just make whatever decision they feel is right; they must follow consensus. Such consensus was not established in that discussion.  Sandstein  19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

People are always going to have different opinions, but its best to go with precedent. That's the only way to maintain some order. Cincinnati Hills League was a conference deleted from the main Ohio High School Athletic Conferences list. Those 27 conferences were like that one, which is nothing but duplicate information. I would ask you attach the link to whenever a centralized chat is setup within your decision on the Pioneer AfD page. People need to know where to go.--UWMSports (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, closed AfDs may not be edited. There are other venues for promoting centralised discussioN; try posting a message on the talk pages of the AfD participants.  Sandstein  20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just asking for a link because I assume most of us had that discussion on our watch list. I'm just asking you to direct the conversation somewhere else and not have us all run around like chickens with our heads cut off. We did give a week of our time to this discussion. A link is not going to change the decision you made. --UWMSports (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Painful. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All I want to do change your link from centralized discussion to this Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Football Conferences --UWMSports (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All right.  Sandstein  20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I just went through a drop a notification to every single user who participated in the AfD, so everyone should be aware of the continuing discussion. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, so editing the AfD is not required.  Sandstein  20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just let me place the link. It won't change anything in the discussion. Can you lift the editblock for 2 minutes. That's all I want to do, and I'll leave you be. Thanks. --UWMSports (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Or even you can do it. Change from "A centralised discussion might be better" to "This centralized discussion might be better". Thanks. --UWMSports (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no opinion about that being the best location for discussion. You have not demonstrated that such an edit is necessary in the interest of establishing consensus even after the AfD contributors have been individually notified. As a general rule, AfDs are a record of a community discussion that should not be altered once closed.  Sandstein  20:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not changing the record. It's giving those who put a week into discussing this a chance to see where the discussion went if Jaysweet happened to miss them when he sent out notifications. The decision is final and the AfD is not going to be re-opened. I'm just asking for the link to help confused users. That's all. You can do it so you don't have to remove the lock. --UWMSports (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's what it takes... all right, done.  Sandstein  20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --UWMSports (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just have to say this was a poor decision on your part to close this discussion. There could be several AfDs to follow unfortunately. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

editing closed AfD

The last edit on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference was an edit conflict that wasn't. You closed it before I hit the save button, but there was no "edit conflict." When I previewed, I didn't see the closure. Call it bad timing. I considered self-reverting but figured why bother. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem, thanks for the info.  Sandstein  19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've made a recommendation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio#Centralized Discussion for reorganization of high school football conferences to use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio/HS Football Conferences 2008 Reorg, but it's only polite to let the WP:OHIO participates have a chance to say "no" before I start the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The centralized discussion is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Is it possible to ask administrators to remove all positions in music articles from charts deleted by AfD? For instance: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot100Brasil and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. Tosqueira (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean. What do you mean by "positions"?  Sandstein  21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For instance: Smells Like Teen Spirit has a lot of "chart positions": If one of them was from United World Chart, I believe that the part which mentions "UWC" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosqueira (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• If there are a lot of "red links" (like United World Chart), someone may recreate the page again sooner or later. Tosqueira (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you have a prank message link on your user page, which indicates to me that you are not interested in productive communication. I decline to reply.  Sandstein  05:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I've just removed the prank message from my user page and my user talk. And I put a "deletion template" on the useless prank: User:Tosqueira/Punk'd. Can you answer me? Tosqueira (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but I still don't understand the problem. Do you mean the fact that there are a number of red links to United World Chart? These can be automatically unlinked, but I won't do that, since it's possible that someone may discover sources that makes them notable and then the article may be recreated.  Sandstein  05:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Afd question

Hi. You recently closed an Afd Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism, about two weeks ago. I thought it was well-done. Yet, immediately afterwards they took it to deletion review, and it was upheld, correctly, I think. However, now they simply started the Afd all over again - less than two weeks. My question is, is this allowed? It seems absurd to start the merry-go-round all over again when the last one just barely was completed. I know the subject still strikes a tender nerve for many Americans, but contiguous Afd's attempts seems disruptive and a waste of time/effort. The nom should have seen the afd that just concluded, and reviewed it, before starting the process over again. I feel that they should be notified, and warned not to abuse this process, and this should be closed with a Speedy Keep. Your thoughts? Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is allowed, particularly since the last AfD yielded no consensus. WP:SK does not provide for speedy keeps in case of repeat nominations. However, if the repeat nomination is widely perceived to be disruptive, it may be grounds for sanctions.  Sandstein  05:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yoshiaki_Arata page

Hello Sandstein, I edited this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshiaki_Arata

for what I thought was a logical error:

Arata gained media attention in May 2008 when he publicly demonstrated what he said was a successful cold fusion experiment

He haven't demonstrated his speech, he demonstraded the creation of helium 4 in a clod fusion reaction, so the sentence is logically wrong.

It should be:

Arata gained media attention in May 2008 when he publicly demonstrated a successful cold fusion experiment

Why did you undo the changes?

Thank you for your effort in making a better Wikipedia

- )

Umberto

It's because of our rule WP:ASF. We do not actually know whether the experiment was successful. Arata claims it was, but nobody else has independently verified that it was successful. This means we must not imply by our choice of words that the experiment was successful. We must state instead that Arata has said that it was successful.

I think the sentence works fine as a matter of syntax, but we could rephrase it to: "Arata gained media attention in May 2008 when he publicly demonstrated a cold fusion experiment that he said was successful", but that would be more cumbersome.  Sandstein  20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for the quick answer! I understand now your argument, and I do fully agree on the mentioned rule. However, I don't fully get this point

Arata claims it was, but nobody else has independently verified that it was successful

The goal of the experiment was to demonstrate excess of heat and production of helium, a stirling engine was used to show the production of heat to the public. The scientific theory at the basis of the experiment are solid and proven, one of the countless examples is the report RT2002/41/FUS fone by the Italian public institute of energy. The experiment was then just a public demonstration to show that is possible to tap cold nuclear fusion energy (everybody present saw that), using that kind of lexicon led the idea that he has only his word as support.

To add more information to the sentence, I would cut it in two:

Arata gained media attention in May 2008 when he publicly demonstrated a cold fusion experiment. The demonstration was not independently verified, but the results are in accordance with the current state of development of the scientific bases of the cold fusion.

However, you decide :-), this is just my idea.

Regards Umberto

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes

I am curious why you changed the text in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes to remove the "coaches" term. There are three (3) editors who approve of removing "coaches" in Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#More WP:ATHLETE (Coaches) and another three (3) editors who approve of extending "Competitors and coaches" to also include "officials" in Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Sportspeople. Three-vs-three is hardly a consensus to remove "coaches". That is why I restored the text to the version that has been in effect for several months (at least since February 2008, and probably before that). I dislike edit wars and I urge you to reconsider your edit and restore it to the version that has been generally accepted by the Wikimmunity for some time. Feel free to discuss this on my talk page. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think three to four (Kevin Murray, at the bottom of the talk page, also opposes) is hardly a consensus to include it, but I'm not going to insist if someone else wants to change the wording back.  Sandstein  06:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cultural property

Hi, Got the email at 3:50 this morning before getting on my flight. Thanks. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 10:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Great; have a nice trip!  Sandstein  10:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Aar bridges in Berne, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ndphil21

Just FYI, he was right. The original block had expired but he was still blocked ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Exopolitics

On what basis have you removed the Exopolitics article? Are you an expert on this subject? Are you in contact with the those who have founded and developed the field? How many of the 255,000 Google or 650,000 Yahoo page returns for "Exopolitics" have you reviewed? How many books on the subject have you read?

Stephen Bassett PRG@paradigmresearchgroup.org 202-215-8344 Steve (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Th article Exopolitics was removed based on community consensus as established in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination). According to our deletion policy, no further basis for deletion, such as knowledge about the subject, is required or expected.  Sandstein  15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is no small matter. For better or for worse Wikipedia has become a powerful information source. It is clearly useful, but it has major flaws. In particular, these flaws turn up when dealing with emerging issues and very new facts. In such instances Users with little knowledge of the subject make decisions about content and deletion. Also, if there is controversy surrounding the subject there is a higher degree of vanalism on the articles and Administrators toss the article out of irritation.

I have tried to keep the Exopolitics article accurate and appropriate. But, alas, it's Wikipedia.

All of this is, of course, not unique to the Exopolitics article.

But this issue - UFO/ET/Cover-up - is important and has been sujected to censorship and suppression by the state. It is a growing field and is substantially more important and relevant than thousands of other Wikipedia articles now sitting undeleted.

I will be happy to assist in creating an Exopoltics article which is accurate and appropriate based on the growing mass of written material and relevant events. I cannnot stop inappropriate editing, but I am quite dedicated to this issue and will repair inappropriate editing frequently.

I request the Exopolitics article be reinstated for further development. Steve (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your request is declined, because you do not indicate why my closure of the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination) was in violation of Wikipedia's deletion policy. You may appeal this decision at WP:DRV, but be advised that any appeal that does not address pertinent points of deletion policy will most likely be declined out of hand.  Sandstein  16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Kind sole"

Hi umm i was just surfing arond and i notised that u said that u dont have a kind sole. Why is dis? U seem pritty nice 2 me :) Shadow cube (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you want to say to me.  Sandstein  17:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shadow_goblin on dis vandals unblok request u sed u dont have a kind sole. Shadow cube (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Salting Zachary Jaydon

Looks like you hit the "unprotect" button instead of the "protect" one.
Kww (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks.  Sandstein  14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ulteo deletion

I don't know what is the saddest: deciding Ulteo article deletion or the related comment. Ulteo *is not* a Linux distribution, and everything in the debate has proven that it was notable according to Wikipedia criterias.

I think that there is really a big problem of Wikipedia procedure with deletion. It's not tolerable that someone can decide unilaterally to delete an article.

There should be at least five moderators with a high degree of confidence, and the reasons of deletion should be clearly explained and argumented, in accordance with a clear Wikipedia policy.

Anyway, it's now clear that most Web desktop and many Linux projects should now go into a deletion process. On a side note, I think that you are abusing the system, because on the Ulteo deletion processus, there was clearly no consensus for deletion Vautnavette (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I decline to comment.  Sandstein  19:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Vautnavette (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)