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

Is this allowed?

[1]? Squash Racket (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sandstein 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Deletion Oct 7th

Just wondering why the "Blossom Goodchild" entry was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.184.239 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blossom Goodchild. Sandstein 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see further justification for this deletion. The article had numerous citations to reliable, third-party news sources that made it clear that Blossom Goodchild was (and continues to be) the object of international discussion. If these are not evidence of notability, why not? If a bio page is not the appropriate kind of article, is there another type of article that would be more appropriate for the significant event of her prediction and its international media attention? I think it's clear that Wikipedia was providing a valuable service by providing users with ready access to neutral information. Would you accept the prediction itself (and its international attention) as "notable" even if Goodchild herself is not? Hoopes (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the prediction that ETs will make themselves known on October 14th? We could just wait until then. If the ETs come, that will be notable. If they don't, we can see if anyone still remembers the prediction. On the whole, consensus was that coverage of her was not sufficiently in depth; in the few mainstream sources that were cites, it was generally limited to a joking mention of her predictions. Sandstein 05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's going to be any doubt whether someone remembers the prediction or not. Google now yields about 36,000 hits, a number that's almost doubled in less than a week. IMHO, it is really her prediction of an extraterrestrial visitation and the response to it that's notable, not her. Whether ETs make themselves known or not will almost certainly become a matter of contested reality, much like the phenomenon of Marian apparitions that I mentioned in the original article. Goodchild has already entered into the folklore of UFOs and is unlikely to be forgotten, whether or nor the way that ETs "make themselves known" conforms to rational- or irrational-style expectations. (People will be claiming that ETs were visible, whether or not that can be empirically confirmed.) One way to interpret the references in the mainstream press is that they were "joking", another is to see that joking as a symptom of the discomfort with pop culture "wacko" beliefs that are a component of the general cultural phenomenon. I really was trying to keep the article objective, since I anticipated that many users (such as the one who left a comment) would turn to Wikipedia for some accurate information and links to relevant background. A technical question: Is the deleted article and its discussion page archived somewhere and can it be revived if the subject is deemed "notable". I think it's really important to be able to document that there was some objective discussion of Goodchild's prediction in Wikipedia before October 14. Hoopes (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to re-argue the AfD discussion here, but deleted content can indeed be restored if the reasons for its deletion are addressed. I can also move it to your user space where you can work on it some more if you would like to. Sandstein 18:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please move this to article draft to my user space. (Is it possible for the discussion to stay with the article?) I would like to continue working on it and will consult with you regarding the issue of notability as the draft progresses. If I can get it up to your standard for approval, I'd like to have it undeleted. Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You'll find it at User:Hoopes/Blossom Goodchild. I think if this lady or her predictions get some decently in-depth coverage (not just passing mentions or one-paregraph notices) by a reliable news medium, preferably in English, and you can reference that, the notability issue will be addressed. Sandstein 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Google hit count is now over 40,000 and climbing rapidly. It would be nice for a responsible journalist to take an interest in the story and do some of the necessary background work. There is a lot of biographical information from Goodchild herself on her webpage and her blog. I imagine there is also some in her books and spoken word recordings. However, those are not reliable, third-party sources. My guess is that people are waiting to see whether or not anything happens on October 14. That's bizarre to me, since I think the real story is not whether or not the ETs appear, but how many people in addition to Goodchild seem to believe in both channeling and the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation, neither of which is likely to be definitively proven even if thousands of people report an ET apparition. The "notable" nature of this is the unfolding of a hotly contested reality in multimedia on the web and pop culture. Also, the way the web has made this an international cultural phenomenon. Hoopes (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no major news media coverage other than The Daily Record, a supermarket tabloid in Scotland, which announced that betting on the October 14 event has been suspended due to high figures (and long odds). Hoopes (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand! ... this is such a remarkable event what is going on with October 14 that I can't believe you guys errased it. Specially soooo close to this date and you guys errased it.

Sounds even as a conspiracy to discredit Blossom... and if that wasn't the case you guys aren't helping.

It certainly wasn't ever my intention to discredit Blossom Goodchild, only to provide a balanced, informative article that would to help readers decide for themselves. Most of what has been published about her is extremely biased in one way or another. I think Wikipedia could provide a valuable service by providing an objective, reasoned appraisal within the context of other relevant information. I also think it's possible to navigate a middle ground here even when the sources themselves are biased and unreliable. Mediumship has an ancient history, and many major religions have had key events that involved communication between humans and supernatural (i.e. "extraterrestrial") entities (gods, angels, spirits, ghosts of ancestors, etc.) Whether or not these communications have "actually" happened or whether prophecies are "real" is irrelevant to their significance. They become a part of common folklore, mythology, tradition, and history whether there is agreement on whether the events happened as described (and fervently believed or adamantly denied) or not. Hoopes (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the ETs come it would be smething without precedent and if they don't come it would imply that an "insignificant" human being like Blossom Goodchild was able to influence and move at least 1/4 of humanity to join together to express hope and love to all 4 corners of earth. Thing that NO ONE on earth has ever been able to do. If that is NOT remarkable then please define what "remarkable" is for Wikipedia please ... I can't believe this seriously! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.103.24 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for Wikipedia is not that someone is "remarkable" but that they are "notable". Hoopes (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some additional references to User:Hoopes/Blossom Goodchild, including one from an article today in The Herald Tribune. I hope this meets your criteria for restoring the entry. Blossom Goodchild has already entered Internet and bookmaking folklore, even if the extraterrestrial spaceship never appears. In your own words, "I think if this lady or her predictions get some decently in-depth coverage (not just passing mentions or one-paregraph notices) by a reliable news medium, preferably in English, and you can reference that, the notability issue will be addressed." Please restore this entry! Hoopes (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with it if you move the article back to main space. In my opinion, the new sources address the AfD's concerns ... barely. But I've no special authority in the matter. If you move it back, you may need to argue with others who may consider the references insufficient. If you want to be sure, you may ask the community's opinion at WP:DRV. Sandstein 20:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Mississauga train derailment

You obviously didn't check, but the version you reverted to is even more of a copyright violation. I changed a lot of the wording from the original source. Your revert also introduced many factual errors back into the article. Is a warning template even appropriate for something that was done 9 months ago? Get real. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I stumbled upon the article back in January, it was still the copyright violation it is today (although I didn't know about any copyrights associated with the website), because no inline citations were provided. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you're done assuming bad faith, we can actually discuss this. The solution is not deletion, but providing inline citations. Can we make a deal here? For now, let's keep the article the way it is, and I'll be restoring the content with proper ciations, and you agree not to delete the page. I'll have the page ready momentarily. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Citing sources specifically states that citations should be used "to avoid claims of plagarism and copying". Introducing cites to the article will take care of it for now, so that the page won't be deleted. And it would be regrettable if it was, because it's been around for so long, and is a notable topic. I'm not even close to finished with it, I just left it alone all that time because I had other priorities. But now that the issue of copyright has come up, I will fix that problem today, and maybe look for sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MarkusKingJR

hello, my father's work has been notable in our family for the past 40 years, only 3 of his painitngs have ever been sold and this was for a very large sum. I feel the article is more than apropriate for wikipedia, I will be editing it regularly and adding on. Please get back to me asap

kind regards MarkusKingJR —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusKingJR (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please make these arguments at the deletion discussion page. Thanks, Sandstein 05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Renamed user 19

As I pointed out in the message, I only used the unblock template to avoid needless drama that might come up in an ANI thread. I've made numerous unblock requests on behalf of other users using the unblock template that have resulted in them being unblocked, but I try to make it a point to use ANI instead. So I understand if you wish to decline on that alone, but you are wrong in saying that I did not address the block reason. The only reason a block was placed on that account was because it was named User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0. The account has now been renamed, thus no reason to remain blocked. I pointed this out when I said "I'm asking that they be unblocked since the account has been renamed. No reason to remain blocked. " -- Ned Scott 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you're right in that regard. Sandstein 06:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Blossom Goodchild's wikipedia page?

I was curious as to why you had deleted Blossom Goodchild's wikipedia page on October 7, 2008. Is there a particular reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.36.33 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why did you delete her page? I would like to hear a reason... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollicerocks (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above on this page, four sections up. Sandstein 14:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested

Hi. Last month, you'd declined an unblock request of G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is now the subject of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_sanctions_proposals. I'd like to request for your input at that discussion. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom Goodchild

Please restore the page immediately. She fills the notability requirements, she's in the news: http://news.google.com/news?&hl=en&tab=wn&ned=&q=Blossom+Goodchild&btnG=Search+News --Calibas (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above on this page, six sections up. Sandstein 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is that the references don't count because they're mostly in jest. Why don't they count? It's notable enough that it's being mentioned in the news, it doesn't matter that they aren't taking it seriously. How serious the references are doesn't mean squat for Wikipedia's notability requirements. You also said the article doesn't follow the references, which doesn't mean it should be deleted, just the parts that don't follow the references. Please restore the page immediately. --Calibas (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of this is my argument and I'm not arguing with you. I recommend that you add references to reliable sources covering Goodchild in depth to the userfied version, User:Hoopes/Blossom Goodchild, and ask WP:DRV to allow restoration once you think the article meets WP:BIO. Sandstein 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already has references to reliable sources AND it meets WP:BIO. The article I see at User:Hoopes/Blossom Goodchild never should have been deleted, just trimmed. Please don't hide behind the bureaucratic red-tape of DRV, you never should have deleted it in the first place. --Calibas (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such arguments should have been made in the AfD. If you disagree with its closure, I recommend that you proceed as mentioned above. Sandstein 19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been made in the AfD? It's closed, had I known I would have. Fucking bureaucracy. Someone will recreated the page soon enough. --Calibas (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small Industry Research, Training and Development Organisation

I've identified the source from which the Small Industry Research, Training and Development Organisation article was copied, and tagged it for a speedy. -- Whpq (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put Blossom's Goodchild page back!

With love —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.215.132 (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 14th 2008

Why has Blossom Goodchild's information on wikipedia been deleted? 75.161.81.250 (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See various sections above. Sandstein 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bümpliz-Oberbottigen

On 11 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bümpliz-Oberbottigen, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

?Hi Sandstein, can you ask me why your user page is protected? I wish to make a edit.

By the way, I have one more question. What is move-protection? Reply to me on my talk page soon. MHLU (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your Question

I would like to edit a direct link to your user page on the German Wikipedia. MHLU (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion-- Requesting Review for MapleStory iTrading Card Game

Last I check, there was no debate. A couple people walked in and looked at it briefly made a post and then went on their way. I did not see any proof of non-notability. Even when you posted your deletion summary it only mentioned that scribeofages post was invalid. I see why it was invalid but I don't see what that has to do with why it was deleted. Since this was supposed to be a debate and NOT a vote! --Deretto (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MapleStory iTrading Card Game as "delete" was that the "delete" arguments were more persuasive under our policies and guidelines. It was not just a vote. I said that "ScribeOfAges's opinion is discounted per WP:WAX" because that had an influence on the outcome: had he made a good argument, the discussion might have been closed differently. Sandstein 15:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that wasn't the entire post though. He had made it clear that he had just posted the page. More then likely said page was very incomplete at the time of posting. Sure, he should've posted a complete article to begin with. What about the points that I made? I replied to every poster in that discussion. What I had said seems to never have been taken into account seeing as how those who posted never came back to reply. Furthermore! Scribeofages should've been informed of his invalidated argument. No such warning was given. Users, such as myself are new. Though I have taken the time to read the rules and formats as I go a long there's a still a lot I don't know. Still, I digress, it should be a point to tell users when they've made an invalid portion of their argument before discussion was closed.--Deretto (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, that's not how we work. I can, though, restore the article to your user space if you want to continue improving it. Once the notability concerns of the AfD are addressed, you may then move it back to article space. Sandstein 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will just lay it out here why I proceeded the way I did. You may not care, but that matters little as you took the job to delete the article. First I am pretty new here, I have only 1 other article and I have never edited anything before. The only reason I come here is because I am looking up info on topics that I have interest in, when I didn't see it then I decided to try and make it. I have next to no knowledge of how wikipedia works (code wise), I am an HTML web coder only. I am use to saveing a page after edits to see how they appear on the web and continue from there so I don't do a lot of work that has to be redone. Had I known that someone would have swooped in withing seconds of saving the page to delete it, I would have added more before saving the page. Second, in regards to the delete topic, it took me a couple days to even figure out how to post a response. Besides the fact that you only centered on one of my 2 points in my response, there was a post that made it sound like you could only respond once in the official Wikipedia manner. At that point I felt stopped, that I could not respond with a better response because I had already responded. I mean if I thought I could have responded a second time, I would have said something to the fact that "It is an up and coming game gaining momentum and branching out into multiple countries. It is the first from Wizards of the Coast to create a direct gaming link between ccg to mmo." I hope that was a satisfactory response since you invalidated only have of my original response. ScribeOfAges (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to unblock request

I am a bit baffled by your response to my unblock request ([this diff]), which was made over two hours after the block in question ended and was already moot, where a decision to sustain or overturn the block would have had absolutely no effect. I appreciate your interpretation of the arbcom ruling, however consensus of multiple uninvolved admins shows that I am not the only one who disagrees with the block or your interpretation of its justification. Most importantly, it seems rather difficult to read a response to a claim from an involved admin, User:Jc37, justifying the block on the basis of a false accusation of my demanding someone's desysopping as being in bad faith. I would hope that all editors, and especially administrators, would be held to the same civility expectations as all other editors. Your use of this as justifying the existence of a block that had already ended is entirely unjustified. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did not notice that the block had already ended. As you say, the question appears to be moot now. What you say, though, does not change my assessment of the block. Sandstein 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of 'World Security Forum

Hi Sandstein, you recently deleted the article i created, 'World Security Forum'. I would like to access the text to make various edits, with the hope of re-creating the page and adding further references. Are you able to reinstate the original content onto my Userpage please? Or if not, please can you tell me which Editor can help with this. Danke. Sherazade10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I userfied World Security Forum at User:Sherazade10/World Security Forum. Sandstein 13:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodles

Hi. Sure Boodles will benefit from couple days rest from Wiki. I hope he calms down and will modify his language. But how you would react to such accusations [2]? I just ignore it. But c'mon - Jayjg racist tagteamer? Wow. See my point? M0RD00R (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I would react to this - except, of course, that I would not react to it with incivility or attacks. 21:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)