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

Closing of AfD on Fictional fictional character

Hello. I see that you've recently closed the AfD for Fictional fictional character with a consensus for delete. However, the article has been made into a redirect. Could you please delete it for me? I've looked at the article's history, which now only seems to have one entry--Anthony Appleyard made a redirect. Has he re-created the article as a redirect after its deletion? I don't know how these things work. Many thanks, • DP • ^{huh?} 11:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article has been deleted all right, but has been recreated as a redirect. It would take a WP:RfD to delete it. Sandstein 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Looks like Anthony Appleyard is simply trying to ignore the outcome. Why isn't the consensus reached enforcable? Many thansk, • DP • ^{huh?} 19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was to delete the article. Whether there should be a redirect of the same name is a different matter, not covered by the AfD consensus. Sandstein 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think someone could just change it into a redirect to Fictional character. There's really no reason why it should redirect to a closed AfD discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, thanks, I did not neven notice that the redirect target was the AfD. Some other editor made that redirect apparently. Changed as suggested with the edit summary: "Changing redirect target to Fictional character, which I think was intended. No crossnamespace redirects. No opinion about whether we need this redirect either..." Sandstein 20:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As I pointed out at the AfD, content was copied to Story within a story in August 2010. Per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material, attribution must be provided for that copied content, through restoring Fictional fictional character's history or an alternative from WP:Merge and delete. I agree that the demonstrated consensus is for deletion, but Wikipedia's attribution requirements must be satisfied. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the policy says that "If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted)." This means that attribution can be provided in other form than by undeleting the history. I believe that the link in the history to the deleted page is sufficient attribution in the present circumstances. After all, if somebody really wants to know who wrote this text, an admin can easily provide the deleted history. Sandstein 05:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution is the relevant section. Having to request the history from an admin or at WP:Requests for undeletion is not acceptable. As I've pointed out, there are ways of removing the page from article space, such as Talk:69 (sex position)/List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or a {{Histmerge}} request. I prefer to leave such complicated operations to admins who are more experienced at it. Sandstein 05:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to interleaved histories, a histmerge would not be appropriate. May I list at DRV for wider input? WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21 has two examples. From that limited sample, DRV seems to favor the simplest solution, restoring the history under the recreated redirect. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's really that important to you, I've restored the history, though I think Wikipedia has more important deficiencies than the lack of easy access to some minute part of an article's history. Sandstein 07:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the page history. I have added the {{Copied}}s. If the copy had been immediately reverted (as in Metafiction) or were only a few sentences, I would only have tagged it for eventual cleanup. If the text had been contributed by a single author, I would have used a dummy edit, as I did for User:Yulbesorry. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APCOA Parking

Hello Sandstein. I see you have deleted the APCOA page which I welcome of course as I had been the nominator. There were just two things which confused me, the first was that the voting seemed to favour the keep campaign by 3-2. I thought the count stood for something. The other thing was that you mentioned my points about the bad nature of the company were not taken into account, so this has made me curious: what exactly were the grounds for the deletion? Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. My closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APCOA Parking as "delete" was in error. I seem to have clicked the wrong button. The result was of course "keep". I have corrected the mistake. Sandstein 22:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If the article satisfies the criteria, it should stay. I do feel however that the negative coverage should be allowed to occupy the page in the event of it staying; including references to their squalid bullying excercises which I hope will encourage unsuspecting British residents to repudiate the so-called parking charges. I believe I cannot use forums as a reliable source but I am sure I can find other positive information on this. After all, Wikipedia delves into deep topical issues such as law and medicine and many other things. Do you have any objections to this? Please let me know. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I believe your approach to this subject is incompatible with WP:NPOV. This policy requires us to cover all subjects neutrally, no matter how we personally feel about them. Negative information may (and indeed should) be included in an article to the extent, and only to the extent, it is reflected in reliable sources, and the amount of negative information must be proportionate to its prevalence in coverage of the subject in reliable sources (see WP:UNDUE). I have already removed defamatory statements by you about the company from the AfD. Please do not make similar statements in the article. Any negative information must be referenced to a reliable source. Please do not use any forums, opinion columns, self-published webpages or other unreliable sources. Sandstein 06:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules. I was never planning on using forums as a source and I had no intention of being disproportionate. However, the fact that the company uses illicit bullying tactics is a fact and the remark is is no way defamatory. If that were so, they can prosecute me. The key word is illicit which means illegal. If indeed I am guilty of slander then it must be proven that their squalid attempts at extortion and dealings with crooked law firms and collection agencies and overall treatment of unsuspecting motorists with their so-called parking charge notices which do not reflect loss of profit are all legal. And that will never happen so I have no fear of publishing these things. I think what you were trying to say was not that my remarks were defamatory but damaging to the company. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off wiki coordination

Hi Sandstein, In case I have to, where do I report an off-wiki English coordination group which shows clear connection between some users and their editing behaviour? In it, some admins where called "Armenians" and "Kurdish bigot", and it talked about "spanking" other admins. Some of the users have been permanently banned from some articles, and have been in two arbcomms (this list was not releaved during the arbcomm). I am wondering if a user off-wiki talks about "Spanking admins" and calls an admin a "bigot Kurd", is that sufficient for official ban of all the AA articles? Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either WP:AE or WP:ARBCOM, I suggest. That's where the last such case, WP:EEML, ended up. But merely attacking Wikipedians offsite is not sanctionable on-wiki. We have no jurisdiction over what people do off-wiki, except in extreme cases of harrassment etc. You'd need evidence for either that or active coordination of edits in a manner that would be improper on-wiki. Sandstein 16:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is asking for votes on a topic for a POV push improper behaviour? For now I will just let the relavent admins know about talking behind their back and off-wiki coordination. Perhaps they will take sufficient actions if not, I will open it up on WP:AE. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be improper conduct, see Wikipedia:EEML#Off-wiki communication. Sandstein 17:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can the ban take place through showing this evidence off-line to the relavent admins or do I need to open an AE? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would insist on an AE thread in oder to have a transparent discussion, but other admins may have different opinions. Sandstein 17:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However would this violate privacy guidelines of Wikipedia since it reveals the names of some wiki users? Note I would like to just cut & paste some of the comments of the user in question here:

"Come on guys, I hate Armenian infection ever more passionately as many of you do. But there are certain bounds of diplomatic reason and logic in dealing with enemy, «toporniye» approaches result in what Turks are suffering from today with allegations of armocide. ....."
"Turkic people were always glorious in their history, ruled many kingdoms and were masters of Armenians, Persians, Greeks and others. «Turk is a master of his destiny», the old saying goes."
"Can you imagine how this annuls anything we say promoting tolerance and religious ethnic synergy in Azerbaijan, while pointing and blaming Armenia? Especially given that Melkonian was a U.S. citizen, can you imagine the scale of damage if Armenians get their hand to this material?? We will never recover from it!"

Wikipedia related (I have evidence for canvassing for vote coordination on Safavids from this user):

Off-wiki coordination to get votes: "Guys, visit [1] ASAP and cast your votes in Satisfactory section. Mardavich has

organized survey attempting to foil the article." The email went out to " azwikis@googlegroups.com".

"I would follow GM’s suggestion not to exacerbate any admin, even Dmcdevit. I personally can’t stand that bigot Kurd Khoikhoi, but we have to work with all of them and drag them to our side."
"Guys I am totally blocked by Dmcdevit. He claimed that he blocked warring parties, but in fact he only blocked me, both Nareklm and Mardavich are freely editing Safavid Dynasty page. ..How can you post request for arbitration. I think Dmcdevit is Armenian, if so we are screwed."

This is some of the wikipedia online comments of the same user:

"general pattern demonstrated by Iranian/Persian groups to attack and remove, dereference and POV every article related to Turkic groups shall also be noted as nothing more than hateful and disturbing development"[2]
"You're only weakening your Iranian identity by claiming Safavis as Kurds or Armenian or anything else, because any reference that you make up 500 years after, when there are pages of Ismail's poetry in Azeri Turkic, will be laughed at."[3]
"Armenian user Nareklm has once again abused the consensus version with help from Mardavich." [4]

Anyhow, I have evidence to present that the user seeked votes on Safavid article from this list. Few other users (some inactive) have also been involved in that list. I would like to post the evidence in AE, but I am not sure if Wikipedia allows revealing names from the group list. So may I send it to you privately? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that you may not reveal names or other private information onwiki. Please don't send the evidence and the request for enforcement to me, but to the Arbitration Committee, as described at Wikipedia:ARBCOM#Contacting the Committee. They are set up to handle confidential evidence, I'm not. Sandstein 18:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the names were revealed in the Russian Wikipedia and one post actually connects again the user in question with his username. However, I will go through the relavent admins whose names were mentioned in the online list first.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW This is another quote from the same wikilist: You and others know well that I support tough stance on Armenians, until they leave not only Karabakh but also territories of former Iravan khanate. They have historically proven not to be a trustworthy nation, should always be kept as servant/dependent people, and not allowed to resettle in any other part of Azerbaijan.. I will with relavent admins as there is no point in discussing any topic with such a user who has such views. Note the Russian wikipedia list also which was discovered also directly connects the person with his wikipedia account. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot fully carry out merger as required by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaaS data escrow

Hello, Sandstein.

You have recently, closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaaS data escrow and advised Merge. I attempted to carry out the merger but it didn't fully succeed: One of the citations contains a link to a blacklisted website (www.cbronline.com) and so Spam Filter stopped me. I temporarily commented out the citation. Please advise, what should be done? Fleet Command (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is reliable, you can still add the citation, only without the URL. If the source is not reliable, you should either try to find another source for this assertion ("Of those companies, 90 per cent want to keep at least one copy of their SaaS data using cloud computing away from the SaaS vendor") or remove the assertion altogether. Sandstein 10:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how reliable the source is. Doesn't look like a WP:SPS but I don't know its reputation either. So, going with alternative: I've discarded the source along with part of the supporting contributions. For the rest, I found another source. Fleet Command (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles deleted and review closed

Dear Sandstein, You deletd and closed the deletion review debate of article [Daniel Karpantschof] that I was working on. I am new to WikiPedia, but I find it very strange that articles get deleted without any further debate (since my debate posts were never replied to) and would have appreciated if, rather than deleting it, I would have gotten some pointers, as I asked for, on how to improve that article.

Daniel Karpantschof is a very interesting fellow whom I've been writing and read about for many years and it is my firm believe that an article on him is in order on the en.wikipedia is it is on the da.wikipedia (especially since he recently moved to the US and is now working in international circles to a much greater extend).

I understand the need to right citations and so forth, but seeing that most of the the articles done on him are in Danish and Google News (in spite of what another user may understand) does not cover any Danish media outlets, citations are hard, but not futile.

I hope you can help me. Many thanks.

Best,

Peter Hansson --Pjhansson (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction. Sandstein 05:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-20th century amateur scientists

I was just reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hunt Painter and wanted to comment (here as the AfD is closed) about amateur scientsits. In the 19th century and the Victorian period, as I'm sure you know, many of the scientists were amateurs (famously, the clergymen). I've written a few articles on such myself, mainly using criteria like awards they received, or learned societies they were fellows of, but some are rather obscure with scant sources on them. If you know of other debates on notability criteria for pre-20th century scientists, or existing guidelines, I'd like to look at those. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not aware of discussions about similar cases. I can't immediately see why WP:BIO and WP:PROF should not apply to such people in the same manner as to any other subjects. Sandstein 05:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP again

Typical pattern by IP [5] see all "contributions" [6]. Plz block that IP M.K. (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per this talk page's edit notice, please make such requests at WP:AE. Or at WP:SPI, that may be somebody's sock. Sandstein 16:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to userfy Phyrexia

Would you mind userfying the deleted article for me, as explained in this request? Thank you! Cool Hand Luke 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think userfying the page to cite anything that can be cited and then merging the cited (and appropriately condensed) content to the parent page is a good idea. But in view of the concerns that have been raised about what is seen as my involvement with respect to this page, I would prefer not to perform any more admin actions with respect to it. The AfD closer might be a better person to ask. To the extent that it matters for any purpose, though, I do hereby declare that I do not object to any administrator, including you, userfying the article. Sandstein 16:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest (software)

I am the creator of the Harvest (software) article that lived on Wikipedia since October 2010, and I missed the WP:AfD process. I'm writing to request restoring the page, or restoring to my userspace. Reasons: 1) The page had already underwent review for deletion, and passed successfully by Wikipedia:Administrators. No changes to content were made since then. 2) Harvest is mentioned in publications declared notable by Wikipedia, like The New York Times. Harvest was also mentioned in The Wall Street Journal recently. The link to the latter article was not on the page before deletion. 3) I'd like to add Harvest (software) to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing, an effort to increase the quality and quantity of information about computing on Wikipedia. Harvest (software) was apart of Comparison of time tracking software, an informative article that is apart of the project. Thank you. Srinath10 (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]