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

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS

Just because I'm just "an IP" and not some registered self-entitled Wikipedian does NOT make my arguments any less weighted or acceptable. Your recent closure of the debate concerning the article Common Dead is totally unwarranted and preemptive. The discussion had only two participants on opposing sides but as soon as one additional stepped in to (barely) tip the scale, you closed it with what little power you have on this website. Unbelievable. For shame, "Sandstein", for a shameless demonstration of an authority complex, as limited and futile as it is. You give Wikipedians a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.199.156 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had NOT allowed fair time and number of debate participants to properly explore the sources regarding the subject Common Dead. Had you done that, the taint of misinformation regarding the sources on the subject would have be realized and the article is PROVEN to meet the minimal standards via WP:Music. Even previous challengers who at one time doubted sources have visibly changed in favor of the article's restoration. At least half a dozen band pages I've had to defend have faced this exact situation -- a legitimate artist or band blocked from Wikipedia not for lack of requirements, but due to obscurity in the eyes of Wikipedians on a deletion high, like you. There is always a guy like you making frenetic choices on Wikiepdia, damaging and limiting the site as a whole in exchange for an ego boost. You likely laugh at my scolding, and yet nothing is closer to truth. 66.131.199.156 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 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 18:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you're so full of it. You know exactly where and what I'm talking about. And if you really don't, it's just support to the "deletion high" remark I made about you; you do so many you can't even keep track in recent memory. From here on out, I really don't have an interest in talking with you anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_13 66.131.199.156 (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help usurp username in German Wikipedia

Hello Sandstein. I want to ask for your assistance if you could help usurp an account for me at the German Wikipedia. Currently, I wish to create a global SUL account under the target name "User:A7x". On most Wikimedia projects, I edit under the pseudonym "A7x", and I've been wanting to unify my account for a long time, but there seems to be a few issues. According to the SUL collision detector, there is another account at the German Wikipedia with the name "A7x" that was not created by me. I wish to usurp the account, however I'm not very good at understanding or reading the German language. By the way if you want to verify my request, I have my own wiki-matrix at Meta which is a list of all active and discontinued accounts that were created by, and belong to me. A few years ago, I created an account with the nickname "Snake311". That account has only one counted edit and has been left inactive, but I still hold ownership of that account, and remember its password.

Anyways, I want to ask if you could file a usurpation/rename request, Snake311 → A7x, to the German bureaucrats on behalf of me, since I can't read German, regarding my request for usurpation. I really need help on this so I can unify all my accounts; it has been a tedious task so far. Your cooperation would be very much appreciated. Best regards, —Terrence and Phillip 07:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help you, but I think what you request is not possible under the rules of the German Wikipedia. Their page de:Wikipedia:Benutzernamen ändern/Benutzernamens-Übernahme says that accounts that are to be usurped must have zero contributions, whereas the account de:Benutzer:A7x has one contribution. Do you want me to make the request regardless? Sandstein 07:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm hoping that they could make an exception. If you or any admin on the German Wikipedia deleted that one edit, would it then be qualified for usurpation? —Terrence and Phillip 08:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but I've nonetheless forwarded your request to de:Wikipedia:Benutzernamen ändern/Benutzernamens-Übernahme#A7x ← Snake311. Please confirm there with your "Snake311" account, in English, below my post, that you have made that usurpation request. Sandstein 08:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid my request at the German Wikipedia has been declined, which is somewhat disappointing. However I just wanted to re-clarify that my motive is to unify all my existing accounts into "User:A7x" before merging them to prevent SUL conflicts. Just recently, I got my username here changed from "TerrenceandPhillip" to A7x, thanks to a helping hand from Xeno. Cheers, —stay (sic)! 10:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Metaphysical Sciences

Hello, Why does the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Metaphysical_Sciences have to be on the University of Metaphysical Sciences page where there is no article now? if the article is deleted, does this negative conversation have to be there that was solely my conversation with others? The university never asked me to write an article, I do not represent the university of have anything to do with them, and now a negative conversation I had about putting an article there with attack from other editors is forever a bad reflection on the school that I am solely responsible for, not them. I had that one and three other articles I was going to give to Wiki, but after that experience I won't be doing any more articles here. However, now this conversation I had with people about the deletion of the page is there forever, and I do not represent the school, nor do I even know them and it is unfair to them that all that is left there is the negative conversation I had about the article with others who had no desire to see an article there about the school.

I am really disappointed that my moments of frustration are forever a reflection on that school, and they are pretty upset about it too because they have purposely never put an article there after seeing what happened to the last person who tried to. They would have preferred that no one write an article about them at all, and they knew it would probably be deleted, but now there is just this really negative conversation left and that is all. I saw that someone else who wrote an article long ago, someone who had access to it posted it in the conversation, I guess you file them somewhere that's not public viewing, and that was a negative conversation too I see, but that one is not publicly there to be detrimental to the school. I think that would be more fair. If an article is deleted, the conversation about it should go too.

Anyway, I would ask that you please put the deletion conversation wherever the other deletion conversation is that is not in public view, because I have ended up creating harm to the school rather than did anything constructive for wiki, which was my purpose. I don't see why that conversation has to be there if the article itself is not there.

Also, for what it's worth, you deleted the article before it had time to mature, because the stuff that was noteworthy wasn't put there until the last day, and even one user changed his vote after it was put there, but he's the only one who got to see it before it got deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalina Z (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Oops, forgot to sign Catalina Z (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Catalina Z[reply]

I have hidden the deletion discussion from public view. There's nothing more that I can do. Sandstein 20:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with disruptive user caught redhanded falsifying sources

The outleen with diffs and links showing how he was caught is here: [1]. Just in case, a checkuser to see if this is one of the dozens of banned User:Loosmark's sockpuppets might be helpful. But this deliberate serious action deserves a response on its own. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder. What is more actionable from the WP:ANI standpoint? Militant ethnic nationalism based on blatantly hostile sources, or the groundless personal attacks coupled with baseless accusations meant to discredit my attempts at curtailing this sort of propaganda? Please tell me if filing the WP:ANI report would be a proper response, or should I try to address this issue some other way? Much appreciated. — FoliesTrévise (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a checkuser, sorry, you'd have to ask WP:SPI. Apart from that, I'm not in a position to tell who's right in this dispute, which seems to be mainly a content dispute gone sour. I recommend that both of you read WP:DIGWUREN#Principles and WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, and then follow the procedure described in WP:DR to resolve your dispute. Sandstein 06:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will go to SPI. However I will note that his behavior was not about content but about blatantly falsifying what the reference stated - the referenced article said one thing, he changed the article to make it falsely look like it said the opposite by adding stuff that wasn't in the referenced article. This is very wrong regardless of content.Faustian (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Horn

I will WP:DRV Levi Horn if you don't want to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Horn. He made the practice squad, which should be considered sufficient to have a page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but that's not for me as the closer to determine. What's relevant for the closure is that consensus in the discussion said otherwise, and I have to follow it. Sandstein 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV says to notify the closing admin of my intentions. Consider yourself notified. I will proceed with opening the DRV today.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I need the article userfied for a proper DRV. I will ask at WP:AN or you can restore it somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request also posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Levi_Horn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 14.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Time Unit

You did not provide sufficient Deletion Reasons These Are Needed Due to the protected status of the review page Please Provide Reason's --Rancalred (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 8#Nuclear Time Unit (closed) as endorsing the article's deletion is that there was consensus among the participants in the discussion to do so. Sandstein 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It Was Proteced so there couldn't have been a consensus --Rancalred (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. The page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 8 was never protected. Sandstein 22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtless Deletions

I am one who is outraged by the thoughtless deletion of many hours of hard work. In particular, the recent deletion of the Comparison of CECB Units is unacceptable. Here are my primary concerns:

1. You failed to give us clear warning of your draconian measures. I just learned about it today, and never once received email notification that you or anyone else was considering such a thoughtless and insensitive move.

2. That article still had relevent information of units still available for purchase. The need for this information does not stop, as it is forever required by the actions taken by government.

3. It is rude to erase so much hard work.

Your actions are unacceptable.

Put things back like they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KitchM (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No article entitled Comparison of CECB Units has existed. 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 21:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kokondo deletion

Hi Sandstein - I wanted to ask your rationale for closing the debate on the Kokondo deletion. It seemed to me that we were at a point where we had two users, Janggeom and Papaursa, who believed the article did not meet notability criteria after I provided additional sources. We also had one user, S Marshall, who believed that it did meet criteria and the notability rules were not being interpreted properly. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it seems like it was 2-2 at that point (if you include me). Your comments on closing the discussion were that restoration of the article was only favored by a minority of the participants. I don't believe that is true. I would echo the argument made by S Marshall that the notability requirement is not meant to purge Wikipedia of informative articles that are written in good faith. No one has argued that this article is anything but that. The sole argument has been that not a lot of people care about Kokondo. I think that if you are going to delete an article, there should be a higher bar than what has been set. I believe Wikipedia is stronger by having that article restored. NJG302 (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]