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

Your, in my view, inappropriate speedy deletion of Romi Mankin (again)

Dear Sandstein, I have taken some time to think about your speedy deletion of my recreation of the Romi Makin page and can't help myself from feeling troubled about your approach here. My argument for recreation was specifically addressed on a note to you and on the talk page for the new article and specifically was addressing the main reason for the initial suggestion for deletion of the first article - his low notability due to a low h-index in GS. Others arguing for deletion also argued "GS cites are low". I argued in the notes to you and and the talk page that this no longer in my view true. I think you did not take this into account when deleting. Did you check the h-index in GS before deletion. I also found your threat not to "recreate it again in this form or it will be protected against recreation" was rude and not appropriate for an administrator. I am also not clear about whether your suggestion of submitting a "userspace draft of a new and improved article to WP:DRV" is appropriate. I felt by my mentioning of the improved h-score to you and in the talk page of the recreated article I had overcome the objections, and showed that my new, improved work met Wikipedia article policies. I wrote down the reasons I thought the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. I am particulerly concerned that it seems to me that any attempt to remove it again should have been settled before the community, on AFD. Are you completey convinced you have behaved properly in this matter and what suggestions do you have for further action on my part? I am not sure why a restoration and another Afd would not be more appropiate according to our policy. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) A quick glance at the article(s) shows the speedy deletion to be appropriate. You really should not have recreated a live article, but should have kept it as a userspace draft until it had been reviewed. There's nothing in Sandstein's wording that was inappropriate: if you recreate it, it will be salted...pretty simple and to the point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/February#Romi_Mankin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romi Mankin

Dear BWilkins thank you for your response to the note I left for Sandstein. I am not clear how you think this note might help since I don't think it engaged with the issues raised only offered your support for the outcome. Also I am not clear which policy your argument that I should not have recreated the live article was based on. My feeling is userspace drafts is something some would like to encourage but has this been accpeted as policy now? Also I think your strengthening of the "threat" is not in policy. Sandstein suggested

"Please don't recreate it again in this form or it will be protected against recreation. If you want to make sure, submit an userspace draft of a new and improved article to WP:DRV." (This dosn't seem the right use of WP:DRV)

you suggest

"if you recreate it, it will be salted". Is this whatever form the recreation takes no matter if the reason for deletion no longer apply and the article has been improved?

I am clearly unhappy with your response and the lack of response of either you or Sandstein to the issues I raised rather the outcome we have at the moment. My opinion is that I think this has not been handled well and the same outcome could have been achieved with far better feeling if other language or another approach had been used. Even if another AFD was deemed by Sandstein too much why not engage with the issues raised - suggest I look for more sources - ask for details of the new H-score and expalin how that still might not meet the appropriate WP:prof level - or that more than that might be needed. Heavy handed behaviour be administrators is I think a problem that could easily be avoided and typically involves what could easily be viewed as conentious deletions. And this to delete a short stub on an Estonian Physics Prof who has been awarded the medal of his nation's national Physics Association and has a H-index with the range that often leads to keeps at Afds. Anyway I will not pursue this further for perhaps a year when I will look again at Romi Mankin and see if I can make a more substantial article. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

Dear Sandstein, Can you userify the talk page (Talk:Romi Mankin) that you deleted with the article. I do not need the article itself as I have a copy but the talk page might be needed. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

There's nothing there except project tags, deletion stuff and this by you: "I believe a page is now more justifiable because of increase in his notability as measured by the increase h-score coupled with his having been awared the 2002 Estonian Physical Society's Annual Award for his contribution to the development of stochastical physics in the area of noise-induced phase transitions and transfer phenome."  Sandstein  21:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

Looking for feedback

Hi there,

I was discussing this proposal with User:Jclemens and he suggested your name as someone who I should show this to before I propose it to the community. I would appreciate your feedback at the talk page. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I have replied at the talk page. BOZ (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments. I have made some modifications and some new comments on the talk page. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I'm not gonna be a dick here, but all I did was try to recover a deleted article, which in my opinion, could have been used as a material for a nice article. I'm not saying it was perfect. I admit, I made a statement that wasn't quite appropriate, but banning me for a month just for complaining doesn't sound fair. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not being a dick about it. But you were not "banned for complaining". Rather, you were topic-banned temporarily for pursuing real-world conflicts in Wikipedia, which is not the place for this – for instance, by trying to add quite pronouncedly non-neutral material, or by making statements about "Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists" or that "the Azerbaijani government promotes clear Anti-Armenian policy in almost every aspect of life". I understand that you have strong opinions about these issues. I might, too, if I had your background and experience. But you must set these opinions aside while you're here, or refrain from editing in this topic area. For example, I have quite pronounced opinions about various governments around the world, but I'm not airing these opinions on Wikipedia, because we are not a soapbox.  Sandstein  19:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah, is it new to you that people have emotions and opinions? But it's a fact that my emotions and opinions do not reflect in my edits on articles. That what discussions are for. I also have my views stated out to the whole world on my userpage. Why don't you ban me for my views as well?

What would you call a scientist that falsifies history? Just because you're not familiar with the topic, doesn't make it any better. People who deny the Holocaust are no worse than people to falsify history.

"the Azerbaijani government promotes clear Anti-Armenian policy in almost every aspect of life". My this comment can be backed up my numerous sources.

For example, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance stated in their report on Azerbaijan:

"Report on Azerbaijan" (PDF). Strasbourg: European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. 15 April 2003. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 January 2013. Retrieved 22 January 2013. Due to the conflict, there is a widespread negative sentiment toward Armenians in Azerbaijani society today." "In general, hate-speech and derogatory public statements against Armenians take place routinely.

And at last, see Ramil Safarov. He killed an Armenian soldier in 2004 during a NATO course in Hungary and in 2012 he was extradited to Azerbaijan and was greeted as a hero, including by President Heydar Aliyev. If you don't believe my words see BBC, Al Jazeera. Both wrote that he was greeted as a hero.

The very last thing. In 2012, Azeri President Aliyev stated "there are forces that don’t like us, our detractors. They can be divided into several groups. First, our main enemies are Armenians of the world and the hypocritical and corrupt politicians under their control"[1] [2]

What would you call this? If you think that banning me for stating the truth is right, then you should also ban users for stating things like Holocaust was real, North Korea is a dictatorship, Soviet Union was a totalitarian country, al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, etc. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong about this. But I'm not saying you're right, either. I don't know and I don't care. I really don't. The point is that Wikipedia is not the place for making general statements about how wrong, evil etc. other people, governments, etc. are. Even if these statements are true, or we believe they are. This is because we are not a discussion forum and not a soapbox. So - you're welcome to your personal views, but please don't focus on voicing them here, because especially in this topic area, doing so will not help us write a better encyclopedia. Too, in this particular topic area, there are probably many from the other side who have similarly bad things to say about your country (whether rightly or wrongly). But we're not going to solve these real-world disagreements on Wikipedia. If we try, we only produce drama as angry people shout at each other. So - we don't. And when we write articles about hotly contested topics, we should try to write them in such a way that an outside observer would not be able to tell which (if any) side of a dispute we personally support. Only then can we be sure to be in compliance with WP:NPOV. And, frankly, your editing still leaves a lot to be desired in that regard. Now, please don't continue arguing in the vein of "but I am right to say that the Azerbaijanis did something bad", because (a) it's not going to convince me to undo the topic ban and (b) you risk violating the ban.  Sandstein  20:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's good that you don't care. You must be neutral then. If that is the case why didn't you ban User:Grandmaster, too? His statement was "I can cite a million sources using the term "Armenian terrorism", yet we have no such article here, even though there's an article with that title in the Russian wikipedia, and you object to the use of the term in various articles describing attacks on Turkish diplomats. " How is this any better or worse than my statements? --Երևանցի ^talk 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that I agree with Grandmaster, and I told him that this is not a discussion fit for an admin noticeboard - but what he wrote was related to how Wikipedia covers the topic, and did not contain any accusation of real-world wrongdoing, in contrast to your statements. He also did not (to my knowledge) try to add very obviously non-neutrally written, highly problematic articles to Wikipedia.  Sandstein  20:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

please tell me you're kidding. you just said you don't care about the content, then how you know "Falsification of history in Azerbaijan" is "very obviously non-neutrally written"? --Երևանցի ^talk 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't your job to treat everybody equally? You're saying that "Falsification of history in Azerbaijan" is not neutral, but when user Divot says he has English-language academical sources, you say you don't care about the content. How should I understand this? --Երևանցի ^talk 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As this is now the subject of an AE appeal, all related discussion should continue there.  Sandstein  07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources about falsification

Hi Sandstein.

I am the author of this article "Falsification of history in Azerbaijan" in the Russian Wikipedia, and I can provide all the sources for the article, including scans of books. You look their and tell me in which article to put these sources. To what address i can send you these sources? Divot (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am neither knowledgeable about nor interested in this topic, and I don't read any of the regional languages. I can't help you there. My interest in the issue is limited to helping suppress obviously problematic (nationalist, tendentious, disruptive etc.) conduct per WP:ARBAA, but I have no interest in the content.  Sandstein  20:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean english academical sources. Divot (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Still not interested, sorry.  Sandstein  20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, please restore the article in my subpage, I'll try to add more sources and ask you about neutrality. Divot (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I was watching this from the sidelines. The sources look neutral and it has the potential of being a good article. However, I believe the title of the article should be changed to something like "Historiography of Azerbaijan" or something similar and it should maintain a neutral tone. Sandstein, I appreciate your work and contributions. Especially with the recent E4024 ban. But in regards to this, I believe it would be really considerate of you if you restore the article in Divot's subpage as Divot mentioned and this discussion can move on from there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What about restoring the article in my subpage. Divot (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to answer that. You'd need to ask the deleting admin about that. I'd like to defer to their judgment in that regard.  Sandstein  09:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, no one wants to do it and sends me to other administrators. Can I restore and edit the article in my subpage from cash? Then I'll ask some administrators to assess the neutrality of the article. Is this correct? Divot (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You can certainly write a draft article in userspace and ask others to look at it, but if an administrators determines that it meets WP:CSD, it may again be deleted. If you engage in advocacy for or against any side of the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, on any page on Wikipedia, you may be made subject to sanctions.  Sandstein  21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Divot (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Heterophobia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Heterophobia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. bobrayner (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, this above notification would appear to be a quirk of Twinkle's annoying habit of notifying redirect creators instead of the users who turned the redirect into an article. However, if you, as closer of the previous of discussion, are interested, I've AfD'ed this article following Malik Shabazz's declining of Bobrayner's G4. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Please see my appeal --Երևանցի ^talk 23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ohconfucius

As shown in the last 10 diffs in my AE comment, he is edit warring regarding MOS issues...while it isn't over date delinking issues, it is still about MOS edit warring which is pretty close the same issues he has been previously sanctioned and blocked for.--MONGO 05:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)