User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2006/May

Thanks to you

Thanks to you, I will never add another article or edit another aritcle on Wikipedia! You have no right to sit there and havbe an aritcle that three of us worked long and hard on deleted! this is exactally why professors in the US doesn't want people using Wikipedia for references because people like you! Gfood luck, for now on I'll use google when I need information awhitfie

Note for the record: awhitfie is referring to Coppola Group and Nathan Coppola, which were unanimously (I think) deleted as apparent hoaxes. Sandstein 18:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I will manage to contain my grief. Sandstein 18:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

–If I can not delete things on my OWN comment page then please have Wikipedia delete my profile because what I did was NOT vandalism, what YOU did was vandalism and where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say that? Awhitfie

As per WP:VAN, "removing warnings for vandalism, personal attacks, or disruption from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." As for I, I merely nominated Coppola Group and Nathan Coppola for deletion — after providing you with ample warnings — and they were indeed unanimously deleted as unverifiable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coppola Group, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Coppola). You did not chose to participate in the discussion even though you were notified by me about them. Sandstein 04:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, see WP:U and WP:UP for information about deleting your account. Sandstein 04:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

HDS template

Hi... I recently came across Template:HDS. Nice work, well done! I wonder if it would be appropriate to include a field for 'URL accessed on date' as well? --BillC 12:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued on Template talk:HDS. Sandstein 19:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Contact me re: Template talk:HDS? Thanks! --BillC 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back in touch. I appreciate the template talk page is the best place for this discussion, but I'm making use of the temporary Template:X7, which gets overwritten every 12 hours, so I wanted to get in touch with you before it got cleared out. If you look at the top of my userpage, you'll see the text "Me, BillC in German, French or Italian in the online Historical Dictionary of Switzerland. Version of 6 May 2006.", for which I have used the template {{X7|329|date=2006-05-05}}.

The general form is {{X7|article_number|Alternate name|author=name|date=article_date}}. Author and date are optional (as is your original Alternate name field). --BillC 20:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. It didn't handle the indentation : (or *) properly. 'Date' of course does not need to be linked, but doing so has the advantage of displaying it in the reader's chosen form under Preferences. I copied this part from {{cite web}}, where there's a similar field. --BillC 21:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. Obviously we can tweak the format and parameters if need be. I have updated Corippo to see if it works. --BillC 08:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Editor / User Page Review

Hey Sandstein –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturner 15:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking some of your suggestions into account, I made the axioms on my userpage appear less serious and the qualifiers for them relate to the Wikipedia Project more. Once again; thanks for the input. joturner 21:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bait Bazi

(from User talk:Pearle)

I have to clarified and wikified this page as per your request. Please inform me if it meets the criteria or I have to furthur improve it. There are 11,700 hits on Google if you search for Bait Bazi. Thanks. Siddiqui 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Forwarded to User:Sandstein, the originator of the request. -- Beland 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Continued on Talk:Bait Bazi Sandstein 04:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deprod of Bikini Car Wash

I deprodded this after moving it to The Bikini Carwash Company, which was the real title of the movie. This is a real movie with a significant release, and I would vote to keep it on AfD if you had brought one. Please don't use prod if you can imagine someone disagreeing with your assessment of an article; in such cases, the community should have the chance to provide input. Mangojuice^talk 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see - apparently I didn't check thoroughly enough. At any rate, the community did have the chance to provide input - in the form of the article being listed in the PROD category, and in the form of your deprodding it. I disagree that PROD should not be used if I can imagine someone disagreeing with my assessment - after all, there's always the chance that, against all expectations, someone might turn up with evidence that the subject of the article is notable. That's how the system works - someone prods, someone else deprods... Sandstein 04:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

db-repost

I did seriously consider deleting the Comparison of content management systems article again when I cleaned all of the spam links around a month ago. At the moment I'm leaning towards chopping out all of the redlinks on the grounds that if they're not worth their own articles, their inclusion was nothing but an attempt to advertise. Thoughts? --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think we have a no-red-links policy towards lists, or don't we? This should apply to comparisons also. Sandstein 16:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Outpost

Good morning. As an actuary working for a very large Swiss firm's American brach, I can tell you that all of the actuarial students, and many credentialed fellows and associates, keep up-to-date with actuarial news and current events through that site. Have you looked at it? Thank you -- Avi 05:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Note for the record: This discussion concerns Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Actuarial_Outpost.

Good morning to you also. No, I did not need to look at the site, because WP:WEB states: "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria [of WP:WEB, Sandstein] via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section." Since the article does not meet this burden of proof, it can be deleted without further ado. If such links are added to the article, I'll be glad to change my vote to keep. Judging from your Wikipedia Philosophy, I'm sure you'll agree. Best, Sandstein 05:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, :D , yes I am a deletionist, but I also have first-hand information about this site (over 11,000 posts) and also, being an actuary I have a more specialized knowledge about my field, the people in my field, and the contribution of this site TO my field than a layperson would. WP:WEB is a rough guideline. However, you must vote as you think is best for Wikipedia as a whole, and I thank you for your interest. -- Avi 05:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Prods on two Centres

Hey -- I deprodded Centre for Ukranian Canadian Studies and Centre for Research into the Older Workforce. I don't know what you mean by "nn college institute" -- I don't think notability applies to such things. In any case, I think it needs at least discussion. I put up mergeto tags on both pages, to preserve your suggestion to merge. Just letting you know! Mangojuice^talk 04:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, and thanks for the message. I do think that the criterium of notability applies to every subject, and that individual college instituted do not normally tend to be notable. We'll see what happens with the merge. Sandstein 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Seventh-Kilometer Market, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of DYK! ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Black Admiral, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 15:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2

I thought you might be interested that joturner is running for adminship again. Pecher ^Talk 15:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed the Seventh-Kilometer Market above: congrats with the DYK. How come you became interested in the subject? Pecher ^Talk 15:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I have no particular interest in Ukraine, or markets, as such -- but when I read interesting stuff in newspapers (in this case, the NYT), I check if Wikipedia has an article on it. Remarkably frequently, it does not, and then what's a Wikipedian to do? :-) Sandstein 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Son of DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Dudleian lectures, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts! ++Lar: t/c 05:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The DYK that would not die!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article European Maritime Safety Agency, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your continued efforts! ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Olyroos

• Please only create articles with references/sources from WP:AFC and don't forget to include the anon editor's IP adress in the edit summary for GFDL purposes. WP:AFC has instructions on the top of what not to forget when fulfilling requests. If searching the history for the anon's IP is too laborious, maybe you want to try AmiDaniel's new Whodunit tool... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

UBV

I've tagged this redirect for speedy deletion because it redirects to a non-existent page. I just figured that I would give you the heads up. --Alphachimp ^talk 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but now it does redirect to Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela. Sandstein 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I removed the notice. When I first read it, you said you were redirecting to a page that was being written, but I see that that has now been fixed. --Alphachimp ^talk 07:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Massacres

Please keep your personal POV. Dandanakan 21:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This message contains insufficient data and context for a meaningful reply. Please elaborate, if you desire a reply. Sandstein 22:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On April 25, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Karl Zinsmeister, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 11:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary + question

From my watchlist:

Copyright law of Switzerland; 17:35 . . Sandstein (Talk | contribs) (→Literature - add Schütz reference (I know, I am supposed to actually contribute to the article someday...).)

Geezz... before I looked at the actual diff, I was wondering if I could possibly have written anything in a Wikipedia page that you may have wanted to add to this article — but this seemed quite surprising (especially since my username does not have an umlaut ;-). Oh well... You may be supposed to actually contribute to the article, but you've already done some great work, if only in the first revision of the article, which taught me quite a bit.

Say, given your involvement with processes such as AfD, and your overall excellent contributions to Wikipedia, I was thinking that you may benefit from being an administrator. If I was to nominate, would it be useful to you, or is it something you are not interested in (or maybe not now ?)

All the best, Schutz 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind comments and for your suggestion. I do feel, however, that I am not presently knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia policy to function as administrator. Also, I edit Wikipedia in my spare time and may not be able — due to my professional obligations — to give the project the level of involvement or diligence that people may (or at any rate I would) expect from an administrator. So, thanks, but maybe later.

Conversely, though, after briefly looking at your editcount, bot work and contributions (which appear to be of high quality throughout), I think that you may well pass muster at WP:RfA, although some may expect you to have another few hundred edits. If you are interested now or at some later date, I'd be glad to nominate you in turn. Best, Sandstein 05:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it; my answer is the same as yours, with slightly different reasons. Firstly, I'd rather have these few hundred more edits under my belt before looking into it; secondly (and probably more importantly), I have not yet really found a 'job' where I was really missing having admin powers. Sure, the revert button would be useful, and it'd be nice to be able to do a complete job instead of merely tagging articles as speedy deletion candidate, or reporting a user for vandalism, but nothing I really miss. However, this may change in the next few months, since I have started to become interested in some areas where admin capabilities are quite useful (namely: sorting out possible copyright violations, and eventually delete copyvios, etc). So if you ask again in a few weeks, my answer may be different, but there is no hurry. In the meantime, I hope I'll have the pleasure to "see" you again around an article or another Schutz 23:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)