User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2007/January

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

welcome back

happy new year Sandstein. how was your vacation? did you go somewhere warm? DVD+ R/W 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and happy new year to you, too! I was in Vienna - rather cold there, but that's not a big issue if you spend most of your time in theaters, museums and cafés... I did, incidentally, have the opportunity to visit the Museum für angewandte Kunst, which has a splendid collection of Thonet chairs. Unfortunately, they also strictly prohibit taking photographs. Still, I took some images that may find some use somewhere on Wikipedia, I hope. Sandstein 08:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky you :-) I've wanted to go to Vienna, but the closest I got was Berlin. I've also wanted to go to Switzerland but the closest I got was Savoie. Btw, I looked at TheBerneFiles to see your new pictures and noticed your name request so I asked Arnomane and Bastique on IRC and now it is changed. They would have done it eventually but I am happy to have helped facilitate your request. Best regards, DVD+ R/W 19:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've not yet uploaded many pictures... it appears Viennese fixtures are well covered already on Commons, but I may still find some useful pictures. Sandstein 19:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexander de Tartagnis

When you create stub articles such as Alexander de Tartagnis, please try to find the best specific stub tag(s) on the page WP:STUBS. This saves other editors work in categorizing the page, and makes it easier for editors with experise in the subject to find pages that need work. Thanks, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I know this. I just figure it's done faster by the people that know these stub types by heart... Sandstein 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, I noticed your work on the Mecelle article. Although I've almost no interest in historical law systems, I truly appreciate your effort to bring the article out of stub status. Well done and wiedersehen! Atilim Gunes Baydin 01:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Autisitic Editor's using a new IP

Hi Sandstein, I hope you had a nice time in Vienna. My mother's parents were from there.

Anyway, our autistic boy seems to have a new IP address, perhaps at a friend's house? It's 72.82.180.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Now that he can't edit the Lord & Taylor page, he's adding the store into the lists at mall websites... and still falsifying citations too. I'll send this same note to DragonflySixtyseven so you're both on the same page. Thanks and have a great day! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, and thanks for continuing to watch this issue. I'm ready to block this IP if you want me to, if he keeps up with this nonsense. Sandstein 08:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. There are about 60 pages that qualify as speedy delete that I added today to the category but aren't deleted yet. Could you please delete them? You can find them easily through my contributions. Their edit summary is: Adding speedy template.

--Meno25 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm reverting the false speedy tags, those who would delete talk page redirects. The others will remain on CSD and be eventually deleted. Sandstein 09:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

All these pages are reverted now and the pages I mentioned were all deleted. Cheers.

--Meno25 11:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

team waffle

The signifigance of this article was a WIP and is about an actual group of people on the Gnomeregan server on World of Warcraft. The deletion of that topic was unnecessary. If you delete this page, then wouldnt you have to delete pages such as the Leeroy Jenkins Page?

Alphawolf540 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please understand that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and thus being "an actual group of people" isn't enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Subjects of articles must be notable, i.e., the subject of coverage by multiple reliable sources. Articles that fail to even assert notability, as in this case, can be speedily deleted (see WP:CSD#A7). If you know of another article that is unsuitable for Wikipedia, you are free to nominate it for deletion as described here. Feel free to ask any other questions you might have. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was ClickBank Deleted?

Can you tell me more about why you made this deletion? 64.128.91.251 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClickBank? Because the consensus of the discussion was to delete it - that is, the substantial majority of people who made policy-based arguments were of that opinion. Specifically, they thought that the article lacked references to multiple substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, as required by the guideline WP:CORP. You may write a new article on ClickBank if it is not a copy of the deleted article and if it contains such references. Sandstein 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding List of characters in Devil May Cry

I just wanted to drop in and let you know that I've renamed the article simply Characters in Devil May Cry, simply due to the length of the name and the fact that the article as it stands is being developed into more than just a list. Cheers, Lankybugger 03:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I've no objection. This is an editorial decision outside of the scope of the AfD consensus decision. Sandstein 07:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Mecelle, was selected for DYK!

On January 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mecelle, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MoS (writing about fiction)

In the past you have participated in discussion about this guideline, or voted in it's acceptence. There is currently a discussion about a partial rewrite of this guideline. The discussion could benefit from some more input. Thank you for your contributions. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Opera Company

Sandstein, sorry to have to dredge this up again, but I have confirmed some sockpuppetry to stack an AfD vote you recently closed. If you check Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Operadog, you'll see that four of the voters on that AfD edited from the same computer. Without them, we have just six legitimate votes, three to delete, three to keep, but either way probably not enough to make any determination. Would you be opposed to a re-listing so soon after you closed the last one? Is there another course of action you'd prefer I take? | Mr. Darcy talk 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The "no consensus" result was indeed arrived at after discounting the comments made by apparent single purpose accounts, so I stand by it even after this checkuser result. I recommend waiting a bit more before renominating the article for AfD, but at any rate I'm not confident you'd get a consensus to delete even in a new, puppet-free discussion - judging from the article as of now, this opera company have probably got the media coverage they need for notability purposes. Sandstein 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused...

First there was this and now there is this, am I missing something? Nashville Monkey 06:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've re-deleted Night_at_the_Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a repost of deleted content. You can tag such reposts for speedy deletion with {{db-repost}}. Sandstein 07:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I couldn't find that one. Nashville Monkey 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. I am already using dual-admin status to good effect, if I did not possess it this edit would not have happened and a commonly used image would have been deleted :( Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilf anion (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair

[1] I happened to come across this, and I'm wondering if its true haha! :)--Rasillon 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasillon (talk • contribs)

Operation Show Me How on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Operation Show Me How. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! Sandstein 19:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ICCF articles

Thank you for the decision not to delete the articles. The whole idea was to let a joint effort of many chessplayers to develop them , but I did not want other people to waste their time when the articles might be deleted. Now I will send them E-mails with the links, and I hope that they will improve. I am really a "junior" so I hope that my next efforts will be better. --YoavD 04:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wire Rope

Thanks for contributing to the Wire rope article. I look forward to your future help on this article, if you find the time. I've just added some info on wire rope terminations. Bernard S. Jansen 05:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I only added a picture found on Flickr. I know nothing about the subject, so I don't think I'll be able to contribute intelligently to the content, sorry. Sandstein 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't realise that images on Flickr can be used? Bernard S. Jansen 21:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can, if they're licenced as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. It's recommended to upload Flickr images that one wishes to use on Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons, because a bot will automatically verify the licence there. See also Commons:Flickr images. Sandstein 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Closure

Hi there! I disagree with your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks, in that the "speedy close" comments were invalid, and the "keep" comments were addressing the issue of sidekicks in general (e.g. Sidekick) rather than the list in particular. Note that we already have Category:Fictional sidekicks, which arguably covers the material better. I was hoping you might be willing to reconsider. >Radiant< 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. My rationale was as follows:

As a first approximation, the headcount yields 5 opinions to delete (including yours) and 3 or 4 to keep (including at least Docu's "speedy close"). This gives no consensus to delete, so...
... I check whether any of the policies that cannot overridden by consensus - WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV - mandate deletion of the whole article. This is not so. Although many entries are unsourced, at least some of the wikilinked ones are presumably sourced as sidekicks in their articles, and the rest can be deleted without deleting the article. Then...
I consider the individual comments to check if any must be discounted as bad-faith, made by sockpuppets etc., or possibly as clearly contradicting policy. This is also not the case. In particular, the "speedy close"s are incorrect in that this was not a speedy close situation, but at least Docu's opinion to keep the article was not in the aforementioned sense invalid.
Furthermore, I disagree that the "keep"s must be discounted because they were addressing the more general concept of sidekick rather than the list at issue. Even if that were a reason for discounting an opinion, which I need not decide here, it is not the case in this discussion. Both Mister.Manticore's ("it could be broken up into genres") and Hemlock Martinis' comment ("A messy list...") clearly address the specific problems of the list at issue.

As a result, I continue to find that the requisite consensus to delete - whether determined by a supermajority vote or by any other process - is not present in this debate.

Importantly, from what I gather from our closing guidelines, it's the closer's job only to determine and act upon consensus, and not to make a decision of their own on the merits of the case (even if having to take into account the arguments presented). For that reason, it is not relevant for my closing of the debate whether or not I agree with you that a category would be better in this case. Best regards, Sandstein 21:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

flickr

Sandstein, I finally learned how to find pictures on flickr like you do :-) and will be uploading them all day today. Hey have you ever been to the Schutzbauten Chur? I'm not sure if that is the name for it - but it is a modern building by a famous Swiss architect around some ruins in Chur. I found some pictures of buildings by the same architect but couldn't find any of that. Anyways, hope all is well, DVD+ R/W 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the message. No, I didn't know about the Schutzbauten - these? - but I'll be sure to photograph them if I ever get to Chur. Best, Sandstein 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep thats the place. That architect was very popular among the students in my architecture school. Everyone wanted to go to the spa at Therme Vals I couldn't find a picture that shows the water on flickr. I saw projects about this place [2] a few times as well. DVD+ R/W 19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A good find - I still suppose we can enhance Therme Vals with some of these. A propos Flickr: One thing I like to do when uploading a Flickr image is to leave something like the following message on the image page:

Thanks for licensing this image as CC-BY-SA! Your choice of a free license has allowed us to use your image in <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/">Wikimedia Commons</a>. The image is now used to illustrate the article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo">"Foo"</a> on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a>.

I've found that many photographers will appreciate what they perceive as the honour of being featured on Wikipedia, on popular images it can also produce welcome attention for our project, and I assume it will help prevent redundant uploads to Commons. Sandstein 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very thoughtful, but time consuming ;-) hmmm maybe I will do it but I found about 40 pictures in one day and my priority for today is uploading them and getting some of them into the articles. DVD+ R/W 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion: NF-Board

Hi, didn't see it added to the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, so can I ask why this article has had a "Nominated For Deletion" tag added? Superlinus 22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean, what is the deletion rationale? You can read it and contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nouvelle Fédération-Board. Sandstein 22:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Okay, any policy for removing warnings and blanking talk pages is really ambiguous or non-existant, so I wasn't sure. The personal attacks ended after the warning, so all is good (for now). John Reaves 06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

AmericanIdolFreak

I don't think he's stopped, he's still uploading images of hamburgers. --Mardavich 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and vandalising my user page too. Bad move. Blocked for a week. Sandstein 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but

Yes, thank you - but the only reason why I am not truly retired is User:Afrika paprika, a very violent troll that never stopped harassing me (please see the history of my user page). It is because of that that I initiated a little troll/vandal private investigation on which I am rooting out hoards of Afrika paprika's sockpuppets (User:Factanista, User:Pygmalion, User:Zrinski, User:Praskaton, User:194.152.217.129, etc). He never seems to stop. First he creates a sock, then he uses it until he is accused to be a sock (in which case he uses the accusation as the best tools to attack the one who accused him), then he gets confirmed (preferably by CheckUser) and then denies that (and denies and denies and denies) until he finally gives up and takes another user-name. In the meantime, usually an anon appears (claiming its Afrika paprika) and admitting that he's Afrika paprika, giving us a list of his sock-puppets - but claiming that this newest user who was accused for being another of his sockpuppets, is not used by him. And then the process repeats itself on and on and on and on and on again... the problems he caused made me leave Wikipedia in the first place, but evidently, he wouldn't let me rest in peace. Truly yours, --PaxEquilibrium 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Auto backlog functioning

Check it out: [3] [4] [5] [6] It is functioning properly. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks again for this helpful bot. Sandstein 18:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reply about archive

Thanks very much! Are you an admin? Morris Munroe 20:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, I am. Sandstein 23:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I wanted to point out, in regards to [7] and 209.247.21.225 (talk · contribs), the test edit wasn't the only vandalism. Take a closer look at Talk:Potato tubers (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Potato tubers|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was speedied under G8—this to me is the real vandalism from this account, I agree that the other edit (02:59, 17 January 2007 UTC) which still exists at Special:Contributions/209.247.21.225 isn't worthy of a block on its own. What you do with that, if anything, is your own prerogative. I just want to be sure you are familiar with both edits this IP was responsible for since its recent test4 message. BigNate37_(T) 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. Feel free to contact me if this vandalism continues and I'll see what I can do about it. Sandstein 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Servus!

Hi Sandstein, I'm also from Germany and I've been joining Wikipedia for several months with several usernames. Now, I've very serious problems and I've contacted Wikipedia and also the oversights and also they won't listen. Can I send you an e-mail and there I'll describe all of my problems in German. Sergeant Gerzi 10:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm Swiss, not German. Judging from the messages you've left in other places, you probably need somebody with oversight permission, not me. If no user with oversight permission will listen to you, they might have good reasons for it, but feel free to state your case here (preferably in English). I don't communicate by mail due to privacy issues, sorry. Sandstein 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual Humanism Afd recreated

I had put up Spiritual Humanism as WP:Afd but saw you in fact speedily deleted it and closed the Afd. It was already recreated and rewritten with more links and some comments on the talk page. I think it is still just as much an Afd, but don't know how to proceed for now certain steps might cause conflict with the earlier undertaken.
After the recreation and rewriting, I can only find links that either don't work (e.g. claim of number of members on its own site, blank page from newspaper archive) or written by the organization or its clergy (even to have paid for clergy attributes so as to marry his own daughter), besides announcements published in a (same as mentioned for its blank archive) newspaper of marriages in front of such clergyman. Not a word about 'Spiritual Humanism' having been noticed, let alone described and thereby giving a source, outside its own group of adherers. It remains uniquely self-promoting what I consider might be a commercial-religious sect.
The names-dropping in the article is not corroborated by the linked articles. Main problem: a complete lack of proper sources makes verification, besides the existence of some group trying to push people into paying for 'ordination', utterly impossible. — SomeHuman 18 Jan 2007 03:11-03:31 (UTC)
Note: On the forementioned talk page, someone correctly states a link in the Humanism article to the group's website exists. If indeed it is found to be mainly (commercial) self-promotion as well, it should be removed. Is there a way to find where on Wikipedia are more links to this website? — SomeHuman 18 Jan 2007 03:45 (UTC)

Well, I just tagged the article with an {{db-a7}}. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism, RadioKirk then deleted it and Tevildo closed the AfD. I agree with you that the new article is poorly sourced, but it's no longer a speedy deletion candidate, so the thing to do would be to re-submit it on AfD.

You can click on the "What links here" link in the toolbar box to the left of the article text or on "links" in this menu: Spiritual Humanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to find out what links there are to that article. As to web links, I think a Google search for the URL with site:wikipedia.org would be best. You can just remove any external links to that site that fail WP:EL. Sandstein 05:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I had put it up as an Afd candidate, not for speedy deletion; jumping to overly quick action, when undone, should not cause untimely elimination of the consensus procedure. — SomeHuman 19 Jan 2007 01:45 (UTC)

Hm, do you mean an article on AfD should not be speedy deleted? As a practical matter, they generally are if they meet any WP:CSD; it saves time. Sandstein 06:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It also comes close to violating WP:AGF to assume (self-)promotion having been the purpose instead of the consequence of a mere WP:POV, in the latter case an earlier editor or someone else familiar with the subject, should have the time to improve the article but still need to do so quickly enough. But what I had meant before, was that now the procedure is just completely repeated for a recreated article that only avoids WP:CSD instead of also avoiding other criteria for deletion. — SomeHuman 20 Jan 2007 05:09-05:17 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking care of medi-kill for me, it was starting to get a bit old re-adding all those CSD tags. I appreciate your quick action. Wintermut3 23:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:茶山

Thanks for the note on this, I've been stuck at work. The block came from a WP:AIV reference, and was primarily a WP:POINT block. IMHO the POINT is not only in the uploaded image, but the deliberate use of nonlatin characters in a username coupled with it. I'm not going to get further involved in that name, and if another admin wants to unblock I wont wheel over it. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hay

1) What do think about Codex Runicus and Talk:Tape ? Nasz 18:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please update AN/3RR and review similar case

I noticed that you blocked VictorO (talk · contribs). Please update the block period at WP:AN/3RR#User:VictorO_reported_by_User:jossi_.28Result:.29

see also this report, of the user that he edit warred with:

WP:AN/3RR#User:Mael-Num_reported_by_User:jossi_.28Result:.29 that may need to be blocked as well.

Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The VictorO case has already been updated. I'll be commenting on the other case shortly. Thanks. Sandstein 07:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

VictorO

Hi Sandstein, I've been asked to review a decision of yours to block VictorO for a week for vandalism, and to reduce the block to 24 hours for 3RR instead. Would you mind commenting in case you have an objection? [8] Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment on the case at the 3RR noticeboard. Sandstein 07:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not commented yet, and I see no vandalism. It was a breach of WP:3RR by revert-warring seven times. Perhaps you should reduce the time of the block as this was the user's first block. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I did comment, in the case of his fellow edit warrior below ([9]). At any rate, I bow to the judgement of several other admins and will reduce the block duration as you suggested. Sandstein 10:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to continue discussion with you on WP:AN3. Thanks. Oh yes, I realised that soon after I read the thread below, cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 10:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comment accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfD Nomination: NFOrce

I am not sure why I was singled out to receive this {{AFDWarning}} notification from you. My only involvement with this article was reverting vandalism done to it on 20 November 2005--over a year ago. I am not an expert on the subject matter, and have no opinion on whether we need an article about this web site or not. I appreciate the time you took to notify me of this AfD, but as you could see, I had no part in editing this article other than as part of my regular RC patrol efforts. Owen× ☎ 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, it looked like you were the original author - I didn't click back to the earliest entries in the history. I'll be more thorough next time. Sandstein 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers! Owen× ☎ 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A Ramachandran block

Hi Sandstein, I was wondering why you decided to refuse A Ramachandran's request for block review, it is quite apparent that this user and Ekajati are two different people, notably because of the very different edits, as well as the fact that A Ramachandran has been active well before Ekajati was blocked in January [10]

Even if they were the same person, Sockpuppetry by itself is not disallowed, unless it violates the terms set down on WP:SOCK, so why is this user being blocked?

I contacted the user who setup the block, Blnguyen but haven't been replied to yet.

A Ramachandran has made some good contributions, I don't understand why he is being blocked since it is both doubtful that he is a sockpuppet and no real reason has been given for his block. Sfacets 07:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He's being charged with being a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet. However, I can't find the checkuser request. So I'm going to ask Blnguyen as well and take further action as appropriate based on his response. Sandstein 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page, since there are three visitors there, whereas you only have one visitor here. Yes, there was a checkuser linking Ekajati to a number of accounts including AR. Since Ekajati is under block for using another account to tandem-revert, tandem-vote and evade blocks, I have blocked her, and thus there is no reason for the other accounts to be operational at this stage. A fuller picture on my talk. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I already read Blnguyen's comprehensive reply. Regardless the here-above mentioned reasons to block Ekajati, if the A Ramachandran account was not being used more inappropriately more often than that of many valued contributors, there is no reason for that one to be blocked. Especially not while this account appears mainly responsible for definite Wikipedia improvements. The usage of a single PC or 2 PCs without router on one Internet connection by people living together, is not forbidden and easily explains them never to work simultaneously as welll as to usually have similar interests and viewpoints (culturally and as being able to live together). They may well keep eachother informed, and often cooperate on articles of their mutual interest, as such they may even talk between themselves and come to a consensus before making an important contribution to Wikipedia (good idea, I'd say). Even occasionally both voting on an AfD or so, does not make these people's behaviour blockable sockpuppetry: each user has the right of expressing an opinion as much as any two users living with eachother but escaping suspicious indications simply by using more expensive separate technical equipment [no socio-economical discrimination, please]; this is not like disputed POV-pushing or edit-warring together or +3RR with prevention of bans. Banning an account is only appropriate if the account is causing more harm than offering a cure, this has not at all been demonstrated for 'A Ramachandran'. Violating WP:AGF is scolded upon when it appears as an inappropriate comment; banning someone, and most certainly by a durable ban, is a lot more serious than a mere unfortunately phrased comment. — SomeHuman 23 Jan 2007 03:48 (UTC)

The place to make these arguments might be WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry_related_to_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood, where this is being actively discussed. In view of this and Blnguyen's explanation, I see no need to take further action at this point. Sandstein 06:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet Shoes moved to Hamletuk

Dear Sandstein,

im asking for your assistance- by mistake i have NAMED my article Hamlet Shoes, while originally i had to name it " Hamlet Designer " ( as for Chanel and Gucci etc) but i couldnt find how to re-name the article afterwards after i have given it already a name "hamlet shoes".
Second- my name is ANA and IM NOT HAMLET POGOSYAN myself :). I just wanted to place an information about this designer thats why moving "Hamlet Shoes" to "HamletUk" ( MY wiki username) doesnt make any sense.
Could you please be so kind and move/rename my article to the "Hamlet Designer" ? ( as you have for Gucci, Chanel etc and he also creates jewellery and bags which i will add ).
Hamlet is very popular among the "shoes lovers" and im surprised nobody has ever written an article about him EVER any place in the internet.
Kind regards,
Ana - hamletuk
Hamletuk 11:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein,
thanks for your response.
Sad to come to a conclusion that wiki is not what i thought it is- it is only mentioning and allowing to write about some things which EVERY ONE KNOWS about already.
Do you/wikipedia seriously consider "adult movie stars" to be more significant and worth mentioning than fashion designers - who have numerous shops and clients worldwide, who dress so called STARS and VIP society ????
Not only Hamlet is lacked on this pages, but Nundo Muzi, Gianmarco Lorenzi, Jimmy Choo , Casadei etc.
Pity that its such a "one side brain" place. Or am i mistaken???
Please delete so called "my" user page- as its not an INFO about me.
Kind regards,AnaHamletuk 19:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –mysid ☎ 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodnight Burbank

Just a question: any reason for removing the GNB image? Sdickert 03:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean File:GNBLogoUK.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? It was tagged with {{no source}} (no source indicated) and {{no rationale}} (no fair use rationale provided) since January 7, which means it was up for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#I6 as mentioned in the deletion log. If you want to reupload it, please be sure to provide both source and rationale, as explained by Fang Aili on User_talk:Sdickert. Sandstein 06:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for helping me out with Josiah: but I was wondering if you saw this: User_talk:RobJ1981#Warning_2. He basically tells me to apologize and he will stop. That kind of threat is pretty rude, and further proves he is just a vandal. RobJ1981 06:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. However, I can't really block him until he's been given the proper warnings, except in extreme cases like death threats. I've now given him a final warning; please notify me in case of any further disruption by this user and I will block him. Sandstein 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply Comment

I realize that it has upset user RobJ1981, and everything. But I posted that on his talk page. As far as I'm concerned if you have a problem you put it on a talk page. You made that clear. I figured you post that on a talk page... Block me if you must, but I saw nothing wrong with that. Furthermore I am not just a vandal, and i believe THAT kind of talk is rude as well. I'll stop editing his page, and everything, but I will not see any problem with what I've done. Therefore I stand by that comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josiah1107 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

images

Gruessech voll! Hi there! Yes, i may reduce some of the images in size...yet i really didnt add too many images to the main swiss page...i replaced a few...i did add some to the canton pages...yet most of them had no images to start with...i think its extremely important to have some images...the fact is most people wont read those canton pages unless there are some good images that catch their attention...i wasnt finished yesterday with my image work...yet i will remove the alphorn players from the bernese page...yet i think u should really realize...many of the users on wikipedia english are american...they have no idea what switzerland looks like...and the fact just is...for most people...excepting a few scholars...they want images...with some good images they might read the text...these are TV people my friend...its not like in switzerland where everybody reads the newspaper and doesnt watch much TV, if even any...these are people that watch moving images even...for hours everyday...to get their attention is no easy matter...and also one of the advantages wikipeda has is that it can attach nice current images to its encylopedia that can even be blown up to large size at a click of a button...we have to use the natural advantages wikipedia has so to present people with the best foot forward this new encyclopedia format has...there are a few advantages it has over a traditional encylopedia or book...the instant linking is one great advantage...the image issue is another...sincerely...Benjiwolf 10:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry...that was a mistake...i had meant to put it on ur talk page and not ur user page...en schone! salut!...Benjiwolf 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet Shoes moved to Hamletuk

Hamlet Shoes moved to Hamletuk Dear Sandstein,

im asking for your assistance- by mistake i have NAMED my article Hamlet Shoes, while originally i had to name it " Hamlet Designer " ( as for Chanel and Gucci etc) but i couldnt find how to re-name the article afterwards after i have given it already a name "hamlet shoes". Second- my name is ANA and IM NOT HAMLET POGOSYAN myself :). I just wanted to place an information about this designer thats why moving "Hamlet Shoes" to "HamletUk" ( MY wiki username) doesnt make any sense. Could you please be so kind and move/rename my article to the "Hamlet Designer" ? ( as you have for Gucci, Chanel etc and he also creates jewellery and bags which i will add ). Hamlet is very popular among the "shoes lovers" and im surprised nobody has ever written an article about him EVER any place in the internet. Kind regards, Ana - hamletuk Hamletuk 11:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Hamlet Shoes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) does not exist. It was apparently moved to your user page, User:Hamletuk. And that page wouldn't work as an article, due to the lack of sources required by WP:N and WP:BIO. What exactly would you like me to do to what article? Sandstein 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein,
thanks for your response.'
Sad to come to a conclusion that wiki is not what i thought it is- it is only mentioning and allowing to write about some things which EVERY ONE KNOWS about already.
Do you/wikipedia seriously consider "adult movie stars" to be more significant and worth mentioning than fashion designers - who have numerous shops and clients and admirerers worldwide, who dress so called STARS and VIP society ????
Not only Hamlet is lacked on this pages, but Nundo Muzi, Gianmarco Lorenzi, Jimmy Choo , Casadei etc.
Pity that it turns out to be such a "one side brain" place. Or am i mistaken???
Please delete so called "my" user page- as its not an INFO about me.
'Kind regards,
Ana Hamletuk 19:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)'Hamletuk 19:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, it has been deleted. As to your argument, please see WP:N and WP:INN. Sandstein 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Canton of Berne

You're welcome. Hopefully your fellow editor likes it as well, and if he (or she) decides the article needs even more (I think it's close to the limit) they'll be added to the gallery at the end. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

read talk page please...yet here is what im doing...im removing everything i have added to the page...i am recalling up the last version before i worked on it...i dont want my work anymore on the canton bern page...at least not at this time...and its not as i concede my latest layout with unicorns additions & changes...its as of this: ...i have been treated very badly by the bernese...i was totally exploited when i worked for a half bernese...and i have been treated very rudely and wrongly by the cantonal authorities...its no suprise...from what i understand my family name is originally from canton aargau... and from what i understand of swiss history canton aargau was totally subjugated to the bernese for hundreds of years...why i have worked on the canton bern page to make it nice im not sure...yet im working on it no longer...ill will continue to work on the other switzerland pages...please lay off the page for a few minutes while i bring up my last version and the version before i began to work on the page...and then restore whatever it is you want it to look like...id appreciate it if u didnt use the pics i added or the info i added...i know wikipedia has rights to use whatever i contribute...yet right now i dont wish my work on this page...this could be the page most hit by the world wide web if people pull up searches for bern or canton bern...i have tried to make it nice...yet im through with that...as to a "travel brochure"...i just made a nice page for canton bern...when it comes down to it a page heavily hit on the web...if it looks nice and attracts peoples attentions...yes... a few someday might end up travelling there...it was indeed the artistic rendering in the "national geographic" of the bernese alps that i once saw when i was younger that got me to travel to switzerland and these mountains later when i first came to europe thinking of where to go...so i do think its possible someone may travel to bern when they see some photos of it...and surely over time someone will see nice photos on the web and maybe travel to the place to find out more...yet today im not in the mood for someone possibly travelling to canton bern as of my work...id rather they not...id rather they have no interest in canton bern today...i want an empty page with no pics...something boring...something they will pass right by...bern gets enough visitors...the other cantons need more anyways...im restoring the version before i worked on it...merci...Benjiwolf 11:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. It's not my intention to stop you from editing this page (and I'm actually fine with ONUnicorn's version of it). Rather, I'd hope we could continue our discussion on how to best illustrate articles. Again, please remember we're an encyclopedia, we're about knowledge, and images are only useful insofar as they enhance that knowledge. We don't care about whether an article attracts web hits or tourists. At any rate, have a nice weekend and thank you for your good faith efforts to improve the page. Sandstein 11:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

yes...as to images in articles...my thoughts are that it may be good to fill in blank spaces on the leads sometimes created by those contents boxes...not every page has a big space next to the contents boxes...yet many do...if its just going to be a blank space...why not have a pic to fill in at least some of it?...and i think images sometimes trigger some peoples' memories...depending on the person...images are sometimes very important for peoples ability to absorb "knowledge"...so it can be good to have an image at the top for pages...yet i think especially when there is just a big empty space there anyways...as to numbers of images on wikipedia pages?...its sort of an individual aesthetic thing...yet especially for "places" i think many images are a good thing...so people can get a sense of the location or city for example...i think it brings them a greater connection to the place...instead of just an abstraction with text...they can actually see it...on one of the swiss cantons pages for instance there was a large space running down the entire lower right side...so even tho i felt there were a reasonable amount of pics on the page...i just filled that space up some...before it was just a long list of small towns in the area with a big empty space next to the list...and incidently, almost all those towns have no pic on their personal wikipedia page...maybe a few sentences or two...its hard to really get any sense of those towns and where they are at, without some pictures of the towns and immediate area...so i think images are important and especially for places...i like the idea of gallerys at the bottom with tiny pics, for additional pics that would make the main page too cumbersome...yet in the actual article i think to look reasonable they have to be of as certain size...making them smaller than "thumb" size by making them 100px for instance...i think looks kind of tacky in the article...i think the standard size by just typing "thumb" with no px designation is qabout as small an article pic that looks reasonable...what is that size 150px? or 200px?...anyways thats why i liked unicorns additions and changes...yet it seemed some of those pics in the actual article were just a little too small...they were gallery pic size...not article pic size...they were fine sizes for the gallery she made at the bottom yet not for the article i thought...Benjiwolf 12:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

anyways as to specifically the canton bern page...looking at the page before i worked on it, my latest layout, and the one unicorn made...i see before i worked on it someone had that jungfrau pic up top...i do think my 400px size is a bit too big perhaps...yet i think the 250px size the other person had was a little too small to see what was going on in the photo, and still there was a large blank space up there...and as to images in general for the page... i really think there needs to be some more pics in the gallery at the bottom...i dont get any sense for the middle land from the page, which makes up a big portion of the canton...and i really dont see a good pic representative of the mountain valleys...or a small bernese village...i think there is a pic on the les diablerets page, for instance, that gives a good sense of what the oberland valleys look like (behind the lake in foreground...yet its sort of a fuzzy pic)...that typical look with the typical waterfall running down...that really captures what a lot of those valleys look like...and i suppose there needs to be a pic of the bienne/lake biel area in the gallery...the way the page stands from unicorns version i think it needs the pics on the right to be regular thumb size...and several more pics in the gallery so we have a better sense of what canton bern actually looks like...Benjiwolf 12:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to respond to you once I have time. As an aside for the future, people might find it easier to see things your way if you would structure your comments in paragraphs and sentences. I'm having a very hard time following your train of thought due to the way you write. Sandstein 23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III (comics)

Did you mean to delete the AfD page? ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... no. Thanks for the notice, I've corrected this. Sandstein 06:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Janet Balaskas

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Janet Balaskas. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Maustrauser 12:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 22:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Incunabula (publisher) AfD nomination

The same anonymous-person-from-Singapore who nominated the Ron Drummond article for deletion also nominated (without stating a reason) the article on Incunabula (publisher), but no discussion of this latter nomination has ever taken place. Should discussion go forward? 24.213.242.126 21:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. I've undone the abortive AfD nomination. Sandstein 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Smart (professional wrestling) deletion

I see you deleted Smart (professional wrestling) under the reason "speedy deleted as recreated content; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smark, and it's still unsourced". but how can this be as both articles were made at near the same time and regard to different fan bases which for much of the time was being considered to have Smark merged into it... (im not debating the actual delete, just the reasoning behind it) --- Paulley 09:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

your removal of Hasbara (disputed if it is propaganda)

Hello Sandstein,

I disagree with your speedy removal of the Hasbara (disputed if it is propaganda). Here is my reasoning:

this "useless redirect" had a LONG discussion page, where its usefulness was asserted with detailed explanation
it was there for over 2 years since I had created it
it was not "apparently created to fool" the categorisation system, but rather to stop an ongoing edit war
this drew positive comments from various participants in that edit war, and tensions did lower for quite a while
the article in question's inclusion in the said category is still disputed, so I am afraid you're provoking an additional edit war.

You should have preserved the discussion at the very least somewhere, have you done that? Could you please undelete it (for the above reasons) and submit to a formal deletion review if you still feel like it? If you prefer me to submit a formal request for undeletion, please say so; I'm just assuming you have overlooked the above reasoning (having not noticed the discussion page), and thus indeed thought it's useless and deleted it, and therefore suggest you clean up after it yourself.

Please respond at my talk page.

Respectfully, --BACbKA 11:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done so. Sandstein 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. --BACbKA 10:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. Can you please undelete the talk page of the redirect as well? TIA, --BACbKA 11:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Oh and if you're already working away on CSD please disregard this message; it's not meant as a slight against any hard work you're already doing. Cheers! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)