User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/March

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.

Discrimination against atheists

We've reached a compromise. Unprotect the page please? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where, but the protection expires in a few minutes anyway. Don't start editwarring again. Sandstein 06:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break

Unless you can show me a single citation that passes WP:MEDRS, there is no reason in the world that you need to get your essential amino acids from a supplement company. That's advertising and shilling for despicable nutritional supplement companies. If you think the article needs an image, how about a nice pretty picture of an essential amino acid. It's a violation of NPOV to suggest in any way that dietary supplements would be beneficial. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anyone "needs" to get amino acids from supplements and I don't know and don't care whether such supplementation is beneficial. But there appears to be a market for it, which the image illustrates. I also resent the charge that I, an administrator with more than 20,000 edits, am "shilling" for a company I don't care about and whose products are probably not even sold in most English-speaking countries. I won't object, though, if you replate the image with a more informative one instead of just deleting it. Sandstein 07:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Marinecore88's unblock request

Your rationale for denying the request[1] is correct. However, the blocking is giving us more problems than it solves - see WP:AN#Stopping a vicious circle of blocking and account creation. I am familiar with the conflict in question; and I have reason to believe that the user has improved in the last weeks, so I would like to give them another chance to get out of this vicious circle. Sure, this user is quite some work, but that's what we do at WP:SLR, so no need to worry about that. — Sebastian 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he gives us a convincing indication that he understands BLP and intends to abide by it, as well as by our other policies, I don't object to an unblock, but that's something the blocking admin must agree to, not I. Best, Sandstein 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

In my country, you can copy one chapter or 10% of a book for fair dealing and not infringe copyright.

As for articles in magazines, perhaps 10% is the rule.

You have deleted a small <10% ammount of text from Lausanne derailment (1994)‎ on the basis that it is a copyright violation, but could it be small enough not to be so?

Tabletop (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can use some text under fair use, if we need to, but then it needs to be clearly marked as a quotation, otherwise we're committing plagiarism. But in this case, we don't need to; we can just as well describe the accident in our own words. That's why it's a copyvio.

Besides, the text at issue was not useful anyway: one copy of it was in French (which we don't use; this is the English language Wikipedia), and the other copy was so badly translated into English that it would have needed a full rewrite. In situations such as these, it is better to just write about the subject in our own words, citing the original text as a source through an inline citation. Best, Sandstein 06:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambler_therapy

There are new elements that bring me to request a process of revision of the cancellation of the “Scrambler Therapy” page. Following instruction from wikipedia the direct method seems to be the best way to introduce new arguments. Briefly the reason for the cancellation derives from the following arguments:

Contested prod. Theory of pain control proposed by a single engineer. Two PubMed hits (PMID 16012423 and PMID 12555009), both by the inventor. No evidence that it works, only limited evidence that anyone is using it. Creator of article has username identical to perhaps the only website that gives airtime to this treatment, and is the site run by the company headed by the original inventor.[1] Delete on notability grounds. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The following are new and important elements regarding the scientific validation processes from which derives the request for revision of the cancellation of the page. All the observations hereunder are documentable in any official requested form.

-Because of the innovative characteristics of the Scrambler Therapy method with respect to known electroanalgesic devices, the new method has been recently approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), passing the most difficult and selective revision process. The revision process examined clinical studies of phases II, III, IV, conducted over a ten year period from 1996 to 2006 on more than 2300 cases of pain resistant to all other treatment (drug-resistant ) including opioid and tens. The revision process also studied roles, qualifications, competency, professional history of the authors of the studies and conformity of the same studies with the Good Clinical Practice and the Evidence-based Medicine. The FDA has given authorization n. K081255 to commercialise the device in the U.S. after having verified that the innovation of this study has solid experimental support of effectiveness and security.

The FDA approval speaks for itself and removes all doubt regarding scientific proof of effectiveness and validity of the entire study.

- Another misunderstanding: the theory upon which the Scrambler Therapy is based on was developed not by an engineer, but by a research-bioengineer with a fellowship at the Università Tor Vergata di Roma and at Università Roma3 (including a teaching fellowship at the faculty of biology), Public Institutes of Scientific Research and International institute, for specific projects, such as Istituto Superiore di Sanità. The fact that innovated research was developed by a single researcher cannot be reason for discrimination.

- A lot of published material is subject to copyrights: the only way to insert the method on wikipedia is to utilize the primary source; it should be a way to guarantee reliability and correctness of the information rather than a violation of the internal regulations.

- What is defined as a “Company” is a public research organisation that does not produce or commercialise medical devices. Its only objective is research and its application. Because of the high quality of its research the organisation has been publicly recognised by University and IRCCS (excellent hospital structure enabled for health performance and scientific research).

On the basis of the considerations made above it is kindly requested that the page be unlocked and updated. Please feel free to ask for any further information or clarification you deem necessary. Regards.Deltard (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)DeltardDeltard (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Declined. This request does not include references to reliable and intellectually independent sources covering the subject of the article, as required by WP:N and WP:V, and noted in the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrambler therapy. It is irrelevant with respect to Wikipedia inclusion whether or not something is scientifically or otherwise meritorious. What matters is whether it has received coverage in independent reliable sources. Sandstein 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrambler Therapy - New Page?....

I need clarifications, If it is possible, I would like to verify together the points designated for the refusal, in order to understand the problems in a less generalised way than what has been expressed in the reference pages.

Reliable: I think the point is “Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought….. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments”. In practice experimental data have been published by third parties, and have been subjected to many independent “Peer Review” processes. Therefore, I think that the remaining problem only deals with the purely theoretical aspect, actually still innovative. If this is how I think, by modifying the original page contents and taking them into wikipedia only as regards what has been verified by third parties, namely objective data scientifically validated by third parties, is it possible to reinsert the subject in this different form?....

WP:N/V: Apparently I cannot find conflicts. I think that the chronic pain that cannot be treated is a relevant subject. Perhaps the solution is resetting, also in this case, the page contents not on the theoretical system, but on what are the application data, verified according to normal scientific and institutional authorisation paths, objectively wholly independent. Also in this case, would the modification of contents solve the problem?... Deltard (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is all incomprehensible to me. To make this very simple: If you want "Scrambler Therapy" to have an article, you must tell us which reliable sources, as defined in WP:RS, have covered the specific topic of "scrambler therapy" in some depth. Sandstein 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that an incredible misunderstanding occurred.

I took for granted that you saw the verifiable documentation, since publications recognized as scientifically valid and indexed by NIH US National Library of Medicine ( search by Marineo G) are in the public domain. I am sorry that I have not understood before this simple request, to which I can easily reply.

Valid published articles for the scientific community that are in the public domain “peer review” and/ or subject of academic teaching (1):

-Artificial neurons in oncology pain: the potential of Scrambler Therapy to modify a biological information. International Congress Series.2003;Aug; Vol. 1255:381-388. [2]

-Untreatable pain resulting from abdominal cancer: new hope from biophysics? JOP. 2003 Jan;4(1):1-10. [3]

-Scrambler therapy.Minerva Anesthesiol. 2005 Jul-Aug;71(7-8):479-82. [4]

- (1)Scrambler Therapy in neuropathic pain. Relations at IV and V National Course for Improvement and High Specialization in neuropathic pain. Pathos.2007; Jan.; Vol 14 (1); 99-105

Sponsor clinical trials: - Policlinico Universitario Tor Vergata -Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata” - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Mangiagalli, Regina Elena, Milano - Osp. Umberto I° Frosinone.

Role of researchers engaged in the studies

Main investigator for clinic independent research:

Alessandro F. Sabato. Professor in Anestesia and Reanimation, Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata. (Roma, Italy)

Antonello Gatti. Clinica Responsible for Policlinico Universitario di Tor Vergata, U.O.S.D. Pain Management Center Departement Of Intensive Care, Pain Medicine and Anesthesiology (Roma, Italy)

Sandra Spaziani. Primary doctor of Unità Operativa di Terapia Antalgica e cure palliative of Ospedale Umberto I° di Frosinone. (Frosinone, Italy)

Vittorio Iorno. Medical Responsible of the Centro di terapia del dolore “Mario Tiengo”. IRCCS Fondazione Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Mangiagalli, Regina Elena. (Milano, Italy)

Basic and applied research, analytic support:

Giuseppe Marineo. Delta Research & Development. Research Center for Medical Bioengineering.

Other public elements complying with wp rules that you pointed out are also visible from google scholar with keyword “scrambler therapy marineo”, and in general (international media, public institutions, etc. ) performing a search on google with keyword “CTT Marineo” or “CTT Scrambler Therapy”.

As regards instead the major scientific award obtained in the revision process among peers, superior by importance to any scientific publication, is the FDA one: the reference is in the revision procedure required for clinical reports. Modes and specifications are directly visible in the FDA site www.fda.gov.

Other verifiable documentation on line (generic examples)

Presentation of Scrambler Therapy in Seoul, Korea

CTT msn money

Fondazione Parco Biomedico San Raffaele

and ......

For any other information, please let me know: surely I am not lacking verifiable documentation. If there are no other obstacles and you give me your OK, I would update the page in order to better explain the required contents, and thereby avoid other misunderstanding. Thank you again for your clarification.Deltard (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't start a new section for each comment. Use this one. The online sources appear to be promotional in nature, essentially press releases, and don't appear to be intellectually independent from the inventor(s) of this therapy. Is there any non-promotional, neutrally-written, in-depth coverage of this therapy in a reliable source, that is not written by someone associated with the therapy and was not already covered in the deletion discussion? Sandstein 21:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I excuse myself for not having opened more topics: it depends on the fact that I am not well accustomed with Wikipedia. In my previous intervention, I deemed it suitable to insert two types of public information. All scientific information is independent from the inventor. In particular the following are independent: clinical studies performed autonomously by the mentioned specialised centres. The deriving publications are as well independent. In scientific communication processes, there is always an autonomous exam of the editor, that, through his reference specialists (referees), judges, and validates or refuses the work proposed for publication. This is the only way to officially publish a scientific research.

The primary international reference source for the scientific community for which it is a reference, is also independent, and is the US National Library, that selects and shows only scientific reviews whose revision process for the material send for publication is deemed reliable.

Still more reliable is the verification process performed by the FDA, much more accurate than those of the scientific reviews due to aspects of health character that imply the authorisation for commercialisation, this aspect being obviously more delicate and full of responsabilities.

Substantially, what guarantees the independent capability of being verified required by wp is the set of revision processes performed by third parties, that allow publications or health authorisations only after a favourable comment expressed by independent and highly qualified international specialists. This is the process that in general is synthetically defined as “peer review”.

As regards the names on the publications, they are compulsory and part of the scientific acknowledgment, and follow strict rules. Names correspond with actual roles played in the whole research. For example, the name of Sabato points out his responsibility as clinical investigator, and only deals with the clinical check, independent from the author of the theoretical search. The name of Marineo instead appears only because inside the articles the theoretical innovation and its associated operating principles are also shown, for which only the author can be held responsible regarding the editor and the scientific community, as well as his right is to be considered father of the theoretical research, recognised from the signature in the article. The check therefore is independent from the beginning, even if in the articles there are many signatures. This occurs in all scientific publications and is a normal trend.

Once the research has been published, its contents are deemed as scientifically valid till another published research will demonstrate the contrary: this is the way in which the scientific community proceeds. Remarks of a personal character, that have not been published in an official context different from the described one, are never deemed as scientific.

Commercial references have been inserted to demonstrate another important point that guarantees the scientific community, namely making it possible for third parties to reproduce what has been described in the publications. This cannot happen if the research has not reached the mature industrialisation and commercialisation phase. The sense of what is included is therefore the guarantee that, in any part of the world, anybody can further verify the Scrambler Therapy, and publish in turn its results, both positive and negative ones. This is a major guarantee in the scientific field. Ask me for any other information on items that possibly are still unclear. Thank you again for your assistance.--Deltard (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am unpersuaded. Request declined. If you would like to contest this determination, please follow the procedure described at WP:DRV. It may be helpful if, for that purpose, you first create a draft article at User:Deltard/Scrambler therapy, which includes all the references you have, and link to it in the deletion review request. Sandstein 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK,Thank you for your assistance. Regards--Deltard (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Acharya S

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Acharya S. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've listed nine bad premature closures ...

Your point "I've listed nine bad premature closures from January 29" here seems to have faulty link - I cant see your nine closures. Could you take a look at it again. thanks Power.corrupts (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1. Sandstein 10:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Umbul umbul has the best set of usable and valid references I have seen in a 'new stub' for a very long time in the Indonesian project - please some more!!! Satu Suro 02:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I know actually very little about anything Indonesian, but there is someone near where I live who makes these flags for decorative purposes, and, well, if Wikipedia doesn't have an article about what one is looking for, one trawls Google Books to find out and write it... I'll have to shoot a photo someday, too. Sandstein 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

help

how do you make a new sign and save it? i just keep copying and pasting. Sourlemonade —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:SIG#Customizing_your_signature. Sandstein 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rangersarecool

Pardon me if I disagree but rangersarecool is a very smart 4th grader and would not make a account called rangerarecool1234. do you know who would? someone who wanted rangersarecool would. do you know who that is? davidthedograt. How do I know? im in his class. im also in david the dogman's class im also in foxcows, jeffhardys, and rangersarecool. if it wasnt for davidthedograt rangersarecool wouldn't be blocked. darknesswolf is another account used for cantributions, not vandalism! he was trying to get away from niv, who new what rangersarecools password was. (he found out while he was typing it in class) then he made darknesswolf. then a classmate comes and says ooooh lets make a account called rangerarecool1234 and create vandalism so they'l think im rangersarecool! oh and for good measure, he says he is rangersarecool on irp's talk page. hes not that dumb. hes in a gifted class, we all are. (exept sometimes I wonder about davidthedograt...) enyway hes a straght A student in gifted 4th grade and loves wikipedia. he always talks about it! sorry to disturb you, im just angry at the people who blocked him, and didnt unblock him. Jinxyouowemeasoda (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, boys, all of you, please stop bothering me with all this inane nonsense or I may block all of you for not contributing to the encyclopedia, Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a playground, and people who use it as a playground are shown the door. Sandstein 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say there are clear links between this user, Bob the doorbell, David the Dogman, Davidthedograt,Chocolatedograt, Chocolateroar, Foxcow, & Sourlemonade (talk · contribs). Same school, maybe some sockpuppets, no useful contributions. dougweller (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and a similar style of contributions. If they continue to play games on talk pages and with each other instead of contributing to articles, I intend to block the lot. Sandstein 16:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh I made some spell and grammar checks. Also yes there are some sock puppets. The sock puppets are David has is Chocolatedograt, Davidthedograt, Sourlemonade, Jinxyouowemeasoda. Mine are Bob and Chocolateroar.--Foxcow (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ive never heard of bob the doorbell. Sourlemonade 23:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

see I do contribute

[5]

[6]

[7]

Sourlemonade 23:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

AgentSpy101 (talk) has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirit. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:User:Marlith/Joy Message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reevaluate

Please reevaluate my request on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mykleisyomomma 67.128.73.37 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's easier for all concerned if you just create a new account. Sandstein 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Sandstein/Archives/2009. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 11:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you please restore the sock template to the page?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 11:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Which template to what page? Sandstein 11:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

{{sockpuppetconfirmed|El Machete Guerrero}} to User talk:Sabre Savage. Also, please do the same to User talk:Polystyla, along with User talk:Xcahv8(this includes the indef protection you previously applied.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 12:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This template is already on the user pages, which should suffice. Sandstein 14:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Still, could you please indef protect the page and warn the user against making baseless accusations.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 14:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What page? Sandstein 14:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Day Sandstein

Dear Mr/Ms Sandstein

How are you? I am waqas and from Pakistan My web page by the name of Benision Islamic School is being deleted by you as an administrator Its an Islamic English Medium School in Pakistan.

Don't you think that user recommendations for deletion of our page are biased

This is what i strongly feel!!!

If not, than I will feel previliged to clear any abguity in your mind as administrator.

Take care

Looking forward to your reply.. Regards

Waqas - Administrator and Founder Benison Islamic School arshad.waqas@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.9.84 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Loomis

I've commented on User talk:Loomis51. He's a smart guy, but he just doesn't seem to get it. I don't think an unblock would be a good idea, as he's still trying to refight the battles that got him blocked a year and a half ago. His position remains that his own conduct was above reproach, and that he was only blocked through a missapplication of policy by a cabal of abusive admins. If I had known he was just going to go back into soapbox mode, I wouldn't have unprotected his talk page in the first place.

My apologies if the statement I've posted is a tad disjointed; I adapted it from a comment that I drafted but didn't post for his original (denied) unblock request yesterday. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Roblox

Hello,

I am writing about the re-creation of the article Roblox. It was deleted previously because of attempts by the user writing the article to advertise the online game. Myself and User:Briguy9876 have been working to re-create the article in a more encyclopedia friendly manner.

The game has recently reached 2 million users an I think that it is now a game worthy of an encycopedia article. Our current article can be found Here.

The last time this article was created it was deleted by you.So I asume you are a good place to come for help with this article. If you could review that page, and even if you feel it is not up to par, give us feedback on what we could do to improve, and bring it up to a reasonable article that would be suitable for Wikipedia. That would be very much appreciated. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think the references are now good enough for notability. What I advise you to do is format all references as inline references (in appropriate places) using the {{cite news}} template and remove external links from the body text (they should be in footnoted references where necessary). You can also lose the NYT link, because it only mentions Roblox once, briefly. Then you should submit your draft to WP:DRV, asking for community permission for its restoration.

Note that I deleted File:ROBLOX Screen.jpg from Commons because as a screenshot of a copyrighted game it was itself a copyrighted derivative work. Sandstein 22:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you very much!--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I took the Roblox article toDeltetion Review but their thoughts about the references do not reflect your own. If you could post your own opinion on that page it would be appreciated. Thanks. -User:gordonrox24 —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Article ?

Hello, my name is Shaun Brady and I am the executive director of the Credit Policy Institute (www.creditpolicyinstitute.org). I recently had my article deleted because of copyright infringement? All the material I used on the site was original work of the Institute or referenced so I am not sure why this happened. This is the first time I have tried to create a Wikipedia article so if I have done something wrong please let me know. Thank you Smtbrady (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a [[link]] to the deleted article. Sandstein 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Rule 34

I have nominated Rule 34 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mido

Please explain to me why the entry "Mido (watch)" is considered "promotional material" or "blatant advertising" as you state as a watch enthusiasts I am trying to add to the body of knowledge on a swiss watch company owned by the Swatch group, I followed the same template used for "Tissot" a sister company, but that entry isn't considered "advertising" I don't understand this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyoung121 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Mido (watch) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contained phrases such as "Since its founding, Mido has pioneered both innovative design and technological innovations", "Mido pushed innovative technology even further" and "Since that time, Mido has continued to innovate", which are characteristic of advertising copy and violate our policies WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. If you are involved with this company, your writing an article about it also violates our guideline WP:COI. If you continue to attempt to promote your company on Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Sandstein 07:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Westerstetten

Hello,

I've been doing dome some translaton work on the Westerstetten article. However, I had particular difficulty on one section. Could you take a look? Here's the translation and here's the original from the german wikipedia. Thanks, --DFS454 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed a few errors. Check the capitalization! Sandstein 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Credible?

Hello,

I was just wondering if these two websites could be used as references on Wikipedia.http://www.nationmaster.com/ and http://www.inquirer.net/. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much about these. See WP:RS for general advice about which sources are reliable. Sandstein 06:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

what was inappropriate?

How was ip [8] using talk page inappropriately? ip made sections then posted a question section on a threat [9] which I see all the time? As the ip was blocked ip couldnt post the threat on admin noticeboard. How will ip ask for an unblock with you locking the page? The second reviewer said ip may try to explain again and now ip cannot. 173.79.59.36 (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion of User:70.108.102.252. Sandstein 06:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

hello

who do you think was the most confusing, sly, vandalizing sockpuppets you ever delt of, or heard of? Rick Tryker (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, by the way, im not trying to set a record. see on my talk

y did u revert my page then lock it

Y did u revert [10] & lock [11] my page? I am allowed to organise my page as I see fit. There was no abuse of nor on my page. I posted nothing uncivil. I didnt delete the blcok replies. 70.108.118.234 (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not your page, see WP:OWN, and you are not free to organise it as you see fit, see WP:TPG. In the instant case, you were deleting another administrator's comment on your block while still blocked, which disrupts the use of your talk page. Sandstein 14:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your new subheadings in WP:AN3 reports are receiving commentary

The new subheadings are being critiqued over at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#New subheadings. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies. I wouldn't touch those pages on principle. I know a good editor, hotheaded, is on the block for the nth time. It is becoming a hobby in here. He seems the most watched man in the I/P area. Every misstep, slip of language, loss of patience, is summarily run into AN/I to make his indictment sheet belie the fact that many editors, on both sides, have found his work, on things like small towns, coordinates, etc., invaluable, and his assistence generous. He's careless on etiquette and form, and careful about useful edits on good pages. He hates bad work, and lets it run to his head. I put that note in quite aware he'll be booted up the arse once again, and dropped a note on his page to that effect. A pity. Had I the extreme interest in and knowledge of ther niceties of hauling anyone over the coals for policy infractions, I could spend most of my wiki time hauling people into these forums. Still, as Ashley knows, policy is policy, and trumps all. That's the nature of admin, and that's how wiki works. RegardsNishidani (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message; I appreciate it. Sandstein 21:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)