User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/January

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Redirection of the East Turkistan Government in Exile Page

Recently, the page East Turkistan Government in Exile has been redirected to the page of Anwar Yusuf Turani. Based on my research, Anwar Yusuf Turani is a figure head of the East Turkistan Independence Movement and East Turkistan Government in Exile. Anwar Yusuf Turani is not equivalent to the East Turkistan Government in Exile. In the talk page related to the deletion of this page it was noted that the government in exile was not "notable" enough to have its own page. However, I provided numerous sources and references that back the credibility of the organization. Additionally, there are many government in exiles that have their Wiki pages but are not in discussion to be deleted or even redirected, such as the Tibetan Government in Exile. Why is it that the East Tukistan Government in Exile cannot have a page on Wikipedia? As an expert on Central Asia, specializing in the Xinjiang region, I plan to write more articles about different aspects of that region. However, if the pages I create or edit are constantly deleted or redirected on the basis of not being notable even when I provide sufficient credible references and images, it discourages me to contribute through Wikipedia. Therefore, I want a measure to be taken to resolve this issue immediately---Tewpiq 12 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tewpiq (talkcontribs) 18:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This has been the subject of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Turkistan Government in Exile, where consensus was that the subject currently fails our inclusion standard, WP:N. I have no opinion about that, myself, but have to follow the consensus that emerged in that discussion. You too are bound by that consensus and may not simply recreate the article. Instead, you need to change the consensus and convince the community that the subject is indeed notable. You can do so by creating an improved version of the article in your user space, at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. This new version should use new sources not already present in the previously discussed version of the article. Then you can try to convince the community at WP:DRV that these new sources mean that the subject is now notable enough for inclusion. If the community agrees, you will be able to recreate the article.  Sandstein  19:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein. Thank you for your response. I have been working on the page and I am about ready to save it at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. I was reading through the WP:DRV page and noticed that this section was a place for users to propose pages for undeletion. The East Turkistan Government in Exile page was not deleted, however it was redirected. Therefore, would I still propose the page for undeletion or is there somewhere specifically intended for proposing the East Turkistan Government in Exile to have a page of its own? Thank you for your time. Tewpiq (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay; I'll comment on DRV.  Sandstein  19:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification of AA2

Would it be possible for you to notify user:Noraton[1] of the restrictions concerning Armenian-Azerbaijani articles? Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein  19:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


Hello! it's football leb once again. i need your assist on how to do a restoration for the article "Rabih Najjar" u already moved it to User:Football leb/Rabih Najjar.i worked lately on the article and improved it based on new circumstances and i guess the problem because of which it was deleted is fixed now. thank you football leb (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2012

Can you explain, please, how these changes fix the previous problem with the article?  Sandstein  19:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for East Turkistan Government in Exile

An editor has asked for a deletion review of East Turkistan Government in Exile. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tewpiq (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

María Viramontes

Hey, I notice you closed the DRV. Since it is now closed, please speedy delete the "article", which consists solely of a DRV tag and an uncategorized tag Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  19:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Leeton Market Plaza

I was away when it was nom'ed, as I would have copied the article as a future possible article and I would have something to work off. Could you send a copy of the Leeton Market Plaza article via email? Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's available for a day at [2].  Sandstein  12:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


Winter is Coming, The Wolf and the Lion, and The Pointy End are all up for GA review. Your assistance on any or all of these would be welcome. I'll be working them this weekend as well. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've done some work at The Pointy End.  Sandstein  16:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but that's not my article. I copied it there from AfD.  Sandstein  22:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Good close on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_December_30#Necrophilia_in_popular_culture. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  12:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Cruz (2nd nomination)

Leaning, perhaps, but not clear enough for a "keep" consensus closure, and insufficient discussion to write it off as "no consensus" default keep quite yet.  Sandstein  10:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Restoring the East Turkistan Government in Exile page

Hello Sandstein. The page for the East Turkistan Government in Exile, as seen in User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile, should be independent from Anwar Yusuf Turani. ETGIE is a government organization that is notable across the Turkic community. I am not trying to promote a cause or advocate the Independence of a country through Wikipedia, however I merely desire that the world know that such a government organization working towards the East Turkistan movement exists. The new page has been in WP:DRV, for about a week now and there has been no more objections towards the creation of this article. Therefore, if you are able, please restore the article. I will continue to expand upon the page by finding more references and sources.Tewpiq (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The administrator closing the DRV discussion will do so if they agre that there is consensus for restoration. Myself, I have no opinion about the notability of the subject but would prefer not to restore the content at this time because it is not written from a neutral point of view, as required by policy.  Sandstein  09:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

British Airways flight 2157 deletion

Dear Sandstein, I was sorry to see you had deleted my article. The article had been completely rewritten and improved significantly since the original requests for deletion had been made. Hence many of the comments of delete were no longer relevant to the finished article. Even the original nominator of the deletion, JetBlast (talk), left a message on my talk page to say he was sorry that it got deleted. I appreciate you have to whiz through these articles and make quick decisions, but could you please look again at the initial and final versions and reconsider? Many thanks BritAirman (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot agree. The article was nominated on 1 January and substantial editing went on until 2 January. If one looks at the comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Airways flight 2157 after 2 January, a majority of them still support deletion, which indicates that any improvements that were made to the article after its nomination did not convince most editors. This means that I have no basis on which to assign the earlier "delete" opinions less weight.  Sandstein  18:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

GoT S1 GAs

Thanks for all your help with The Pointy End, which has now passed. As of now You Win or You Die is on review and in pretty good shape, I think. Baelor is up next, and also in pretty good shape, but Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones), the last of the lot, still needs some work. Anything you can help with is appreciated! Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to help with the copyediting chiefly.  Sandstein  10:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

football leb

Dear sandstein, i was trying to interact with you about the aticle "User:Football leb/Rabih Najjar" but it seemed that i was blocked from editing on Wikipedia for unknown reasons. please do know that new circumstances occurred to the article in question, and we was able to add reliable sources to it, what made the notability of this person no more a question, therefore please do help me restoring the article.thank you football leb (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2012

You did not reply to my question at User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/January#help: Can you explain, please, how these changes fix the previous problem with the article?  Sandstein  23:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

since the problem in the first place was the lack of reliable sources,therefore the notability of this person was in question. I was able to provide new sources based on new circumstances: Rabih najjar manage to achieve lately a new personal title in an international tournament to add on his coaching career, so i documented this in the article and do not forget the progress of the article from day 1. therefore the hole changes made to the article including the sources fix the notability issue based on Wikipedia criteria, one reliable source in enough to solve the notability problem. please do consider my point of vue and release the article and if possible do check also the aricle improvement since u checked the changes i made lately, this way you can understand more my point of vue football leb (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2012

That he played in an international tournament does not remedy the problem for which the article was deleted, namely, not having played in a fully professional league or otherwise meeting WP:GNG. Recreation declined, sorry.  Sandstein  21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

no the wikipedia community admnitted during the debate that the Lebanese league is a fully professional league please go back to the debate history on the article before the deletion and we already have provided sources showed that rabih najjar was playing in this league and this was no more the problem, actually Hasteur who nominated the article for deletion admitted that he made a mistake by considering our league non professional, our problem was to have a source to backup our point of vue considering this player who is now a reputated coach in my country and i added to the sources already in the article another source yet this time intenational that backup my point of vue please do help and check what i told you now, i guess there's been a mistake considering this article i do really apreciate your help football leb (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2012

Sorry, but I am not convinced, and the lack of relevant diffs or links in your repetitive (see also User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/November#Football leb), overly verbose and mostly unpunctuated argument does not help to convince me. Please appeal to the community at WP:DRV if you wish to obtain the reinstatement of the article.  Sandstein  21:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

no way! my unpunctuated arguments are due to the fact that I speak french and Arabic, English is my third language. i find your reply a little bit funny judging my punctuation. as for being repetitive and overly verbose, this is the only way to show my point of view and do know it's my first contributions on Wikipedia therefore i have hard time to mention the links everytime in my arguments. anyway thank you and i really respect your point of view although i don't agree with it because I'm sure that you are not aware about sports in my country and you are not interested to do leb (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2012

AFD discussion


You just closed a debate that I was involved in, yet a second one started about the same time is still open (this one). Is there something weird happening, or did the relisting mean it stays open a lot longer than normal? Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:RELIST.  Sandstein  10:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
But that means the page should have been closed on the 14th, doesn't it? Relisted a second time January 7th I'm not asking for a specific admin action, this is more for my learning, but is there a place I bring this sort of thing up or should I just wait a bit longer? Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that it was appropriate to relist the discussion a second time, because even after the first relist opinions were divided, and there were few opinions in total. But it is unlikely to be relisted a third time, so if I were you I'd wait until seven days after the second relist have expired. If you do think that a closure is needed right now (which I don't), you can ask for one at WP:ANI.  Sandstein  15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bielby

Hello, Sandstein. The following AFD discussion has been open since December 12th, having been relisted 3 times since then.

The AFD itself includes nominations for Blackfish Publishing and Death Ray (magazine). If you could be of any assistance in seeing it is closed, it would be most appreciated. Stubbleboy 13:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are currently many open AfDs. An admin will get around to it eventually.  Sandstein  14:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. It's not really a DRV of your close (I have no objections to it), it's just that I closed a very similar discussion that ended up keeping the nominated articles. So whatever we do, the fate of all three lists should be consistent. King of ♠ 05:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted article

Could you provide me the content for the deleted article List of Internet service providers in Pakistan? I'd like to merge some of the info that was deleted along with it into the article Internet in Pakistan. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Restored and redirected to allow a merger.  Sandstein  22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Paul Guggenheim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Rome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

FOP a neologism?

Actually, this is interesting. It appears that we coined that expression, and that it may be entering English legal vocabulary right now. If I search Google Scholar for that phrase, I get this paper, which sources the term to -- Wikipedia. A second hit is this paper, which is about Wikipedia, and mentions the term in passing. Then there's one Korean paper, which apparently also got the term from Wikipedia. The rest of the 8 hits are Wikipedia mirrors.

So, it may well be that it's a neologism: English legal vocabulary did not have a word for the concept (although the concept itself was known allright). We just used a slightly awkward translation of the German "Panoramafreiheit", and apparently that is being picked up slowly by legal scholars.

I don't care whether the article has a {{Neologism}} or not, but I find this etymological development highly interesting. Future etymologists will have to track the history of commons:COM:FOP to figure out who used the phrase first. Lupo 12:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting comment; you may well be right. Though even as a translation originated by us the term would not be a neologism, as it is well-established in its German version.  Sandstein  11:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisting DRV

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I relisted East Turkistan Government in Exile on today's log. I couldn't determine how to close it and felt more discussion would be beneficial.--v/r - TP 13:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi Sandstein. Another user has asked me to look at Special:Contributions/Colt228cowhorses and as it also concerns their Commons uploads I thought I would ask you to take a look. Do you have time? --John (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The only problem I can immediately see is that the images give the name of a non-public person. I have moved them on Commons and removed the name from the description. They are now at File:Woman sliding a horse.jpg, File:Woman sliding horse 2.jpg and File:Woman stopping cow with horse.jpg. I am so advising the uploader. There are no clear indications of copyvio.  Sandstein  11:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt attention. --John (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

correction/revsion of page for musician/composer Constance Demby

I have revised and expanded the page for Constance Demby.

Is this ok now by wiki standards? I see that there have been some content problems Thanks for your time.

Christopher Stewart Cstewart139 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the huge amount of text you've pasted onto my talk page; please don't do that.
I do not understand what it is you ask. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  19:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Kalpna Singh-Chitnis

We are wondering, why was listing of Kalpna Singh-Chitnis was deleted from Wikipedia? Information was verifiable from several sources. We hope, this article can be recovered and re-posted on Wikipedia for the users.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  22:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nina Power

Sandstein - do you have access to the quality queue? If so, log in normally, then choose "ticket#" from the top far right and cut and paste the ticket number in (2011121110010362). This should pull it up for you. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that worked. Strange that the direct link did not.  Sandstein  18:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I've never been able to get it to work either which is why I knew about the work-around. I just took a look at the template and it looks like it also needs the ticket ID to work (as well as the ticket number). The only way I can figure out to get the ticket ID is to hover over the customer ID and read the pop-up which includes a ticket ID. Not exactly intuitive. Oh well, tis a battle for another day! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
PS: I hope you do not mind that I have provided slightly more information than you did about what the concerns raised in the AfD refer to; I think that this is necessary to assess the deletion request. If you believe that I should not have done this I'll be happy to revdelete it.  Sandstein  18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


This was said: "and/or an exercise in advocacy on the part of Wikipedia."

here: [3]

What individuals post is not necessary a reflection on the Wiki. or that's the way I see it. The Wiki. to my knowledge did not create the article an individual did, who's motives maybe be indeterminate. I speak because the comment reflects on the Wiki directly. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand what you ask of me, sorry.  Sandstein  19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
You might change it to "and/or an exercise in possible advocacy." That "possible advocacy" part is a slippery slope and will need to be worded very delicately; It needs to be worded so that the Wiki is not responsible yet, it does not point any fingers at anyone whom may not be an advocate. I'm afraid that's as clear as I can make it. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that I think that the list constituted advocacy. I wrote that some contributors to the discussion thought that it did. I don't see a need to change that.  Sandstein  19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I only made a suggestion. You need not accept it, I'm OK with that. Good day to you. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV RfC Closure?

Sandstein, your name was mentioned in the "santorum campaign" talk as an admin who is particularly versed and unbiased in the resolution of NPOV issues. There is, IMHO, a rather fundamental POV dispute within Talk:Swiftboating that has now escalated into multiple RfCs, multiple talk sections and an associated NPOV Noticeboard discussion...all in need of resolution. If you might consider taking a look (or might recommend another admin who might be interested), it would be most appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I can try to help, but I know little about the intricacies of American politics. (Wasn't that an issue, like, two elections ago?) If people on both sides of the aisle, so to speak, request it, I can attempt closing any stalled or overdue (30 days) RfCs. But you'd need to tell me a bit more precisely where you and others believe uninvolved input might be helpful.  Sandstein  08:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hm, I can try to help, but I know little about the intricacies of American politics. and But you'd need to tell me a bit more precisely where you and others believe uninvolved input might be helpful.
While I can't presume to speak for "others", I would personally consider that to be an asset to an unbiased resolution. You would not (assumedly) be bringing a personal political bias into what is, IMHO essentially, a dispute regarding the nature of a "smear" assertion (which is, I'll assume, common to any English language vernacular) and whether or not such an assertion, offered in any socio-political context, could legitimately be considered an expression of "fact" as opposed to an expression of "opinion" editorial determination which, as I understand it, must be made under WP:YESPOV for the NPOV presentation of a "smear" assertion.
(Wasn't that an issue, like, two elections ago?)
It surely was...and continues to elicit strong opinion to this day (as one can, no doubt, discern rather quickly within the article talk).
I can attempt closing any stalled or overdue (30 days) RfCs.
While my attempts to solicit the input of a more broad-based WP editorial perspective (via POV section dispute and associated RfC and NPOV noticeboard) have had some success, it has been minimal at best. I suppose one could legitimately call it "stalled". That being said, the issue is, IMHO, so fundamentally WP:NPOV policy basic that the input generated thus far should adequately define that issue as well as the editorial positions which are diametrically opposed as to the appropriate application of WP:YESPOV. On that basis, and after soliciting input from those in opposition who raised no apparent objection, as the editor who placed the RfC I am soliciting an early closure and determination by an uninvolved administrator.
For their advisement and consideration, I will notify other interested parties via the RfC meta comments of my solicitation to you and, again, appreciate your time and consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There are three RfCs in play, two of which have a fair amount of participation. There is also a related NPOV discussion. Basically the issue (which comes up every now and then) is an argument between (i) the use of sources which (with the exception of some right wing chat shows, minor newspaper reports etc) variously call it a smear campaign, deliberately telling lies to achieve political advantage etc. etc. and (ii) the argument advocated by JakeInJoisey and a couple of other editors above that "smear" can never be used factually. They have used the example of saying that someone is beautiful as an example. Personally I agree with them on beauty but I think its fairly easy to resolve from reliable sources if something was a deliberate lie or not. At the moment the balance on both RfCs is for the first position. As I say its not the first time this has come up and there are irregular attempts (often linked in time with active periods in American politics) to change the article or tag it (as happened this time) as PoV. JakeInJoisey and others have supplied sources that show the issue is controversial and a compromise proposal has been made to insert a line to that effect, but to date no reliable sources have been produced to counter those which support "smear", instead the argument has been put forward that the word will always be an opinion irrespective of sourcing.
Personally I think it would be good if you could take a look, I doubt anyone would challenge your independence. --Snowded TALK 14:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally I agree with them on beauty but I think its fairly easy to resolve from reliable sources if something was a deliberate lie or not.
Then you must have a considerable leg up on Smith et al, the authors your side offered as a "scholarly source" on this issue. As they observed in their page 72 "Analysis" of their 2010 treatment...
The word “liar” was attributed to both sides of the battle, but who was telling the truth?
However, apparently unlike you, I've no intent to further argue the merits of either position in this space and am satisfied to rely upon a consideration and determination rendered by an uninvolved administrator as to those merits. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm just trying to summarise the position to show both sides. If I didn't properly represent your position then my apologies. Incidentally if you want to either provide sources or argue the merits of existing ones on the article then that change would be more than welcome. --Snowded TALK 15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Your purportedly benign assistance in rendering a "summary of positions" has a rather peculiar sense of POV advocacy to it...and my apologies to Sandstein for the further imposition of argument irrelevant to the purpose of this solicitation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The RfCs have not yet run for the customary 30 days. I'll take a look at them then, or should I forget to do so, you can make a request for admin closure at WP:AN at that time. It does not seem that there is anything else I can do in the capacity of an uninvolved admin at this time, and the topic does not interest me enough to want to become involved on the merits.  Sandstein  17:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
While my preference is for uninvolved admin RfC closure, que sera sera. Thank you for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


You closed the AfD on this article as no consensus. I have removed the AfD template from the article for you, but it still needs a talk page template. LadyofShalott 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That was because the article was moved during the AfD, which confuses the closing script.  Sandstein  21:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. I rarely close AfDs, and have never used the script. LadyofShalott 22:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Donald P. Scott

I found more information on the subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald P. Scott. Not sure if you want to take another look there. Cheers! Location (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


While leaving a note on user:Johnalexwood's talk page alerting them to this discussion, I saw your message about arbitration enforcement and BLP violations. Please review the BLPN report, I suspect a topic ban is in order. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement because I consider it a waste of time due to insufficient support on the part of the Arbitration Committee. You can request at WP:AE that another admin examine the situation.  Sandstein  20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Association for Contextual Behavioral Science

I have started a merge discussion at Talk:Acceptance_and_commitment_therapy#Merge_discussion. As you took part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Contextual Behavioral Science, you may interested in leaving a comment. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)