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.
Hello Sandstein. In your closure statement you said that "My interpretation of this outcome is that it allows a case-by-case discussion as to how or whether the matter that is the subject of the sentence should be addressed in each article." That this mean that WP:Legality of Israeli settlements is now revoked? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar with that page, its history or its authority (if any). My closure is limited to assessing the consensus (or lack thereof) in the discussion before me. I read the page as asserting that a certain wording about the status of Israeli settlements has obtained consensus. Whether or not that is true I do not know, but it is not the same question as the one presented in the discussion I closed, namely, whether that wording should be systematically included in each article lead. Sandstein 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I don't understand your actions here. You have closed the discussion as "No consensus", but you appear to have endorsed the request to reverse the prior consensus, which was to include this text in all relevant articles. That would appear also to be the Frederico's assessment of the editor of the unsigned comment above. This creates a very messy, and potentially highly contentious and explosive, situation. Please clarify, explicitly and urgently, what you understand the current position to be. RolandR (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure in what respect my closure requires clarification. I said that I see no consensus to either systematically remove or systematically add/retain the text to all affected articles, and that I interpret this to mean that it is now a case-by-case issue. How is that unclear? Sandstein 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The original request was to reverse a consensus to include this text. You examined the arguments, and closed the discussion as "No consensus". Most editors would take that to mean that there is no consensus to reverse the existing consensus, and thus the existing consensus (to include this text in all articles) remaiuns. However, you then state that this should be decided on a "case-by-case" basis, thus accepting the argument (for which you found no consensus) that the existing consensus be reversed. This certainly leaves the situation unclear, and I believe that this will lead to heightened edit-warring, which the existing consensus had largely prevented. RolandR (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, this presupposes that there was an existing consensus for the systematic inclusion of the sentence to begin with. I do not know whether that is so - it was certainly among the issues that were contested in the discussion. But I did not address that because I consider it largely irrelevant for the purpose of closing the present discussion: I do not need to decide whether or not a previous consensus existed to systematically include that text, because what matters (in my view) is that no such consensus exists now - at least in my reading of the discussion. Sandstein 19:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
So, to be quite clear, are you reversing Less vanU's ruling here? RolandR (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not "reversing" LessHeard van U's findings of November 2010 in the sense of declaring them wrong (I have no opinion about that), but I do find, as a result of the discussion which I closed, that the consensus which LessHeard van U considered to exist then - "there is consensus for it [the wording at issue] to be included in all relevant articles" - does not, or no longer, exist now. Sandstein 20:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I consider your summary [here] to be at best misleading. There was a consensus, an editor requested that it be reversed, there was a very long and complex discussion, you assessed this as reaching no consensus, and then ruled in favour of reversing the consensus. At the very least, you need to make an explicit statement, which as yet you have not, about the use of this previously-agreed text in articles relating to illegal Israeli settlements in the 1967-occupied territories. Failure or refusal to do so will leave the siutuation unclear, and open the way to ongoing edit wars. RolandR (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I think that I have been clear enough what I meant: There is no consensus for (or against) the systematic use of this text, which means (IMHO) that this calls for case-by-case discussion or a new RfC. Whether or not there was previously a consensus about this matter is not, in my view, important. You are certainly free to disagree with this assessment, but I cannot establish any clear-cut rule about the use of this text in a situation where there is precisely no consensus about that use. Should there be edit warring, then that is exclusively the responsibility of those who engage in the edit wars, and they should be sanctioned appropriately. Sandstein 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You said you're not familiar with WP:Legality of Israeli settlements. But the second sentence in the opening of the RfC states that "The basis for inserting this boilerplate language is this so called consensus." where the link goes to WP:Legality of Israeli settlements. Have you not read the whole RfC proposal?--Frederico1234 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I have, but the content and authority of that page (to the extent it has any - it is not labeled as a guideline) did not strike me as particularly relevant for the purpose of closing the discussion, for the reasons given in my reply of 18:47 above. Sandstein 19:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Sandstein, FYI, the previous consensus was established after discussion here. An administrator reviewed the case here. His conclusion was that "I am of the opinion that the wording per Proposal 2; "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." has consensus, and secondly that there is consensus for it to be included in all relevant articles". --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I've addressed this in my reply of 20:08 above. Sandstein 20:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Sandstein, in addition to the concerns in the comment by Frederico above, I have some questions about the RFC itself. WP:RFC lays out the requirements for an RFC, among them being that it [i]nclude a brief, neutral statement of the issue. Is it your opinion that the opening statement was either brief or neutral? And if not, does the lack of such a neutral tone to the very opening of the discussion in any way affect your decision? The next question is one of having been properly advertised. No notice was placed at any of the relevant Wikiprojects, which makes some of the comments made seem surprising in that accounts that had never been notified, on-wiki, of the page or who had never edited the page somehow found their way to this obscure project page within a day of the "discussion" being opened. The last is what "no consensus" means. WP:CONSENSUS says In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. That would mean that the past consensus, as determined in the RFC linked to by Frederico, would still hold, wouldn't it? Finally, if I might be bold enough to assume you may be open to some constructive criticism; the two RFC's that I remember you closing in the topic area, this and one on the most common term for Israeli settlements, both ended with no consensus. In your closing statement here, you acknowledge the likelihood that such a determination will not lead to a "satisfactory conclusion". Might it not be wiser to have as the result a directive to create a new RFC, properly set up and monitored by uninvolved admins, closed in a similar fashion as, for example, the Muhammad images discussion? Just booting it back to the people who have been edit-warring over this for years (ie us) cant end well. nableezy - 20:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is at least questionable whether the discussion I closed meets the requirements of a formal RfC. The opening statement was certainly not neutral, and I could not verify whether the other requirements were met. That's why I refer to the discussion as a discussion rather than a RfC. However, I consider that the discussion, which took place on the relevant project talk page, was long and broad enough for me to determine whether a consensus exists among interested editors about the question presented as outlined in my closing statement, so I am not sure that the distinction is of material importance.
As to the relevance of the "no consensus" outcome, the proposal under discussion can be read to (at least implicitly) ask for an editorial alteration, i.e., the systematic removal of the text at issue. I found that there was no consensus for such a systematic removal, and as a result of this, in accordance with the policy you cited, my closing statement did not call for any change to any article. I also found that there was no consensus for the systematic retention (or inclusion) of the text, and this finding also does not require any changes to articles - but it does open the way, in my view, to subsequent case-by-case discussion. In other words, a "no consensus" outcome means no consensus for changes to articles, but it does imply a change from any pre-existing consensus... in the sense that there is no longer one.
I agree (and did suggest) that a new, properly set up RfC might be more helpful than case-by-case discussion, but I have no authority to prescribe such an RfC. As an administrator, the most I can do is determine whether or not consensus exists for any particular proposal, and since a new RfC was not really the subject of the discussion I closed, I couldn't make any authoritative statement about that. However, all are free to set one up (I think this might have even been proposed here). To help make a new RfC more acceptable, I suggest that it should be set up jointly by two persons, each of whom is associated with one of the opposing viewpoints, and widely advertised. Sandstein 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw the suggestion, but I thought it would be better if it were more forcefully suggested. But thank you for the response. nableezy - 21:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Michael Brown
Re this edit, Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident has appeared on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 8 every year since 2007. I'm not saying that by dint of this reason alone, it should be allowed to stay, but this was not just a salacious incident, like that female astronaut who drove across the country to confront her lover; it was a major international kerfluffle at the time so I would say that your assessment that "it is not of 'of moderate to great historical significance'" is incorrect. Furthermore, BLP doesn't say we can only say nice things about people; it says that negative statements about living people must be properly cited. This article being an FA, I believe we have passed that bar. Lastly, I would like to point out that July 8 has very few eligible articles (5, after you removed this) so we are kind of in dire need of alternates. Regards, —howcheng {chat} 19:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I can't say that I'm very familiar with the practices of that part of the main page, but my view of the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist" part of WP:BLP is that Wikipedia should not focus on negative aspects of a BLP just to fill our headline requirements, so to speak. Also, from what I read in the article, it's just a criminal case that received big-time coverage in Japan, but there are hundreds of such cases for any given country; it's nothing of any readily apparent lasting (or international) significance: according to the article it didn't even have substantial effects on the US-Japan relationship. I think that the Main Page can survive with only five entries in that box for one day. Sandstein 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
What Purpose is Wikipedia serving?
My pages were deleted for the reason that Wikipedia is not Autralia Immigration department site, while there are a lot of Visa pages doing rounds on wikipedia, besides I wanted to ask a question.
IS WIKIPEDIA a Terror Mouthpiece for carrying pages like Babbar Khalsa and tribute to terror head like Bhindranwale. Operation Bluestar has been represented with terror outfit's viewpoint while the right information is always truncated from these Pages.
If Wikipedia is not a Immigration website, then it must a terrorist organization supporting platform.
EXPLAIN..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free pretender (talk • contribs)
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 05:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Kinetic Rain
Re this edit I understand your concern about the verifiability of the source in the context of the Kinetic Rain Article. The Cnet Article I suggested instead of the Jakarta Times version indeed doesn't have so much detail, but at least the information there is true. Before the Jakarta Post article gets corrected, it would be preferable to correct the addressing of the work. Another source that could be used is [2] at Asia One]. This article does not contradict the Jakarta Post article's error, however, as it doesn't address any person specifically to leading ART+COM studio. Art+Com is not Jussi Angesleva's (that is me) design studio. To verify the fact that this is the case, a reference to ART+COM and it's management can be found here. I hope we can correct this factual error to keep the quality of the article. --Jangesle (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, just to make sure that we do not report factually incorrect information, I've removed the information that you say is false. If you are associated with Art+Com, it would be helpful if the firm would publish more detailed creator information on its website, which we could then use as an (albeit primary) source. Sandstein 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi , as I respect some of your complicated closes I have seen , I mentioned you as a possible uninvolved third closer - if you feel to rule yourself out, or in for any reason please do - Youreallycan 06:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for considering me, but I've expressed a clear opinion in the prior RfC and therefore can't serve as a closer. Sandstein 06:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah ok - thank you - Youreallycan 06:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Question
Hello. Although I don't agree with your closure of the "Old Fooians" discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 2, thank you for taking the time to read through the discussion and come to a decision. One thing about your closure confused me. You said that further discussion can be carried out at an appropriate forum. Do you have any idea where that might be? Because I have no idea. I originally discussed this at WT:CFD, but was told that that was not the right place to discuss it, so I took it to DRV. Is there anywhere else I can take this? Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry, I don't know either. I assume CfD is the right place insofar as you seek a discussion about specific groups of categories as opposed to a wholesale reversal of the deletion discussion. Or maybe an RfC on the appropriate project talk page. Sandstein 11:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
OK. Thanks anyway. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, here is your content in its entirety: "A beach bunny is a general Americanpopular culture term for a young woman who spends her free time at the beach. In surf culture it may also refer to a female surfer. Beach bunnies are known for the amount of time they spend sun tanning and are usually represented wearing bikinis. Beach bunnies from the 1940's The beach bunny was a character represented in many movies, like Annette Funicello in Muscle Beach Party, or the movie character Gidget. Gidget was also played on television by Sally Field." Sandstein 16:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit | c 17:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Apology
Hello Sandstein,
While editing using a mobile phone, I was looking at my watchlist. Something else came up and I put my phone into my pocket. Inadvertently, I hit "rollback" and removed a comment made by by Jenks24 on your talk page. This was an unexpected mistake as I was not even taking a look at your talk page at the time. I regret this error, and will leave it to you to restore the material as you see fit. My apologies. Cullen328Let's discuss it 19:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Regards, Sandstein 17:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Inline-twin engine - Please Userfy
Hi Sandstein,
Thanks for closing the AfD for Inline-twin engine. While your decision to delete was the right one, there was a lot of good information in the article that could be merged into one or more other articles. Could you userfy the article for me? Although others have more expertise in the subject matter and could decide what info to merge into other articles, could we use my userspace as a base of operations for more knowledgeable editors? Or would it make more sense to userfy it into one of their userspaces to begin with? Thanks for your help. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I see you were the creator of this template. Would it be possible to add a field to display a caption underneath the chart?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably yes, but I am not a template coding expert, I basically only translated the template from the French original. You may want to ask the original author, fr:Utilisateur:Argamea, or a more technically minded editor. Sandstein 17:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Oops I meant GloZell Green. Till I Go Home 11:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's been deleted 3 times through CSD, so the AFD was therefore confirmation by the community. DRV did not overturn it - as such, I'd say that's pretty serious prejudice towards re-creation. That said, someone suggested incubation - try building a valid WP:USERSPACEDRAFT that meets all the criteria, plus beats the arguments in both AFD and DRV. Then check with someone to see if it's ok (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Sandstein. Till I Go Home 17:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, could you clarify how your closure addressed the new sources not in the AfD? My reading of the discussion was that there was tentative consensus that the new sources (not found in the AfD or article) were sufficient. At least I didn't see any arguments to the contrary. Your closing statement didn't address those sources. This could be relevant to any future G4 arguments, so I'd ask that you clarify if A) your close was addressing only the original AfD closure or B) your close took into account the new sources and you felt the discussion leaned toward not accepting those sources (or C, some other option or combination thereof). Sorry for the delay in bringing this up, been on vacation Thanks. Hobit (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
My closure of which discussion? Sandstein 05:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the DRV of Glozell Green. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, it would be appreciated if you would provide links to pages you wish to discuss: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 June 24. To which new sources do you refer, the ones provided by Uzma Gamal? I did not specially take them into account because they are new information and could therefore have no bearing on whether to overturn the AfD closure as incorrectly assessing consensus based on the then-existing discussion. That was the question presented in the request for deletion review, and discussed by the earlier participants, whereas the entirely separate question of whether the topic is now notable based on these new sources was only addressed by three or four editors. But if these sources are new and substantial (which would need to be verified: one randomly selected one among those billed as "substantial new information" is nothing but a mention of the person in a long list of marriages), they can be grounds for recreating the article without risking a G4 challenge. Sandstein 14:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Given the above context I thought I link would be overkill, but I'll keep that in mind in the future. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the AFD of Richmond Fire Department. I made comments but did not support "delete" or "keep". I did write that I hoped the administrator would not write the stark comment of "the decision is delete" without a more detailed explanation. Auchansa (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Shuai
Good on you for making that article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Korra (Book 2) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Parent5446☯(msgemail) 15:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Question
why did you delete the article of list of areas under the the rule of the syrian opposition,it was so benefitional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 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 06:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response Article
Hi Sandstein. I would like to re-create the previously deleted article Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response. Although I completely agree with your reasoning to delete it, I feel that it is a notable subject regardless of its validity as a scientific concept and could be rewritten in a fashion that would focus more on the Internet community surrounding it. It seemed that the original article tried to define it as a medical phenomenon and supported these claims with original research, though little to no actual research has been done on this subject yet. Many who supported its deletion feared that the article was simply trying to promote a neologism. However, I think that we should look at this as more of a meme than a pseudoscientific concept. The online "ASMR community" has become quite huge and would be a notable subject itself. If the new article can clearly state that "ASMR" is not a valid scientific concept and include only content that can be verified, I believe it would satisfy all notability guidelines.
Perhaps we can take influence from the ghost hunting article. It does not try to prove the existence of ghosts or provide any scientific basis behind it, but instead focuses on the activity and community of ghost-hunting and has done so without using original research. Ghost-hunting is a large notable community centered around an unproven concept, and I see ASMR as a similar example of this.
That could work, if there is enough substantial coverage in reliable sources about this topic as a meme or internet phenomenon (as opposed to a medical condition). You can write a draft article in userspace about this, and then ask at WP:DRV for consensus to move it to main space. Sandstein 06:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You recently closed an RfC with an arbitration for the above user (here [3]). You noted that Wtshymanski had not edited for a number of days an as such intervention was not necessary (with a note that administrator action could be requested if no change occured should editing recommence)). Unfortunately, Wtshymanski has returned from whatever sojourn he had embarked upon, and has continued pretty well where he left off (this in just 5 days).
There is however, a new transgression that needs to be added to those contained in the RfC. Wtshymanski has taken to deleting comments made on article talk pages left by myself that he disagrees with (and not all are responses to him). Examples are here [4] and here [5]. I know that this is a flagrant violation of the rules in its own right ([[WP:BLANKING if I have got it right).
I must now therefore request administrative intervention. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Following from the above, I reverted my comment in Talk:Mobile phone with another response to the blanking. Wtshymanski has now blanked both comments (here [6]). I note that since my comment was a warning over his behaviour, and that User:Andy Dingley has voiced a similar warning, he only deleted my comments. I must therefore conclude that Wtshymanski has started a personal vendetta. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I've replied on your and Wtshymanski's talk page. Sandstein 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I take your point. One of the problems with Wtshymanski is that he is so exasperating. It started with a simple warning over current behaviour referenced to your adjudication. If you read the RfC (silly me: of course you did), one of the major complaints is that it is impossible to discuss anything with Wtshymanski. He is right and no one else's opinion matters. Deletion of other's opinions is his way (though he has never done it in article talk pages before). This frustration inevitably boils over into responses. I am not alone with this frustration. The RfC was started by another editor with similar frustrations.
Thank you for your intervention anyway. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Bei Bei Shuai
On 19 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bei Bei Shuai, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Bei Bei Shuai, a Chinese immigrant to the U.S., is charged with murder because the child she was pregnant with died as a result of her suicide attempt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bei Bei Shuai. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bei Bei Shuai until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 09:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Closed. But I would suggest moving the article to Prosecution of Bei Bei Shuai or something of the sort, to avoid the BLP1E issue. -- Ynot? 13:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think that BLP1E is a matter of the title, but rather, of the subject; but if others think it best to move it I'm not opposed. Sandstein 13:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages
Dear Author/Sandstein
My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and Why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Forensic Facial Reconstruction. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.
Hydra Rain (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The Legend of Korra
I replied to the RfCs although I see no consensus in any of them so far. The replies seem pretty split on to keep both books or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution! The RfC runs for thirty days (or until contributions stall), so there is still time for a consensus to emerge. Sandstein 07:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required. However, I invite Wtshymanski to take the concerns voiced here under serious consideration. Administrative action may be requested if the conduct that has been the focus of this discussion continues."
He is back, he is continuing the behavior the RFC/U was about, and added a new one: deleting other user's comments from talk pages (and being blocked for same). Is it possible to re-open the RFC/U? If not, I plan on opening a new one, which will involve a lot of editors saying what they said before all over again. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what purpose reopening the RfC could serve - as you say, opinions are not likely to change substantially. My opinion is that the RfC is a sufficient basis for imposing escalating blocks in the case of continued noncollaborative behavior. Sandstein 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If I may say so, I'd refrain from making comments like this one; they can be read as taunting a blocked user. Sandstein 08:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Point well taken. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Sandstein, you recently deleted a comment here from an IP address stating that it did not pertain to the issue at hand. Whilst probably true, it was yet another example of an editor who is becoming exasperated with Wtshymanski. Though the comment may not directly pertain, Wtshymanski's response is part of the issue at hand. Wtshymanski, as ever, deleted it without response ([8]), but the important point is the edit summary that went with the deletion where he described the IP editor as an "anonymous coward". That is clear abuse of a fellow editor who has every right to edit anonymously if he choses so to do.
I note that even during his recent enforced absence he was still abusing DieSwartzPunkt through his talk page (presumably the only part of Wikipedia he could edit). I am dissapointed to note that in spite of you making it clear that the block was partly because he had not taken the points raised in the RfC into account, that the complained of behaviour continues unabated. Indeed even since the block, Wtshymanski continues to peddle the view that he is in the right and that it is everyone else that is in the wrong - that has never changed, though he has modified this somewhat by claiming that others are out to get him (despite a total absence of evidence). See here ([9] - bottom of the talk page). He did eventually shift the out of order discussion to his own talk page, blanking the discussion from the article talk page in the process). For the avoidance of doubt, I raised the RfC in the first place but am currently 86.150.65.44 (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The comments that Wtshymanski deleted from the article talk page were his own. The crime is in removing other people's comments. I believe that it is right and proper for someone to remove their own comments once they have had a chance to review them in the cold light of day. The comments were wholly inappropriate to the article discussion and Wtshymanski (in this case) correctly removed them. I do not believe that removal of one's own comments is valid once someone has responded to them except by agreement with the responder, but that did not apply in this case.
Having said that, I do agree that the description of the anonymous IP editor was wholly unwaranted and out of place. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I just stumbled across Wtshymanski's history when I went to leave a compliment for him on his talk page for his work on an engineering article. It looks like you've been trying to keep the peace, which I very much appreciate. I think Wtshymanski has a lot to contribute, content-wise, and I hope we can channel his passion in constructive directions.
Good Day. I strongly disagree with the deletion of the article, as the band was among the pioneers of the power metal scene in US. As a new user right there, i should ask what can be done in order to restore it? If needed, reliable sources can be provided. Thanks in advance. --Hawk18727 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Good Day. I am able to prove that the band meets the necessary requirements. Shall i post the required information right there, or should i do it on the band's talk page? --Hawk18727 (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There isn't a talk page for Brocas Helm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) right now, and there shouldn't be one as long as there is no article. You can create a draft WP:STUB article with the necessary sources (formatted as footnotes per WP:CITE) in your user space, at User:Hawk18727/Brocas Helm Then if you wish I can give you my opinion whether the sources are sufficient. Or you can post them directly here. Sandstein 10:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Good Day. I believe that the band meets the next requirements from WP:BAND:
4. The band was highlighting several Keep It True music festivals in Germany and the Ragnarökkr Metal Apocalypse festival.
5. The band's first two albums, Into Battle and Black Death, were released by "Eat Metal Records", a prominent Greece record label. [1]
7. The band was among the pioneers of the power metal/epic metal scene in the United States. Now this one is pretty tricky to prove with external links, as there seem to be little indication of this on reliable sources, except for the occasional blog posts, etc.[2][3]. At some interviews, Brocas Helm is referred to as a cult band [4][5].
9. Though the point isn't as sufficient as the previous ones, two of the band's songs, "Cry of the Banshee" and "Drink the Blood of the Priest", were featured in the Brütal Legend videogame.
I think it's enough to consider the band as "Notable". I will sincerely appreciate your opinion on these sources. --79.111.199.46 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
OK. As to 4., you provide no source citations to the required coverage. As to 5., Eat Metal Records has no article and a Google search does not reveal why it might be an important label (e.g. for having many notable artists). As to 7., as you say, these do not appear to be reliable sources, but WP:SPS. As to 9., a video game is not a competition, and you cite no sources for this claim. On that basis, I do not think that we have enough material to reevaluate the discussion's "delete" outcome. But if you disagree, you can create a userspace draft and ask the community for its restoration at WP:DRV. Sandstein 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I thought that there were no sources needed for points 4 and 9, because the required information was in the articles themselves. Still, I don't think this will change your mind. I think I will create a deletion review, thank you for the help and for the adequate response. --Hawk18727 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Brocas Helm. 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. Hawk18727 (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of Socialphy.
Hello, About two weeks ago I created a wiki for a website call Socialphy and I noticed it was deleted 3 days ago. Can I have the reasons in order I can create a version approved by the wikipedia regulations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aponce5 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice one, you might be interested in adding more to First Position.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Wtshymanski
Sandstein. Sorry to bother you, but Wtshymanski is at it again.
He is once agsin deleting maintenance tags that 'he' deems inapproprate and is also edit warring (currently at 4RR over the issue). This is what the RfC was raisd for originally.
Rather than type it out again, the full story can be read as a new addition to the RfC (here [10]). 86.150.65.44 (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't use the RfC main page for threaded discussions. Use the talk page as per the instructions. And please obtain a user account for accountability if you intend to engage in longterm disputes with others. In the instant case I see a content disagreement but nothing warranting immediate administrative action. Sandstein 16:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I noted your reference to the instructions at the top of the closed RfC. The instructions state, "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section" (my emphasis). AFAICT, that is what seems to have happened (though I did not start the continuation). There is no instruction for starting it on the talk page. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. Would you please undelete VirtueMart. There was only one opinion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VirtueMart, hardly enough to get the right answer. If you run a Google Book search you can find numerous good-quality sources from which an article could be written. VirtueMart is probably the most popular cart system for Joomla. JehochmanTalk 21:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is being discussed above, at #Request to undelete the article about VirtueMart. I've asked the two AfD contributors to comment there, and if they agree that the sources cited there are sufficient, I'll undelete it. Otherwise this may need a relisting. Sandstein 21:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
All done
Took some work, but we've hammered it out. Provided you have no tweaks for the result summary, once jc37 moves his revised closing statement over and signs, all that's needed is your John Hancock on there and we're all set. I'm thinking that the result section can serve as the closing statement on the RfC proper; it includes a link to Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC/Closing statements, which seems as reasonable a place to move it to as any. — Coren(talk) 04:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Request to undelete the article about VirtueMart
It was deleteted for "Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or coverage to demonstrate notability". I suppose in this case it just means that the writer of that article didn't supply sufficient third party references because he thought that the provided primary source information is better than any third party information and nobody else volunteered to improve the article.
Adding notability shouldn't be a problem as a quick search at Amazon.de listed already 55 books about VirtueMart and a lot of other third party information is available, too. Another indicator that it is noteworthy is that a quick search in Google currently lists "About 92,400,000 results" for VirtueMart.
I would appreciate if you would undelete the VirtueMart article, so I can have a look at it and start to improve it.
I don't have the deleted article available, but I can provide a list including a number of third-party coverage sources.
Question: Where/how should I submit that? Post it in this talk page?
(217.88.63.238 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC))
Hi again,
I hope the following is sufficient and meets the requirements to restore the article:
Extended content
VirtueMart 1.x.x
PhD Michelle M. Griffin, Website Design Guide to Joomla! 1.5, Virtuemart & Extensions, CorporationGURU (2008), ISBN978-0982153710
Suhreed Sarkar, Joomla! E-Commerce with Virtuemart, Packt Publishing (2009), ISBN978-1847196743
Joseph Kwan, Joomla! VirtueMart 1.1 Theme and Template Design, PACKT PUBLISHING (2011), ISBN978-1849514545
Götz Nemeth: VirtueMart Der Joomla!-Shop (German), Franzis Verlag (2010), ISBN978-3645600781
Martin Blasczyk: Das offizielle VirtueMart-Buch: Online-Shops aufbauen und betreiben mit Joomla! (German), Addison-Wesley (2009), ISBN978-3827327727
Valérie Isaksen, Thierry Tardif, Joomla et VirtueMart: Réussir sa boutique en ligne (French), Eyrolles (2008/2009), ISBN978-2212124873
Jean-Noël Anderruthy: Joomla ! 1.5: Créez un site web et une boutique en ligne avec VirtueMart, 2 volumes (French), Editions ENI (2010), ISBN978-2746055308
Roberto Chimenti: Crea il tuo e-commerce con Joomla! & Virtuemart (Italian), Hoepli (2010), ISBN978-8820345488
G.J. Fierloos: MyStudy Virtuemart (Dutch), Duuren Media, Van (2008), ISBN978-9059403536
VirtueMart 2.x.x
Kerry W. Watson: Showme Guides Virtuemart 2 User Manual, CreateSpace (2012), ISBN978-1475144635
Martin Blasczyk: Das offizielle VirtueMart-Buch: Online-Shops aufbauen und betreiben mit Joomla! (German), Addison-Wesley (Sep. 2012) ISBN978-3-8273-2949-3
OK, I've collapsed the above and asked the AfD's two participants to comment here. Sandstein 17:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
All right, given that the two contributors to the AfD did not respond, I agree that the above sources are sufficient to overcome the deficiencies identified in the AfD, and have restored the article. If anybody disagrees, they can renominate the article for deletion. Sandstein 07:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with your choice to remove the list. Please understand that it took me some time to create it. I had not realized that it would have been that long; my sense is that a shorter list might have been more acceptable, and it bothered me when it came out so long. But I was wondering perhaps a stand-alone article for these courses, but not just for The Great Courses -- there are competitors now such as the Modern Scholar series. Wikipedia has all kinds of lists. What about a list of online courses, sortable by professors last name, teaching affiliation, course title, subject area, company. I myself would find that kind of information useful; I use material that I come across in these courses to help improve Wikipedia. Wondering what you think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello i need to know if you can give me back the wikipedia site /Socialphy ..
Please need your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialphy (talk • contribs) 20:07, 31 July 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 20:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
