User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/October

Extending block of Gene Poole based upon email

18:13 . . Sandstein (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Gene Poole (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Personal attacks or harassment: continued harrassment per e-mail)

S;

Can I ask that you think more carefully about this? Not contesting the original block, I haven't looked at it yet. But email is a) off-wiki, b) hard to verify, and c) off-wiki.

brenneman 08:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I will undo my block if the veracity of the e-mail is contested by Gene Poole and the blocking admin, VirtualSteve, cannot credibly reproduce it. However, by this edit, Gene Poole appears to have implicitly acknowledged that he sent an e-mail with this text. If the e-mail was sent through Wikipedia's e-mail function, as appears likely, it did not happen off-wiki (in my opinion) and is grounds for a block.  Sandstein  09:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for taking the time to respond. - brenneman 22:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gene sent me a copy of his second email, and the first is still in deleted revisions on-wiki. I don't see that either of those rise above the normal venting that we allow a recently blocked user. He didn't threaten anything other than to take up a complaint that VS had abused administrator policy, though he did so in a fairly confrontational manner. We do try to give recently blocked accounts some slack on venting about the block. There was no real-life contact or real-life threat, and VS' initial block was highly problematic, though I agree that Gene was certainly acting disruptively and rudely at the time.

I would like to request that you reduce the extended block to time served. I'm going to continue trying to work with Gene on the civility problem. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, but I decline most firmly. By his latest comments and with his previous wikilawyering, Gene Poole has made it clear that not only does he not see anything wrong with his conduct, but that in his opinion, everyone else but he is to blame for what has happened to him. While it may be that "we try to give recently blocked accounts some slack on venting about the block" (although I'm not aware of any guideline to that effect), if an editor is blocked specifically for harrassment and attacks, I expect him not to continue with any behavior that may be reasonably interpreted as such. The e-mail he sent is just beyond the pale in terms of aggressiveness, rudeness and implicit threats, and in view of clearly-enunciated policies such as WP:CIVIL, I don't see why we should tolerate such conduct from anyone. I ask you to please not undo or reduce the block absent a clear consensus for this on WP:ANI.  Sandstein  20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, people don't even regularly get briefly blocked for talk page messages which are as confrontational as those emails. I agree that Gene is not in the right here. But VS's original block was improper in several ways, and you and he both are using these confrontational emails as an excuse to escalate the situation rather than calm it down. Arbcom has repeatedly spanked admins for escalating situations like this in the past.

I went back through talk page logs and so forth - Gene's half the incivility problem in this incident, counted by uncivil edits or personal attacks. The others involved were the other half of it. VS was on one side, and used admin powers improperly to affect the outcome. I don't particularly want to take him to Arbcom over it, as I think that's disproportionate, but he did something wrong here. Gene has grounds for being upset.

Gene also is outside the bounds of reasonable civil behavior at the moment, and I'm trying to figure out how to deal with that (letting him back on and then having him go back to repeating his previous behavior would be a mistake, I think). I've told him what I think about his behavor on his talk page and will continue to push that point there. But the blocks were inappropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not thoroughly looked at the reasons for the original block (because that was superseded by my new block) and at the conduct of the other users involved in the circumstances that led to the first block (because that is irrelevant with respect to the e-mail for which I blocked Gene Poole). I also fail to see how blocking a user from continuing to disrupt the project by his conduct can be viewed as escalation. I stand by my previous comments and note that (a) Gene Poole is free to make an unblock request, which he has not done so far, and (b) my extended block has so far been endorsed by administrators Lifebaka and Tanthalas39.  Sandstein  21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein, the circumstances behind the original block may be relevant. If it's true that Gene Poole's block was abusive, then his anger is more understandable, and his "threats" to pursue formal process become more of a simple warning. To consider an angry email to a blocking administrator "harassment" is a problem, as GWH has pointed out; I think I'm familiar with some of the same ArbComm cases as him. My opinion is that your block extension would not be supported by ArbComm, in spite of the fact that, clearly, a few administrators have expressed support for it. A few also supported Physchim62 and Tango as well, and they are no longer administrators. (I don't see a big risk to you, certainly not at this point, I'm just pointing out that having some admins agree doesn't mean it will stand.)

I agree with GWH that there is a problem with simply unblocking GP, due to his apparent difficulty in acknowledging his own civility problems, but your strong request that nobody unblock without a consensus on AN/I could get in the way of negotiating some resolution, which is better undertaken by a few involved. I suspect that GP may be amenable to some agreement that would satisfy all reasonable parties; however, if he simply waits out the block, he'll be back, perhaps with a vengeance, in thirty days, and there could indeed be formal process, which wastes everyone's time. Would you be amenable to some agreement on this? --Abd (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly amenable to reconsider the block in view of a reasonable unblock request. It's just that I haven't seen one so far by Gene Poole, or indeed any other reasonable response. Beyond that, I don't really see what there is to agree to.  Sandstein  21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. That's enough for the moment. --Abd (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Abd - we have connected positively before. I wish to note for the record here that I approve of your comment above which states ...If it's true that Gene Poole's block was abusive ... because it is fair and balanced. People, administrators and others will have opposing views on this situation. Indeed I note that GWH has a particular view and there are a substantial number of editors/administrators who have the opposing view and have commented clearly at the ANI thread as well as at my talk page that they support the initial block (and the latter extended block by Sandstein). I will also note that despite the comments made by GP and then reiterated by others; I actually have no personal dispute with GP. I have never come across him before a few days ago and I have no other past history that I am aware of with him. Indeed the history record at GP's page will show that I had warned a few days previously for inappropriate comments he had made to another editor (and only after I had repeatedly tried to calm the situation), and that in the current context he was warned only minutes before by a third editor again. In the case of my own first block I was not acting in dispute at any time but I was acting as an administrator who was watching an editor inflame a situation with what I saw was increasing incivility and attack. Further as soon as he interacted with me personally (indeed creating a dispute with me) I moved that material to my talk page and others saw the need to post to ANI (in other words I did not at any time react with my administration powers at all in relation to anything that GP said to me). It is because of this history that so many others support the action I took. Thank you for space on your talk page Sandstein. Best wishes. --VS ^talk 06:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, VS, I'm encouraging GP to examine his own behavior. I have expressed no opinion about the original block, which may well have been within your proper discretion (whether "correct" or not). At this point, your block is irrelevant, the current blocking admin is Sandstein. I have expressed an opinion that Sandstein's extended block would probably not withstand close scrutiny, with ample ArbComm precedent, but, as I wrote to GP, "close scrutiny" is expensive, i.e., disruptive, taking up a lot of editor time. I have never initiated such process, because lesser measures have always been sufficient, when pursued patiently and with civility. There is a substance to Sandstein's action that is worthwhile, and if all parties will focus on the ultimate goal, the improvement of the project, I think we can find a path through this situation which will leave all parties in an improved position. That's what I'm arguing on GP's Talk. Here, I will point out that it would be a shame to lose the extensive experience and continued contributions of this editor over behavior that, once upon a time, might have been acceptable. --Abd (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

JR Writer

I'm trying to make a J.R. Writer Biography page but User:GlassCobra kept editing it and told me to take it up with you. He has a lot of stuff out and an accurate bio on All Music that we could reference. Neomerge (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your preferred version is a copyright violation of the Allmusic page. We are not allowed to use text copied from other web pages. Also, the article J.R. Writer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has already been deleted once. Please write a draft, using your own words and citing reliable sources, at User:Neomerge/J.R. Writer and then ask to have it restored at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  05:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Dead-end pages

I have nominated Dead-end pages (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. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

67.81.195.17

Hi Sandstein - not second guessing at all, but just wanted to mention this first attempt at explanation for the vandalism - I'll just say I'm skeptical about the sincerity of his second stab at it, but that's ok. Time will tell, and it's possible he'll rise to your challenge in a positive way. Cheers Tvoz/talk 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

blocking mksmothers

Blocking this account has caused an uproar with other admins and users. This user will simply come back in another form. We've lost another wikipedian to your pettiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.118.6.146 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ulteo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ulteo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see a DRV of Ulteo there.  Sandstein  15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion process update

Just to let you know that there has been a recent update to the criteria for relisting AFDs. You can see the full details at WP:RELIST. The main update is that relisting an AFD a second time should only be done in exceptional circumstances. I'm letting you know because you have recently been active in relisting AFDs. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

[1]? Squash Racket (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No.  Sandstein  19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1979 Mississauga train derailment

You obviously didn't check, but the version you reverted to is even more of a copyright violation. I changed a lot of the wording from the original source. Your revert also introduced many factual errors back into the article. Is a warning template even appropriate for something that was done 9 months ago? Get real. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When I stumbled upon the article back in January, it was still the copyright violation it is today (although I didn't know about any copyrights associated with the website), because no inline citations were provided. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that you're done assuming bad faith, we can actually discuss this. The solution is not deletion, but providing inline citations. Can we make a deal here? For now, let's keep the article the way it is, and I'll be restoring the content with proper ciations, and you agree not to delete the page. I'll have the page ready momentarily. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Citing sources specifically states that citations should be used "to avoid claims of plagarism and copying". Introducing cites to the article will take care of it for now, so that the page won't be deleted. And it would be regrettable if it was, because it's been around for so long, and is a notable topic. I'm not even close to finished with it, I just left it alone all that time because I had other priorities. But now that the issue of copyright has come up, I will fix that problem today, and maybe look for sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

MarkusKingJR

hello, my father's work has been notable in our family for the past 40 years, only 3 of his painitngs have ever been sold and this was for a very large sum. I feel the article is more than apropriate for wikipedia, I will be editing it regularly and adding on. Please get back to me asap

kind regards MarkusKingJR —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusKingJR (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please make these arguments at the deletion discussion page. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Renamed user 19

As I pointed out in the message, I only used the unblock template to avoid needless drama that might come up in an ANI thread. I've made numerous unblock requests on behalf of other users using the unblock template that have resulted in them being unblocked, but I try to make it a point to use ANI instead. So I understand if you wish to decline on that alone, but you are wrong in saying that I did not address the block reason. The only reason a block was placed on that account was because it was named User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0. The account has now been renamed, thus no reason to remain blocked. I pointed this out when I said "I'm asking that they be unblocked since the account has been renamed. No reason to remain blocked. " -- Ned Scott 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you're right in that regard.  Sandstein  06:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete Blossom Goodchild's wikipedia page?

I was curious as to why you had deleted Blossom Goodchild's wikipedia page on October 7, 2008. Is there a particular reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.36.33 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why did you delete her page? I would like to hear a reason... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollicerocks (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see above on this page, four sections up.  Sandstein  14:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Hi. Last month, you'd declined an unblock request of G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is now the subject of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_sanctions_proposals. I'd like to request for your input at that discussion. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Blossom Goodchild

Please restore the page immediately. She fills the notability requirements, she's in the news: http://news.google.com/news?&hl=en&tab=wn&ned=&q=Blossom+Goodchild&btnG=Search+News --Calibas (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see above on this page, six sections up.  Sandstein  18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is that the references don't count because they're mostly in jest. Why don't they count? It's notable enough that it's being mentioned in the news, it doesn't matter that they aren't taking it seriously. How serious the references are doesn't mean squat for Wikipedia's notability requirements. You also said the article doesn't follow the references, which doesn't mean it should be deleted, just the parts that don't follow the references. Please restore the page immediately. --Calibas (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of this is my argument and I'm not arguing with you. I recommend that you add references to reliable sources covering Goodchild in depth to the userfied version, User:Hoopes/Blossom Goodchild, and ask WP:DRV to allow restoration once you think the article meets WP:BIO.  Sandstein  18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Already has references to reliable sources AND it meets WP:BIO. The article I see at User:Hoopes/Blossom Goodchild never should have been deleted, just trimmed. Please don't hide behind the bureaucratic red-tape of DRV, you never should have deleted it in the first place. --Calibas (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Such arguments should have been made in the AfD. If you disagree with its closure, I recommend that you proceed as mentioned above.  Sandstein  19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Should have been made in the AfD? It's closed, had I known I would have. Fucking bureaucracy. Someone will recreated the page soon enough. --Calibas (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Small Industry Research, Training and Development Organisation

I've identified the source from which the Small Industry Research, Training and Development Organisation article was copied, and tagged it for a speedy. -- Whpq (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Put Blossom's Goodchild page back!

With love —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.215.132 (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

October 14th 2008

Why has Blossom Goodchild's information on wikipedia been deleted? 75.161.81.250 (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See various sections above.  Sandstein  20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Bümpliz-Oberbottigen

On 11 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bümpliz-Oberbottigen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

?Hi Sandstein, can you ask me why your user page is protected? I wish to make a edit.

By the way, I have one more question. What is move-protection? Reply to me on my talk page soon. MHLU (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your Question

I would like to edit a direct link to your user page on the German Wikipedia. MHLU (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A Deletion Oct 7th

Just wondering why the "Blossom Goodchild" entry was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.184.239 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blossom Goodchild.  Sandstein  20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see further justification for this deletion. The article had numerous citations to reliable, third-party news sources that made it clear that Blossom Goodchild was (and continues to be) the object of international discussion. If these are not evidence of notability, why not? If a bio page is not the appropriate kind of article, is there another type of article that would be more appropriate for the significant event of her prediction and its international media attention? I think it's clear that Wikipedia was providing a valuable service by providing users with ready access to neutral information. Would you accept the prediction itself (and its international attention) as "notable" even if Goodchild herself is not? Hoopes (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean the prediction that ETs will make themselves known on October 14th? We could just wait until then. If the ETs come, that will be notable. If they don't, we can see if anyone still remembers the prediction. On the whole, consensus was that coverage of her was not sufficiently in depth; in the few mainstream sources that were cites, it was generally limited to a joking mention of her predictions.  Sandstein  05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's going to be any doubt whether someone remembers the prediction or not. Google now yields about 36,000 hits, a number that's almost doubled in less than a week. IMHO, it is really her prediction of an extraterrestrial visitation and the response to it that's notable, not her. Whether ETs make themselves known or not will almost certainly become a matter of contested reality, much like the phenomenon of Marian apparitions that I mentioned in the original article. Goodchild has already entered into the folklore of UFOs and is unlikely to be forgotten, whether or nor the way that ETs "make themselves known" conforms to rational- or irrational-style expectations. (People will be claiming that ETs were visible, whether or not that can be empirically confirmed.) One way to interpret the references in the mainstream press is that they were "joking", another is to see that joking as a symptom of the discomfort with pop culture "wacko" beliefs that are a component of the general cultural phenomenon. I really was trying to keep the article objective, since I anticipated that many users (such as the one who left a comment) would turn to Wikipedia for some accurate information and links to relevant background. A technical question: Is the deleted article and its discussion page archived somewhere and can it be revived if the subject is deemed "notable". I think it's really important to be able to document that there was some objective discussion of Goodchild's prediction in Wikipedia before October 14. Hoopes (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to re-argue the AfD discussion here, but deleted content can indeed be restored if the reasons for its deletion are addressed. I can also move it to your user space where you can work on it some more if you would like to.  Sandstein  18:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please move this to article draft to my user space. (Is it possible for the discussion to stay with the article?) I would like to continue working on it and will consult with you regarding the issue of notability as the draft progresses. If I can get it up to your standard for approval, I'd like to have it undeleted. Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. You'll find it at User:Hoopes/Blossom Goodchild. I think if this lady or her predictions get some decently in-depth coverage (not just passing mentions or one-paregraph notices) by a reliable news medium, preferably in English, and you can reference that, the notability issue will be addressed.  Sandstein  21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The Google hit count is now over 40,000 and climbing rapidly. It would be nice for a responsible journalist to take an interest in the story and do some of the necessary background work. There is a lot of biographical information from Goodchild herself on her webpage and her blog. I imagine there is also some in her books and spoken word recordings. However, those are not reliable, third-party sources. My guess is that people are waiting to see whether or not anything happens on October 14. That's bizarre to me, since I think the real story is not whether or not the ETs appear, but how many people in addition to Goodchild seem to believe in both channeling and the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation, neither of which is likely to be definitively proven even if thousands of people report an ET apparition. The "notable" nature of this is the unfolding of a hotly contested reality in multimedia on the web and pop culture. Also, the way the web has made this an international cultural phenomenon. Hoopes (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Still no major news media coverage other than The Daily Record, a supermarket tabloid in Scotland, which announced that betting on the October 14 event has been suspended due to high figures (and long odds). Hoopes (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand! ... this is such a remarkable event what is going on with October 14 that I can't believe you guys errased it. Specially soooo close to this date and you guys errased it.

Sounds even as a conspiracy to discredit Blossom... and if that wasn't the case you guys aren't helping.

It certainly wasn't ever my intention to discredit Blossom Goodchild, only to provide a balanced, informative article that would to help readers decide for themselves. Most of what has been published about her is extremely biased in one way or another. I think Wikipedia could provide a valuable service by providing an objective, reasoned appraisal within the context of other relevant information. I also think it's possible to navigate a middle ground here even when the sources themselves are biased and unreliable. Mediumship has an ancient history, and many major religions have had key events that involved communication between humans and supernatural (i.e. "extraterrestrial") entities (gods, angels, spirits, ghosts of ancestors, etc.) Whether or not these communications have "actually" happened or whether prophecies are "real" is irrelevant to their significance. They become a part of common folklore, mythology, tradition, and history whether there is agreement on whether the events happened as described (and fervently believed or adamantly denied) or not. Hoopes (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If the ETs come it would be smething without precedent and if they don't come it would imply that an "insignificant" human being like Blossom Goodchild was able to influence and move at least 1/4 of humanity to join together to express hope and love to all 4 corners of earth. Thing that NO ONE on earth has ever been able to do. If that is NOT remarkable then please define what "remarkable" is for Wikipedia please ... I can't believe this seriously! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.103.24 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The standard for Wikipedia is not that someone is "remarkable" but that they are "notable". Hoopes (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added some additional references to User:Hoopes/Blossom Goodchild, including one from an article today in The Herald Tribune. I hope this meets your criteria for restoring the entry. Blossom Goodchild has already entered Internet and bookmaking folklore, even if the extraterrestrial spaceship never appears. In your own words, "I think if this lady or her predictions get some decently in-depth coverage (not just passing mentions or one-paregraph notices) by a reliable news medium, preferably in English, and you can reference that, the notability issue will be addressed." Please restore this entry! Hoopes (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with it if you move the article back to main space. In my opinion, the new sources address the AfD's concerns ... barely. But I've no special authority in the matter. If you move it back, you may need to argue with others who may consider the references insufficient. If you want to be sure, you may ask the community's opinion at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  20:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, especially the "barely" part. However, I'm prepared to make the arguments and I'm confident they'll be convincing. BTW, thanks for your help and patience. I do think this has been a worthwhile experience! Hoopes (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I need your help. The talk page for the Blossom Goodchild article was deleted (without comment) and I don't know how to restore it. Can you tell me how to do that? Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to unblock request

I am a bit baffled by your response to my unblock request ([this diff]), which was made over two hours after the block in question ended and was already moot, where a decision to sustain or overturn the block would have had absolutely no effect. I appreciate your interpretation of the arbcom ruling, however consensus of multiple uninvolved admins shows that I am not the only one who disagrees with the block or your interpretation of its justification. Most importantly, it seems rather difficult to read a response to a claim from an involved admin, User:Jc37, justifying the block on the basis of a false accusation of my demanding someone's desysopping as being in bad faith. I would hope that all editors, and especially administrators, would be held to the same civility expectations as all other editors. Your use of this as justifying the existence of a block that had already ended is entirely unjustified. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did not notice that the block had already ended. As you say, the question appears to be moot now. What you say, though, does not change my assessment of the block.  Sandstein  05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

deletion of 'World Security Forum

Hi Sandstein, you recently deleted the article i created, 'World Security Forum'. I would like to access the text to make various edits, with the hope of re-creating the page and adding further references. Are you able to reinstate the original content onto my Userpage please? Or if not, please can you tell me which Editor can help with this. Danke. Sherazade10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC).

I userfied World Security Forum at User:Sherazade10/World Security Forum.  Sandstein  13:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! 80.227.107.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC).

Bar Jonah Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathaniel_Bar-Jonah&action=history

There is a guy who's been banned from editing for a week who continues to mess with this article claiming the sick ---- is a "war hero" his ban ended today and he's back to messing with the article.

It's an IP but I'd say ban it...He's going to keep doing this everyday until his IP is gone. He's done it before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean blocked, not banned; see WP:BAN. 72.74.249.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has never been blocked. I see insufficient disruption to warrant a block.  Sandstein  13:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosherat

Could you restore Kosherat. I was never notified of the PROD on the article and was never able to put any sources on the page. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosherat is already restored, it seems.  Sandstein  13:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Victor Tognola

Hi, I was wondering why my article on Victor Tognola was deleted. Thanks Max Maxnex (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Victor Tognola

Hi, further to my previous post, I notice that you say it was "Blatant Advertising", I'm not sure why you decided this so let me know.

If you mean regarding his past present works, that is the same as someone writing about an author and the books they have published, likewise the mention of all the awards Victor Tognola has been given for his work, there are Hollywood Directors and Producers that would give their eyetooth for half of these awards. Again no selling, advertising or whatever was inferred in any way shape or form.

The mention of some of the companies was to give scope to his work and capabilities, but again this would seem like its not possible for a actor to mentioned the films they have appeared in, likewise a director producer to mention the names of the works, works or companies he has worked for.

If you regard the reference to his company, again any mention about Bill Gates always has a mention of Microsoft inside, therefore is that not advertising or only an indication of the capabilities of the person of the article (not that there were no links to any product/website inside the article I placed up).

Anyway, if there is something you take umbridge too, let me know so I can put it write Maxnex (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was written in an overly promotional style, giving rise to the suspicion that it was intended as promotional. Please tell me - are you in any way involved with Victor Tognola?  Sandstein  13:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion-- Requesting Review for MapleStory iTrading Card Game

Last I check, there was no debate. A couple people walked in and looked at it briefly made a post and then went on their way. I did not see any proof of non-notability. Even when you posted your deletion summary it only mentioned that scribeofages post was invalid. I see why it was invalid but I don't see what that has to do with why it was deleted. Since this was supposed to be a debate and NOT a vote! --Deretto (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason that I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MapleStory iTrading Card Game as "delete" was that the "delete" arguments were more persuasive under our policies and guidelines. It was not just a vote. I said that "ScribeOfAges's opinion is discounted per WP:WAX" because that had an influence on the outcome: had he made a good argument, the discussion might have been closed differently.  Sandstein  15:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

that wasn't the entire post though. He had made it clear that he had just posted the page. More then likely said page was very incomplete at the time of posting. Sure, he should've posted a complete article to begin with. What about the points that I made? I replied to every poster in that discussion. What I had said seems to never have been taken into account seeing as how those who posted never came back to reply. Furthermore! Scribeofages should've been informed of his invalidated argument. No such warning was given. Users, such as myself are new. Though I have taken the time to read the rules and formats as I go a long there's a still a lot I don't know. Still, I digress, it should be a point to tell users when they've made an invalid portion of their argument before discussion was closed.--Deretto (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, that's not how we work. I can, though, restore the article to your user space if you want to continue improving it. Once the notability concerns of the AfD are addressed, you may then move it back to article space.  Sandstein  20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will just lay it out here why I proceeded the way I did. You may not care, but that matters little as you took the job to delete the article. First I am pretty new here, I have only 1 other article and I have never edited anything before. The only reason I come here is because I am looking up info on topics that I have interest in, when I didn't see it then I decided to try and make it. I have next to no knowledge of how wikipedia works (code wise), I am an HTML web coder only. I am use to saveing a page after edits to see how they appear on the web and continue from there so I don't do a lot of work that has to be redone. Had I known that someone would have swooped in withing seconds of saving the page to delete it, I would have added more before saving the page. Second, in regards to the delete topic, it took me a couple days to even figure out how to post a response. Besides the fact that you only centered on one of my 2 points in my response, there was a post that made it sound like you could only respond once in the official Wikipedia manner. At that point I felt stopped, that I could not respond with a better response because I had already responded. I mean if I thought I could have responded a second time, I would have said something to the fact that "It is an up and coming game gaining momentum and branching out into multiple countries. It is the first from Wizards of the Coast to create a direct gaming link between ccg to mmo." I hope that was a satisfactory response since you invalidated only have of my original response. ScribeOfAges (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you found the involvement in our deletion process unpleasant, but what I said was not directed at you personally. Opinions that do not address the points that matter under our inclusion rules, such as WP:N, are routinely given little or no weight in closing, whether they come from a new or an experienced editor. Your additional response would also have been discounted because it does not address what matters per WP:N - is the subject of the article covered in reliable sources?  Sandstein  13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So if I understand this notability thing correctly, it has to be in print to be notable? (Which as a side note I find rather funny being this is an exclusively online community encyclopedia). If that is also the case one has to prove where it was? Well I can't remember when the exact dates were, but this topic has been covered in at least two magazines that I have heard of. Can I produce these? No, because I don't buy these magazines. Am I trying to put useless "junk" on Wikipedia? No, next to these two things that I have added, I have no real use for Wikipedia. It is a pretty big deal for a major company to release a product with the interactivity it has across mediums. It was their first step into the water that has and will lead the way for more games of this type from them. So you tell me exactly how to prove this nobility. On a side note I read a lot of the deletion pages and such and I find a recurring theme that deletion is suppose to be a last resort. I was originally given a chance to bring it up to standards and was still working on such, but then it went to this discussion which seemed to me that that chance was yanked from me. I guess you all do really strange things here when there are so many different people editing and such.ScribeOfAges (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScribeOfAges (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the sources need not be in print, just reliable. See generally WP:N. All material on Wikipedia must in principle have reliable sources; see WP:V. As I said above, I can restore the page for you if you would like to work on it further.  Sandstein  18:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as I said, you tell me how to do it. What are reliable sources? ScribeOfAges (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please click on the linked word "reliable" in my previous statement to find out. While you are at it, please also click on the following link and read the page that will appear on your screen: WP:N.  Sandstein  20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be honest, I have read that notability page about 7 or 8 times now and I still don't see where the real problem lies. Reading this makes me think that my article was pushed into deletion pretty quick: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." I guess I don't see how this process was properly handled. ScribeOfAges (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Boodles

Hi. Sure Boodles will benefit from couple days rest from Wiki. I hope he calms down and will modify his language. But how you would react to such accusations [2]? I just ignore it. But c'mon - Jayjg racist tagteamer? Wow. See my point? M0RD00R (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how I would react to this - except, of course, that I would not react to it with incivility or attacks. 21:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the rather hostile circumstances in which Boodlesthecat is editing, and the level of baiting directed at him (a factor which you ignored), his reaction does not seem all that bad. In my view, blocking an editor sometimes amounts to administrative disruption of the editing process, particularly if a warning has not been tried first. (I might also add that, since the issue does include an antisemitism factor, the symbolism resulting from Boodlesthecat getting blocked by a German administrator might have better been avoided.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not German (but would still have blocked if I were) and I have no sympathy whatsoever for antisemitism. But I am of the opinion that disruption is never justified, no matter what the circumstances, such as disruption by others (of which I was indeed unaware) or the nationality of the editors involved.  Sandstein  13:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein, as far as nationality, I can only go by what is say on your user page, and the resulting impression given by the block might have better been avoided.

I agree that disruption of the editing process does occur, but abrasiveness in an abrasive editing situation is not necessarily disruptive. I think you disrupted the process far more by the block of Boodlesthecat, than Boodlesthecat disrupted the process by responding in the way he did. I really think you over reacted. Of course it is not you only, but many administrators apply their authority in ways that harm more than help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and will only note that the block has been open for review on ANI, where it received one objiection, and that Boodlesthecat is free to make an unblock request to an uninvolved administrator.  Sandstein  14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. Boodlesthecat could

1. make another unblock request,
2. or send a letter to Santa Clause
3. or to the Tooth Faerie,
4. or the Great Pumpkin.

Based on my observation of many unblock requests, the last option would be as effective as the first.

My main point had to do with the disruptiveness of administrative blocks to the editing process. Clearly you do not agree, but I hope you will, nevertheless, give the idea some thought. (Sorry about changing some of the indentation, which was done only to separate responses.)(Likewise, sorry if I gave you hard time. I assume that you have acted only in good faith.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat repeatedly accused me of pronouncements (prefaced by, "in other words...") of increasingly virulent anti-Semitic content. He/She contends their paraphrasing was accurate. I contend it was a witch hunt to bait me into anti-Semitic contentions. Baiting goes both ways. Boolesthecat is, in my experience, the most hostile editor I have dealt with on WP. Hostility is not one-sided.—PētersV (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I supposed to feel sorry? Have you been harmed? Did this (supposed) wrong prevent you from continuing to edit? Or do you just want to get an editor you disagree with out of your way? (Please to not use Sandstein's talk page to engage me in argument. That is not fair to him.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Luisa Rennie

Hi I just needed to Google myself to see if my website was live yet, and I found an entry showing details of myself that has been deleted. Is there any way of finding out who added this page and when? It's quite weird someone did that! Thanks, Luisa Rennie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.181.98 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:Undelete/Luisa Rennie, which you cannot access, says:

"09:46, 8 October 2008 . . Guyrennie (Talk | contribs | block) (250 bytes) (←Created page with 'Luisa Rennie Born October 8 1973 Daughter of Jane and Alastair The middle sibling of five, three brothers George, James and Guy and one sister, Carla. Pro...')"

Please tell your brother to stop creating articles about you. They will just keep being deleted.  Sandstein  16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Exopolitics and US Congressional race

Wrote to you about this a few months ago, but have been out of the US and off-line.

I may want to work on a version of the deleted exopolitics article that would comply with Wikipedia standards.

Questions:

1) Can you put a copy of the deleted version in my sandbox at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jbuchman/Exopolitics&action=edit

I respectfully decline. Judging by experience (User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/June#Exopolitics), the only people to show interest in this topic so far are patent cranks, and I am not interested in dealing with them in any capacity any more.  Sandstein  18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Last month I put a delete review on the ACCA, a small "orthodox" church in Knoxville TN, to which I used to belong, and at which I remember discussions regarding a fear of being deleted due to a lack of notoriety. Three priests, maybe 20 members total. All newspaper articles cited in the review discussion written by one of their members. But resulted in a speedy keep.

By contrast the exopolitics conference in Washington DC had 400+ attendees, and the keynote speaker was Dr. Edgar Mitchell, sixth man to walk on the moon, PhD from MIT . . .

Not complaining here, just seeking to learn the difference.

I am considering asking for a keep/delete decision review.

Each article is considered on its own merits. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (3rd nomination) and the discussions linked to therefrom.  Sandstein  18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

2) Is there a deadline for doing that after a decision was reached?

No.  Sandstein  18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also, FYI, the Libertarian candidate for the US Congress in Utah's first district and have included exopolitical issues in the campaign. Would like to mention that at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Geddes_Buchman&action=edit&redlink=1

that is linked from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Utah,_2008

3) it is consistent with wikipedia policy for me to edit that page about my own campaign?

It is very strongly recommended that you do not edit articles about yourself; see WP:COI.  Sandstein  18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As there is a page here on Astrobiology,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology

it seems to me the redirect for those searching the term exopolitics might be better redirected there, or to the article on SETI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSETI

or to Extraterrestrial_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life

or even this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exopolitics_Institute —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbuchman (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Than to the currently, apparently malicious, redirect to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exopolitics

alternative rock album by muse.

4) What is the process for editing that redirect for exopolitics to one of the other articles above; or asking for a review of the decision to send it to the current article?

You should not easily assume malice on the part of other editors; see WP:AGF. You should propose to change the redirect target at Talk:Exopolitics. If this proposal gains consensus, you may add the {{editprotected}} tag to the talk page and request an administrator to make the change.  Sandstein  18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It just seems to me given the other content on Wikipedia that an article on exopolitics that meets Wikipedia standards whould be possible (not to say the old one met those standards). Otherwise the assumption regarding political relationships within the context of astrobiology and the other subjects above, would have to be that said life is not capable of becoming conscious, or able to communicate with an others.

It is indeed possible, but such an article would have to pass Wikipedia standards such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. We do have bad articles, but that means these should be deleted or improved, not joined by other bad articles; see WP:WAX.  Sandstein  18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly new here and apologize for any misunderstandings or ignorance about the above.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

Jbuchman (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope to have been of assistance.  Sandstein  18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you can be of a bit more assistance:

One possible misunderstanding here, it is not my intention to ask for a deletion review regarding the original exopolitics article (I've never seen it, and assume it must not have complied with Wikipedia standards, so would not request a review of the delete decision), but of the keep decision regarding the ACCA. It's not clear to me if keep decisions are also appropriate for review or how to go about it. But it is clear that that the article on this organization does not meet Wikipedia standards at least as I understand them at present.

I've read the comments on exopolitics, understand your impression of those showing interest at the time as cranks.

I'd hope to prove the exception to that. I'm sure you're not including me in that characterization, as I was not involved at the time, have had no part in it other than this request, and among other things hold an earned PhD in Mass Communications (Indiana University 1989), have visited both NASA's SETI project when it was at Ames, as well as mission control in Houston; am a published author, etc. Just back from seeing the solar eclipse in Mongolia August 1st. Life-long interest in the subject which sure seemed to me to be of serious interest by non-crank like folks at Ames and JSC. So may I likewise respectfully request you to reconsider this decision and if not, may I ask you what the process is, if any, for a review of your decline of this request?

Regardless, I gather I am free to work on such an article in a sandbox even without access to, or an attempt to revise the prior version. Is that correct?

If I've messed up here in how to respond to your replies, my apologies. I'm looking to get adopted and up to speed on the mechanics here as well.

Jbuchman (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well; I've provided you with a copy of what seems to be the least cranky and longest version of Exopolitics at User:Jbuchman/Exopolitics. Once you are convinced your improved version passes WP:N and other relevant policies linked to above, I suggest you ask permission to restore it to article space at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For taking stance on that. It's nice to know that there are still admins who believe WP:NPA is not completely dead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also tried to help, but... it's hard. Are you aware of this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that arbitration case. I personally find arbitration proceedings an utter waste of effort in most cases, and do not involve myself in them.  Sandstein  18:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on Victor Tognola, I have re-read my article and perhaps its a bit promotional which was not intended. I have only met Mr. Tognola once for less than five minutes at the Golden Drum awards last year so I did a bit of googleing on him and found that he is known throughout the film world but there was nothing on him in Wikipedia so I did some more research on him and came up with a hell of a lot of stuff and made my article.Maxnex Maxnex (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Georges Brunschvig

On 17 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Georges Brunschvig, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Boyd

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Boyd. I removed the prod, but was unaware that it had gone to AfD. AfD wasn't opened for 5 days, but closed already?? Shouldn't it be open longer, I haven't even had a chance to discuss it's merits. Nfitz (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears the closure was some 12 hours early. Sorry. I'm not sure, though, if your opinion would have made any difference as to the result, which was an unanimous "delete". What argument would you have made, had the AfD not been closed already?  Sandstein  05:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That the player plays in the top level of football in his country. Nfitz (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Bern Clock Tower

Hi Sandstein,

I work for a production company and I found your photo Zytglogge clockface detail.jpg. We are interested in using the photo in a documentary that will air soon on network TV. Please contact me at morgan.brave@yahoo.com for further information.

Thanks so much! Docugirl (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

List_of_codices

Yes it was good decision with moving notable codices to the List_of_codices, but what we shal do in the future? For now we have thousands of thousands of codices. Only manuscripts fo the Greek New Testament we have above 5 700. List of Codices can be only List of notable codices. I do not know what to do with List of New Testament minuscules because we have 2882 minuscule codices of New Testament. This list is too long for one article. The same story is with List of New Testament lectionaries (above 2500 codices). List of New Testament uncials - this list is complete, but it has only 318 codices! What we shall do? Several divided lists? I do not like that. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there are so many codices, the best thing to do would be to construct a system of sublists, such as:

List of codices

List of Old Testament codices

List of New Testament codices

... etc. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about the subject and wouldn't be able to help much.  Sandstein  06:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

ASR

Hi Sandstein - re this - I know about ASR, but the point of the dab page is to direct readers to the right place when they're looking for something, and so wp policies, essays, etc, should be included in dab pages when applicable - see Ban for example, and Vandal (disambiguation), and lots of others. I tried a different approach on Rouge, but am open to another approach if you see a better way to do it. Cheers Tvoz/talk 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I agree that your second approach is less likely to make readers believe they're being linked to an encyclopedia article. Still, I don't think that essay is important enough for a disambiguation link, but never mind ...  Sandstein  05:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, necessity is the mother of invention - I was looking for the essay and went to Rouge so I figure if I did others might too. By the way, someone else moved the hat to the top - I think it's ok now. Tvoz/talk 06:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD- go faster??

Hi, Sandstein.

I may be a rare instance of a user who was quickly convinced that an AfD article I created really ought to be deleted. I would have deleted it myself sooner. Is there a reason user's can't delete their own stuff after it is labeled AfD, a sort of courtroom 'guilty' plea?

Regards,

--WickerGuy (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You can. If you are the article's only substantial contributor, put a {{db-author}} tag at the top and it should be deleted. You should note this in the AfD as well.  Sandstein  21:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Prod deletion

Hi Sandstein,

With regards to your recent deletion of United States and Mexico football rivalry, I think you have made a mistake. First, the prod was placed on the article only a few hours before, and so didn't even have time to expire. Second, as can be seen from the last "good" version of the page, an actual article did exist, but was deleted when the placed the prod. I'm guessing you forgot to check the history before deleting, and didn't realize that an actual (though admittedly far from great) article actually did exist. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 01:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have undeleted the article because its PROD deletion is contested. The PROD tag carried a falsified timestamp, making it appear on WP:PRODSUM.  Sandstein  21:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

List of wealthiest people by percentage of GDP

You closed the deletion discussion for the above article as "no consensus". Yet the list is factually incorrect: The person listed as no. 2 is not the person with the second highest wealth by percentage of GDP, and Bill Gates, listed as no. 5, probably doesn't even belong in the top twenty (because the US GDP is so large that it's easier for citizens of smaller countries to own sizeable portions of their country's GDP). The list can't be easily improved either because I simply don't know who's the second richrest by percentage of GDP (the Prince of Monaco is a likely candidate, but there might easily be others). What course of action do you suggest? For now I've tagged it as {{disputed}}, but I doubt the list will see any improvement due to a lack of sources ranking people by the percentage of GDP they own. Huon (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If the list is erroneous and cannot be easily corrected, I suggest that you add an appropriate cleanup tag, such as {{expert}}.  Sandstein  21:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; I've done so. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I don't expect any improvement, and I'm a bit bothered by this demonstrably false information. Huon (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas_Kuzhinapurath

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Kuzhinapurath

The article is back, and this also might be created by another puppet. --Shijualex (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bitte kurz um Hilfe

Hallo Sandstein

Ich will Dich nicht groß aufhallten den ich weiß ein Admin hat keine Zeit.

Ich wollte 2 Artikel einstellen. Einmal unter CB Radio (Modern tools for radio operators) Und das andere Thema war eine neue Seite: QRZ11

Beide wurden gelöscht. Ich habe versucht die Themen umzuschreiben doch weiß ich nicht ob sie euren Ansprüchen entsprechen. Ich möchte nicht dass diese Artikel wie Werbung klingen. Ich habe auch Wiki „wieso, weshalb und warum“ durchgesucht. Meines Erachtens ziemlich kompliziert.

Um es kurz zu machen: Kannst Du mal ein Auge drüber werfen. Würde mich sehr freuen.

Mit Dank für Deine Hilfe im Voraus

Michael

1. Modern tools for radio operators

CB radio has a long history. Like the problems coming with it.(Propagation and noise disturbances) There are still thousands of CB, Freebanders or 11 meter operators spread all over the world trying to get in touch with each other. Most important for a radio operator is to get the QSL information (Address) of the station he is talking to, so he can confirm and proof that he has been talking to this station/country. This is most important when the operator takes part in a contest. But that can be quite an issue especially when the propagation is very low. A radio operator normally gives the station he is talking to his address to receive a QSL card. Some radio clubs have a call-sign book with the operators name and his address. Now in the modern computer age there are databases and clusters for radio operators, helping them making it easier to get the needed information. Like QRZ.COM for Ham radio operators, QRZ11.COM for CB or 11 meter operators and CLUSTER.DK.

2. QRZ11

QRZ11.COM was founded in January 2007 by Michael Rudloff (V51RU). It is a CB or 11 meter band database and information/help-platform for all 11 meter radio operators from all over the word. This helps the radio operator when there is bad propagation, or any other disturbance interfere a nice QSO.

1000 Dank für die Zeit QRZ11 (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it that issue number one concerns this edit. Have you tried asking the editor who reverted it, Wtshymanski (talk · contribs)? As far as I can tell, the content was (correctly, IMHO) deleted because it was mostly written in less-than-perfect English and because it contained no references to reliable sources (that is, it failed our policies WP:V and WP:NOR). You might want to try it again while taking these policies into account. Your proposed text above would also fail because it lacks references to reliable sources.

I'm not sure what the focus of your concern is with the second issue. The article QRZ11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has never existed. Do you mean this edit? It was made to a sandbox page (see WP:SANDBOX) that is destined to be overwritten continually. I advise you, however, not to write an article about QRZ11 because it appears that you yourself are involved with that station. Under our policy WP:COI, you should not write about yourself or your organization. The proposed text above, moreover, would also be deleted under our rule WP:CSD#A7 because it does not say why this station is notable enough for an article.  Sandstein  19:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

UBS - I'm new here!

Hey I was just wondering if you would talk me through your reasons for changing the disambiguation on the bio I made for Marcel Rohner? I am new here, and it would be great to learn the ins and outs.

I was trying to keep them all the same for UBS guys by tying them in with (UBS AG) - only if they were necessary, see Robert Wolf (UBS AG). Is there a policy about this?

Also, I was planning on trying to edit in German - I picked UBS to edit as they seem to need German bios for all their guys too, and I do have an interest in European business in particular, being a design analyst it's interesting. Would you be interested in this edit? I think it would be fun to do it with someone else.

What do you think?

I thought I would finish the English versions first then attack the German versions.

It would be great if you were interested - my German is not native and although fluent, it is always good to have a native speaker on board.

Let me know!

Cat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catrandall (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I do appreciate most of your advice, and it's very helpful, thank you, but I would argue that Marcel Rohner is not a banker but a business man. He doesn't deal with banking per se? Wouldn't Businessman be a more appropriate title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catrandall (talk • contribs) 09:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Cat. Of course I'll explain my changes. I made them to make the article more consistent with our manual of style:

• Hatnote: For consistency, we use standardised hatnote templates such as {{otherpersons2}} in lieu of text such as "Did you mean Marcel Rohner?".

• Heading: Wikipedia articles do not begin with a heading. They start with a headerless lead section; see WP:LEAD.

• Dates: The linking of dates such as "September 04, 1964" is now deprecated; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates.

• External links: The title of external links in the "External links" section should be visible; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Link titles.

• Article name: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses, disambiguating qualifiers should be "a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand". We usually choose to use people's occupations such as banker or bobsledder because they are not very likely to change. However, Marcel Rohner may well soon change jobs and work for a different bank; the title "Marcel Rohner (UBS AG)" would then be misleading.

I'm afraid that I don't currently have time for a joint effort working on banker articles, but I'll certainly try to help if you need any assistance.

Best,  Sandstein  06:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockdetector

I don't see a good enough reason here to keep the article. We have to be careful in afds to check the verifiable of sources and disregard those for which verifiability cannot be establish as was the case here (the burden of proof being on the source). --neon white talk 12:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A link, if you please.  Sandstein  12:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)