User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/October

Niggerhead

I did not create Niggerhead to disagree with you. One is a disambiguation page, the other is an article. They should coexist.--Deeweee (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure if I can link it to you but if you search for niggerhead on google books and set the time range to before 1850 you will find countless cases where this word is used to refer to something other than a place, sometimes it's a ship, sometimes it's a shell, etc.--Deeweee (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just in case

Hello S. Last April you blocked KnowIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Subsequently this editor was banned by the community. Today, In going thru my watchlist I came across this IP 78.147.29.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While I am willing to AGF as the edits, so far, seem innocent I did want to make you aware of the bells that went off for me. The IP went right to tennis articles. Based on this [1] they clearly aren't a newbie. As I looked at this page Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of KnowIG I saw that the IP fits directly into one of the ranges used by K in the past. Now if this were just a blocked user I would be happy to wait until things go sour - and if they didn't then so much the better. But, since K is also banned I thought that I should report what I know ASAP. I am sure that you are busy so I know that you may not get to this right away. Also if there is a noticeboard that you would prefer me to report this to just let me know and I will be happy to do so. If I am in error for going too far with my conclusions than my apologies. In any event thanks for your time. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Update. Looks like others have been keeping their eyes open and the IP is now blocked so weneedn't take up anymore of your time. MarnetteD | Talk 00:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Userfy Request

Hi I am contacting you about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founding races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series (2nd nomination), which you closed as delete in 2009. I am planning on merging it and its sister articles (Invading races and Human races back into Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, significantly trimming it. Would you be willing to userfy it with attribution history? 18:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, but userfy where to? You didn't leave your username.  Sandstein  17:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed mass deletion of lists

Hi, I wonder if you would care to comment on the various "List of important publications in ..." (six topics) discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 1. It seems that your closing of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_important_publications_in_sociology is being cited as precedent for deleting many other lists. Without being able to see the deleted sociology list, it's hard to know if these cases really are similar. I suspect not: the sociology discussion seemed to imply that the list lacked references or clear inclusion criteria, which is not the case for all of the lists currently under discussion. Thanks for any advice you can offer. Jowa fan (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no strong opinions about that issue.  Sandstein  17:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, I just thought it was worth a mention. Thanks for replying. Jowa fan (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please look at

Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 17:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of RFC & Section

Hi there,

Clarification sought on the removal of the RFC and corresponding sectionh [2]

"Consensus is that the words "The Catastrophe" and "al-Nakba" should not be boldfaced because they are not alternate appellations for the subject of the article, but refer to a separate (albeit related) topic, the 1948 Palestinian exodus"

1. Twelve (of some 30) secondary sources were provided [3] to show additional names/alternate appellations. They were not discussed or addressed in any manner whatsoever

2. 'refer to' but are not 'the name of' a separate (albeit related) topic, which is 1948 Palestinian exodus

3. "known to ... as" is already synonymous with "... refer to as"

4. Although I asked several times, no one could point to a ruling in WP:MOS whereby a proper noun/name should not be afforded boldface because it refers to, but is not the name of, a separate article

Consensus was not reached in a manner that conformed to any actual WP guideline, nor were the provided secondary sources addressed ... talknic (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that these arguments did not sway consensus in your favor. On Wikipedia, we have to abide by a consensus outcome even if we do not agree with it.  Sandstein  07:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely the basis on which consensus is reached is critical

"Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles"

"editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense."

"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. " ... talknic (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

YOu gave a notice to a disruptive IP [4] regarding specific article, however it is renewed his "cleaning" operations [5] again, which in my opinion constitutes definition of vandalism. Wouldn't you are? M.K. (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's nationalist POV-pushing, which is not the same thing as vandalism. That's an AE matter and can be addressed at WP:AE; I've stopped being active in that though.  Sandstein  12:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the IP's edits, which are all related to nationalist POV-pushing, I've blocked it for 6 months.  Sandstein  12:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Need your opinion here as an uninvolved member

Hi Sandstein, Can you look into point 7 here as an uinvolved party [6]Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Ed and I have no interest in that, sorry.  Sandstein  13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I thought you might (if you feel) give feedback on the ineffectivenes of the current mechanism. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Kittybrewster.com

I (gently) resent it being labelled as an unreliable external link. I agree it is not a WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant, because it is self-published. Sorry for any offense. Nonetheless WP:BLP is clear: "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Self-published sources should not be included in the 'External links' sections".  Sandstein  13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Warg pinches my stuff without giving me the credit. See [7] and compare with [8] Kittybrewster ☎ 23:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Clipper Music Page deletion

Re the above deletion, just before deletion I added references from unbiased sources (south wales argus and guilfest) why were these not acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.83.175 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2011 (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  21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

sauce boat

	sauce boat
	please assume a faith, i was only trying to make it nice to read. :( :( :( Puffin Let's talk! 17:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I am certain your change to sauce boat was meant well. I just undid it because I thought that it was not an improvement as a matter of style.  Sandstein  17:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in sociology

Hi,

In the spirit of keeping standardization across articles, I'm asking for you to restore the article. Whatever sources that may be absent at the time, we have sources now such as:

• [9]
• [10]

Thank you and cheersCurb Chain (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced that these two sources (a university's English-language-only reading list and a selection of publications in Canadian sociology) are sufficient to be the basis of a list of the most important publications in all of sociology, from all countries and of all time. Even if they are, in view of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in sociology, this would allow you to rewrite the article based on these sources, but it is not a reason to restore an article that is not based on these sources.  Sandstein  07:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the article based on? Could I get a copy?Curb Chain (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the content. It has no sources or lead.  Sandstein  09:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Content from the deleted history of List of important publications in sociology (as of 2 June 2010, at 22:04)

Thank you. Ironically, some of the lists were like this, and kept. The article can be improved with sources, as they are out there. Would you restore it?Curb Chain (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. As I said, you can recreate the article on the basis of the sources you think are relevant, if you can do so without engaging in original research, but the previous unsourced article cannot aid you in that.  Sandstein  21:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How about the talk page, and histories? Are there any mentions of how the entries where judged for including?Curb Chain (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No, and I've redeleted the page which you recreated as a copy-paste of the old article. You cannot source an unsourced list by appending sources that do not (as far as I know) actually match the content of the list. That amounts to an intentional falsification of Wikipedia, as by doing so you make it appear as though the sources you added support the contention that the listed works are the most important in sociology, whereas in fact these sources list mostly or wholly different works. If you continue editing in this vein, you may be blocked from editing.  Sandstein  07:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In the other afd discussions, editors have raised that this is not a reason for deletion.Curb Chain (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Puffin Let's talk! 17:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  17:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion footnote 1

Hi Sandstein. You started Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 40#Encouraging compliance with the "seven full days" policy in September 2010. On 9 June 2011, footnote 1 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion was unilaterally added without discussion. It is being used by some users to justify routine early closures of AfDs.

Would you review the footnote's wording to see whether it complies with the "The discussion lasts at least seven full days" wording at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion and with Wikipedia:Speedy keep?

I see two options: removing the footnote or tightening the language so it cannot be misused and misinterpreted. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a description of early closure reasons in WP:Deletion process. I've changed the AfD page to refer to that instead.

A significant improvement. Thank you, Sandstein. Directing readers to the early closure reasons at Wikipedia:Deletion process is much better than introducing new criteria to the AfD page. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of important publications in sociology

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of important publications in sociology. 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. Curb Chain (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for An Anglo-American Alliance

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

hard to object to your editing

How can i object to your editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriedZeppoles (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

By letting me know what you object to on this page.  Sandstein  17:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR) page deletion

Well, I don't agree with the deletion of the Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR) page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Sensory_Meridian_Response The reason I say this is because: - Besides the scientific comunity hasn't explored enough of the phenomenon, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist; - I am ASMR sensitive and I only had the chance to finally know what was that feeling by exploring this theme and finding an explanation over here; - If any confirmation is needed to secure that ASMR is real, you can check on youtube.com (for example) and you'll find an "ASMR comunity"; - The fact that there is few research on this matter only makes this page more important to exist.

Most important of all, there will be a lot of people that, as myself before checking this now deleted article, will keep on not knowing what's going on with them or if that it even has a name.

I hope my opinion will help you to reconsider.

Thanks for the attention, Hugoalmeida86 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input. Unfortunately, when deciding whether to delete or retain articles, we base our decisions on Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, as described e.g. at WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE and WP:N. Your opinion does not take these criteria into account and thus is not a basis on which I can reassess my opinion. In particular, perceived usefulness is not sufficient for inclusion, see WP:USEFUL.  Sandstein  17:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin closures by Alpha Quadrant

Hi Sandstein. I've had prior history with Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs), after I asked him to cease making early closures. He has accused me of harassment, so I have stayed away from his talk page. Today, I noticed on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page that Alpha Quadrant closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination) as "keep". There is also a discussion on his talk page regarding his inappropriate non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.

Had I not had prior history with Alpha Quadrant, I would have reverted these two closures as being inappropriate. He is wikilawyering (WP:NACD says that it is often better for close calls to be closed by admins. It never says non-admins cannot close them.) and unwilling to own up to his errors.

This is reminiscent of my discussion with him at User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 9#Early AfD closures, where he was unwilling to cease closing AfDs early and User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 9#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad, where he refused to undo his inappropriate relist.

As an uninvolved admin, would you review these non-admin closures and see whether Alpha Quadrant should be restricted from closing AfDs owing to his repeated early closures, inappropriate relists, and inappropriate non-admin closures? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network until now. Cunard (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have undone the "Anti-Zionist" closure. I have reviewed the "Wife selling" closure and consider it correct. I cannot unilaterally restrict users from closing AfDs, but if you think that such a measure should be considered, I recommend initiating a RfC first.  Sandstein  19:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the Anti-Zionist AfD. I agree that individual administrators should not be able to unilaterally impose restrictions on users. I asked you to provide an uninvolved opinion about whether a restriction to end the controversies surrounding this user's problematic AfD closings would be helpful.

RfCs are a drain on time for both the initiators and the subject, so I am loath to initiate one unless it becomes absolutely necessary. I hope Alpha Quadrant heeds Flatscan's advice at User talk:Alpha Quadrant#Archiving of Early AfD closures and the community's advice about contentious closures. Cunard (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

Hi Sandstein. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Too bad...

I know making mistakes is human, like the one you made with Bank Tranfer Day. In ten days it shall show it was just a nice orchestrated soap bubble... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's not for Wikipedia to speculate about. But if it turns out to be a soap bubble, at least it will be a notable soap bubble, and if reliable sources say so, we can report that in the article.  Sandstein  21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Sandstein! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sandstein. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions regarding you comments to the "Magnetic Tower of Hanoi" article

Hello Mr. Sandstein,

In reference to your comment on the Magnetic Tower of Hanoi article, could you please explain:

• Single purpose account
• Conflict of interest account
  

Also - don't you expect third-party coverage later on?

Overall - do you think the subject warrants a stand-alone article?

Uri-Levy (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, respectively. I've offered my opinion about whether the subject warrants a stand-alone article in the deletion discussion.  Sandstein  13:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes about Articles for deletion/Hetek

Hi. After your note about Articles for deletion/Hetek I have checked user Nedudgi. You can do also. Nedudgi has contribution only in enwiki and huwiki. Nedudgi has been blocked for infinit time in huwiki. The reason is "harci zokni", which means sock puppet soldier. Since Nedudgi was the only one who suggested to keep article Hetek I have a question: Can reconsider your note? --Euty (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to reconsider, I've only relisted the thread. If you think Nedudgi is a sock puppet, you can ask for an investigation at WP:SPI.  Sandstein  11:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I accept there is nothing to reconsider. But I am sorry, that I do not think Nedudgi is a sock puppet. It was considered and it was proven in huwiki. So does not matter what I think or what you think. It was proven Nedudgi is a sock puppet and Nedudgi was blocked for infinit time in huwiki. It is a nonarguable proven fact. One can argue what should follow from it. Actually, that I do not know. Sincerely. Euty (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you would like me to do?  Sandstein  11:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing more, than read my notes. Since you have read them, I thank you for it. About the deletion let's see what will happen. Euty (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)