User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Edwards and BLP

I am curious if you read the so-called source articles, Sandstein - do we now consider National Enquirer unconfirmed and uncorroborated stories as a reliable source? The articles quoted use the Enquirer as their source. No mainstream media have confirmed these speculations - I don't understand the rationale of including. Thanks for any enlightenment. Tvoz/talk 07:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are not using the National Enquirer as a source to claim that Edwards engaged in untoward behaviour. Instead, we report the assessment of reliable sources of the impact that the National Enquirer's allegations may have on his vice presidential bid. I don't see the problem, really, and neither did the 20 or so people commenting on the talk page.  Sandstein  07:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I just would encourage you to read the source articles if you haven't - I am not at all sure these sources are reliable. Doesn't look like any kind of reliable assessment - just speculation of the writers. Nothing from any campaign or anyone's staff. No interviews of anyone saying that they have knowledge that this tabloid story has hurt him. And I think that including in the sources the titles of articles that do specify the unsourced tabloid accusations (words like "love child" and "mistress" appearing in the footnotes) is problematic and possibly politically motivated. If there were some corroboration from anyone that he had been considered for VP and this has hurt him, that would be one thing - but I have not seen anything like that, and note the lack of US mainstream media coverage. Anyway, I won't belabor the point - but I want to go on record as being concerned about this and wonder why the recent Arbcom concern about BLP is not being applied here. Cheers Tvoz/talk 07:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted, but in my view, this is a straightforward issue of applying a clear consensus solution to an editorial dispute. WP:BLP prohibits us from including unsourced or poorly sourced contentious content about living persons, no more and no less. The Independent and the Times are pretty clearly reputable mainstream newspapers, i.e., sufficiently reliable sources. In this case, therefore, the issue is not whether the content we include is taken from reliable sources, but whether it merits inclusion at all on account of being speculative and recent news. That is not a BLP issue, but an editorial issue which must be decided on by consensus, as here.  Sandstein  08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK -I think including tabloid accusations in text and footnote is more than an editorial matter, and I do not understand how this gossip column can be considered even remotely reliable on its own or in its sourcing. I believe this whole thing is political - I do not mean your action, which I don't agree with but I think was done objectively. But the insistence by some editors on this being added at this particular time is what raises my concerns about political motivation. I hope you'll keep an eye on the talk page and the article. Now that the temporary protection was removed, your advice that only additional properly sourced material be used to change what you added, via the normal editorial process, has not exactly been followed. The article should probably at least have semi protection again as I believe it had before all of this happened. Tvoz/talk 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Paperbroke1

Someone declined this user's unblock, instead offering a {{2nd chance}} template, and he made some pretty decent change. Thoughts on unblocking? –xeno (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I just noticed he still used that opposingviews as a reference! heh. –xeno (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied at his talk. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Digitally Imported

Hi.

I was wondering if you could possibly make a copy of the deleted Digitally Imported article to a user subpage for me (say User:Twinzor/DI. I realize the page has been deleted via AfD twice already, but I believe it's a notable enough website to deserve an article (having an Alexa rank of 6386 as DI.fm), and I was hoping I could find something salvageable from the deleted content, and use whatever there is as a base to build on. If I manage to make an article I think would be good enough (and of course well enough sourced) to be included in Wikipedia I will go through RfC before moving it to main namespace. Kind regards, Twinzor (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  05:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Brugg Help

Hi Sandstein,

I don't know if you remember my little post on here back in April, but you had said that you'd be willing to help me if I needed it. I've been translating Brugg AG's page from German into English and I've added quite a bit in the last day -- I finally have time. I was wondering if you might be able to check over it (Brugg from de:Brugg) quickly. I'm going to keep working on it, but I thought that I should ask for pointers while in the process as opposed to when it has been completed. I don't mean to bother you at all -- I don't really know of anyone else I could ask. I also know that it is a holiday, so there is no need to rush.

Thanks! --Ami in CH (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it in the course of the next week or so. Best,  Sandstein  05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings?

Hello Sandstein!

I know that this delayed (alright, it's really delayed), but my sincere apologies for my disruptive behaviour that went on a little more than a year ago.

I am terribly sorry and hope that you and others understand that I am trying to make things fair now. I have recently taken a liking in anti-vandalism efforts.

Best regards, ~ Troy (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, truth to be told, I don't even recall your username, so, of course: no hard feelings!  Sandstein  05:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jclemens/Acharya_S

Sandstein, as the deleting admin, can you loook at subj page, and see if you believe I've adequately addressed the concerns expressed in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acharya_S_(2nd_nomination)? Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. To make this easier, could you please tell me which of the cited sources are those which you think are reliable and cover her in the depth required by WP:BIO?  Sandstein  05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:ENTERTAINER "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I think the Zeitgeist references are sufficient. Having said that, those were there before: I think the more appropriate guideline to consider her is WP:FRINGE. To that end, I've added a lot more to demonstrate that she is opposed by those who seek to debunk her. Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The AfD concluded that there were not enough reliable sources covering her in adequate depth. You would need to address this issue. I don't think that "Zeitgeist, the Movie" provides notability under WP:CREATIVE: it does not seem to be primarily about her work, and the article does not even mention her name. Moreover, if she was involved with the movie's production, the movie is not independent from her and can't provide notability for her. WP:FRINGE is not a notability guideline and appears to be irrelevant with respect to the question of notability.  Sandstein  06:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So if she IS involved in the movie (the references are in the article as on my talk), then the movie site isn't independent of her, and if she is just a "source" for the movie, then the movie isn't a sufficient accomplishment? Given that there's little biographical info about her, what if I just chop out the Jesus myth hypothesis stuff, stick it in that article, and recreate Acharya_S as a redirect to that article? Thus, WP:FRINGE applies, because the resultant article would focus specifically on her theories and positions, rather than on her as a person. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to make a decision about this; such an edit to the movie article would require consensus of the article's editors (and I myself frankly don't care). It would of course require that the content be about her theories as they appear in the movie, not about her or her works and ideas in general. But with respect to deletion policy, creating a redirect at Acharya_S would be OK.  Sandstein  07:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that, then. That would be the same end result as a merge outcome from the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Crime against foreigners in India

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Crime against foreigners in India. 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. Davewild (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete Dorgi

Hi, since you agreed with the reasons people gave for deleting Corgi-Chihuahua and deleted the article, please delete the article Dorgi for the same reasons.

Thanks --WaxonWaxov (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't do that while it's on AfD, sorry.  Sandstein  22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete Image:Corgi_Chihuahua.jpg

Since you deleted my article, please delete MY image (that I created myself for the article) found at Image:Corgi_Chihuahua.jpg

If the topic of the article isn't good enough for Wikipedia, then the photo isn't either. Thanks --WaxonWaxov (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  22:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the !vote at my RfA. I probably should have disclosed my prior accounts. Oh well - we can't all be admins! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lenerd resumed

Lenerd (talk · contribs) was apparently away for a few days, but has come back and has stated that he will be more cautious in the future. See WP:ANI#Block review for User:Lenerd part 2. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

please restore

Could you please undelete 2008 measles outbreak in California so that I can preserve the content and edit history while making it part of the larger 2008 measles outbreaks in North America, as was suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 measles outbreak in California. Thanks! — Reinyday, 16:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That second article does not exist.  Sandstein  17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm going to make it, as was suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 measles outbreak in California. — Reinyday, 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please inform me once you have done so. I will then restore the deleted article for merging.  Sandstein  18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to move the undeleted article to the new name, to preserve the edit history. Could you please just undelete it? You can always redelete it later today if the outcome is not what you expected. Thanks. — Reinyday, 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Reinyday/2008 measles outbreak in California.  Sandstein  21:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy of K2GXT

Could you post a copy of the deleted article K2GXT on my talk page or where deemed appropriate (email)? I would like to have a copy of the content in case there was some information posted on there that I do not currently have. KB1LQC (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy provided at User:KB1LQC/K2GXT.  Sandstein  21:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

need email of deleted articles

dear sandstein, I need a couple of articles I've written that has been deleted as I have no copy of, would you please send me a copy on my email (on my user profile setting) ?
Deleted pages was ( correction posture posturology) and postural disorder, thanks --Paoloplatania (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't use e-mail. Please provide wikilinks to the deleted articles.  Sandstein  21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my user page would be fine, could you please restore on Posturology and Postural disorder ? thanks --Paoloplatania (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)