User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/July

Error in diff

Hello. In your evidence in the MickMacNee case the "Discussion with Kirill Lokshin" oldid link does not link to the actual revision you intend to refer to. The section id (#Concerning_the_MMN_arbitration_case) should be placed after the oldid revision part (at the end of the link), not inside the page title. Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 21:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.  Sandstein  05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

psyBNC

Hi Sandstein, I've had a look at the psyBNC article in my user area and can't really understand why it is still there, so I have decided to get in touch with you. I am contacting you because you are the "administrator who deleted the page". As far as I am aware the issues raised have been addressed and the article is now ready to be moved. Is it time to raise another DRV? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If yo think notability is now established, you can certainly submit it to DRV. The changes since AfD are not substantial, though.  Sandstein  05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello. Chesdovi, identified as a pro-west, pro-Israel editor was recently topic banned from I-A for a lengthy period. Other editors with similar views such as Wikifan12345, AgadaUrbanit, Mbz1, Shuki, Gilabrand and Shrike as well myself (as you well know) have been subjected to similar bans. Incidentally, some of those editors were banned as a result of the efforts of Passionless, a notorious sock puppeteer. Regardless, A serious imbalance has now been created in the in this topic area leaving elements with radical pro-Syrian, Pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iranian viewpoints, dominating. Even if you lifted my ban now, I am too busy with RL to edit productively. I therefore have just one request. Please monitor the topic area carefully and take a proactive approach to editors seeking to gain some advantage by lack of countervailing views resulting from several bans affecting almost exclusively editors identified with the Western camp. Thank you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in Jiujitsuguy, and I'm not a fan of long blocks at AE, but I disagree. There is an imbalance but not the kind you describe. There are far more editors trying to counter a perceived imbalance (often mistakenly) or fight some kind of information war here than there are who just dispassionately follow the sources so that articles actually comply with policy. There are plenty of editors who could reasonably be characterized as "pro-west, pro-Israel" happily editing unimpeded in the topic area; Reenem, Soosim, Biosketch, NMMNG, Cptnono, Marokwitz, Jalapenos do exist, nsaum75 , Brewcrewer, Broccolo, (I could go on and on,) and there are always, and I mean always, at least one and often more long term sockpuppeteers editing in the topic area and there are always a whole bunch of racist zealots with throwaway accounts or IPs disrupting things in the topic area and abusing editors. You worry too much. The topic area shouldn't be a balance of forces anyway, it's only an encyclopedia with some rules. People seem to forget. Removing all the people you find troublesome won't change what the reliable sources say. I'm confident that even if I-P topic area content were generated by a highly intelligent wiki-rules based robot that could find the highest quality RS and construct content that objectively and measurably maximized policy compliance, many people would no doubt be calling it a radical pro-Palestinian activist or a Zionist hasbara propagandist. Such is life. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not active in AE and so won't be monitoring anybody or anything. No editor should self-identify, or be identifiable from their writings as, pro- or anti-anything.  Sandstein  05:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I am not "happily editing in the topic area". I find it more difficult by the day to bring myself to participate in this cesspool of bias and double standards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I apologise. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, all I asked was for vigilance and that’s it. In the absence of any other recent interpretation, I relied on the interpretation of Courcelles[1] concerning the parameters of the ban. Do you think I would have left you of all people this message had I known that there would be a problem? For more than four months I have scrupulously adhered to the provisions of the ban. Considering my strict adherence to the ban, the fact that I only have two months left and in light of Courcelles' interpretation, please AGF.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein, I'd like to ask you a question please. Here at Amazons.com they sell my image for £4.99. I am very sure they sell other images they took from commons as well. They did give me credit and printed license information in the "Technical Details" sections, but they definitely not linked to my web site as it is required by the license (You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor ), and I am sure they do not provide any information about the license on the sold images.I always grant a permission to use my images for free, if I am asked to, but I do not really like finding them on the NET by an accident. Do you believe I have a case here? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's something you need to ask an (American) lawyer, I'm afraid. I can't give you competent legal advice about this.  Sandstein  16:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually asked you as an administrator and not as a lawyer.

I'd like to ask you one more question please. Let's say somebody made a painting of a this image of a camouflaged fish I took. May I upload the painting to wikipedia (of course giving the artist name) or I should have the artist permission and go through normal OTRS process to do this?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer not to give legal-sounding advice.  Sandstein  05:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, but once again I asked you not as a lawyer but as an administrator and OTRS volunteer.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 22#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis

Hi Sandstein. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 22#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis. I believe your closing rationale should say "Refer to CfD" instead of "Refer to CSD". Would you make this correction?

Also, when you close DRVs as relist, would you include a link to the new discussion? Something like:

Refer to CfD

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OK.  Sandstein  05:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Debreser intends on sabotaging the outcome. What should I do? User talk:Timotheus Canens#Chesdovi, see User talk:Chesdovi#Your topic ban and our disagreement. Chesdovi (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, you must not make wide-ranging severe allegations against others without convincing proof in the form of diffs, or you may face sanctions for personal attacks. I see nothing in the links you provide that constitutes "sabotage" on the part of Debresser. After looking at your talk page, I note that you have previously been sanctioned for topic-related misconduct and warned against making personal attacks. Do not repeat this.  Sandstein  16:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Debreser wants to close the discussion without me, as Bio told Debresser on my talkpage not to "exploit AE to suppress debate and create facts on the ground in controversial articles." Debresser, after initially saying this discussion did not fall under the topic ban has now alerted TC to it hoping to stop my participation in it.. Chesdovi (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for re-listing St Bridget Catholic Church

But it looks like the church isn't mentioned often enough in easily available RSs. I kept a copy of the article in my sandbox hoping someday I stumble across better evidence. Regards. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dump of The One-Above-All

I liked the article "One-Above-All", the article about the all-powerful being of Marvel Comics universe that was deleted. I was wondering if you could give the XML dump of the article to me? --Melab±1 ☎ 16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an article about this at One Above All.  Sandstein  17:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that page. This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=One-Above-All --Melab±1 ☎ 15:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll send you the article contents per e-mail. Restoring it onwiki would require putting it in userspace for improvement with its full history.  Sandstein  06:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS check

Dear Sandstein, I found your name from here as a German language understanding user in OTRS. I have come ehre with a request, can you please verify the authenticity of the ticket in File:Madonna Live 8 - 3.jpg? Really it would be of great help. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that Ticket:2006012910003279 shows that a person using the name of Tony Barton wrote an e-mail from a Hotmail account in which he released the image into the public domain.  Sandstein  10:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Sandstein. Really appreciated. Take care, — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Economic antisemitism

Hello, As the admin who deleted Economic history of the Jews, I would like to give you a heads-up on a possible issue related to that article. (and give you my side of the debate)

I have been working on an article that covers a major subtopic of the now deleted article. There has been some opposition to this effort from editors such as Jayjg, Orangemarlin and Mathsci. They feel that I should rewrite the article from scratch rather than trying to salvage bits and pieces from Noleander's article. This opposition may increase now that I have moved my article into mainspace under the title Economic antisemitism. Some editors have even suggested speedy deletion under G4 (restoration of a deleted article) or even sanctioning me for disruption.

My feeling is that a decision to delete an article of substantial length should not be read as a condemnation of every sentence and every paragraph in the article. It seems obvious that much of an article could be worthwhile and still the article could be deleted. I have done more than just delete the dreck from Noleander's article. I have done my own research and written my own text. I have come up with a different article topic (not just a title change but a reduced article scope) as well as a different article organization.

I have put several weeks of work into the Economic antisemitism article and I think it is worthy to be a Wikipedia article. Of course, there may be differing opinions. I'd like to hear yours.

The debate between Mathsci and myself can be found here.

Thank you for your attention.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments

At no point so far have I suggested a speedy deletion or a re-run of the last Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews for its modified version Economic antisemitism. At the moment I am simply clarifying matters with Pseudo-Richard. In his responses he has written that he disagrees with the topic ban on Noleander and that, in salvaging the deleted article Jews and money under a new title, he has chosen to ignore most of the points of view expressed during the AfD and in even greater detail during the subsequent ArbCom case, in which the article played a central role. Perhaps others will have a different reaction to yours and mine; I certainly don't wish to precipitate anything myself at the moment, which is why I preferred to keep the discussion restricted to Pseudo-Richard's user talk page. Mathsci (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW in your carefully argued summary for the closure of the AfD, you wrote: "The article is therefore deleted, but all editors are free to recreate it from scratch in a way that avoids the deficiencies identified in this discussion." The present article does not conform to your recommendation, in particular it has not been written "from scratch in a way that avoids the deficiencies identified in this discussion." Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's possible, I haven't examined the new article closely. If so, the place to present this argument would be in a new AfD. If I may, I suggest that you should not personalize the issue by alleging disruption or POINT-making, of which I see no evidence, but focus on the article: identify and remedy any deficiencies it may have or, if you think that is not possible, nominate it for AfD.  Sandstein  10:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is with the phrase "from scratch" where the problem arises. On the other hand, there is no rush and I think that at least a few days are needed to see whether other editors have concerns about the new article. The first AfD and the ArbCom case were a time sink for many users, creating a series of conduct problems between editors. Even if someone were to start an AfD, the previous AfD and the ArbCom case would have to be mentioned. I was surprised that this article, with its current structure, was recreated so soon after the case closed with exactly the same deficiences. This article is special because of its history: during the Noleander ArbCom case Roger Davies drew attention to the motion in WP:ARBR&I concerning articles devoted to a negative view of population groups with particular reference to the starting version of this article ("from scratch", eh?). There seems to be no technical impediment to writing a more neutral and wider-ranging properly encyclopedic article with a quite different title where the topics of this article would appear in their natural context. Mathsci (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor Observation

The reason for posting you is not to create havoc, yet rather to express an observation that is in my opinion was clearly premeditated.

I have been following a debate on the article about Marisol Deluna and noticed users 208.54.86.207 (talk) and Aa1232011 (talk) are the same person or are two people working in unison. Upon further inspection, both first began their user editing focused on Marisol Deluna with straight deletion intended. Please read the history of both as one responds to the other's postings and both accounts emerged out of their attempts to discredit Ms. Deluna. This is an example- http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=429957442 and here is another- http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=429975746.

These user addresses removed entire sections of this article before her notability was debated and rallied in tandem to have this page deleted once it was posted for nomination. Additionally, user 208.54.86.207 edited under the radar after user Aa12332011 was fingered as someone with malice personal intentions during the deletion debate while this user accused others of sock/meat puppetry. This is visible in the edit history and the use of similar language by both.

Others followed editing, and rightfully so. This was in my opinion not due to truth, yet rather to abide by the encyclopedic rules of Wikipedia. I have not added to this article (yet), but have begun to replace her name in a few articles which were removed without merit by user 208.54.86.207 (talk) and Aa1232011 (talk | contribs) as they virtually dismissed her from Wikipedia momentarily. Both users accounts reflect this. Thank you for allowing this article to remain on Wikipedia. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 05:23, 7 July 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  05:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advisement. If needed, I will post examples (in detail) if the editor(s) resurface in a questionable manner. As it stands, a better article has begun to emerge despite the noted editor(s) efforts. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For quick reference links- 208.54.86.207 (talk) and Aa1232011 (talk) are the editor(s) in question. A target for deletion of Ms. Deluna on Wikipedia is shown in the first edit entries of both accounts as referenced above. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Marisol Deluna is up for deletion again due in part to my inquiry to you as to the intention of this noted user(s). Can you help? LegalEagleUSA (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not up for deletion. Two editors seem to disagree about whether it should be marked as non-notable, but such a tag does not lead to deletion.  Sandstein  06:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is based on your closing statement at the AfD that I think it should be tagged, see my comments posted on the talk page of the article. Mtking (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The AfD concluded that there's no consensus about whether or not she's notable, and the disagreement about whether or not to include the tag seems to confirm this. On this basis, I do not think that adding a notability tag is beneficial.  Sandstein  06:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, I thought the whole reason for the tag was to try and get more sources to show that a subject is notable so resolving the issue, if the AfD concluded that there was consensus she was notable then I would agree, but since there is doubt why not have the tag there to help improve the article ? The alternative is another AfD which is not productive. In this case when I placed the tag I explained on the talk page why I had, it was the other editor who did not engage in discussing the matter. Mtking (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Racconish ^Tk tried to revert the tag yet it was reposted. He and others have begun working on building this page again after it was put up for deletion. I respect the desire to have additional encyclopedic information, yet please give this a chance to expand without a tag questioning her notability to those who read and edit Wikipedia. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Would {{Refimprove|date=July 2011}} be an acceptable tag for this page since the question is to improve this article? I would change it yet do not want to disturb other editors. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The page being Marisol Deluna. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Tags are for attracting the attention of others to possible problems so as to fix them. But if you are in an ongoing dispute with others about the perceived problem, you have already attracted attention. You should focus your attention on resolving the problem directly rather than starting additional discussions about the tag.  Sandstein  20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For rushing an article on Gwendoline Christie into mainspace when it became obvious one was needed. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  Sandstein  06:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mediation?

Hi Sandstein, I am sorry to trouble you, but yours is the only name I know that is associated with administrator status. Also, I dont know if contacting you like this is appropriate? I am wondering, would you please be willing to have a look at the Chiropractic talk page and provide some input/mediation? The major disagreement is [2]. I dont know your own personal biases, but hopefully you can provide a neutral voice in the debate? Many thanks. Puhlaa (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I don't think that I have the necessary level of familiarity with the topic to give useful advice, and it's not very clear to me what exactly people disagree about. Requesting the input of others is a good idea, but you don't need an administrator for that; administrators have no particular authority with regard to content. I recommend that you evaluate some of the venues described in WP:SEEKHELP to get competent people interested in your disagreement. (Just off the cuff, if the disagreement is about whether it should be mentioned that a particular study has been funded by a particular group, a good idea is to follow the lead of reliable sources: if other sources have highlighted or criticized this funding, Wikipedia can report that, and if not, we may not have a compelling reason to do otherwise.)  Sandstein  20:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the advice. Puhlaa (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor Observation

208.54.86.130 (talk) has been challenging my edits to include Marisol Deluna in Textiles and Hispanic and Latino Americans. I did not add her originally to either subject as my history reflects, yet have added two references on each to end what appears to be an edit war. One reference is by MSN and the other by Hyundai. (which is not promotional material for her, yet educational by Hyundai showing "Hispanic Contributions". The editor claims my references add no value and she is not notable or is less known than others therefore should not be included. I wish not to quarrel. Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Qing conquest theory

Hi, Sandstein. You recently closed the AFD as keep, which was predictable given the balance of votes, but I believe that you've gone beyond administrative authority into editorial matters in removing tags from the article.[3] Kanguole 10:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did that in my capacity as an editor, not as an administrator. Most people in the AfD seem to believe that the problems alluded to by these tags are not present, and after the discussion has taken place, there seems to be no point in keeping them around. I don't have an opinion about the matter myself, though.  Sandstein  10:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have a personal position on the matter, opinions expressed in the discussion on whether the article should be deleted do not provide a basis for you intervening in the article itself. I believe the issues are far from resolved on the talk page. Kanguole 11:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

number

You have 563^rd place in most edits (49025). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:

A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 22:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Corero Network Security

I do not understand why the company Corero, a publicly-traded company on the London Stock Exchange, does not deserve a Wiki entry. Its page was deleted over the weekend. The company's competitors have Wikipedia pages. Its competitors list their products. I was the last person to work on the page and I was very aware of keeping a vendor-neutral tone and language. The citations, requested, were attributed to legitimate third-party sources. The page overall was in alignment with pages by SourceFire, Cisco Systems, and other technology vendor pages. It certainly was a major improvement since before I began working on it. Vcruz911 (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The page Corero Network Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted as the result of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corero Network Security for the reasons given there. What you say here does not address these reasons.  Sandstein  17:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't forget redirect bolding in target article

I noticed that you recently redirected Gaeilgeoir to Irish language as the result of an AfD. Might I recommend that, when you establish such redirects, you check the target article to ensure the redirected term is somewhere in the lead section and is bolded in its first occurrence there, so that readers can quickly connect what they asked for with what they got? (I've just taken care of that for "Gaeilgeoir" in Irish language, so nothing further is needed there.) Apologies if this was just an oversight. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Irish language has over 500 incoming links, and over 20 incoming redirects, for all but one of those, having Gaeilgeoir bolded seems likely to create confusion as to why it is bolded. Despite the instructions at WP:Redirect, the name of incoming redirects is rarely bolded in my experience, and the guideline should be changed to reflect common practice. Monty₈₄₅ 05:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:R#PLA says that "It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term" - that is, not always. I am not sure that it is appropriate in this case, but leave it to others to decide whether it should be bolded or not.  Sandstein  17:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your article on Iamblichus

Your article is really great!

The reason why I never did an article on him in the first place was because I couldn't find enough information on him or either on the other Emesene Priest Kings. What you have put in the above named article, I have added in the Royal Family of Emesa Article. When you did this article recently was probably the same time I updated the Royal Family of Emesa article. In the article I have just added the links for the Emesani dynasty and updated a few facts about him.

Thanks for your contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anriz (talk • contribs)

Thanks!  Sandstein  05:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for American Nihilist Underground Society

An editor has asked for a deletion review of American Nihilist Underground Society. 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. LiteralKa (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks

Please read WP:SPINOFF. IF you can, with conscientious editing, reduce this section size to a manageable one, I will support merger, otherwise, the article collects secondary source material from reliable sources, and what you are suggesting we do is ignore them, which is a rather bold position for an encyclopedia to take. The other arguments are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT hence invalid.--Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are selective; we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is much that secondary sources report that we choose not to reproduce, including the accounts of each of the survivors, or the text of the suspect's posts to Internet fora. We select what to include by the extent of coverage it receives. And these statements of condolence and condemnation are generally reported once and then not talked about again, so I do not see what the point is to record them in great detail, especially given that they are all rather similar and do not go beyond what is expected from governments in such cases.  Sandstein  07:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Heron Cross Pottery

May I politely suggest that you review your deletion of Heron Cross Pottery. Many Staffordshire potteries:

• Have their own Wiki pages, and
• Were founded in the great potteries expansion period of the 19th century, and
• Are active now.

I have listed a dozen or so of these on the Staffordshire Potteries page. I suspect there are many more.

I feel that Heron Cross Pottery should be reinstated as it was established in the 1870s and is still active now 125 years later. It is unclear to me why some potteries should have pages and others not.

Also Wiki is weak in the presentation of the backmarks of potteries -- there are thousands of them of course. We need to present these.

My view also is that the William Hines page should be kept not deleted.Duncanogi (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack by another editor removed by Sandstein)

Heron Cross Pottery was deleted following a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heron Cross Pottery. What you say does not address the problems identified there, namely lack of notability per WP:ORG. What other articles may exist is not relevant, see WP:WAX.  Sandstein  05:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What is an appropriate place to ask for extra precautionary admin attention?

Hi Sandstein,

I was looking through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans for an admin active in the area, and your name happened to stand out (quite possibly due to the colorful .sig ;D). I'm trying to find an appropriate place to request that admins familiar with that area try to keep an extra close eye on the various articles related to 2011 Norway attacks and Anders Behring Breivik‎. Can you suggest an appropriate place to make such a request?

Note that I am not requesting an enforcement action, nor am I suggesting that such is necessary; I am just seeing some very early and tentative warning signs that there are echoes of the P–I conflict spilling over onto these articles—e.g. by an excessive focus on the “Zionist” (pro or anti) angle, which is rather incidental to the ideology espoused by the perpetrator—and would like to get some extra admin eyes on it before it can escale into something actively requiring intervention.

Again, I am not suggesting enforcement is needed and not implying that there's so far any specific need for admin action; only that it might possibly do so in the future and experienced eyes might then help get things back on track with less potential for disruption. TIA, --Xover (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are several noticeboards where people might react to this: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts or plain WP:ANI. Or you could post on the article talk page.  Sandstein  16:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Was hoping to avoid the noticeboards—AN/I in particular—and their attendant perennial drama and attention-deficit disorder, in favour of some nice quiet Talk page—just off the junction of ArbCom and AE—where clueful admins (in terms of the subject matter and its history on the project) were likely to hang out. In any case, WP:CCN looks like a promising place for such a note if it turns out to be needed (I am hoping not). Thank you for the help; much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaia Saver

I'm a little frustrated with the discussion that occurred for this AfD, as there was a distinct lack of policy-based argumentation. Is it the case that a majority of game articles should be kept for the possibility that articles have been written about them? I am concerned that older video game articles are getting a free pass, and that a majority of the content in these articles is bound to either be 1) a continual stub, or 2) come from primary sources (e.g. game guides / the game itself). Gaia Saver, as it stands, reports its release information and continues to describe plot and characters and has WP:GAMEGUIDE-like elements. I don't understand how this kind of article is helpful to Wikipedia. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with the consensus outcome either, but we do have some cases where we assume that notability exists on the basis of what the subject is, e.g. WP:POLITICIAN. Since notability is a guideline, not a policy, editorial consensus may make occasional exceptions to it, as here. (I don't say it should, only that it can.)  Sandstein  05:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you object/be offended if I considered bringing this to WP:DRV? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No.  Sandstein  06:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a friendly greeting

SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

International Virtual Aviation Organisation

Hello Sandstein. Could you please restore this article to my userspace or do I have to go through DRV? I'd like to try to improve the article. Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted for not having reliable third-party sources. Do you have any?  Sandstein  20:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd have a look if I'd knew what exactly is missing. As for the number of members it is impossible to find anything else then a press-release; who else, if not the organization itself, should provide these numbers? Brgds, --R.Schuster (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, restored to User:R.Schuster/International Virtual Aviation Organisation.  Sandstein  06:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's Argument

Fllowing the recen [4] our participation in the dicussion about the title and scope of the article will be apreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The link is broken. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  06:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wendy Valdez

I came back after that rudeness by User:BusterD intent on trying to source Wendy Valdez just because I can (a responsibility no one else seems to want). Despite having no interest in the subject, never having edited it before, and being very busy trying to manage expansion on several articles at once. And lo and behold, your judgement has already fallen.

I had already taken the time to look for sources, and I was the only one accused of being lazy because I did not place it on the article directly, hilarious. No I will not contest it. It was a random AfD I came across really but thank you for making me realize how most 'established' Wikipedians really just prefer to sit on their hands yet again.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If you still want to add the sources I can userfy it for you.  Sandstein  06:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. And thanks. It won't be on mainspace for a while yet though, I really am elbows deep in journals atm. Put it on User:Obsidian Soul/sandbox/Wendy Valdez with a NOINDEX tag, please.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  07:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)