Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 21 April 2009

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: ].

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

How do I get more time to improve a page?

Dear Sandstein I am the editor of the page Microtube_(E-Learning_Project). You proposed the deletion of this article, what I basically can understand in the form it is now. We would like to improve it, as we think this kind of project and idea can have some impact in the way of teaching in high schools and universities. We also have contact to some other universities about this kind of project. The problem is, that I only work one day per week as an assistant and this weeks day is already filled up with a lot. So basically, what I would like to ask you is how to get more time to improve it then just these few days mentioned in the deletion bar. I think 2-3 weeks would be enough to have another try to reach the notability condition. Are you able to give more time or should I work with a "under construction" bar? Thanks a lot and kind regards LSVandI (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently at work and will reply later.  Sandstein  08:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It's fne now, my boss decided to let the page be deleted. Thank you anyway. Regards LSVandI (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rock of Oetre article

Hi Sandstein,

I am going to leave a chat on the article talk page for Rock of Oeutre. In the mean time I have undone the change. Thanks SimonTrew (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to let this be and you undid it anyway. I am in general agreement with you, and no bollox about "per talk", you canvassed and got one opinion in favour. Now, I think it should go, as you do; BUT I think that as articles start getting linked together (I have linked a few others today) there can sometimes be surprises and that content gets regenerated elswehere or whatever. So I think it is worth keeping it for a few days. That is all I was asking and there's no point saying "per talk" cos it is on talk that I asked specifically that.

Although it was a pain in the ass to translate I don't mind it going, indeed when doing it I was wondering whether I should bother, but I just want it to have a brief life where others can comment before it is put out of its misery. One opinion from 3O is not good enough, I think we need opinions from people who know and care about this region.

For example as I was stumbling around the Normandy articles someone asked me are you THE Simon Trew-- the "other" one being a military historian at Sandhurst. Well I am not, but it shows that people are paying attention to these articles. Unfortunately many even on French wikipedia are just stubs, but as a first pass I think a literal translation is best-- that way, other editors can make a comparison. 'after that, we can do the changes and references, indeed, scrub the walks section etc, but I think best in the first place to translate what is there (changing references, idioms etc as best one can).

I'd probably get rid of the pic too as it is already in other English wikipedia articles that this article links from.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you agree that it does not belong, I do so too, and the person from WP:3O does as well, there's really no reason to keep it in the article. It's still in the history for those who need it for some purpose.  Sandstein  21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have three reasons. First, burying it in the history does not allow any reader or editor to find it and object, add, or anything else to it. Second, this is a tranlation from French wikipedia and I have positive comments from there saying thanks for adding it. Third, I specifically asked on talk for it not to be removed, and so it seems to me not in good faith then to remove it without subsequent discussion.

I AM JUST ASKING FOR A FEW DAYS BREATHING SPACE for it, in case there are any comments, links etc, after that, it can go. I have just wikilinked Oscar Wilde to a Normandy article (the name was there but only mentioned once in the article with no reference), these things happen. Please give it a chance. I am not asking too much, I think.

it's a really minor article. It's not doing any harm. I am conversing on French wikipedia about how we translate place names etc, for the section itself I don't care, but it's important to have it as an example. Don't go off on how wikipedia is not for editors but for readers; this article did not exist until I made it so nobody is getting hurt. And I am not claiming ownership-- yeah I think the section should go, but not yet until others had have time to look at it, and certainly not by a unanimous decision to delete.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I should add it is nice arguing with a constructive editor. Thank you. SimonTrew (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've addded a few redirect links. The French respondents also are in a similar fix on whether to anglicise (and this is less important thatn e.g. Swiss Normandy) for that particular problem, and I wouldn't add them out of sheer spite but assume there is no doubt the article stays, just probably not that section. SimonTrew (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am having frankly great problems understanding why you think it would be beneficial for content that in everyone's opinion violates our content policies to stay in an article, but it's not worth raising a fuss about, so, all right, let it stay for a few days.  Sandstein  05:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost every article is against some policy. You have to assume good faith seems pretty simple to me. If you go salap slap not a referemce, not verifiable, bad English, doesn't look nice in Elbonian, you might as well shut up shop. I've just translated another article, and that took me about an hour and a half for what is little more than a stub (you can have a look at Thury-Harcourt if you'd like to destroy that, though it had a tag saying to translate it from the French article, bit I don't imagine that you care about that, cos it hasn't references or something). Just chill and let people develop the encyclopaedia would you? I don't know why you can't understand that you seem quite a sensible person. But good articles don't happen instantaneously they need others' help, that's the whole wikipedia ethos, and if you deny that help by simply giving an article a still birth then I think that's going against the ethos of the project. This is a very minor article so I dread to think what you might do with a more important one.

S.

Lolene Page

Dear Sandstein,

Could you please un block the page for Lolene. I created it with the permission of Lolene, and forgot to add references, and it seems to be automatically blocked now!

Thanks

Lolenelolene (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the page at issue.  Sandstein  21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RTPark CSDd

Sandstein:

We just posted a wiki entry for the University of the Virgin Islands Research and Technology Park, which you promptly CSDd. We'd very much appreciate understanding what you saw that prompted the action, so that we can post without the problematic material. We're affiliated with the University of the Virgin Islands (which is wiki'd), and were established by the US Virgin Islands government as a cornerstone of the USVI's economic development mission. We're not attempting to blatantly advertise anything, other than providing information to the public on how interested parties could learn more about our legislative charter and mandate. Point being: we will remove any offensive or inappropriate material, but since we got thrown under the bus rather quickly it would be helpful to know where the specific problem lies. This is our first post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmzumwalt (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with RTPark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was that it used language typically employed in advertising copy ("Significant Incentives and Tax Benefits", "Legal Protections for Contracts", "Access to Significant Global Connectivity", etc.) and in general fell far short of our expected standards. It was accordingly deleted per WP:CSD#G11. Please note also that writing about one's own institution, etc., is strongly discouraged on Misplaced Pages; see WP:COI.  Sandstein  15:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK we'll edit it down. Is the deleted copy available, or do we start over and make a point of saving externally next time? Finally, I understand your point about writing for one's own institution, but how do university-related entities get written up if not by the entity itself? Dmzumwalt (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Many articles for educational bodies are written by students, local residents or other persons interested in the institution and its history. Since I believe that enabling you to write an article about your own institution, in the promotion of which you have a vested interest, would not be conducive to our goal of providing a neutral general interest encyclopedia, I will not make the deleted version available. Moreover, if you continue to insert promotional content, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.  Sandstein  16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I clearly got your message the first time (your warning above was a bit heavy handed, though). I believe I have interacted with you professionally during our short discourse. I'm a public-sector (government) employee trying to respond promptly to a suggestion from the public that we post a wiki, but so as to avoid all doubt and preclude further irritation, I'll suggest that "a student, local resident or other person interested in the institution and its history" come forward instead. Dmzumwalt (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea.  Sandstein  17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Locked article

Sandstein, I am bringing this question to you because no one could say I am asking an administrator partial to my editing approach. And, also, because you seem to have a good understanding of WP rules, which is what I need.

The Gilad Atzmon article was locked with this rational: "(Protected Gilad Atzmon: Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy: otrs:2009041510025323 ( (indefinite) (indefinite)))"

Before the block a substantial amount of material was moved out of the article to the talk page. A request I made to move further material to the talk page, that I think has substantial WP:SOAP problems, has not gotten a reply.

There have been many claims of BLP violations, which if true need attention, but have not been explained. I have asked for specifics , but have not gotten a reply. There is an RfC, but no one but the regulars have come to the party. Right now there is plenty of talk, but with the article locked things can not change.

If you have any suggestions, or specific observations of BLP problems, I would be happy to hear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is about this? Since the article was protected following an OTRS request, which most admins can't access, the article is unlikely to be unprotected before consensus is reached on talk. The content at issue doesn't seem to be an obvious BLP violation at first glance, being sourced and all, but this does not mean it may not be objectionable per WP:UNDUE or WP:NOR, and editwarring about it was also a bad idea. I may leave a comment on the RfC, and I suggest you participate in it and attempt to gain further neutral input through channels such as WP:3O, until a rough consensus forms. At that point, you can request unprotection at WP:RPP.  Sandstein  19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring had nothing to do with removal of the content, but was because

1. I thought it a bad idea to remove such a large amount of content in a disputed article without discussing it before, not after, the removal. (In fact I have argued for reducing the problematic content, which is in any case a quotefarm.) Also, it would have helped if the administrator who came to oversee the RfC, had said that he was an administrator there to oversee the RfC, instead of just calling me a "dick".
2. The removed material added by one side in the dispute was removed, while equally disputed material added by the other side in the dispute has remained in the article. That leaves the article unbalanced in the way one side wanted it to be, which creates both a fairness issue, and (more importantly) a NPOV issue.

Thanks for looking, and replying. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Malik Shabazz was upset that I said no one but the regulars showed up for the RfC. I forgot about him, and he is not one of the regulars. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for endorsing the block of Jojhutton (talk · contribs). Unfortunately, that level of common sense apparently doesn't exist at Misplaced Pages:Ani#Rickrolled.21. Too bad nobody thought to notify you of the discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gage

Why do you keep deleting info on this man? I've perused wiki before most people even knew about. I know the extent of info on here and its relevance and its "notability" - plenty of non notable personages in fact have writeups on wiki. I find that this decision is an intentional pretense of lack of "notability", used as an excuse behind which this is another underlying motivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.229.171 (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not reply to messages that assume bad faith and provide no pertinent links.  Sandstein  05:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Academy_awards_2010&action=history King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think we have it unentangled now, do we?  Sandstein  05:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Chakras - Number of Petals

Hi Sandstein,

I appreciate it that you closed the discussion and deleted the article (Chakras - Number of Petals). I had already attempted to 'delete' the article myself after I had copied it to my userpage for later attention. My deletion though was only a blanking and it got restored later by someone else. Oh well. Upon my return from an extended trip to Europe I intend to carry on with the article (the one on my userpage ) and will provide all the inline citations and footnotes necessary. I will also attempt to see if I can merge it with the Chakra article as the topic really belongs there. Thanks. wv (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Sdar2tn.jpg

I'm quite saddened by your action regarding File:Sdar2tn.jpg. It illustrates all that is wrong with Misplaced Pages. I trust you are now happy. Ozdaren (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories.

Hello,

Just wondering if we are allowed to put user sub page articles in categories or do we have to wait until they are in the mainspace? Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter. Best,  Sandstein  21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Queen bootlegs

Hi Sandstein. This discussion was compromised by sockpuppets. User:JamesBurns, User:TheClashFan, and User:Iam are all one and the same. Paul Erik 03:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you recommend I do about the AfD?  Sandstein  05:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult, because frankly I thought your close was very thoughtful. However: I think the discussion was sufficiently poisoned by the sockpuppetry that a new AfD is in order. I'd suggest changing the result to a "procedural keep", and then tell the participants who had !voted "delete" to consider starting a fresh AfD if they still believe that the article should be deleted. Another way of handling it would be to relist it, with the sockpuppet !votes stricken. As I said, I think it's a bit of a difficult call. Paul Erik 05:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I should note that Black Kite did not think it was worth relisting, believing that "merge" would have been the likely outcome anyway. Paul Erik 16:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I, too, do not think that the outcome would have been much different had the socks not participated, so I'll take no corrective action on my own. But I'll link to this discussion from the article and AfD talk page. Any interested users are free to initiate a new discussion on the article talk page or in another appropriate forum to reevaluate the consensus (if any) to retain or undo my merger.  Sandstein  19:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Paul Erik 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

meatpuppetry

Dear Sandstein,

you recently blocked Perscurator for Meatpuppetry. As I understand WP:TEAMWORK it is strongly frowned upon, but not forbidden. So I am not sure whether you have made a right decision in this matter. What is you view on this?  — Xiutwel ♥ (msg) 05:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ref: ANI, not yet archived, estimated archive: 40

I'm currently at work and will reply later.  Sandstein  08:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is true that Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets, a policy, stops short of prohibiting meatpuppetry outright, instead telling us that it is "strongly discouraged". This still makes it quite clear, however, that meatpuppetry is not an expected standard of behavior on Misplaced Pages. The operative remedy at issue, Misplaced Pages:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions, provides for sanctions against any user who "seriously fails to adhere to ... any expected standards of behavior". In this case, Perscurator seriously violated an expected standard of behavior by recruiting third persons to push a particular POV in a highly contentious area of Misplaced Pages. It is for this - a violation of an arbitral remedy, not ordinary meatpuppetry per se - that I sanctioned him.  Sandstein  20:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Gilad Atzmon/Subpage

You deleted a page that was being used to develop a new version of a disputed section in the Gilad Atzmon The article itself is locked until this issue of that section is resolved. The page was created by Malik Shabazz for that purpose, and his efforts has been very helpful. Considering that, would it be possible to get the page restored? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Gilad Atzmon#Namespace problem/Links to new draft material.  Sandstein  13:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sports Nutrition article

I am going to continue to edit this page, but will put more focus on the copyright rules.Nutritionfan (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Making you aware..

That I have filed a request to formally have the 1RR section apply. Considering it's been used at least 10 times since December 2008, I think your interpretation is overly bureaucratic and rule bound in an area that if left unchecked will be in a constant state of edit warring. You can see the request here. SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)