This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ( 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)

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)

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)

Would you be amenable to me re-creating this article if I can find some decent sources? Writer is a pretty central member of the Diplomats, I'm sure there are sources about him. Glass Cobra 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure; the best thing to do would be to start a draft stub in userspace with the necessary sources.  Sandstein  20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I intend to do; I've done it for a few articles in the past. I'll bring it by for your review before moving it to mainspace. Glass Cobra 20:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I never realized that was supposed to be done. MrKIA11 ( talk) 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, but you still need to remove the AfD tag from the article.  Sandstein  05:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding, I thought you meant the tag in the AfD that is supposed to be removed. I removed the tag from the page now. MrKIA11 ( talk) 11:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you closed the above discussion with a result of delete, and then had a discussion with one of the article's primary editors, User:Jclemens, about restoring some of the deleted content in other articles. (The discussion appears to be archived here.) Jclemens proceded to include 3 paragraphs about Acharya S at Jesus myth hypothesis#Recent_proponents, which to my eye looks like restoring deleted content. Would you mind looking at it and giving your opinion? Thank you. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the issue with the content I added? The text that I added to the article was substantially different (and improved, in my opinion) from the content that was deleted. Check the revision history of User:Jclemens/Acharya_S to see the article as it was AfD'ed. Jclemens ( talk) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If this content is substantially different from the deleted article, it's still problematic, because it's based on a bunch of websites that don't satisfy WP:RS. If a person's article is deleted because they're not notable (and a lack of reliable sources adds up to a lack of notability), we shouldn't have a major section in a different article devoted to that person: it's a way of evading the AfD result. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's take the discussion off of Sandstein's talk page and to the article page, shall we? I think it's clear that the content should be accepted or rejected by the editors working on the article. Jclemens ( talk) 04:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is previously deleted content (I haven't looked at it), it needs to be considered on its own merits, unless it is so extensive that it makes the whole article eligible for deletion per WP:CSD#G4. If it is not verifiable, it may be editorially removed for that reason, for instance.  Sandstein  05:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see your logic in closing "The result was delete. Any subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter." Once s deleted, it cant be merged or redirected. if what you inteneded to close with a finding that the material should be merged or redirectd and the details left to be an editorial matter--a perfectly reasonable conclusion in my opinion-- wouldnt that be "keep. the appropriate subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter." ? DGG ( talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was: The consensus is to delete. Editors may then decide to move the novel article to this title, or create a redirect to the novel article.  Sandstein  05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

No, I need the wikilinks to the deleted articles, or I can't restore them. Please see also the box at the top of this page.  Sandstein  06:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks are posturology and postural disorder -- Paoloplatania ( talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please let me know something concerning my request ? -- Paoloplatania ( talk) 06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already posted the text of the two articles on your talk page.  Sandstein  06:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't check that out, thanks -- Paoloplatania ( talk) 10:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 06:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh - deletionist attitude, indeed.  Sandstein  14:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First time for anything I guess. Of course, I did actually nominate something else for deletion a few minutes ago. By the way, given that you don't seem opposed to a redirect of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wraith Squadron to Wraith Squadron (novel), would you please undelete the edit history and then redirect (even if it's a protected redirect) as as far as I recall there was no copy vio or libel in the article the necessitates the edit history being deleted, but by contrast I think there may have been some mergeable content to the novel article and possibly even to the articles on some of the characters listed there. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 17:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Consensus was to delete, not to merge or redirect.  Sandstein  17:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Even though a number of editors had the bold deletes, their comments really didn't seem that opposed to redirects with the edit history undeleted or at least didn't offer any compelling reason why not to do so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not in the business of mind-reading. "Delete" means "delete", not "merge" or "redirect".  Sandstein  18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see your logic in closing "The result was delete. Any subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter." Once it's deleted, it can't be merged or redirected. if what you intended to close with a finding that the material should be merged or redirectd and the details left to be an editorial matter--a perfectly reasonable conclusion in my opinion-- wouldnt that be "keep. the appropriate subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter." ? DGG ( talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See my reply a few sections below.  Sandstein  05:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Delete" was not their only comments, though, and in their full comments, that didn't seem to be what they firmly wanted. Anything that is redirectable should be done so without deleting the edit history. Edit histories need only be deleted when there is no redirect location or there is something libelous or copy vio esque in them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No. According to our current deletion policy, pages (and their edit histories) are deleted when there is consensus to delete them in an AfD. If you disagree with this, you would need to get the deletion policy changed. I consider your continued messages about this issue to be querulous and may no longer respond to them.  Sandstein  17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I will do what I can with the deletion policy, because as it currently exists, it is illogical and anti-encyclopedic in many ways. But the deletion claims in the AfD were just not true. One arguing to delete has never (for real, never) argued to keep and said he never would. Another claimed that it didn't have independent sources, but later a couple were indeed produced. Another relied on the failed WP:FICT, claimed original research (no thesis presented and use of both primary and secondary sources does not constitute original research). The other two on the deletion side were for Delete or redirect (the "or" suggests not be opposed to a redirect without deletion) and the last one wasn't opposed to moving the articles. All I would like to do is use some of the reviews I had added to the article during the AfD to augment what is currently at Wraith Squadron and possibly also use in the individual articles on the characters listed there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Can you check of World Music Chart is the same thing as the one that you deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart? I'm suspicious because of this.
Cheers, Amalthea ^Talk 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not the same, but it's the same kind of crap. I'm putting it up at AfD.  Sandstein  06:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. -- Amalthea ^Talk 09:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. I have brought up the issue of WP:BLP non-compliant edits at BLP/N [1] with the Jazzy B (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page, but any immediate assistance or guidance you could provide me would be greatly appreciated.  :-/ JBsupreme ( talk) 06:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Could you please tell me what assistance is required (protection, blocking?), and/or what exactly the problem is (one editor, multiple editors, IPs?)  Sandstein  06:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism comes and goes from various drive-by anon editors... For a rounded example, see: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] -- some of it is vile, and some of it is completely harmless. The real problem that I'm seeing is the constant reintroduction of non-sourced material by one specific person, so semi-protection won't help in this case. I guess full protection for a few days while this can be discussed might help difuse this until the vital elements of WP:BLP can be made clear to all editors involved. JBsupreme ( talk) 06:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected.  Sandstein  06:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You brought up completely new arguments in the close, which were not discussed before. You should have made your point in the AfD where other editors can respond, and then left the closing to an impartial admin who can judge concensus. AfD hero ( talk) 10:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No. WP:V was raised in the discussion, and even if it were not, it must still be mandatorily applied as a core policy; see WP:DGFA. I fail to see how applying this policy makes me not impartial, and at any rate, there is no requirement that AfDs must be closed only by "impartial" administrators.  Sandstein  11:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you just deleted Imperial Family of Lanka after closing the afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Family of Lanka. You overlooked Nilupul Narendra Rajasingha VII which was also part of the nomination. My fault, I didn't list it very clearly (it's fully discussed in the afd though). Thanks. andy ( talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Done; thanks.  Sandstein  16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your blocking of my talk page without any warning nor any explanation. I meant no harm whatever, I may as well misunderstood the reason for the temp. block, but I mean that misunderstanding of this block was a totally different issue and did not justify you also blocking my talk page without any warning, and sepcialy in light of the fact that the unprotect posting there were not abused. I still mean that this article dealing with Samir Kuntar is a very important issue, that mean smashed the head of a 4 years old toddler, and if the term "terror" can not stand there because WP policy, then one could use the "designated term.." as in Bin Laden article, I would suggest that in the discussion topic I started there. Just my two cents, I mean no harm. Have a nice day who ever you are or whatever your resons were. On.Elpeleg ( talk) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sonic shower. 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. lifebaka ++ 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC) lifebaka ++ 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you actually look at the sources, you'd see that he is most commonly referred to as "Commander Dante" and not the real name, just as Joseph Stalin is not usually referred to by his actual last name. By just deleting the article, you eliminated a good couple of sentences of referenced material unjustifiably, i.e. material that could be used as the basis and beginning of an article on the historical figure. You could argue to remove the Warhammer content based on the discussion (although some made compelling merge suggestions) and say that the article must focus on the Philippine leader, but undoing the real world referenced work was uncalled for, especially when it was being actively as of right now being revised and had only now been listed in the relevant real world deletion sorting locations. And saying my arguments are boilerplate when I made multiple posts throughout the discussion, i.e. elaborated and changed my stances and approach to saving the article throughout the discussion, is flat out dishonest and ironic given a number of those who "argued" to delete in this and other discussions where you made it a point to say that about me copied and pasted their comments across multiple AfDs, but I guess it's okay if those on the deletion side make boilerplate comments? If you don't like me or whatever then I encourage you to recuse yourself from closing AfDs I am in and instead just post an argument in them as this inaccurately singling me out in the closes is beginning to look like you are closing based on trying to discount me and therefore against the actual consensus of the discussion or reality of the status of sources and the improvements being done to the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 18:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We've had the boilerplate arguments discussion before. Such arguments may be discounted, particularly when they have no bearing on the issues raised in the nomination and/or contravene established policy. As for the rest of your message, I have, frankly, better things to do than to reply to this.  Sandstein  18:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I really hate having to do so, but I do not think you are being reasonable or objective in some of these closes for the reasons expressed above and so have started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sandstein closing AfDs against consensus or reality of sources apparently to oppose me. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 18:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping a note since you closed the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind, this is basically the same article at AfD, and as there was never a DRV and there's no significant sourcing improvement, this is CSD G4 material. As an administrator, I'd close it myself, but that would be a bit inappropriate considered that I already placed my !vote. Cheers, sephiroth bcr ^{( converse)} 20:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know about it. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As you declined the original unblock request of User:Fredrick day, I thought you should be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day as I strongly believe that User:Hank Pym is in fact the same user. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

please unprotect Vlora page, since we reached an agreement. balkanian ( talk) 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't determine from the talk page what it is you have agreed on. Please make a new section with the text of the proposed consensus version and have everybody explicitly agree to this. Then proceed per {{ editprotected}} or WP:RPP, as appropriate.  Sandstein  20:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dr.K. ( talk) 21:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this article, which you deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breuner Airfield, was merged into Breuner Marsh [10] and redirected. The general notability guideline does not restrict the content of articles, so I think this can remain in the article, but the history may need to be restored. -- Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, after all the hoopla, someone ended up userfying only the material on the historical figure as seen above. So as it looks now, can it be moved back into mainspace as a stub or does it need additional work before doing that? Also, as a professional historian, " Commander Dante" is the name by which " Bernardo Buscayno" is mostly referred to or more or less universally known, just as we have Napoleon I of France rather than "Napoleone di Buonaparte" and Joseph Stalin rather than "Iosef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili". Thus if moved into mainspace I would redirect "Bernardo Buscayno" to "Commander Dante". Sincerely, --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 17:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to this article being published in mainspace under either name.  Sandstein  14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 17:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If i go back, and remove my IP address from my request for ban removal, will that alert you guys, or make it look like im appealing another ban, even though I'm not banned??

thank you very much

Pale2hall ( talk) 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your question.  Sandstein  14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a chance I could ask for your assistance? I feel that finding cooler heads on Wikipedia has become quite the task. I suppose I am asking for your help in smoothing over a couple of weeks old debate on here. You probably guessed the topic already, good going! Overmoon ( talk) 09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't currently have time.  Sandstein  14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice you deleted Left-Rothbardianism and agree. There are several other articles I find problematic. Neolibertarian - Right-libertarian -- Libertarian center - Libertarian progressivism - Mainstream libertarianism - Thick and thin libertarianism.

IMHO they are:

• Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including especially neologisms and original theories and conclusions
• BLP issues since they claim various individuals are part of their faction without providing evidence

Basically one or a small group of people have created these phrases, use them in their small circles, and then put up articles to advertise and promote their ideas. Do you think there is a strong case for deleting any of them - or merging some of their contents into other articles? Thanks.Carol Moore 17:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

Related Issue: As you probably noticed from User_talk:CounterEconomics, this editor who created Left-Rothbardianism engaged in some criticized behavior. He was making similar questionable edits from the same narrow sectarian viewpoint ( Movement of the libertarian left) to Libertarianism and stopped after some of his edits were reverted for good reason, without bothering to come to talk. Give days later Special:Contributions/72.94.48.66 appeared with exact same ideological POV and started a total restructuring of the article to fit that small group's ideology. I've reverted some, told him I'd revert the rest soon, and asked them to talk about it on talk page, but again no response.

My guess is this is same editor. I'm not sure if I should request a check user or ask if it's a sockpuppet. Haven't done before and reluctant without good cause. He may just disappear and that will be it. Any advice appreciated. Carol Moore 17:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

These stubs do appear to be thinly sourced. If you think they should go, you could try merging them, or WP:PRODding them before going to AfD. I've no opinion on the editor, sorry; anyone is free to edit anonymously.  Sandstein  14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Carol Moore 20:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

Please remove your redirect. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Einat_Haran We are at the middle of the discussion there and it was already clarified in the discussion of both Einat Haran and Samir Kuntar, that the material about the murdered baby (what you call for "killed child") can not appear in another biographical article. Removing the material added there and just redirecting does look like vandalism, although I am certain that this was not your attention. In case it is agreed to merge the article, one would need to sort out what material to merge and how. I also ask you to kindly let other admins consider the issue too. Thank you. On.Elpeleg ( talk) 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The redirect is not an obstacle to the merger. You can just call up an old version from the article history and copy the material to be merged from there.  Sandstein  18:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a merge, it is a delete. And the redirect created brings back the problem to the very same place where it was already agreed only to discuss biographical material. Please keep the page open and let the users finish the productive discussion there. Thank you. On.Elpeleg ( talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, a redirect is not a deletion. A deletion occurs only if an administrator uses the "Delete" function so that the page's content are made invisible for non-admin editors. The talk page, Talk:Einat Haran, remains open and is the appropriate place to conduct the discussion about where the content should be merged to. The redirect does not hinder this discussion in any way. Or you could just go ahead and perform the merger.  Sandstein  18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I have not explained my self clearly enough, it was already agreed nor to merge it with Samir Kuntar, if I create a new section with the photos and information about the victim it would only cause anger and frustration. I really recommend you to read the discussion in Samir Kuntar. And please reopen Einat Haran, most likely it would be merged with another article about the event and not a biographical article. Please see the discussion, this redirect/merge only frustrates us all. On.Elpeleg ( talk) 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you do not yet seem to understand how this works. The content of Einat Haran is available in the history, here. You can merge this content at any time to any other article. This does not need to be Samir Kuntar. You can also discuss where you want to merge it to at Talk:Einat Haran. As soon as you have completed the merger, you can change the target of the redirect from Samir Kuntar to whatever other article that you have merged the content to. If you have any questions about the technical aspects of all this, please ask for assistance at WP:HD.  Sandstein  18:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is getting no where, I need to ask for help from other admins. It is tragic that the fact that the discussion just starting to make a progress and was just about to reach some general understanding, where the opposing parts were discussing how and where to do things, that this happened. I doubt that the original discussion in Samir Kuntar were the debate started was read when this happened. On.Elpeleg ( talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Request Would you be so kind and assist me for where I can deliver a complaint to the other admins against this action of immediate delete and redirect. This action has created confusion and frustration for no reason, as it was not an urgent matter. Thank you On.Elpeleg ( talk) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have explained above, no deletion has taken place. If you think the AfD was wrongly closed (not just because you disagree with the outcome, but because you think there has ben a procedural error), the proper forum to raise such concerns would be WP:DRV. In the case of other complaints with respect to administrative actions, appropriate fora would include WP:VP or WP:ANI; but in cases of content disputes, see WP:DR.  Sandstein  13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry- I could easily make a beiger version. Anyway, thanks :) Sticky Parkin 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For the closure of this AfD here. Sagely and objective sysop decision making; thank you. Coldmachine ^Talk 23:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So if there's an AFD on an article pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and someone just notifies Wikiproject Israel and Wikiproject Judaism, that would be acceptable? Sorry Sandstein, but I think that is a very poor call. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

But that is not the situation here. He notified the Religion and the Black Metal wikiproject. The latter is topically appropriate (unless there is also a "White Metal" wikiproject or something?) and the members of the former, if anything, could be expected to want to delete the article, on account of religious sensibilities or what not. Your charges of votestacking were inappropriate and created unnecessary drama. In the future, I recommend just focusing on the merits of the article and/or notifying some wikiprojects of your own.  Sandstein  05:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

She didn't nofify WikiProject Religion, she notified the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Left Hand Path work group. Care to name any two WikiProjects apart from this one and Black Metal that would be more inclined to view a Hail Satan article positively? I certainly can't think of any.

More appropriate projects to notify would have been along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Occult and Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture. So are think you are quite mistaken on this. Also, whenever someone canvasses on an AFD, they should be transparent about it so that the other users know it is being done. I'm not quite sure what policy says on the latter issue, but if it isn't currently a requirement I think it probably should be. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it was that work group that was notified. Still, this situation does not call for an overturn of the AfD, which resulted in a clear "keep". You had ample time to notify other Wikiprojects or other fora to counteract the perceived bias of those who were notified. The transparency that you expect (with which I agree) was also provided through your post to the AfD.  Sandstein  10:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not calling for an overturn of the AFD, and if you check it you will find that I never made such a proposal. Nor did I notify any Christianity wikiprojects as I felt that would not have been appropriate either. It was clear to me the AFD was going to fail in any case, but I just felt it should at least be put on record that the canvassing had been done. Unfortunately that led to charges of "mudslinging", and the situation deteriorated from there. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh and BTW, while we're on the subject of "creating unnecessary drama", your decision to take sides on the question in your summary have given rise to this and this. So I'm afraid that just as this dispute was finally drawing to a close, your own comments have reignited it and created more "unnecessary drama" for me and the other users concerned. Which you can hardly expect me to be thankful for. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That was not my intention (and it appears that it was you who brought the matter to ANI). But since it was brought up in the AfD, I felt that I needed to adress it in the closure: Had the procedural error been significant, I might have been compelled to close the AfD with a result other than "keep".  Sandstein  13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we just get over this now? I apologise if I've upset anyone. Let's not spill over into the talk page of someone who was just doing what he thought right (rightly or wrongly he was just doing what he thought right as an admin and doesn't deserve this on his talk.) As to any diffs provided, I advise people to view the thread at AN/I if they really are interested or want to get involved :), rather than get one side of the story.:) But I'm not going to rehash the argument, especially here on someone's talk page, who was just doing what he thought was right. Sticky Parkin 02:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't deserve what? It's this unfortunate tendency on your part to make insinuations about other people's actions that I've found so irksome over the last few days. I am quite entitled to express my opinion to another user when I have a concern about something. I am going to assume you didn't intend anything by that statement, but given that I had already put this incident behind me, your comment is really not very helpful. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear that everyone involved in this has moved, or wants to move, forward. You're showing a distinct lack of good faith in preventing them from doing so and I'd contend it's you who is keeping this issue alive. You initiated the discussion at ANI, and it was you who were making accusations about fellow editors in the AfD. As several of those involved, including myself, have now said: hopefully we've all learned something, and let's move on from this. Coldmachine ^Talk 13:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't seem to have learned much, as you are still throwing gratuitous bad faith accusations around I see. However, this time around I am not going to take the bait, because the one comment above you have made that I do agree with is that it's time we all moved on from this. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be at all possible for you to translate this into German for me please?

Hello, I am the administrator Woody on the English Wikipedia. I would like to usurp your account so that I can create a single user-account. To do this, I respectfully request that you ask to be renamed to a new name of your choice. Obviously, this is completely your decision, as you are an active contributor here, I cannot forcibly usurp your name, nor would I want to. Thankyou for your time. Regards.

It would be much appreciated. Thanks and regards. Woody ( talk) 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. In the informal register that is commonly used on de:, it reads:

Hallo. Ich bin Woody, ein Administrator der englischsprachigen Wikipedia. Ich möchte Dein Benutzerkonto usurpieren, damit ich ein single user-account erstellen kann. Um dies tun zu können, bitte ich Dich höflich darum, eine Änderung Deines Benutzernamens in einen beliebigen anderen Namen zu beantragen. Es ist selbstverständlich allein Deine Entscheidung, ob Du dies tun möchtest. Da Du ein aktiver Benutzer oder eine aktive Benutzerin dieser Wikipedia bist, kann ich die Usurpation Deines Benutzernamens nicht erzwingen, und möchte dies auch nicht. Danke für Deine Aufmerksamkeit und beste Grüsse, ~~~~

 Sandstein  00:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, truly appreciated. Regards. Woody ( talk) 09:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, could you explain the reasons for deletion of Linguistics (poststructural)? Cheers! Mostlyharmless ( talk) 01:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The reason for deletion was that the consensus of the participating editors agreed with the nominator.  Sandstein  06:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein, with all do respect, are you a pilot? As an airline pilot myself, TSC961 was a major and life threatening incident, but great pilots on the flightdeck dealt with it appropriately. You say all aviation incidents are too common and not all can have a page, yet you have a page on jetBlue Flight 292? That was a small incident, a malfunctioning nose gear and not life threatening. The only reason it was largely publicized was because it was jetBlue's first major (albeit minor) incident. Another thing far too common is rwy incursions and mid-air near misses, yet you allow a page regarding the JAL near miss with the DC-10 and 747. If this is not enough information as to why not delete the page, I would be glad to explain the situation in far more detail. Imagine being in an Airbus A310 and losing a rudder-not a common event. I would not post anything about the recent 'smoke in the cabin' on that AA 757 at LAX. Those are too common-twice a week maybe. The Transat incident was an isolated event that provided insights into AA 587, and so, sir, I do not think you could tell the 271 pax/crew on that Airbus that it was minor-a dutch roll. Imagine two experienced, widebody Airbus pilots, doing a secondary walkaround, and to their shock, they had no rudder. By the way, I was on that aircraft (not the pilot though).

Thanks very much, Captain Cody Diamond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747200 ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be replying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Transat Flight 961.  Sandstein  06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While the exclusion of the "Exopolitics" article will in time be seen as one of Wikipedia's more jackass moments. I am happy to see that at least the term, which has 252,000 page returns on Google and 782,000 page returns on Yahoo, is now forwarded to the band Muse. I am a big fan of Muse and very much like their song Exo-Politics. All encyclopedias are, by construction and intent, maintainers of the status guo. Sadly, when the status quo is based in government propaganda and the people behind the encyclopedia fail to see this, they become enablers of state supported reality. It's a disgrace, of course, but not one that isn't shared. Ultimately every person in a society is a victim when the state gets in the reality shaping business. I believe in time Wikipedia will find its way, but not before many of the current administrator are replaced by individuals with much stronger intellectual constitutions and greater insight. SteveBassett ( talk) 13:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dream on. I see you've put this on Talk:Exopolitics as well - another attempt to use Wikipedia for publicity, something I admit the organisation seems very good at. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

On 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taxation in Switzerland, 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! - Mailer Diablo 19:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because their edit wars were actually all the same repetition for long time, it is not fair to unblock one. Melonbarmonster is quite knowledgeable of the subject and Korean cuisine while Badagnani acts civil but tends to inserted false info and always resist to delete such info. The seemingly massive deletion by Melonbarmonster2 ( talk · contribs) was to remove "non-existing" or false citations. He already addressed the point before doing so. While Badagnani reverted to block him doing so based on his experience with Melon. That can be found in Talk:Korean_cuisine/Archive_4 and Kimchi. I do think blocking editors are to cool down disruptive behaviors in dispute, so unblocking one side seems unfair. I admit that Melon's statements are strong, but that can be understood for long-time frustration by the other. I've seen them conflicting each other for more than 10 months. Would you consider my suggestion? Thanks-- Caspian blue ( talk) 23:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, users are generally only considered for unblock on their own request, through {{ unblock}}.  Sandstein  23:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But his unblock request was already rejected, because they were edit warring. I do respect the decision by the admin who reviewed the request, but unblocking just one side still seems to me unfair.-- Caspian blue ( talk) 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Badagnani was found not to have editwarred in this instance. I have currently no doubt to call into doubt the judgment of the admins involved in Melonbarmonster's block.  Sandstein  23:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Badagnani's labeling the other as "blanking" info is a false accusation to Melon. (I've seem him doing so a lot which got him blocked several times) If people contest to their edits and reverts, that is a clear edit wars in my opinion. I believe that if the admin (not blocking admin) reviewed Badagnani, he would say the same thing to him. Anyway, thank you for your time on this. Have a good evening.-- Caspian blue ( talk) 23:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would like for you to delete the userpages of my old accounts please. I had quite a few, so I'll list them below:

User:Jupiter12

User:Teddey

User:Dalmation

I would like to start fresh with this new account I have. If you could do me that favour, I would appreciate it very much.:) - -- SwisterTwister ( talk) 10:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no means to verify that these are your accounts. Please log in with them and apply a {{ db-user}} tag to the user page, and they will be deleted.  Sandstein  10:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was a name deleted from Westerville, Ohio Notable Natives? Marc Horowitz has yet to get a page ( I'd be HAPPY to create one for him, and have put him on a list) he IS from Westerville, Ohio and can be found all over the web so why was he deleted? The list is VERY short now allot of other people were deleted as well. What gives? Thanks in advance. I'm clearly new at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJS007 ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean this? You would need to ask Dp76764 ( talk · contribs), the editor who removed the name. But if you read our rules pages WP:NOT#IINFO (we are not a telephone directory) and WP:V (all information must be sourced to reliable sources), you might find out why the name was removed.  Sandstein  05:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On 25 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marie Heim-Vögtlin, 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.

Very nice little article, thanks. -- Gatoclass ( talk) 12:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I was just wondering if you could review your decision to delete the Slowrun article (deletion found here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slowrun). First of all, I believe the discussion itself was not entirely settled, although there was a majority of delete. There were many keeps and merges as well. However, the most important reason for the review is in light of new evidence which came about after your deletion decision. The Longplay article and its sources has provided new evidence for slowruns, which are almost exactly the same and come from the same community, and I believe I can use the information in both articles to merge it into one acceptable article for all parties involved. I hope you can take a look at this and give me a chance to merge longplay into slowrun. Thank you. -- Banime ( talk) 06:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what exactly the new evidence is that has not been considered in the AfD?  Sandstein  06:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you remember the slowrun article, but the current Longplay article is the same thing with a different term. I can use the sources from both the slowrun and longplay article to create an article that adequately covers the topic of slowruns with all of the included information and sources about longplays. Most of it can go unchanged, just a calrification that slowruns are longplays and then adding the new, multiple sources. I'd go ahead and make a merge article because I am a firm follower of Wikipedia:Be_bold, however because the old slowrun article was deleted after a mixed debate I feel I should ask you or a deletion review consensus to review it before I go ahead. -- Banime ( talk) 17:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean, and, frankly, am not interested in finding out. In general terms, you may only recreate deleted articles if they clearly address the reason for which they are deleted.  Sandstein  05:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help so far. I'll just put it up in a deletion review if I find the new appropriate sources which ascertains its notability. -- Banime ( talk) 00:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that on RFA you sometimes ask candidates if they are over 18. Reading Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy it seems to me that any candidate who answers in the affirmative would be in breach of the policy on "Users who self-identify as children". Can I suggest that if you don't want under 18s to become admins you try and change the policy on who can become admins, instead of asking individual candidates whether they are over or under 18. ℑonathan ℂardy (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of ceasing to ask that question. Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy is an essay, not policy. It is not binding. Moreover, no candidate is required to answer questions relating to their age. It is up to them whether or not they want to reveal that information.  Sandstein  11:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes you're right Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy isn't policy, but it refers to a 5 0 Arbcom ruling. Specifically "Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information. Pass 5-0 at 17:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)". So any candidate answering yes to your question is liable to have their answer deleted.

Is your intent in asking the question to stop all under 18s becoming Admins until they are 18? If so then what do you think of my suggestion that you seek to change the policy on who can become admins? Surely if an age minimum was set and brought to applicants attention before they applied, it would filter out as many under 18s from becoming admins as your question would, but without any minors identifying as such, (incidentally I agree that we should set a minimum age for admins, though I'm not yet sure what that minimum should be.). ℑonathan ℂardy (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A person's age does not constitute "identifying personal information" under the Arbcom ruling you refer to. If I know that someone is under 18, this does not allow me to identify him or her. Your concerns are therefore, I think, unfounded.

Although I would support a formal age requirement for admins (in principle and with exceptions), such a policy change is unlikely to achieve consensus. But there is no pressing need to change RfA policy. That policy currently amounts to the following: The requirements for adminship are whatever the community decides they are in the course of an RfA. This means, in effect, that anyone is free to support only adults, or only children, or women, or men, or whoever else, in an RfA.  Sandstein  15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just asking why Acharya S article has reappeared. Thanks. Mercury543210 ( talk) 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted.  Sandstein  20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the primary editors of Acharya S has been trying to include very similar material at Jesus myth hypothesis, which seems like an attempt to circumvent the AfD result to me. --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination) was deleted for lack of notability. Notability restricts what may be the topic of an article, but it does not restrict the inclusion of such content in another article. To what extent Acharya S should be covered in that other article is an editorial decision, I think.  Sandstein  20:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See, this doesn't make sense to me, because this makes it possible for an article to be deleted and for the exact same content to be included in another article. But the result of the Afd was "delete", not "delete and put the content somewhere else." This is very clearly a case where someone was upset because an article he was personally invested in was deleted and he tried to find another place to put this (supposedly) very important information. --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's indeed not usual. But it's possible, I think, if there is consensus (through editorial interaction) that the content can usefully form part of another article (on which I have no opinion in the present case), but not be significant enough to constitute an article of its own. The discussion about this is somewhat fruitless, because this remains essentially a content dispute, for which we have no immediate remedies (such as salting with respect of recreated articles).  Sandstein  20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You guys are so fast! Many thanks Mercury543210 ( talk) 20:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein, if you're going to warn me about edit warring, perhaps you'd like to go through the page history and, more importantly, the talk page of the article, and look into the user conduct issues that are going on? It takes more than one to edit war, if that's what's going on. --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can do that. What should I look at? (Sorry, you're the only editor with three reverts in the most recent history.)  Sandstein  20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you have the time, the talk page thread at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#.22However.2C_in_anthropology_the_situation_appears_to_be_different....22 is a good place to start. User:BruceGrubb is a very frustrating editor who is prone to namecalling and irrelevant soapboxing, and who doesn't appear to actually read the sources he cites. User:DreamGuy seems to call every editor who disagree with him a POV-pusher, which isn't exactly conducive to a civil discussion.

When looking at this article, I think it's important to bear in mind that it's a fringe theory with little to no support in current academic literature. Some of the editors of the article, however, do not think that it's a fringe theory, and this is the root of many of the problems on the talk page.

Oh, and don't worry about warning me because of the reverts; I would, however, very much appreciate some outside input on the situation. --Akhilleus ( talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well, while I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute (and in fact know nothing of the subject matter), I see minor unpleasantnesses and ad hominems from both sides. Some of your opposition do come across as a bit more unpleasant, but not to the point that I would endorse any sanctions on them exclusively. I recommend to try and get other knowledgeable editors involved so as to break the deadlock about the inclusion of the Fischer and Acharya S content, perhaps through an WP:3O request or a RfC.  Sandstein  08:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised to see that you described constant insinuations of religious bias and calling editors POV-pushers instead of engaging in discussion as "minor unpleasantness", but I suppose I need to develop a thicker skin. --Akhilleus ( talk) 13:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your close of the AFD which seemed fine. Please could you take a look at the immediate aftermath which does not seem orderly. User:ScienceApologist has rushed in to peremptorily redirect the article out of existence, using uncivil language like [ piece of shit] as he does so. I reverted but the nominator User:Ronz has repeated the action. These crude tactics seem disruptive and the rush does not seem in accord with the consensus of the AFD discussion. As the closing admin, perhaps you can arbitrate please. Colonel Warden ( talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your intervention but User:Ronz does not seem to be paying attention and is engaged in furious editing. Given that no editor at all supported his request for deletion in the AFD, you would think he would be abashed but he now acts as if he owns all this material and may do as he pleases. Does the AFD process mean nothing?

• As for User:ScienceApologist, I note that he is on Arbcom probation and I will seek enforcement of the sanctions against him per the remedies specified there, as his action and language seems clearly uncivil.

• FYI, this now appears at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#ScienceApologist. Apologies if this is more drama than you'd like but it seems necessary, alas, and this is my first such complaint. Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I shall be in transit for a while now and then should really go to bed rather than engaging with such unpleasant editors. It is indeed depressing. Colonel Warden ( talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If either of you had left a message on my talk page, I would have noticed and stopped. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD only decided that the article was not to be deleted. It did not rule out a merger. But ScienceApologist's redirect was too abrupt, I feel, and Ronz's attempt at a merger was rushed and has created something of a mess that I would advise you all to sort out through discussion. In such cases, focusing on attacking each other's conduct is seldom productive.  Sandstein  21:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I thought that more than a 4 days were remaining to justified the Argentine English deletion. Can I start again the issue? and what kind of evidence I need? because I had cited mentions in a newspaper more than a Century old one and these was obliterated yet. you must know this is a very new social phenomenon on which is happening not only in Argentina in other south american country probably either. be well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentish Carau ( talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AfDs run for 5 days, as this one has. Please do not recreate the article without addressing the concerns raised in the AfD, or it may be speedily deleted ( WP:CSD#G4).  Sandstein  22:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please indicate on Betacommands talk page which edits you deem to be inappropriate. Also, are you aware of all of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand? (I havent followed it in the last few days, but I will do so now) John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've found the ANI thread. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I think this was first time we've met, and it wasnt nice that I was in a gruff "what the fuck?" mode at the time. A longer block would have stuck without a problem this time given the circumstances, so it is pretty decent of you to block only long enough to be a warning shot across the bow to Betacommand; another benefit is that this Betacommand committee is going to have to come up with a solution in a very short time frame, which wont be hard as its been discussed a few too many times already, and that should mean that we can all get back to the grindstone quickly. Nice block, and sorry I jumped the gun before. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I probably could have linked to the ANI in my block notification. With respect to the conduct problem at issue (with which I am not really familiar), I suppose that if no definitive solution is agreed upon this time, we can always have recourse to the traditional method of escalating blocks.  Sandstein  13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We have to put up a warning somewhere telling people not to request unblock within 24 hours of being blocked (if their block is longer than 24 hours). This is so they can wait for the autoblock on their IP to expire. February 15, 2009 ( talk) 11:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. If they are autoblocked, then certainly they need to make an {{ autoblock}} request? Also, I'm not sure that what you describe happens often.  Sandstein  12:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, death threats??? I was going to block him on a different matter, so I won't undo the block but I think this is being a bit overreactive (I warned him already about it, telling him that was unacceptable). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, "die in a fire!" is either a death threat or ... well, a wish that the other may die in a fire, which amounts to about the same thing.  Sandstein  13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd call that stupid incivility, where a real death threat would be "I know where you leave, be careful" -which is much more concerning. I think the T word (legal threat, death threat) are a bit overused nowadays for behavior that would need more of a cluebat than a "omg thread" approach. Anyway I was gonna block so... But I think the block reason kinda misses the point of why his behavior was disruptive. He'll be back later with the same MO, minus the "threat" and no still no clue on why he'll be soon blocked again :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right; but this individual doesn't strike me as the person who would get the message either way.  Sandstein  14:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about your decision to not remove the {{NPOV}} and {{articleissues}} tags from Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

Declined. The addition of the tags was the reason for the editwarring that caused the page to be protected. I don't see clear consensus here about whether or not they should stay in the article. Sandstein 20:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "lack of consensus" sufficient reason not to remove tags? i.e. does there not have to be a specific reason that follows some wikipedia policy for why one party disagrees, is it enough just to disagree?

I first complained about the adding of tags with no explanation August 4. Only one editor has added the tags and spoken in defense of them -- CreazySuit.

But in the 2+ weeks since my first appeal for specific explanations, until 23 August the only explanation he gave for the tags was "If you review the discussion page, several users have expressed their concern that this page suffers from POV issues." This despite the fact that

1. the old POV complaints were not specific and
2. there has been extensively rewriting of the article since the last POV complaint.

Since 23 August CreazySuit has at least given some sources ("StopChildExecutions.com, gaytoday.com, youtube clips, even other Wikipedia pages just to name a few") as his reason for tagging, though without quoting where they are used in the article and why they do not qualify as reliable sources.

I've spent a lot of time trying to improve the page and I hope you can see how effective a quick hit and run can be in sabotaging an article someone doesn't want others to read. All you have to do is add some tags, give a generic complaint in wikispeak ("review the discussion page"). With no specific complaints there's no danger of anyone disproving charges of POV, OR, RS, etc.

In the meantime the person trying to get the tags removed legitimately (without a revert war) defends the article and wades thru all the wikipedia procedure, solicit third opinions or Requests for comment, and hopes for some input.

Is there some wikipedia policy I don't know of that would balance the sides in disputes like these, or is this just the way it works in wikipedia?

PS while I'm complaining about CreazySuit, is there some wikipedia rule about not retaliating against another editor at another artilce? CreazySuit reverted edits I made at another article - an article he had no history of making edits at - again with a lot of wikispeak complaints but no talk page explanation. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the tags, see WP:PROT. If a page is protected, all edits to it need to have consensus, no matter what they are: adding tags, removing tags etc. Consensus is all I am checking for when I review a WP:PER request. The idea behind this rule is that the matter should be resolved through discussion, not through editwarring.

With respect to CreazySuit, you appear to be engaged in a content dispute. I recommend that you follow the procedure outlined in WP:DR.  Sandstein  21:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, but I was aware I was in a dispute with CreazySuit. Do you have anything to say about the consensus rule be open to abuse by editors who don't give a specific reason for why they disagree? Or how a consesnsus is to be reached if the disagreeing party doesn't explain what exactly they disagree with? If not is there any other admin I can ask? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no specific answer to your question. Please refer to the links in WP:DR to find other venues for support.  Sandstein  18:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A further question If I had deleted the tags when they first appeared on the grounds there was no consensus for them (instead of asking the tagger what his reasons were for tagging and waiting to find out), and an edit war insued could the page have been locked without the tags?

Also how do we make edits to try to address the pov and rs etc if the page is locked? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You've got to kidding. Spouses of candidates for Vice-President are notable. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, people who have received substantial coverage in reliable sources are notable. Until consensus agrees that Todd Palin meets that criterium, the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Palin is controlling the fate of his article. If you think he is notable, you should write a draft stub at User:Brewcrewer/Todd Palin and submit it to WP:DRV or another appropriate forum.  Sandstein  16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I know all about wp:bio, I can chant the guideline in my sleep. I'm also an experienced and realistic Wikipedian. Trust me, by the end of the day, there will be an article on Todd Palin. It's only a matter of who puts up a fight and goes through the normal bureaucratic process. I don't have the patience for these things so it won't be me. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden's wife has an article. She has the same notability as Todd Palin. Both have news articles written specifically about them which are not about their politician spouse. If Todd Palin is not allowed to be created, Mrs. Biden must be deleted. This is not to be mean, just to apply the same standards of what makes an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.20.2 ( talk) 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how we work. We consider the merits of each article on its own (see WP:WAX for more details). In this case, the crucial difference between Jill Biden and Todd Palin is that there has been a community discussion that decided that the article about Todd Palin should be deleted, while no such discussion has occurred about Jill Biden. The decision to delete the article can be overturned, though, if the reasons for which the article was deleted are addressed. Here, this would mean that someone would have to write a stub (a short article) that provides references to substantial reliable coverage about Mr Palin himself (see WP:BIO). Then, that person would have to ask for permission to move that draft to Todd Palin at our deletion review page.  Sandstein  16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The way we work around here is by using common sense. If something hugely significant changes since an afd we don't go through a time and space wasting DRV. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Spouses of major party vice-presidential candidates typically have articles, see Jill Biden, Elizabeth Edwards, Hadassah Lieberman (and of course Lynne Cheney and Tipper Gore, for those whose spouses won). Todd Palin should have an article; in the next few days I'm sure enough WP:RS will come out to make for a solid BLP, see Jill Biden for an example. The previous AfD on Todd Palin is moot in light of Sarah Palin's new role. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the AfD is moot, as it concluded that notability is not inherited. If these sources do appear in numbers, citing them with an {{ editprotect}} request may suffice.  Sandstein  18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be relevant. I haven't checked through the links/claims of notability/etc but there may be something of use. - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I put something on WP:3 that may concern you. -- Firefly322 ( talk) 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)