![]() | 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. |
This user came to my attention when he made an edit that seemed rather odd (and disruptive) regarding a German scientist's PhD and with a comment that also seemed rather odd. [1] I then learned that you have in fact indefinitely banned him from "the topic of Germany and Germans, broadly construed" [2] and that he has been engaging in this sort of disruptive editing for more than a decade. His recent edit seems to be in violation of this ban, so I thought I should bring this to your attention. Bjerrebæk ( talk) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I just ran across this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlatsa Resources Corporation, which you closed as delete. The title however has been redirected to a recreated article: Atlatsa Resources. I'd like to have you, Kudpung (who commented in the AfD about a slew of these articles), and possibly Davidwr (who nominated the article but seems semi-retired now), assess that article and also the other standing articles that ReganChai created. If you would. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 01:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Question is that when an editor is appealing the topic ban on his own user-talk page, because it has been actively observed by the enforcing admin, the same editor is allowed to talk about the content of the article in those particular appeal messages that fall under the enforced topic ban? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
86.168.193.197 who you recently blocked is the same as 86.159.94.13 (blocked for a month) and 86.168.194.64 (sitting in the AIV queue for the last three hours with no action). I have no idea why they keep vandalizing those same articles or what to do about it to stop them. Helpsome ( talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks | ||
Hi Sandstein, you recently closed a couple of afds with no consensus -
[3] and
[4]. Just a word of thanks for all the work that you administrators do for the wikiverse
![]() |
Thanks! Sandstein 16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering what your rationale was behind the no consensus closure on Brogrammer. By my count there were 10 Delete, 8 keep, 1 weak keep, and 8 open to a merge possibility. I could see not counting 1 of the deletes as it was by an IP address, and I wouldn't count the weak keep. So that would be 9 delete, 8 keep. I thought the delete side cited a lot more guidelines/policy and had better arguments (though I can't really judge that without bias as I was the nominator and agreed with that side). Anyhow, I was just curious if you had any further thoughts/reasoning on the closure as you didn't leave any comments on the AFD page. — Godsy( TALK CONT) 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
May I make a comment on your ruling regarding AdF "Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi?" Even if not, please read my comment @ [ AdF Hadith Persian]. I hope it's better quality than that other discussion, and it touches on WHY that discussion wasn't so good. Regards Tapered ( talk) 09:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
G'day Sandstein, I haven't had much to do with Nado158, but when I checked his user talk page history I noticed an ARBMAC topic ban on anything to do with Serbia. He just removed mention of the Chetniks that were involved in the Kozara Offensive alongside Axis troops, here, with an edit summary "No Chetniks". This is factually incorrect, the involvement of the Chetniks led by Rade Radic in this offensive is comprehensively documented in the academic literature. As far as I am concerned, Chetniks (being almost all Serbs) would be included in Nado158's ban. Over to you though to take whatever action you see fit, as the banning admin. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 22:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Karak1lc1k appears to have a problem editing on Wikipedia. Said user has edit warred on two articles( Qajar dynasty, Russo-Turkish War (1676–81)) to include/change information to his liking. After the initial revertion by Karak1lc1k, I started discussions on both articles' talk pages. [5] [6] I then posted a 3rr warning and notification of discussions on user:Karak1lc1k's talk page, [7] which he subsequently changed to a personal attack(ie. "A pathetic Anti-Turkist's pathetic Anti-Turkism struggle"). [8]
Today, I noticed that user:Karak1lc1k, again, re-added "Decisive Ottoman victory" to the Russo-Turkish War (1676–81) article, without bothering to engage in the discussion. [9] He was reverted by Ghirlandajo. [10]
I believe, the continued edit warring, ignoring any discussion on the talk page(s) and outright personal attacks at another editor, are sufficient grounds for user:Karak1lc1k to be notified of AA2 editing restrictions. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
...which you should feel free to ignore if you wish: Was there a particular reason you stopped editing at AE? I've noticed that the process there is much slower than it was, with cases languishing for considerable periods of time, and I'm tempted to correlate that with your not being around to move things along. I'd like to suggest that, if possible, you return to editing there if you can -- I think it would be a very useful thing. BMK ( talk) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've seen that excuse in a few unblocks recently, like I said, but if you don't want to have it, that's fine. Origamite ⓣ ⓒ 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Recently you deleted an edit I made to the Hugo Award page saying that I can't post original research. Okay, I can respect that you feel that even though I've been involved in the Sad Puppies campaign, I may not be an unbiased source able to post what actually happened. Apparently though, you will allow actual liars to post whatever they want about as long as they can find a bit of Yellow Journalism that supports their perspective. You should know that Larry Correia, the originator of the Sad Puppies 1 through 3, is pursuing legal action for libel against many of the quoted sources in your accepted edit. At the very least, you should note that the Hugo Award page has issues, and stop allowing the libelous, incorrect characterizations of Sad Puppy supporters that is being advanced on your supposedly non-partisan, scholarly endeavor. I know that Larry Correia, and Brad Torgersen are not angry white, misogynistic racists, yet you are allowing them to be portrayed worldwide as if they are. Apparently Brad Torgersen hates people of color so much, that he decided more than twenty years ago that he would marry a black woman and have black children, just in case he should some day need a "shield" for his overt racism. And Larry Correia? He ticks the Hispanic box on EEOC forms as a Portuguese person. Yes, they seem so racist to me also... Robsteeler66 ( talk) 20:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC) [1]
References
First, I want to thank you for all of the time that you have put in at
WP:ANRFC. You are moving right along, and I think that is wonderful. I wish there were more people willing to spend a little time managing that board. Second, I'm wondering if I can convince you to add |done=yes
someplace in the {{
Initiated}} template call when you mark a section as done. Doing this will make the automatic categorization work correctly and prevent the archive page from showing up in the categories. Finally, I was wondering if I could convince you to update your signature to
HTML5 standards. If you are interested and willing to do this, I suggest replacing:
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small>
<small style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<b style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein </b>]]</small>
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Your handle is on the AfD page showing "Delete," but the article is still available. Tapered ( talk) 03:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I declined the speedy deletion of Noman Group of Industries, because it had more sources than the deleted version. However, anybody can renominate it for deletion if they think the new version is also not indicative of notability. As to Noman Terry Towel Mills Limited, that's a separate issue. If PROD fails, then it can be nominated normally for deletion. Sandstein 08:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The ongoing AfD has shown that there was a prior AfD closed as delete. Thus, ongoing AfD notwithstanding, this is a (presumed) re-creation of the prior text. Unless you can see differently. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Minor edits, that are made by the hands(no automation) are also considered as T-Ban violation? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
One more. If an admin has voted for I-Ban on AN/I, is he allowed to take any AE enforcements against these 2 users in question? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I am confident that I am being wikihounded by an admin, who has not only commented on a user talk page where he had never commented before, but he commented on something where he wasn't even involved, he is not only making misrepresentation in his comment but also notifying a number of editors through {{ping|}} feature. This happened 2nd time today. Would you check? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you be willing to restore India Earthquake of 1341 to my userspace? I'd like to try to get the article up to meet WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you. Inks.LWC ( talk) 03:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Sandstein, I'm sorry but that's a pretty horrible close. We finally got everyone to agree where to hold the discussion and we had it. If that's a NC close, then we should have the article. It is clear what the discussion was about. It is was well described what the purpose of the AfD was at the top of the AfD. The other admins involved wanted it this way. To claim, 3 weeks later, than everyone as wrong and there was no venue is just a horrible way to further kick down the road the whole issue. There are nearly no valid arguments for deletion and the entire thing has been out-of-process.
Further, the merits of the case are actually really clear. There are nearly no policy-based arguments for deletion that can stand up to the facts on the ground. Numerically there was consensus here to keep.
So, if you are going to insist that everyone else involved in the disussion was wrong about the venue, can you give an exact way to proceed and a promise that if we follow that way you will support the venue when the _next_ admin claims that too is the wrong venue? This entire thing has been an exercise in bureaucracy. There was never a consensus to delete nor was there ever a valid speedy criteria. Hobit ( talk) 02:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
All that aside, in this discussion, I can't find consensus for or against recreation. Opinions are roughly divided, and they are about such issues as BLP1E, which is a matter of individual judgment, and not something that I as the closer can decide by fiat. As always, if there's no consensus, the status quo doesn't change - meaning, in this case, that the article isn't recreated. Sorry. Sandstein 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Sand,
I'm looking for formal closure on this. Would you be willing?
If not, where does one request closure for this stuff? The closure board doesn't seem to have a section for informal polls of this nature. NickCT ( talk) 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There has been for the past 2 months, a set of IPs, edit warring, removing references, removing referenced information and now removing other editors' talk page comments. I am formally asking for page protection for the following articles and their talk pages:
The IPs are either 106.x.x.x or 223.x.x.x. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Add this "new user", Shah439 who just removed my talk page comment. [12] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that you made a (big) mistake by deleting Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The article that should have been deleted was Tsarnaev family, not that one. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. I missed the fact that Tsarnaev family was up for AfD, but the close seems correct; there's no way we should have an article about "Uncle Ruslan". However, because of the way that the three related Tsarnaev articles were created, there is currently a problem with attribution for the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev articles.
In short, the two individual articles on each of the brothers were split from the previous combined Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev article, and each of the new articles got an attribution template directing readers to the history of the original article for attribution. Then the Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev article was moved to Tsarnaev family, leaving a redirect, so the attribution templates still worked. You deleted Tsarnaev family per the AfD, then deleted Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and some other redirects because the article they pointed to was deleted. Then another editor recreated Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a redirect to Boston Marathon bombings. The result is that the original article history that the split articles were based on is now gone, but the attribution templates don't reflect this.
Regardless of the current target for Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the original article history needs to be available somewhere to comply with licensing requirements. Also, the attribution templates for the split articles need to point to wherever that history is located. I realize that it's probably a huge pain to do that, but without the history we don't have the required attribution. Thanks in advance for seeing it gets taken care of. Also, I take it back, that's not "in short". Oh well. 209.211.131.181 ( talk) 03:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, why did you delete Markélla Marína Konstantínou (Star Cyprus 2014) on wikipedia? Thank You.
Regarding my use of a copyrighted image on the above-named article, I have reverted to the state before the image was added.
This is to make the page similar to other pages of sites affected by the 2015 Nepal earthquake such as this one of the Dharahara tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Essilfie ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Sandstein - quick question, if you are an admin on English Wikipedia, does the adminship also apply to other areas as well, such as the Dutch Wiki, Swedish Wiki, etc.? Where is the best place to find such information with regards to coverage and duties, etc.? Thank you in advance... Atsme☯ Consult 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me admin Second Battle of Anandpur is false acount it must be deleted i have a source which claims that it must be deleted.Please if you have time i want to talk to you .Thank you Littleaman369 ( talk) 04:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi dear sand I'm Mahan khomamipor and I created the page "Mutiny of Colors" as you know this page was deleted I wanted to Know How can I recreate this page and what was the problem? Please Advise me , I'm new at wiki best regard( Mahan khomamipor ( talk) 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC))
Hi again Please check out these links and tell me if they are ok for recreating "mutiny of colours" article
thanks again ( Mahan khomamipor ( talk) 13:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC))
![]() | 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. |
This user came to my attention when he made an edit that seemed rather odd (and disruptive) regarding a German scientist's PhD and with a comment that also seemed rather odd. [1] I then learned that you have in fact indefinitely banned him from "the topic of Germany and Germans, broadly construed" [2] and that he has been engaging in this sort of disruptive editing for more than a decade. His recent edit seems to be in violation of this ban, so I thought I should bring this to your attention. Bjerrebæk ( talk) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I just ran across this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlatsa Resources Corporation, which you closed as delete. The title however has been redirected to a recreated article: Atlatsa Resources. I'd like to have you, Kudpung (who commented in the AfD about a slew of these articles), and possibly Davidwr (who nominated the article but seems semi-retired now), assess that article and also the other standing articles that ReganChai created. If you would. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 01:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Question is that when an editor is appealing the topic ban on his own user-talk page, because it has been actively observed by the enforcing admin, the same editor is allowed to talk about the content of the article in those particular appeal messages that fall under the enforced topic ban? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
86.168.193.197 who you recently blocked is the same as 86.159.94.13 (blocked for a month) and 86.168.194.64 (sitting in the AIV queue for the last three hours with no action). I have no idea why they keep vandalizing those same articles or what to do about it to stop them. Helpsome ( talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks | ||
Hi Sandstein, you recently closed a couple of afds with no consensus -
[3] and
[4]. Just a word of thanks for all the work that you administrators do for the wikiverse
![]() |
Thanks! Sandstein 16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering what your rationale was behind the no consensus closure on Brogrammer. By my count there were 10 Delete, 8 keep, 1 weak keep, and 8 open to a merge possibility. I could see not counting 1 of the deletes as it was by an IP address, and I wouldn't count the weak keep. So that would be 9 delete, 8 keep. I thought the delete side cited a lot more guidelines/policy and had better arguments (though I can't really judge that without bias as I was the nominator and agreed with that side). Anyhow, I was just curious if you had any further thoughts/reasoning on the closure as you didn't leave any comments on the AFD page. — Godsy( TALK CONT) 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
May I make a comment on your ruling regarding AdF "Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi?" Even if not, please read my comment @ [ AdF Hadith Persian]. I hope it's better quality than that other discussion, and it touches on WHY that discussion wasn't so good. Regards Tapered ( talk) 09:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
G'day Sandstein, I haven't had much to do with Nado158, but when I checked his user talk page history I noticed an ARBMAC topic ban on anything to do with Serbia. He just removed mention of the Chetniks that were involved in the Kozara Offensive alongside Axis troops, here, with an edit summary "No Chetniks". This is factually incorrect, the involvement of the Chetniks led by Rade Radic in this offensive is comprehensively documented in the academic literature. As far as I am concerned, Chetniks (being almost all Serbs) would be included in Nado158's ban. Over to you though to take whatever action you see fit, as the banning admin. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 22:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Karak1lc1k appears to have a problem editing on Wikipedia. Said user has edit warred on two articles( Qajar dynasty, Russo-Turkish War (1676–81)) to include/change information to his liking. After the initial revertion by Karak1lc1k, I started discussions on both articles' talk pages. [5] [6] I then posted a 3rr warning and notification of discussions on user:Karak1lc1k's talk page, [7] which he subsequently changed to a personal attack(ie. "A pathetic Anti-Turkist's pathetic Anti-Turkism struggle"). [8]
Today, I noticed that user:Karak1lc1k, again, re-added "Decisive Ottoman victory" to the Russo-Turkish War (1676–81) article, without bothering to engage in the discussion. [9] He was reverted by Ghirlandajo. [10]
I believe, the continued edit warring, ignoring any discussion on the talk page(s) and outright personal attacks at another editor, are sufficient grounds for user:Karak1lc1k to be notified of AA2 editing restrictions. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
...which you should feel free to ignore if you wish: Was there a particular reason you stopped editing at AE? I've noticed that the process there is much slower than it was, with cases languishing for considerable periods of time, and I'm tempted to correlate that with your not being around to move things along. I'd like to suggest that, if possible, you return to editing there if you can -- I think it would be a very useful thing. BMK ( talk) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've seen that excuse in a few unblocks recently, like I said, but if you don't want to have it, that's fine. Origamite ⓣ ⓒ 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Recently you deleted an edit I made to the Hugo Award page saying that I can't post original research. Okay, I can respect that you feel that even though I've been involved in the Sad Puppies campaign, I may not be an unbiased source able to post what actually happened. Apparently though, you will allow actual liars to post whatever they want about as long as they can find a bit of Yellow Journalism that supports their perspective. You should know that Larry Correia, the originator of the Sad Puppies 1 through 3, is pursuing legal action for libel against many of the quoted sources in your accepted edit. At the very least, you should note that the Hugo Award page has issues, and stop allowing the libelous, incorrect characterizations of Sad Puppy supporters that is being advanced on your supposedly non-partisan, scholarly endeavor. I know that Larry Correia, and Brad Torgersen are not angry white, misogynistic racists, yet you are allowing them to be portrayed worldwide as if they are. Apparently Brad Torgersen hates people of color so much, that he decided more than twenty years ago that he would marry a black woman and have black children, just in case he should some day need a "shield" for his overt racism. And Larry Correia? He ticks the Hispanic box on EEOC forms as a Portuguese person. Yes, they seem so racist to me also... Robsteeler66 ( talk) 20:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC) [1]
References
First, I want to thank you for all of the time that you have put in at
WP:ANRFC. You are moving right along, and I think that is wonderful. I wish there were more people willing to spend a little time managing that board. Second, I'm wondering if I can convince you to add |done=yes
someplace in the {{
Initiated}} template call when you mark a section as done. Doing this will make the automatic categorization work correctly and prevent the archive page from showing up in the categories. Finally, I was wondering if I could convince you to update your signature to
HTML5 standards. If you are interested and willing to do this, I suggest replacing:
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small>
<small style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<b style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein </b>]]</small>
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Your handle is on the AfD page showing "Delete," but the article is still available. Tapered ( talk) 03:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I declined the speedy deletion of Noman Group of Industries, because it had more sources than the deleted version. However, anybody can renominate it for deletion if they think the new version is also not indicative of notability. As to Noman Terry Towel Mills Limited, that's a separate issue. If PROD fails, then it can be nominated normally for deletion. Sandstein 08:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The ongoing AfD has shown that there was a prior AfD closed as delete. Thus, ongoing AfD notwithstanding, this is a (presumed) re-creation of the prior text. Unless you can see differently. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Minor edits, that are made by the hands(no automation) are also considered as T-Ban violation? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
One more. If an admin has voted for I-Ban on AN/I, is he allowed to take any AE enforcements against these 2 users in question? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I am confident that I am being wikihounded by an admin, who has not only commented on a user talk page where he had never commented before, but he commented on something where he wasn't even involved, he is not only making misrepresentation in his comment but also notifying a number of editors through {{ping|}} feature. This happened 2nd time today. Would you check? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you be willing to restore India Earthquake of 1341 to my userspace? I'd like to try to get the article up to meet WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you. Inks.LWC ( talk) 03:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Sandstein, I'm sorry but that's a pretty horrible close. We finally got everyone to agree where to hold the discussion and we had it. If that's a NC close, then we should have the article. It is clear what the discussion was about. It is was well described what the purpose of the AfD was at the top of the AfD. The other admins involved wanted it this way. To claim, 3 weeks later, than everyone as wrong and there was no venue is just a horrible way to further kick down the road the whole issue. There are nearly no valid arguments for deletion and the entire thing has been out-of-process.
Further, the merits of the case are actually really clear. There are nearly no policy-based arguments for deletion that can stand up to the facts on the ground. Numerically there was consensus here to keep.
So, if you are going to insist that everyone else involved in the disussion was wrong about the venue, can you give an exact way to proceed and a promise that if we follow that way you will support the venue when the _next_ admin claims that too is the wrong venue? This entire thing has been an exercise in bureaucracy. There was never a consensus to delete nor was there ever a valid speedy criteria. Hobit ( talk) 02:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
All that aside, in this discussion, I can't find consensus for or against recreation. Opinions are roughly divided, and they are about such issues as BLP1E, which is a matter of individual judgment, and not something that I as the closer can decide by fiat. As always, if there's no consensus, the status quo doesn't change - meaning, in this case, that the article isn't recreated. Sorry. Sandstein 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Sand,
I'm looking for formal closure on this. Would you be willing?
If not, where does one request closure for this stuff? The closure board doesn't seem to have a section for informal polls of this nature. NickCT ( talk) 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There has been for the past 2 months, a set of IPs, edit warring, removing references, removing referenced information and now removing other editors' talk page comments. I am formally asking for page protection for the following articles and their talk pages:
The IPs are either 106.x.x.x or 223.x.x.x. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Add this "new user", Shah439 who just removed my talk page comment. [12] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that you made a (big) mistake by deleting Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The article that should have been deleted was Tsarnaev family, not that one. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein. I missed the fact that Tsarnaev family was up for AfD, but the close seems correct; there's no way we should have an article about "Uncle Ruslan". However, because of the way that the three related Tsarnaev articles were created, there is currently a problem with attribution for the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev articles.
In short, the two individual articles on each of the brothers were split from the previous combined Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev article, and each of the new articles got an attribution template directing readers to the history of the original article for attribution. Then the Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev article was moved to Tsarnaev family, leaving a redirect, so the attribution templates still worked. You deleted Tsarnaev family per the AfD, then deleted Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and some other redirects because the article they pointed to was deleted. Then another editor recreated Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a redirect to Boston Marathon bombings. The result is that the original article history that the split articles were based on is now gone, but the attribution templates don't reflect this.
Regardless of the current target for Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the original article history needs to be available somewhere to comply with licensing requirements. Also, the attribution templates for the split articles need to point to wherever that history is located. I realize that it's probably a huge pain to do that, but without the history we don't have the required attribution. Thanks in advance for seeing it gets taken care of. Also, I take it back, that's not "in short". Oh well. 209.211.131.181 ( talk) 03:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, why did you delete Markélla Marína Konstantínou (Star Cyprus 2014) on wikipedia? Thank You.
Regarding my use of a copyrighted image on the above-named article, I have reverted to the state before the image was added.
This is to make the page similar to other pages of sites affected by the 2015 Nepal earthquake such as this one of the Dharahara tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Essilfie ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Sandstein - quick question, if you are an admin on English Wikipedia, does the adminship also apply to other areas as well, such as the Dutch Wiki, Swedish Wiki, etc.? Where is the best place to find such information with regards to coverage and duties, etc.? Thank you in advance... Atsme☯ Consult 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me admin Second Battle of Anandpur is false acount it must be deleted i have a source which claims that it must be deleted.Please if you have time i want to talk to you .Thank you Littleaman369 ( talk) 04:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi dear sand I'm Mahan khomamipor and I created the page "Mutiny of Colors" as you know this page was deleted I wanted to Know How can I recreate this page and what was the problem? Please Advise me , I'm new at wiki best regard( Mahan khomamipor ( talk) 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC))
Hi again Please check out these links and tell me if they are ok for recreating "mutiny of colours" article
thanks again ( Mahan khomamipor ( talk) 13:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC))