User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2007/March

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.

Deletion of Unofficial Rugby Union Championship.

Hi there. Stupid question, when a page is deleted it's deleted for good, there's no trace of it anywhere, is there? The reason I ask is because I'm a member of an association who want to lobby the IRB to have a international trophy modelled on the Ranfurly Shield system and that page was deleted before we could add it to the dossier. I understand why it was deleted but it's a pity, could have been very helpful to us. Saebhiar Adishatz 14:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to access the deleted content of an article, I can restore it for you. Whether it will have any value in an administrative proceeding is another question. The article Unofficial Rugby Union Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has never existed, though. Can you provide the exact title of the article you want, please? Sandstein 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article

I'm leaving you a message because I think the user Realkyhick recommended this article for deletion in an unsubstantiated manner. I told that user this:

We're really not trying to abuse the system here. The Government is not looking for free advertising. They've been a group for years, and are of notability on the CT shoreline. You definitely can't find the band on google if you search for alternative, CT, and the Gov, because the heading of Thegov.net does not include any of that as a description. Still don't see what the problem is. The local music scene is just as notable as the national, famous circuit, and just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean its not worth having an article about.

Also, I've just added a bit of information to each that I was saving for the WIKI of the PCIA. The band acts as a sort of spokesman for the youth advocacy group PCIA, which is how I know them. They certainly DO exist, and, again, if you google search a string of words, you won't find what you're looking for.

Also, according to the guidelines posted, "A mere claim of notability, even if contested, may avoid deletion under A7 and require a full Article for Deletion process to determine if the subject of the article is notable."

I'd like to contest this deletion on the grounds of the previously mentioned claims of notability, and would like to assert that this user is not involved in the Connecticut music and political advocacy community, and, as I am, I qualify as a better source of information regarding their notability.

which asserts the importance of the band in the independent music scene of CT, and their involvement in a local Youth Advocacy group. I obviously couldn't convince the other user with that, but what more can be done to prove notability? That user is from alabama, and not CT. I , however am from CT, and know enough about the topic to contribute an article. Thend 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Thend

Please specify what article you are talking about by providing a link to it, like this. Sandstein 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

Intervening talk threads archived. Sandstein 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles have already been merged

I checked and the two articles were merged so I simply deleted older unnecessary information, sorry for trying to make it easier.

Since the merger has already happened would you be so kind as to fix it and delete the unnecessary page,

like I tried to...

Meissmart 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Which articles do you mean? Sandstein 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hello Sandstein, please review this [1], I assume it as a very offensive, close to menace or intimidation. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked per WP:NLT; see User talk:Dr. Steller. Sandstein 10:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegetto's Response

Hi! I appreciate the response to the issue back on the admin board. However, i would like to ensure that if i were to engage in a discussion with "my fellow editors", i will not be ridiculed or ignored. Should this happen, then i will stay in the same situation i am in now, with no progress made whatsoever. I'd like you to assist me in this one last situation. Think you can help?

Muchas Gracias! Gooden 14:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't ensure that, and I can't assist you in getting the result you want. That's up to you. It depends on how politely and reasonably you argue, I guess. Assume good faith and don't simply think you are being ridiculed just because other editors don't agree with you. If you alone propose something and everyone else disagrees, you have to accept that it won't happen. However, if others are being incivil or abusive - without provocation, mind you - feel free to tell me and I'll take a look at it. Sandstein 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiBeNiceWiki and PoolGuy

I was hoping that Ohnoitsjaime was going to be around, as I think he know more about this user, but the block was based on a string of account creations: User:WikiMightyWiki is created at 00:14 and blocked at 00:18 as a sock of User:PoolGuy, User:WikiFineWiki is created at 00:19, posts on jaime's talk admitting to being sockpuppet, and is blocked at 00:22 by me, WikiBeNiceWiki is created at 00:30, blocked by me at 00:33 based on the patterns in the username. This was somewhat confirmed by User:Mistreatedhere's post here and here (he also opened an ArbCom case on Jaime). That user is blocked by me, only to be replaced by User:DoesBeingAnAdminMakeYouADick, User:AllYouHaveToDoIsBeNice, and apparently user:NoOffenseBut, who showed up after I went out. If you think I misjudged, by all means unblock, but it seems likely to me. Natalie 16:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, sorry I didn't get you this info sooner. I didn't see the unblock request or I would have posted it there. Natalie 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, thanks. Unblock declined. Sandstein 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So if a person blocks me for no reason and I create a new account, somehow I did something wrong. Looks to me like ohnoisjaime and erin were going block happy. I think I should be unblocked don't you?NoOffenseBut 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If only all sockpuppets of blocked users would be so considerately announcing themselves. Blocked. Sandstein 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this particular person is using a dynamic IP he/she can reset. Jamie mentioned filing a checkuser, I guess to find out the ISP and perhaps inform them. You may want to ask him about that. In the meantime, it's mighty convenient that he/she keeps announcing the sockpuppets, but it certainly would be easier to prevent their creation in the first place. Natalie 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser is a very good idea; I helped deal with an extremely abusive sockpuppeteer sometime ago. That user didn't stop until a range blocked was introduced (and it's still likely that the user is around, just keeping quiet). Users like PoolGuy/WikiBeNiceWiki, are not likely back down simply by blocking the accounts. Acalamari 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just what are you trying to do? I get blocked by someone just being a dick, and now I create a new account to use Wikipedia, and the likes of you and Natalie jump in and start going block happy. Why? Do you even know what you are blocking me for? I sure don't.

If you don't like me creating accounts, don't block the one I have. If you didn't block I wouldn't create another account, I could use mine. Why are doing that? It does not make sennse. It does not work. It just blocks IPs for other wikipedians. Maybe you should think about the damage your actions are doin to the project. First ohnoitsjaime does it, then Natalie, now you jump in. Is that what they teach you in Admin school? Be mean? Jeez.JustWhat 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

confusion

You left me a message but I have no idea what it's about. Marshmellow Mind 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits such as this one or this one are vandalism. Stop it. Sandstein 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

R9tgokunks

Following previous incidents and such. R9tgokunks is a generally disruptive editor, who likes to rush in without thinking. Often ruthlessly attack other users, and engage in 3RR. Seeing that you blocked him. I am informing you that I was torn apart in a previous incident, between him, and another disruptive editor called User:LUCPOL who he I fear is bullying. I fear though, R9tgokunks has been slightly disruptive again, and if you want I will keep an eye on his contributions, and report any trouble. Regards. Retiono Virginian 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not aware of the more recent conflict you refer to. As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to watch this user on my behalf, but do feel free to report any blockable misbehaviour to me or to WP:ANI. Sandstein 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

InvaderSora

Please unblock me. -Invadersora —Preceding unsigned comment added by InvaderSora (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.132.236 (talk • contribs)

No. Do not evade your block by editing anonymously. Sandstein 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I sort of have to. its unfair to block me for aother week because i was using the unblock template to expand further on ym reason for unbcok. 64.175.37.54 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, kid, you do not "have to". What you do have to is to obey your block, the reason of which has been explained to you several times. I will reset your block again. If you evade it once again, I will extend it. If you evade it yet again, I will block you indefinitely. This is your last chance to obey Wikipedia's rules and participate constructively in the project. Use it. Sandstein 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch (people)

User Rex Germanus has recommenced editing at Dutch (people) - formerly Dutch (ethnic group) as his block expired. He appears to have violated the three-revert rule, and has again adopted an agressive tone on the talk page. Since you reviewed this before, I would aks you to review the current state of affairs.Paul111 17:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a complicated content issue. Please do the following:

On the talk page of Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) please state, with diffs, how exactly you think that user has violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz, WP:3RR or any Wikipedia policy.
Invite him to comment on your complaint (with a link to this thread).
Then notify me again, in this thread, once he has responded to your complaint, or if he has not responded in a reasonable amount of time, and I will determine whether administrative sanctions are required.

I will not process your request unless you follow these rules of procedure. Sandstein 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I did this, but another user has now entered the issue, in defence of Rex Germanus. In a tit--for-tat move, he has asked you to impose a revert parole on me, even though this is a sole taks of the Arbitration Committee. As a result, I now need to defend myself on the talk page of another user, against complaints by a third user, which have not gone through any proper procedure. I suggest you limit the discussion to one place and two parties.Paul111 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that another admin has now imposed sanctions, which means that I'll have to consider this request to be moot. Sandstein 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is not immediately relevant to the above request, you may be interested in this comment to FutPer: User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Nationalist_material_on_Wikipedia -- Paul111 11:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting things on my userpage

You deleted material from my userpage for what you believe to be unrelated content, which was simply my explaining my POV for the benefit of other Wikipedians. I'm looking at your userpage. How is this related to Wikipedia? "Apart from being a Wikipedian and a jurist, I am also a bicyclist, a classical liberal, an author and a lieutenant in the Swiss Army." Billy Ego 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:UP,

"Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth."

However, what's not allowed is

"Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, ... Other non-encyclopedic material ... Polemical statements" (my emphasis).

As you can see, one sentence of personal information is perfectly permissible (and normal), but several pages of political opinions are not. It's a matter of proportion. That's why I've not also deleted your fascism userboxes and your eagle picture: some POV information is permissible, but don't overdo it. Sandstein 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I overwrote your edits to the lead section

Sorry, I seem to have overwritten your edits to the lead section of User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Yuser, on fighting link spam. I will try to un-do the damage I caused. Because I got an edit conflict, I had edited some text in an external editor, and when I pasted it back in, the lead section had changed some more in the meantime. --Teratornis 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This Is Stevenstone93

Sandstein, I would like to thank you for your help and time for getting me unblocked. I truly appreciate your cooperation in getting me off the hook here. I will contribute to the Wikipedia Project and not solely just my article, but is it still OK to make an edit or two here and there on my own page? Once Again Thanks, --- Steven Suttles Stone

You're welcome. Of course you may edit your user page, but keep it to a minimum, yes? What we need to see from you now is involvement in the encyclopedia. That is, the articles. This is why we are here. Sandstein 05:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conner

You recently tagged this article for deletion under speedy-deletion case A7. The speedy-deletion was challenged in good faith. The page has been temporarily restored and listed to AFD for community discussion. You may want to participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I just put {{bio-notability}} on it. Sandstein 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

BZ

You might want to keep an eye on User:BZ(Bruno Zollinger) -- after returning from the block for inappropriate Talk page use, which he passed by engaging in irrelevant discussions on his own Talk page, his first edit was another round of soapboxing and irrelevant personal opinion. I left another chat warning for him, but this seems unlikely to change his behavior. (I'd have posted this at WP:ANI, but the prior BZ topic has already been archived.) -- Rbellin|Talk 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I see you warned him, next time I'll indefblock him as advertised. And I'll warn his strange companion, Jahn Henne (talk · contribs). Sandstein 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Billy Ego: picture

I (and I am sure many other editors) also find the picture on his user page quite offensive. My father and his pals were paratroops who suffered horribly in WW2 fighting that. Is there any chance of removing the picture? Thanks if you can help. MarkThomas 20:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If it were a Nazi symbol, yes, it would be inflammatory. However, File:Aigle-napoleonienne-p1030180.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a Napoleonic aquila, which I assume was not present on WWII battlefields. Incidentally, Cloveoil is right: do not harrass other editors on their talk pages, even fascists. Sandstein 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's done

Thank you for your help.

I've finished my main copy-edit of User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Yuser, on fighting link spam. Please take a look, and touch-up anything that needs it. It goes live on Wednesday (tomorrow). The Transhumanist 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Very Much

I thank you abundantly for your reconsideration of my ban. Could I bother you to explain to me what a provisional ban is? Thank you so much.

DarzieP 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. You're not provisionally banned. You're provisionally unblocked, that is, if you commit one more copyright violation, I will block you again. Sandstein 06:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohmefentanyl

It appears that after you deleted the page based on User:Nuklear's request, he recreated it. I guess it was some kind of strategy to prematurely end the AfD discussion...? JulesH 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Another AfD will be required if you think it's still problematic, I'm afraid to say. Sandstein 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Plese reconsider your vote to delete Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq

Hi Sandstein,

I've just put a lot of work into improving Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq so that the article is not now anything like what it was when you voted to delete. I think it may meet your objections to it, so please take another look and see what you think. I'm still not satisfied with the article, but it has roughly the proper scope and many more reliable sources. I think what I've done shows that there's too much material out there to merge this article with anything else. Significant gaps remain and some subjects should have footnotes from more sources, but I think the article is several steps toward what it should be. Best, Noroton 22:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors refusing discussion and edit warring

May I consider users refusing discussion on the talk page as a vandals ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No. As per policy: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." If a user does not enter into discussion, this is a different conduct issue that requires initiating the dispute resolution procedure. Depending on the case, it may also be disruptive and require admin intervention under e.g. the three revert rule or the civility rule. Sandstein 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Prod

I just wanted to give you heads up that I've deproded the Religion in A Song of Ice and Fire. I don't know if you want to take it to AfD or not but I think that the Prod reason is debatable enough to warrant discussion there is you feel that the article is clear cut policy violation. NeoFreak 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Ruiz III

Greetings Sandstein,

The article 'Nicholas Ruiz III' was deleted with very little discussion and unsatisfactory objections raised by the Wikipedia critic on the talk page for the article. Please reconsider the said deletion; it is exceedingly unfair and egregiously biased given the wide occurrence of similar articles already on Wikipedia. Many thanks for your consideration. I insert the text of the talk page here: <content of Talk:Nicholas Ruiz III redacted, Sandstein> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.ruiz (talk • contribs)

Dr Ruiz, your autobiography Nicholas Ruiz III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was correctly speedily deleted under the rule WP:CSD#A7 because it did not attest notability. Also, per our conflict of interest policy, you are not allowed to write articles about yourself, especially if their content is not verifiable by reliable sources. See also WP:WAX: that Wikipedia has many unsuitable articles is a reason to delete those, not to add more. Sandstein 06:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Sandstein,

Many thanks for your note. I believe I can attest to the notability of the article by claim of published work in an active field of study. Such information is verifiable by reliable sources, by Wikipedia standards. I do recognize that entries regarding one's work need to be carefully neutral--this care is taken in the article, which is neutral in bias. It is not the case that such already existing Wikipedia articles are 'unsuitable,' but rather, they serve an academic and informational purpose in higher education and for posterity. I do agree that they should be neutral in bias, and not promotional materials, as indeed, this article and the others safely avoid. Please reconsider this deletion, if any complaints or discrepancies arise regarding the entry, I agree to edit the article accordingly in a timely fashion. Thank you for your consideration. Nick.ruiz 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your claim of "published work in an active field of study" does not make you notable by our standards, which must be met in addition to the article being based on reliable independent sources. Also, per WP:COI, writing articles about yourself is greatly frowned upon. You'd have to wait until someone else finds you interesting enough to write an article about. Please click these links to find out what I mean. Sandstein 08:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein, I am the editor and founder of the peer-reviewed journal Kritikos, which is indexed in university library databases all over the world. Kritikos is widely known as one of the premier online, open-access journals for cultural and critical theory, art and criticism. All of this is independently verifiable. As for article authorship, -frowned upon- does not translate into -forbidden-. In light of the verifiable notability and responsible neutrality of the article, this article entry is a justifiable exception. Many thanks again, for your consideration. Nick.ruiz 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, but this is apparently not widely known enough for Kritikos to have its own article. Even if it were so, and you cite no sources for it, it would not follow that you as the journal's editor would be notable also. This, in addition to the conflict of interest problem – it's hard to be "responsibly neutral" about oneself – leads me to decline your request for undeletion. If you would like to appeal this, you may file a request for deletion review at WP:DRV; please link to this discussion (with the link code: [[User talk:Sandstein#Nicholas Ruiz III]]) if you decide to do so. Sandstein 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein, I have appealed your decision. The link is below.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nicholas Ruiz III. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nick.ruiz 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Sandstein 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user 207.69.137.14

I see that on 10 March 2007 you blocked this user from editing. Does it take a while to take effect? This user today (23 March) made edits Jose Rodriguez (intelligence) which I'm trying to determine are valid or not. Alcarillo 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The IPs are not the same. 207.69.137.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is blocked, 207.69.137.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is not. Please report the latter to WP:AIV in case of repeat vandalism. Sandstein 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article titled "Pranic Healing"

Hi,

It is completely understandable why the article was deleted. I would like to create a new informational (not promotional) article with the same title. This is a subject I have been studying for many years and I think that given the number of people who study this modality and the number of books available on the subject, it would be very useful to have information about Pranic Healing on Wikipedia. Please let me know if it is alright to create an article with the same title right after the previous one was deleted. Would that be a cause for the deletion of my article?

Thanks for all your help. Sg ph 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I note you are associated with the organisation "pranichealing.org". Per our conflict of interests policy, you should not edit articles about issues your organisation is involved with.
Looking at the deleted text, the concept appears to be nonnotable and will thus be likely nominated for regular deletion. Sandstein 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ZK

Ich habe mir den Quelltext von der Diskussionsseite vom BZ daheim bei mir auf Platte kopiert. Du kannst das also meinetwegen gern komplett zersägen. Mein Nachbar, er ist Pfarrer, hat zwar mit WIKIPEDIA nix am Hut, aber er meint auch, daß man erst mal das machen sollte (should do), was hier, bei WIKIPEDIA als AGF bezeichnet wird. Ich seh das anders, deshalb bin ich auch aus der Kirche ausgetreten. LA VIE EST BELLE. fz JaHn 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your change of heart concerning my unsuccessful RfA. I am disappointed that I was judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Hopefully I can convince you next time around. But until that time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bikini Carwash Company

There is a vote for deletion under way. I think you might be interested. Hektor 14:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but, per the prohibition on votestacking, I should not have been contacted, because since I am the prodder, I must be expected to favour deletion. For that reason, I decline to participate. Sandstein 14:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given the fact that I am in favor of keep, and have written so in the vote, I don't see where is the problem ? why are people always assuming bad faith. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I just wrote to you because your archive was linked to this page, and I have also written to the other user you were writing to. I don't appreciate the accusation. Hektor 14:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  - My apologies. I did not see that. I'll try and remember to WP:AGF more next time. Sandstein 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

There has been an extensive effort to combine Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (together with much of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) into a new policy called Wikipedia:Attribution, and its FAQ, WP:ATTFAQ.

Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo questioned whether the result had adequate consensus, and requested:

"a broad community discussion on this issue", (now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion), followed by
"a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results." (now being drafted at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll)

You are invited to take part; the community discussion should be as broad as possible. If you wish to invite other experienced and intelligent editors, please use neutral language. This message, for example, is {{ATTCD}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User 72.10.124.202

Link to User's Talk Page

this user has received a number of warnings about vandalism and being blocked, but has not been blocked to date, yet continues to vandalize articles. what is the procedure for blocking that user? Whateley23 20:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a shared IP which is not currently vandalising, so doesn't need blocking now. For next time, to have in-progress vandalism stopped, check that the user has received a final waning and then report them at WP:AIV. Sandstein 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Collateral damage

Thanks for letting me know. I say go ahead and unblock, though I still have a couple lingering doubts. The main instigator of the earlier fraud definitely had some technical/hacking skills, so it's possible that they just did some password phishing to find another account to use. However, it's probably best to WP:AGF and then just keep an eye on things. If the account sticks with editing in unrelated areas, then we're fine. :) But if they make a beeline for any articles related to medieval history, then I'd say to keep them on a short leash and reblock immediately if any problems pop up. How's that sound? --El on ka 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As a related account we are having troubles with, check contribs of 208.157.148.51 (talk · contribs). We had another anon posting personal attacks, which an admin deleted, but now a different anon account is restoring the attacks. Could you help with vandalism cleanup there please? Or would you prefer that I took it to ANI? --El on ka 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to understand what is going on here, but this appears to be just trolling. Blocked. Sandstein 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, just bugging you about more socks.

Remember Brigader General (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lt. Col. Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I found another person with the same modus operandi. Ruby1942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). More of the same. I'd appreciate blocking, but I'll have left a notice on WP:AIV, IRC, and the user's talk page by then I think. Logical2u_{Review me!} 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm going to leave a RFCU (IP Check) on this person (if it's applicable, the policy keeps changing), as it seems to be a chronic problem at this point. Thanks for the block. Logical2u_{Review me!} 22:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Puppet and puppetmaster indefblocked. Thanks for the info, feel free to report any new socks that might pop up. Sandstein 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I appear to have found one last sock. Jack3090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Logical2u_{Review me!} 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

... and blocked. Sandstein 08:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A favor

Hello. I write to ask for a favor. I'm elipongo (talk · contribs) but I'm typing this from my cellphone's microbrowser via a Google interface because my computer crashed thursday morning. I'm hoping you'll do me the great favor of posting a template explaining my absence on my user & user talk pages. My new computer won't arrive for a couple of weeks and I won't be around much until then. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.6.136 (talk • contribs)

Sure, no problem. Sandstein 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

?

And do please give us the courtesy of at least trying to write in English. — Sandstein 20:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

are you saying i cant speak or write in english?

give me an example why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbricks (talk • contribs)

Replying on your talk page. Sandstein 07:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

my spelling

if you are refering to the way i spealt oiL, thats the way the band spells it.

Im Australian so our first language is english and i go to school so im %100 sure i can spell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbricks (talk • contribs)

... Ah, yes, very well, thank you. However, your last sentence should have been spelled "I'm Australian, so my first language is English and I go to school, so I'm 100% sure I can spell." But never mind, and have fun contributing to Wikipedia. Sandstein 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to be so arrogant with your reply. Every person born in Australia speaks English, so thats why i said "our", and your corrections are slightly wrong, Australians use different grammar to some countries e.g. Some countries spell color, Australians write colour, as for the word mom and mum. The swiss are only good for one thing, making chocolate.

Thanks Mr. Sandstein for your very informing "English Class"

DYK

On 25 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Source Columba, 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.

--Carabinieri 09:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...

User_talk:Billy_Ego#Blocked_again. What's your call on it? —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll not contest the matter if another administrator undoes the block. That said, I recommend declining the unblock request.

We are not a free web host for political essays (or quotes collections, which have also been the subject of the previous cleanups of Billy Ego's userpage). Billy Ego is not a long-established editor who might be allowed more latitude in his user space. More importantly, though: he appears to be unwilling in principle to adhere to our content and conduct policies, taking an unnecessarily combative stance at every turn, as is the hallmark of most people who eventually end up at WP:BU. If Billy Ego were to be unblocked now, he might consider it as validation for any further soapboxing or combative editing (check his block log).

Oh, and dragging this before ArbCom? What the hell for? This issue can very well be resolved at the WP:ANI level, if required. Sandstein 17:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I am now unblocked - thanks for your help. LeeG 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

10:08

Sad, that articels, that are referred to in the www, are deleted! http://www.etre.com/blog/2006/12/1008_watch_advertisements/ Can I recover the article for my own information?! Best regards --menphrad 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your effort of restoring this piece of information for me! Best regards --menphrad 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

<profanity redacted>

Why did you delete my drawing?!!!!!!???!!!!? Replay7 21:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and WP:CSD#G1. Sandstein 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you bring it back so I can re-save it to my computer? Replay7 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You want that bunch of scrawls back? No. You can recreate it faster than I can undelete it. Sandstein 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No I can't. I can't remember the design of it. Replay7 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? There was no design, just random blobs of colour. Sandstein 22:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if you uploaded it, it's still on your hard disk. Sandstein 22:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I say it probably wasn't if he has swapped computers or perhaps re-formatted (see formatting). Lord fabs 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hakia

Hi

I am curious why you deleted the content on hakia. I will really appreciate if you can let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitramitava (talk • contribs)

Constitutional Conventions: Scottish National Party standing against the Speaker

Hi, thanks for trying to tidy up the article on Constitutional Conventions by promptly removing what I had written. However, I think you were wrong to do so. As it stands the article says "no major parties stand against the Speaker." Well, the Scottish National Party do: this is not original research (see Glasgow North East (UK Parliament constituency)#Election results) The Scottish National Party are a major party: they are the official opposition in the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, I think my addition to the article should stand.

Thanks

Boleslaw 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC) DB

Okay, go ahead and put it back in... I really know too little about this. Maybe you could add an inline reference to a reliable source to back this up? Sandstein 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know too little about this why did you self-righteously delete it???

On a more constructive note, I have a reference from the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm

However, this is a Flash animation which one has to navigate around to find the required information. Can I link to this?

Boleslaw 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)DB

Please read WP:AGF. See WP:RS and WP:EL as to your second question. You can link to it, the question is whether you should. You don't need to source the claim that the SNP is a major party. You do need to source the claim that they do what you claim they are doing in Parliament. Sandstein 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of MediaCommons

You speedy deleted MediaCommons despite me putting a hang-on tag on the site, providing a citation on one lengthy external article on the organization, and indicating in the discussion that it was a work-in-progress and stub. Can you please explain the rationale for this? --Jajasoon 04:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. The rationale for deleting MediaCommons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was WP:CSD#a7, i.e., the article did not assert notability. A piece of external coverage is no assertion of notability. I've restored the content to User:Jajasoon/MediaCommons so that you may work on it to bring it to WP:WEB standards before re-publishing it. Sandstein 05:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply from the Hybrid

Hello. As I was involved in a lengthy RfC pertaining to User:Cerebral Warrior, which is visible near the bottom of his talk page, I am aware that certain things are simply not allowed on Wikipedia, and must be removed. I am also aware that freedom of speech is non-existent here. However, looking at things logically, certain things have been allowed. To start, Category:Wikipedians by politics. The existence of these categories suggests that Wikipedians are allowed to identify what political views they hold. Since many of these users are in these categories due to having certain userboxes on their pages, that suggests that they are able to publicize what views they hold on their user page in a visual, literary form. Removing these things from user pages, yet maintaining the categories is contradictory. What is the correct thing to do, delete the categories, or allow freedom of expression? Does this warrant a larger poll? Cheers, -- The Hyb rid 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Help to unblock account

Hi Sandstein,

I really appreciate for your help to unblock "Florawu" account. However,I'd like to know the current status so far.

I left message to request unblock as the below reason, but it seems like no response. Feel disappointed because Wikipedia is supposed to collect the valuable knowledge as much as possible. In my case, I try to contribute world's first "ACT" (Automatic channel targeting)function from MIPRO as the pro audio valuable hi-tech knowledge. (please visit www.mipro.com.tw in detail). "the conflict of interest" makes my account has been blocked. I must apologize for this mistake. However, I promise not to edit the relevant article and request the opportunity to unblock only.

Finally, I hope administers who want to contribute the valuable and important knowledge for Wikipedia can help to save this problem.

Again, thanks for your assistance in advance. Sorry, I can not sign the name at the end because of block IP address not allow me to leave message to you.

My account is :"Florawu" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.120.105.139 (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm replying on User talk:Florawu. Sandstein 04:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking

Hi Sandstein,

Thanks for your help in lifting my Autoblock - while I'm hardly a major contributor I like to do my little bit and certainly have no interest in abusive or similar behaviour - joys of shared IP addressing.

Best regards,

Peter aka Pstansbu 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration filed

Here's to notify you that an arbitration is being filed against you here [2]. Billy Ego 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

XFD's

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for reviewing me and pointing my mistakes out. I haven't learnt well XFD's yet, so I was bound for something like that. I didn't realise (I missed the policy and the essay), I was out of tune. Thanks for reviewing me and thanks so much for slamming me hard instead being really nice. It is very appreciated. A barnstar is hereby awarded. Cheers! The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 20:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I do hope I was not too frank about it. Sandstein 04:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Foil of Wit

I, Durova, award you this Italian grip Foil of Wit for delightful Homeric ripostes at the RFA for Akhilleus. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Abortion in Switzerland

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that fact. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll go ahead and create Category:Abortion in Europe as Category:Abortion in the European Union seems to needlessly exclude non-EU countries in Europe. It doesn't seem logical for some European states not to be grouped with the rest. Also, this would harmonize the category with the navigation box featured on the bottom of the "Abortion in Europe" articles (like Abortion in Finland), which is titled "Abortion in Europe," not "Abortion in the European Union." Also, thank you for creating the Abortion in Switzerland article, and helping to fill a gap in Wikipedia's coverage of global abortion law. -Severa (!!!) 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Reza Shah/New

If you look at the talk page, the author agreed to have it deleted. So it should probably be deleted. Thanks. The Behnam 04:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Millennium Challenge Account

On the map critique, I was wondering what you meant. The map image itself is a wikicommons creation that is free use. All the best! Judgesurreal777 08:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant: what data is the map based on? That data needs reliable sources, too. Sandstein 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tax protester statutory arguments

Dear editor Sandstein: Thank you for your GA review of this article. Your points are very helpful. Yours, Famspear 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've added a few additional thoughts. Sandstein 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Military simulation

Did you know? was updated. On 30 March, 2007, a fact from the article Military simulation, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Abortion in Switzerland

On 31 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abortion 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so rude?

Hello. I was just reading my talk page and found that you are attempting to qualify a reasonless statement by adding "IMHO", presumably meaning in my honest opinion? Why are you so rude to use abbreviations for words normally respected in the english language as being sincere?

Please reply, and apologise if you can't defend adequately. Lord fabs 13:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I came across this by chance, but FYI, "IMHO" typically means "in my humble opinion," actually. Newyorkbrad 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. See IMHO. Sandstein 22:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

As a Clerk for the Arbitration Committee, I am advising that the arbitrators have voted to decline to hear the case that Billy Ego brought against you. Therefore, the case has been removed from the requests for arbitration page. If you have not already done so, you will wish to read the arbitrators' comments, which can be found in the history of the page just prior to the removal. Newyorkbrad 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser procedure

Hi, I moved the case you recently filled to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Antidote, since User:Antidote might be the sockpuppetter. Do you know by any chance a confirmed sockpuppet account that was used on the last 30 days? Both accounts you provided last edited in 2006, which is unfortunately too old to check. Thanks. -- lucasbfr ^talk, checkuser clerk, 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto

You speedy deleted Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto despite me putting a hang-on tag on the site, nor have I received any answers from you regarding the Sgarabotto wikipage. You keep deleting despite the fact that I had corrected the so-called "violations".............

RE: Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto as a copyright violation from http://www.moennig.com/fall83.pdf. Sandstein 04:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My post: "Pardon but if the issue is over only one section of the page, why have you deleted the entire page again? Do let me know. Thank you. User: Milliot 31 March, 2007 Again, if the issue is over one photo and small section of the text which incidentally did have attribution to the authour (Philip J. Kass), why are you deleting the whole page. That seems puzzling. Please extrapolate. Thank you in advance. ...........

Incidentally, the article is used with permission by Maestronet: Please see the full article at http://www.maestronet.com/m_library/world_strings/fall83.pdf (Selected World of Strings Newsletters Provided courtesy William Moening & Sons, Ltd, used by permission on Maestronet.com). For the meantime, I believe it should be OK to have a link directing to http://www.maestronet.com/m%5Flibrary/world_strings/index.cfm (Selected World of Strings Newsletters Provided courtesy William Moening & Sons, Ltd, used by permission on Maestronet.com) I have posted the article without the text and the photo that you objected to. Please let me know if there is anything you would like to add to these very important Violin Makers of the 20th century. User: Milliot 1 April, 2007"

Please take a look at the updated version of the article on User:Milliot/Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto, it should be OK since I deleted the photo from 1965 (for now) and the text which you raised issue with. Please put back the article to its rightful place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaetano_and_Pietro_Sgarabotto Thank you in advance.

User:Milliot 3 April, 2007

Yahoo! Deletions

If you saw the need to delete the Yahoo!Xtra page detailing the merger between Yahoo! Inc. and Telecom New Zealand, kicking MSN out of their NZ news portal site, then you may as well delete the page on Yahoo!7. Jake971 00:20, 28 February 2007 (NZST)

Done, Yahoo!7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is deleted. You can also use the {{db-a7}} tag for such cases. Sandstein 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I didn't really think either of them needed to be deleted. I mean, these mergers of web content between Yahoo! and both the Seven Network and Telecom New Zealand are quite notable events. Instead of killing the work people put into them, you could have at least moved the information onto the main Yahoo! page. Jake971 21:34, 28 February 2007 (NZST)

I'm sorry, but no. Per WP:CSD#A7, anything web-related that does not assert notability goes down the drain. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and notable events are better covered at Wikinews. Sandstein 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you may also like to have a look through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Yahoo%21, you may find some more things to delete there... Jake971 21:37, 28 February 2007 (NZST)

I'll get to it if I have the time. Sandstein 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a sarcastic comment... Jake971 12:03, 2 March 2007 (NZST)

How does being web-related automatically take away the significance of the merger between Yahoo! and Telecom New Zealand? This is a new media company that was just formed last Wednesday, and I think that both Telecom and Yahoo! would be a little offended if they new you were calling them insignificant companies. Jake971 11:32, 2 March 2007 (NZST)

It may well be a significant merger. It just doesn't necessarily belong in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. We are not a news service. Please see WP:NOT#OR no. 6. Anyway, the company may well have its article, where the merger may be mentioned, but its website probably doesn't deserve an article. Sandstein 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that this is not a news service, you just did not give enough time to build on the Wikipedia page about the company Yahoo!Xtra, just because they are a new company doesn't mean we have to wait 3 years for the risk that we might display some news. While yes, the company is a media company which produces a website, the Wikipedia page was not entitled "http://nz.yahoo.com" as this is the actual website, but "Yahoo!Xtra", the name of the media company who produces the website. The company did have it's website, but you deleted it. Jake971 12:03, 2 March 2007 (NZST)

WP:CSD#A7 also applies to companies. I'd have offered to restore Yahoo!Xtra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for you in order for you to rewrite it to match the WP:CORP notability standard, but you seem to already have done that. That's good. If you provide sources or even assertions of notability for the other stuff in Category:Yahoo!, it won't get deleted. Sandstein 05:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

help with wikifikation

Hi, you were kind enough to help me with my entry, Online Health Communities - can you tell me what I need to do to remove the warnings on the page? Thanks so much, Lisa Lisaneal 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Sandstein 07:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Lisaneal 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Chess Pieces article notability.

Hello, I'd like permission to remove your notability tag from Chess Pieces (MÄR) on the grounds that it's just another "List of Characters" article identicle to the ones most other articles on fictional stories have. Is this okay? - The Norse 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on Talk:Chess Pieces (MÄR). Sandstein 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your assistance on the matter...happy editing!--MONGO 07:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ko:User:Sandstein

Hello, this is Puzzlet Chung, a bureaucrat of Korean Wikipedia. Please don't take it as an offense, but I'd like to know weather you are the same user as ko:User:Sandstein. This user's contribution matches the pattern of a long-time abuser who had been impersonized two voice actors and one enwiki sysop. --Puzzlet Chung 13:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for notifying me. No, I am not that user. I do not speak Korean and have never edited the Korean Wikipedia. This is possibly the work of Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked on enwiki for vandalising Korea-related content. I've blocked some of his socks on enwiki, so he may be trying to take revenge.

I'd be grateful if you could block that impostor account, post a notice to the effect that this was an impostor on their user and talk page, and protect these pages. Best, Sandstein 14:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user and updated the userpage. Thanks. --Puzzlet Chung 15:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of content on Template_talk:Did_you_know reply

Oh my, sorry for the mistake. I was actually typing up something for the blood vomiting game at the top before noticing it'd already been suggested, and must've deleted the noted entry as well as my duplicate by accident. Sorry for the mix-up. CanbekEsen 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Review unblock

Hi, could you please review this block [3] if you don't mind as an independent observer not involved in the conflict. I have some serious objections against this block

1, it was not explained

2, user was not warned

3, lack of evidence, nothing justificative for block (not personal attack link in history provided)

4, two other administrators contradicts each other in block reason

5, block is for 2 weeks

6, one administrator mentions edit warring but without evidence

7, Rex Germanus provided a troublesome evidence on his defend, check this [4] (blocker + reviewer are talking about that they will block him, which disqualify that admin from review)

Although administrators block a lot of users, anons etc. they are in most cases obvious vandals. But this case seems to be completely different, because it is the user editing wikipedia and is not a vandal. His block is a little bit troublesome.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot at this time review the block because there is no open unblock request. If and when such a request is posted, with an unblock rationale, I may review it if I get to see it in time. Sandstein 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

done now, if you don't mind please review it again. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohioan1 & Condy Rice

Thanks! And I'll try to remember to post in all the right places next time. -- Mgunn 23:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential Vanity template

I've replaced all the current transclusions of this template with {{COI}} or {{notability}}. Hope this helps! – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I had to go to work before I was done. Sandstein 20:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Ytzhak Braithwaite

Hi, I saw the PROD notice you placed on Lawrence Ytzhak Braithwaite and agree that the article fails to assert notability. Another user has since been removed the notice without comment. Several citation tags have been added, all of which I feel are inappropriate. I thought I might give you a heads up as I've mentioned the PROD notice in addressing these issues at Talk:Lawrence Ytzhak Braithwaite. Victoriagirl 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again. Thanks for the clarification concerning the PROD notice. You may have noticed that the some of the references were later returned, while new ones were added. Unfortunately, none of the sources suppor the associated claims. I've reversed the edit. Victoriagirl 21:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnabé Brisson on DYK for 8 March 2007

On 8 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barnabé Brisson, 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 contribution! — ERcheck (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with User:Rollosmokes again

I just got a new and what I consider a very aggressive post on my talk page from User:Rollosmokes stating "Since you insist on making these needless and redundant changes to the article (and are trying to prove a point by doing so), I have once again asked Firsfron to interject. I am also requesting that the Metromedia article be locked and protected from editing until this crap dies down.". Apparently he waited until his temporary ban was over to start harassing me on my talk page again, I want to make clear that as of this post and prior to (except when I was advising him that I had requested mediation of the Metromedia article) and during his temporary ban I made no contact with him whatsoever. If you read my talk page you will clearly see that I made my point of why I made the edits to Metromedia and in fact one other Wikipedian agrees with me that my edits are warranted to remove what we both consider redundant information in the article. I would like to formally request that some action be taken, possibly another temporary ban until User:Rollosmokes learns to play nice with other Wikipedians. Thank you for your time. They call me Mr. Pibb 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on what you expect me to do and why exactly. I'm not up to date on this dispute but I note that you as well have made an incivil edit. Please calm down and do not make personal attacks. Sandstein 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I did no such thing, I did not make a personal attack it was User:Rollosmokes that made the remarks in my talk page saying "Until this crap calms down" I never instigated him, I simply made edits that I thought were appropriate and User:Rollosmokes started an edit war in Metromedia, I think it is appropriate that he have another temporary 24 hour edit banned again until he can learn to play nicely with other Wikipedia users. They call me Mr. Pibb 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. That edit of yours was incivil. In the future, please do not make derogatory comments about fellow editors, but just report obvious misbehaviour to WP:AIV or to an admin such as I. Rollosmokes is blocked 48h for editwarring. Sandstein 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

unblocked

I guess the block was a mistake and has been lifted. Wikipedia is strange.

Rossen3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossen3 (talk • contribs)

Your account was never blocked. More likely you ran into a WP:AUTOBLOCK. Sandstein 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

David Harrison (Singer/Songwriter)

I would like to appeal against the decision to delete the above article. All suggestions to correct and retain the article using non-trivial independent sources were put into place, and no notability as a cult artist was established.

What reasons do you have for removing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

The article named David Harrison (singer/songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted by community consensus as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harrison (singer/songwriter). If you disagree, you may appeal that decision at WP:DRV, but I counsel against it unless you can provide additional references to multiple substantial coverage by reliable sources. Sandstein 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A question concerning WP:AIV

Hi, thanks for responding to my AIV report about Talktechno. However, I am slightly confused as to why you said my report was invalid...the user was blocked for having a promotional username (I did not want to go through WP:RFC/NAME because WP:AIV would be quicker), not vandalism. Can you tell me why you thought my report was invalid? Thanks! +A.0u 19:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be replying on your talk. Sandstein 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your comments on my my recent RfA in which I withdrew because the oppose votes were almost equalling the supporters. I then decided to leave my account (Tellyaddict) and start fresh under a new username, however I quickly decided to reconsider after another user persuaded me not to leave the account - I am now glad I did reconsider because leaving that account and creating a new one was too hasty so I've decided to improve rather than starting again! I hope we can remain civil and that there were no negative feelings caused. Again, thanks for your support even though you opposed and I withdrew it, your vote is much appreciated! Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:71.127.143.19

Hey, the reason I reported this one to AIV is that this IP has been majorly disrupting WP:AFC for several hours. This is not only a huge pain to clean up, but it can present serious WP:BITE issues to new users seeing that their submission now reads "Your Mama is a Hindu Temple in poopland" rather than "Sandkanda Devi is a Hindu temple in India". Part Deux 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we usually only block vandals if they have vandalised after a final warning, and this one has not. Sandstein 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a clear case of WP:IAR. I seriously doubt the user will contribute helpfully in the next 24 hours. Part Deux 22:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, who knows? They may have taken the warning to heart - no vandalism so far. If if recommences, let me know and I'll block them. Sandstein 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

I've email the detail to you. --pgk 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jj._hoaakkey also was requesting unblock. Same reasoning --pgk 22:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Sandstein 22:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And I see you've already dealt with User:Arwel this is the normal pattern, I'd expect a number of the other socks to request unblocks. --pgk 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Template help request

Hi, I'm contacting you because you identify as a template expert, and I wonder if you could spare a few minutes to help me out with a law citation template I'm building at User:Sandstein/Cite swiss law. My problems are:

The template allows for the name of the law to be provided in zero to four languages as the parameters en, de, fr and it. For every one of these parameters which is not provided, though, the template output produces a line break. Can this be prevented?
The template requires a mandatory parameter, sr, which is the official number of the law. That number may include colons, e.g. 115.20.5, but the URL of the law's page on the government server to which the template should link replaces these colons with underscores, e.g. 115_20_5. Is there a way to automatically substitute colons and underscores with one another, so that the number is displayed properly with colons in the template output, but features underscores when used as a parameter in the URL that it links to?

Any help through comments or edits to the template would be much appreciated. Sandstein 07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I fixed the new line issue. About string substitution, I tried meta:StringFunctions##replace:, but only realized the meta page says "These functions are currently not installed at the Wikimedia projects." after failing. Cheers. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Could you also add the same protection for Merano and South Tyrol as you did for Bolzano. I've tried to initiate the relevant discussion on the talk pages. Taalo 08:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the edit wars there have not yet escalated to a level that protection is required. Protection is a last resort. If it becomes necessary, list the pages at WP:RPP. Sandstein 08:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good enough. I think a discussion should hopefully start now based on your warning. I added a section to discuss ideas on naming order as well. Additionally, I feel I may be guilty (doh!) of 3RR on Bolzano. I tried to count what I did -- sometimes I get three, sometimes I get four, not sure since a few edits I was just trying to clean up stuff.. :} Taalo 08:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your recent block of Wikipediaville

Replied. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Order of names in articles concerning places in South Tyrol

Hi Sandstein, You ware right protecting Bolzano, but note that the order shout be it-lad-de only for places in the ladin part of region (such as Ortisei..)

But Taalo is chancing ths everywhere meybe it is time for user:Taalo to have a little break--Martin Se 09:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As the intervening admin, I do not take a stance on this issue. Please discuss it with the other editors and request unprotection on WP:RPP once there is consensus. Sandstein 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

English is not my first language and Taalo is no person for consensus--Martin Se 09:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith about your fellow editors. I note that he has (now) sought to discuss the issue at Talk:Bolzano, but you have not yet replied. Try and work the problem out there. Sandstein 09:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Martin... Taalo 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Ukrained

Please note my reply at User_talk:Ukrained#Final_no_personal_attacks_warning.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent block of RaptorRobot

I have responded on User talk:RaptorRobot. It is my belief that this is definitely an abusive sockpuppet. If you read my comments and disagree, I would not consider it wheel-warring to unblock this user. I would be sure you are wrong, mind you, but I am happy to allow you to override me. --Yamla 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Another admin has now denied the request, so that's moot; I'd not have unblocked anyway. Sandstein 05:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

blooking

how can you block me from editing? I have not been on this site for months. You accuse me of harassment, you better have proof of that or I will take everything you have and ever will have. Yopu better make sure you have the write IPO address before you start accusing people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjmayer (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Hm? Your account was not blocked. But after this legal threat, it certainly is. Sandstein 05:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad

The problem is that this autoblock needs clearing. The user was unblocked, but the autoblock is still on.--Domitius 19:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The first link you provide gives: "The blocklist is empty or the requested IP address/username is not blocked." The user needs to follow the instructions in {{Autoblock}} exactly, that's all. Sandstein 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Block template

I understand my block has expired. Please could you now remove the template from my Talk Page. David Lauder 08:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. If you want to get rid of the whole "Blocked" thread, it is recommended to archive it. It is not prohibited by policy just to delete the thread, although many would consider that bad form. Sandstein 08:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike Church

Thanks for blocking User:Rspeer drinks the haterade. Would you mind helping me block other Mike Church sockpuppets as they spring up? This has become a bit of a lonely job.

Basically all you need to do is watch the user pages of his sockpuppets; generally when he starts a new sockpuppet, one of the first things he does is to try to alter the block messages on his other incarnations so that they look like they were incorrectly blocked. User:Mike Church, User:Pensive, User:Pwnsive, and User:PWnsivander the Great are good places to start watching.

Thanks very much if you can help. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll give it a try; thanks for the m.o. info. Sandstein 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Holistic Operational Readiness Security Evaluation

It looks like the Holistic Operational Readiness Security Evaluation page has been deleted again. I thought I followed recommendations and I was watching the page so I am not sure why this occured again?

Please advise --Eccentric67 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I deleted the page per WP:CSD#A7, which reads: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." If you want this to not occur, write an article that indicates why the subject is notable. Sandstein 20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up question

Please see: Template talk:Deathyr Jerry 03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Sandstein 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. hmmmmm. Thanks for the reply and patience. Jerry 21:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Blocked

I agree with the block, we were edit warring, but I've never called him like you wrote. I must object to it. I fully respected the block and I didn't try to evade it, but he did not [5], I reverted it back and I appealed him to discussion on the talk page as you advised. I must also object to that I falsely accused him as a vandal, I did it three times only where he changed Brno to Brunn after 1918 and not between 1620-1918. The rest was simple edit war between us, which I regret. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 07:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I note your objection. Absent a checkuser, I cannot immediately assume that the anonymous edit you cite was done by R9tgokunks (talk · contribs). I'll request their comment. Sandstein 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to report that edit, I just wanted to comment my block and comment your comments to that and I objected your comments not that edit, sorry if you understood wrongly to my english. Nothing more. I think we would need to take a cup of tea and discuss changes rather then anything other, R9tgokunks and me. We should did it before. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where that is mentioned, but anyway, other than that i didn't evade it because thats not me, my IP is completely different, and I'm not that foolish to take such a risk. Check user should confirm that its not me, and I'm guessing its not from my state either. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is settled. Please both go to Talk:Brno to find a consensus on how this city should be referred to during the various periods of its history. For instance, try to find historical sources that show what its inhabitants (or rulers) called it in this or that period. If you don't get ahead, try to get other editors involved via WP:RfC or WP:3O. I think we had similar issues with Gdansk/Danzig, Istanbul/Constantinople etc.; maybe you can take a look at how these cases were handled? Best, Sandstein 19:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein, please that anon user ignores talk request [6] as you advised for Brno. I appealed him twice for discussion. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left them a note. It would help if you'd also try to engage them directly in discussion, on their talk page if need be, and explain Wikipedia policies to them. I think that would be more helpful than just reverting them. Try also not to be too confrontational in edit summaries: "POV" is not needed if "unattributed content" would do also. Sandstein 20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ok. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Accidental Centaurs

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Accidental Centaurs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee 06:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Sandstein 12:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)