User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/June

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.

Thanks for re-listing! :) Debate (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

When you closed the discussion for Jeremy Nell, you forgot to close it for Urban Trash and Ditwits too. rrcatto (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the AfD?  Sandstein  17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Nell rrcatto (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done now; thanks.  Sandstein  18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was this page deleted??? It had been in Wikipedia for nearly 5 years. I am an internationally produced and published playwright and novelist, not a random vandal. Explanation, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill hughes (talk • contribs)

Nobody says you're a vandal. However, our community of editors has decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Elaine Hughes that you are not notable enough to be included in our encyclopedia - i.e., there is not enough being written about you in third party sources, such as in newspapers, that could form the basis of an entry about you.  Sandstein  06:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to rebuild Ty Lee's link, since the reason for deleting was something stupid like she was deleted to a dead link. I fixed the link, by switching from Avatar list of minor characters to giving her own page for the time being, so I'm going to recreate it. Please do not auto-revert or something like that. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. These characters have been found to be non-notable in AfDs; in addition, there are no third party sources cited about her. See WP:FICT, WP:N.  Sandstein  14:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You decided in favor of keeping this article. Your judgement was justified with "no consensus". By that, did you mean "no consensus among Wikipedia administrators who looked at the AfD discussion" or "no consensus among those who discussed deletion"?

I ask this because it's not clear to me what the criteria are for a decision to keep or delete. If it's based on tallying votes of those who discussed, are these votes weighted in any way by credentials of those voting?

The subject was (implicitly) claimed to be a notable topic in theoretical computer science, by an anonymous single purpose account user with a prose style featuring flaws nearly identical to those of the main promoter of the idea of super-recursive algorithms.

A logician in the discussion read the background material and confessed that, after reading, he still had no clear idea of what "super-recursive algorithm" really meant -- and, of course, after reading all that, he should have understood, if there was anything to understand.

A noted computer scientist, Vaughan Pratt voted for deletion, noting in the process that a review by Martin Davis, a Turing Award winner, of the only book on the subject of super-recursive algorithms (whatever they are), was sarcastically dismissive of the book for its lack of any proven results on super-recursive algorithms per se, mathematical or otherwise.

At least one participant with a serious logic/theory background erased his early keep votes.

I nominated the article for deletion after noting that there was little (if any) actual theory to speak of, and no clear citation of any independent peer-reviewed article on the subject. (I have yet to find an unambiguous case of that.)

I repeated my challenge to find one unambiguously independent, peer-reviewed treatment of the subject in the literature on the Talk page and in the AfD discussion. Here, I repeat that challenge to you. If nobody else could find one (not even Multipundit, the author of the article), maybe you could give it a try? And if none turns up, what's the case for Wikipedia notability here? It must be based on something I missed in reading notability guidelines for scientific topics. Yakushima (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the AfD.  Sandstein  13:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See updated header (it was "super-recursive algorithm", I mistaken wrote "super-recursive algorithms". Yakushima (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super-recursive algorithm, then. I have no opinion about the substance of the dispute and won't comment on your opinion above. As administrator, I must simply determine whether there is consensus to delete an article; this was not the case in this instance. There's nothing more for me to do here. If you still think the article is deficient, you can re-nominate it for deletion after a few months if it has not improved.  Sandstein  07:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

May I renominate it for deletion if I've improved it, even if the improvements amount to little more than exhaustively documenting how there's no WP-notable topic in computer science called "super-recursive algorithms"? There isn't much else left to do with this article. There is no independent peer reviewed work on the topic. Multipundit, the original author and persistent POV-pusher of the article, wasn't able to come up with any such references when challenged. A librarian offered a keep vote, but wasn't able to come up with one. Which is to say, the "improved" Wikipedia article will end up showcasing the topic as the kind of thing that shouldn't be on Wikipedia: junk science that isn't even notable junk science. People with the expertise to write about abstruse (but hardly insignificant) computing theory topics might be excused for thinking that Wikipedia's treatment of their field makes trying to contribute a waste of time.

Your field is jurisprudence? Let's see how it would sit with you:

You notice an article about a legal topic with so little substance that nobody, except a few outside the specialty, even bother writing about it. When they do write, they don't write much - mostly they briefly cite and move on. You try to find independent, peer-reviewed sources that would, by discussing the topic at significant length, substantiate the notability of this problematic, small-minority-view legal topic. After all, isn't it possible that somebody has written an entire peer-reviewed article just to point out that the topic's foundation consists of laughable errors? You discover that the topic had somehow come to the attention of one of the most highly regarded specialists in the relevant legal field. However, this scholar had only written a scathingly sarcastic, dismissive review of a (non-peer reviewed) book written by the only person really pushing the topic. Moreover, because book reviews -- even by noted authorities -- aren't peer reviewed, even that review doesn't qualify as peer reviewed work. You discuss the topic's notability with others who are blessed with more (in some cases, far more) than your own credentials in the field, and they agree: there's nothing here. Their consensus: Delete, and maybe just add a few lines about it as a small-minority view in an article collecting small-minority views.

The decision goes to a Wikipedia admin who is an intelligent person (let's say, a good computing theorist?), but unfortunately, one knows nothing about the field of law. This admin scans the AfD discussion and counts the "keep" votes of those who know nothing about the field of law -- apparently weighing them as if they weighed equally with estimable legal scholars, some of whom are actually in the legal specialty in which this topic would be addressed if it were actually a topic. This admin, not seeing consensus, delivers the verdict: "No consensus, keep."

If you were a legal scholar (and I gather you are), would you contribute to an encyclopedia on legal topics if that were the process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, as we're an encyclopedia that anyone can anonymously edit, we're in practice unable to reliably assess anyone's credentials in a particular field. For that reason, when closing AfDs, administrators do weigh the strength of arguments, but they can't do so based on the knowledge the contributors have in the field of knowledge at issue. Instead, administrators look to the strength of argument with respect to our inclusion policies, specifically WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:BLP and WP:N – essentially, the more coverage in reliable sources something has, the likelier are we to include it, and counting sources is something even nonspecialists are able to do. Sorry, that's the way we work, and if you find it unsatisfiying, this project may not be ideal for you. There's nothing to prevent you from immediately renominating the article for deletion, but if you do it too soon and/or with no new arguments, this may be viewed as disruptive.  Sandstein  06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a hypothetical case where the shoe was on the other foot: an admin with a computing theory background, but with no legal knowledge to speak of, decided that there was enough coverage of a topic in what seemed to him to be reliable sources, even though those in the discussion who knew the topic knew the sources were not reliable on legal subjects. What would you do? Keep rolling the AfD dice, in hopes that the final decision would eventually go to admin who could assess the reliability of the sources? What is the best thing to do in cases like these? Yakushima (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken about the role of AfD closers. We don't decide about the merits of an article or its sources. We decide whether there's consensus among editors, as viewed in the light of applicable policy and guidelines, to delete an article. The community trusts admins to do that even though they may have no experience about the subject matter of an article. It all boils down to: we're an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Sandstein  16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am writing this this letter because the current situation has important social implications. To understand this situation, we have to analyze arguments of those who insisted on deleting the article “Super-recursive algorithm”. The most aggressive proponent of deletion is Yakushima. Here are only two excerpts of what Yakushima wrote participating in the discussion.

That's no mere coincidence. He's hiding something, no doubt in my mind. And if I can find out what it is, I might be able to get transfinite clock rates on my Turing machine accelerator. Then I'll be worth billions, and like Gates, Jobs and Wozniak, nobody will care that I never got my BS in CS, because I'll have more BS in CS than anybody else alive. Yakushima (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2008

Those who comprehend will bury the Pratts by make glorious the citation index, as by article like Three levels of the symbolosphere by which one can inductively increase citation index to infinity, and also more efficiently than with crippled, limited, ordinary blind peer review process. Yakushima (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2008

It's not necessary to be an expert in the field of the discussion to understand that the person who wrote this has distorted comprehension of reality. Being aware that he is not an expert in the field he is writing about Yakushima appeals to the opinion of "a noted computer scientist, Vaughan Pratt."

In contrast to Yakushima who was not able to get even the least degree in computer science, whose list of publications contains one paper with four other coauthors and who is now working as a manager of a hotel, Pratt has degrees and some publications. However, the following excerpt from the discussion on the article “Super-recursive algorithm” demonstrates the level of his argumentation.

Three logical mistakes in one sentence

Pete St.John (10 March 2008) attracted our attention to the explanation of Pratt and wrote that “Pratt didn't say "exclusively arithmetic and analytic" but "such as…" instead.” This explanation does not help. Even with this explanation the Pratt’s sentence under consideration contains three logical and a couple of factual mistakes.

1. It is claimed that super-recursive algorithm is a name for computability classes above Turing degree 0 such as the arithmetic and analytic hierarchies. However, the arithmetic and analytic hierarchies consist of sets (Rogers 1987). Sets are not algorithms and to assert that an algorithm is an name for a class of sets distorts our understanding of algorithms. To say so is the same as to say that a plane is a name for passengers it carries. Thus, we have here a logical fallacy called False Analogy.

2. It is also incorrect to write “such as” (even in the new meaning) because there are super-recursive algorithms that have nothing to do with the arithmetic and analytic hierarchies. This is a logical fallacy called Suppressed Evidence because in the article "Super-recursive Algorithm" there is evidence that there are super-recursive algorithms that have nothing to do with the arithmetic and analytic hierarchies.

3. In addition, the argument that “the arithmetic and analytic hierarchies … have been studied for many decades” has nothing to do with the topic of our discussion. Thus, this is a logical fallacy called Red Herring [1].

It is interesting to see a person who, as Pete St.John (8 March 2008) writes, is “acknowledged to be the logician” and makes three logical mistakes in one sentence.

• [1] A fallacy is an error in reasoning. A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
• [2] A False Analogy is a fallacy in which an analogy is irrelevant.
• [3] A Suppressed Evidence is a fallacy of intentional failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant.

Thus, discussion related to the article “Super-recursive algorithm” exposed a very low logical proficiency of Pratt. Really, how we can call a person who in one sentence can make three mistakes. So, if the article would be deleted, the discussion also goes away and Pratt can continue to pretend that he is somebody like a logician. That is why Pratt insists on deleting the article

Hopefully it's possible to understand that this is not a personal attack but analysis of arguments in the discussion. To make a right decision, it is necessary to know what arguments are valid and what arguments are invalid.

The problem with this situation is not the fate of one particular article in WIKIPEDIA.

For such project as WIKIPEDIA, as well as for the whole society, it's important who will prevail – aggressive ignorance or decent knowledge.

With respect, Multipundit (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Architectural design values. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Smile a While (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On 4 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen (Berne), 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up for me. I'll be more careful if I ever do a non-admin closure in future. -- Mark Chovain 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Best,  Sandstein  06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On 5 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kramgasse, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you – again!  Sandstein  14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your closing statemnent in the above AfD, I would like to further enquire as to the extent to which you feel reasonable people have "disagreed over the application of WP:ORG". Specifically, I would say that there does not appear to be any thread within the debate which has demonstrated that the sources cited are anything but trivial sources. Yet the debate has attracted comments from a couple of well-established AfD participants, who said that in their subjective view this may be borderline notable (one of whom voted to redirect), but still without showing how this notability is established. I know you did not resort to merely counting votes to resolve the impasse, because there were only 4 'keep' votes out of 13 participants, so am wondering how you made the decision. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There were also three "merge" opinions, which for AfD purposes is a variant of "keep", as it does not involve deletion. That means there's no numerical consensus. No opinions were so clearly outside established policy and guidelines (WP:ATA) that I had to discount them; and there were also no arguments that forced me to delete irrespective of consensus (such as copyvio or irremediable core policy violations). Essentially, the trend of the discussion was that this organisation is probably not not notable enough, but there was no consensus to remedy that though deletion. You could claim with some justification, though, that the outcome allows you to merge the article to somewhere else. I couldn't really close the AfD as "merge" because no clear merge target emerged from the discussion.  Sandstein  06:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your explanation. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. Although the edit concerned was automated, updating the template links would seem wise before they become red. What do you think? Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Closed AfDs must not be edited, and comments by other people must also not be edited (see WP:TPG). Your edit did not change template links, but article links. They don't need to be updated; that's what redirects are for. Please do not make any more such edits. Also, please make particularly sure that you manually check all automated edits.  Sandstein  15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies again; my having been busy working on templates must also have contributed to my oversight. Thanks for the repair. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Best,  Sandstein  16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein, is it possible to view the edit history of a deleted entry? Currently I cannot view the history of Astrotheology, and perhaps that's just how it works, but is there a way to delete it and keep the history? I would appreciate the ability to do so, but if not possible then clearly it is what it is. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, only administrators are able to view deleted pages.  Sandstein  17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So it is what it is. Thanks for answering. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting at the talk pages of the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. Since you userfied this for me, I've now made some small alterations, which are explained in greater detail at User talk:DeLarge/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. Basically, I've flipped the page so that the latest years are at the bottom (to make the TOC more intuitively navigable), and converted the 2005-2007 data into tables which now include precise sales figures.

The work done so far was quite labour-intensive, so before I commit more time to this, I'd appreciate any feedback to say whether it's worthwhile continuing with the years prior to 2005. Thanks in advance for any comments you can offer. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think the objections at the AfD were against the concept and content of this list (it was viewed as indiscriminate and unimportant), not against the way in which it was formatted. I'd not continue if I were you.  Sandstein  05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

On 7 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerechtigkeitsgasse, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And thanks again!  Sandstein  20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. I'm taking Derelect (Alien) to deletion review. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you manage to preserve the BMK article that I could modify it, or was it totally deleted? Douglasnicol (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article or AfD at issue.  Sandstein  17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I originally posted the article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_8#Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_.28closed.29

but was told it was the wrong forum. You directed me here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_8#Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_.28closed.29

On the bottom of the article it tells me to go back to the deletion review process and submit the article again.

So, could you perhaps tell me I can nominate this article for deletion?? The previous review process had an overwhelming vote for delete, but I guess that didn't work out. I'm very concerned about wikipedia hosting a propaganda piece, so any response will be greatly appreciated.

thanks!

Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing about the deletion review process at the bottom of the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid. To nominate that article for deletion, follow the instructions at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. Before you do that, please read WP:BEFORE.  Sandstein  21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not understanding how to do this. I tried adding it but it says wrong template. On the how-to page, it says insert code into page. What page?! Here:

"Insert the [insert code here] tag at the top of the page if it's the article's first AfD nomination"

what page?! I just want to nominate this page for deletion!

I'm not really technologically saavy! thanks for the quick response Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you cannot follow these instructions, you should try to become much more familiar with Wikipedia's general processes before trying to initiate a deletion discussion. I'm not best qualified to provide technical support of this kind; please ask at WP:Help desk.  Sandstein  22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify briefly, "the page" means the article that you want to propose for deletion.  Sandstein  22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your quick response. I'm just very new at this. I never realized wikipedia was this complex. XD again, thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm wondering why my article was deleted. Dr Shad Helmstetter is a noted self help speaker very similar to Tony Robbins, which I see his page is still active. He is most definitely a verifiable reference. Please explain why the page was removed.

Seth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selftalk (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the article read like a glossy advertising brochure; see WP:CSD#G11.  Sandstein  22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was still working on it. This is not blatant advertising. Please allow me to finish the article before removing it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selftalk (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No. In fact, if you continue to spam Wikipedia with this type of content, I will block you from editing.  Sandstein  22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And verily, he recreated the article - Shad Helmstetter. I have cut it back to 2 sentences and a list of books & tapes. You might want to give it the chop again, for all I care. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference out of its misery. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.  Sandstein  19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was just coming by to say exactly the same thing, but davidwr beat me to it :) Indeed, thanks for that. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, its just going to come back and haunt us. There was precedent for those 27 articles to be deleted. While it looked long and painful, it will be much, much longer now. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether there was precedent, but what matters is that there was certainly no consensus.  Sandstein  19:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There was precedent. Cincinnati Hills League is from the same list of disputed conferences. The fact Pioneer Conference's edit history just says reverted my edit for the AfD, just says the last week was a waste of time. That is not cool, I would ask for a decision based upon the list UWMSports provided after Arbitrary Break #6. The fact an admin can come in and close the discussion after not having participated in it is wrong. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the AfD was a waste of time, but I can't help that. As I said, precedent on its own does not matter, consensus does. As to my closing the discussion, our guidelines actually say: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."  Sandstein  19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree someone on the outside (outside being neutral, not outside being completely out of the discussion!) should close it, but that's after getting together with another admin or two or three should have gotten together and assessed the situation to a tee before simply putting a no consensus tag on there. A no consensus decision does absolutely no good as the articles will just come back to AfDs eventually and waste everyone's time again. Huskies pointed it out, I broke down the articles under Arbitrary Break#6 which show which articles are duplicates from a main central list. That could have easily been looked at thoroughly by an admin in 10-15 minutes tops. Now we will spend months evaluating each article. Thanks. --UWMSports (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That list at "Arbitrary break 6" also does not indicate community consensus about the fate of these articles. Admins can't just make whatever decision they feel is right; they must follow consensus. Such consensus was not established in that discussion.  Sandstein  19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

People are always going to have different opinions, but its best to go with precedent. That's the only way to maintain some order. Cincinnati Hills League was a conference deleted from the main Ohio High School Athletic Conferences list. Those 27 conferences were like that one, which is nothing but duplicate information. I would ask you attach the link to whenever a centralized chat is setup within your decision on the Pioneer AfD page. People need to know where to go.--UWMSports (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, closed AfDs may not be edited. There are other venues for promoting centralised discussioN; try posting a message on the talk pages of the AfD participants.  Sandstein  20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just asking for a link because I assume most of us had that discussion on our watch list. I'm just asking you to direct the conversation somewhere else and not have us all run around like chickens with our heads cut off. We did give a week of our time to this discussion. A link is not going to change the decision you made. --UWMSports (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Painful. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All I want to do change your link from centralized discussion to this Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Football Conferences --UWMSports (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All right.  Sandstein  20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I just went through a drop a notification to every single user who participated in the AfD, so everyone should be aware of the continuing discussion. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, so editing the AfD is not required.  Sandstein  20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just let me place the link. It won't change anything in the discussion. Can you lift the editblock for 2 minutes. That's all I want to do, and I'll leave you be. Thanks. --UWMSports (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Or even you can do it. Change from "A centralised discussion might be better" to "This centralized discussion might be better". Thanks. --UWMSports (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no opinion about that being the best location for discussion. You have not demonstrated that such an edit is necessary in the interest of establishing consensus even after the AfD contributors have been individually notified. As a general rule, AfDs are a record of a community discussion that should not be altered once closed.  Sandstein  20:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not changing the record. It's giving those who put a week into discussing this a chance to see where the discussion went if Jaysweet happened to miss them when he sent out notifications. The decision is final and the AfD is not going to be re-opened. I'm just asking for the link to help confused users. That's all. You can do it so you don't have to remove the lock. --UWMSports (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's what it takes... all right, done.  Sandstein  20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --UWMSports (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just have to say this was a poor decision on your part to close this discussion. There could be several AfDs to follow unfortunately. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The last edit on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference was an edit conflict that wasn't. You closed it before I hit the save button, but there was no "edit conflict." When I previewed, I didn't see the closure. Call it bad timing. I considered self-reverting but figured why bother. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem, thanks for the info.  Sandstein  19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've made a recommendation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio#Centralized Discussion for reorganization of high school football conferences to use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio/HS Football Conferences 2008 Reorg, but it's only polite to let the WP:OHIO participates have a chance to say "no" before I start the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The centralized discussion is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You recently closed an Afd Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism, about two weeks ago. I thought it was well-done. Yet, immediately afterwards they took it to deletion review, and it was upheld, correctly, I think. However, now they simply started the Afd all over again - less than two weeks. My question is, is this allowed? It seems absurd to start the merry-go-round all over again when the last one just barely was completed. I know the subject still strikes a tender nerve for many Americans, but contiguous Afd's attempts seems disruptive and a waste of time/effort. The nom should have seen the afd that just concluded, and reviewed it, before starting the process over again. I feel that they should be notified, and warned not to abuse this process, and this should be closed with a Speedy Keep. Your thoughts? Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is allowed, particularly since the last AfD yielded no consensus. WP:SK does not provide for speedy keeps in case of repeat nominations. However, if the repeat nomination is widely perceived to be disruptive, it may be grounds for sanctions.  Sandstein  05:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to ask administrators to remove all positions in music articles from charts deleted by AfD? For instance: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot100Brasil and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. Tosqueira (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean. What do you mean by "positions"?  Sandstein  21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For instance: Smells Like Teen Spirit has a lot of "chart positions": If one of them was from United World Chart, I believe that the part which mentions "UWC" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosqueira (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• If there are a lot of "red links" (like United World Chart), someone may recreate the page again sooner or later. Tosqueira (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you have a prank message link on your user page, which indicates to me that you are not interested in productive communication. I decline to reply.  Sandstein  05:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I've just removed the prank message from my user page and my user talk. And I put a "deletion template" on the useless prank: User:Tosqueira/Punk'd. Can you answer me? Tosqueira (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but I still don't understand the problem. Do you mean the fact that there are a number of red links to United World Chart? These can be automatically unlinked, but I won't do that, since it's possible that someone may discover sources that makes them notable and then the article may be recreated.  Sandstein  05:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein, I edited this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshiaki_Arata

for what I thought was a logical error:

Arata gained media attention in May 2008 when he publicly demonstrated what he said was a successful cold fusion experiment

He haven't demonstrated his speech, he demonstraded the creation of helium 4 in a clod fusion reaction, so the sentence is logically wrong.

It should be:

Arata gained media attention in May 2008 when he publicly demonstrated a successful cold fusion experiment

Why did you undo the changes?

Thank you for your effort in making a better Wikipedia

- )

Umberto

It's because of our rule WP:ASF. We do not actually know whether the experiment was successful. Arata claims it was, but nobody else has independently verified that it was successful. This means we must not imply by our choice of words that the experiment was successful. We must state instead that Arata has said that it was successful.

I think the sentence works fine as a matter of syntax, but we could rephrase it to: "Arata gained media attention in May 2008 when he publicly demonstrated a cold fusion experiment that he said was successful", but that would be more cumbersome.  Sandstein  20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for the quick answer! I understand now your argument, and I do fully agree on the mentioned rule. However, I don't fully get this point

Arata claims it was, but nobody else has independently verified that it was successful

The goal of the experiment was to demonstrate excess of heat and production of helium, a stirling engine was used to show the production of heat to the public. The scientific theory at the basis of the experiment are solid and proven, one of the countless examples is the report RT2002/41/FUS fone by the Italian public institute of energy. The experiment was then just a public demonstration to show that is possible to tap cold nuclear fusion energy (everybody present saw that), using that kind of lexicon led the idea that he has only his word as support.

To add more information to the sentence, I would cut it in two:

Arata gained media attention in May 2008 when he publicly demonstrated a cold fusion experiment. The demonstration was not independently verified, but the results are in accordance with the current state of development of the scientific bases of the cold fusion.

However, you decide :-), this is just my idea.

Regards Umberto

I am curious why you changed the text in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes to remove the "coaches" term. There are three (3) editors who approve of removing "coaches" in Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#More WP:ATHLETE (Coaches) and another three (3) editors who approve of extending "Competitors and coaches" to also include "officials" in Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Sportspeople. Three-vs-three is hardly a consensus to remove "coaches". That is why I restored the text to the version that has been in effect for several months (at least since February 2008, and probably before that). I dislike edit wars and I urge you to reconsider your edit and restore it to the version that has been generally accepted by the Wikimmunity for some time. Feel free to discuss this on my talk page. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think three to four (Kevin Murray, at the bottom of the talk page, also opposes) is hardly a consensus to include it, but I'm not going to insist if someone else wants to change the wording back.  Sandstein  06:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Got the email at 3:50 this morning before getting on my flight. Thanks. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 10:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Great; have a nice trip!  Sandstein  10:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On 15 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Aar bridges in Berne, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, he was right. The original block had expired but he was still blocked ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi umm i was just surfing arond and i notised that u said that u dont have a kind sole. Why is dis? U seem pritty nice 2 me :) Shadow cube (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you want to say to me.  Sandstein  17:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shadow_goblin on dis vandals unblok request u sed u dont have a kind sole. Shadow cube (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you hit the "unprotect" button instead of the "protect" one.
Kww (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks.  Sandstein  14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

--Sonisona (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pakistan World for the discussion in which the community decided to delete Miss Pakistan World.  Sandstein  05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your point. You don't want any mention of Ulteo in Wikipedia articles where it makes sense to talk about Ulteo? For instance, Ulteo is the only service that provides OpenOffice.org in the web browser. If you continue to block Ulteo from Wikipedia, this is going to do big noise. This is not advertizing, and this is against any rule here. Vautnavette (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Ulteo can be mentioned where such a mention is based on reliable sources, contributes to the purpose of the article and if there's consensus for it. It may not, however, be simply mentioned with the apparent purpose of advertising it.  Sandstein  08:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have answered to you comments on my talk page. Vautnavette (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my answers and other question on my talk page Vautnavette (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand.. the community may ve islamic extremists and thats why they may not want it... like can u explain why the community connot make a new article... or should i go ahead and start a new article on it.--Sonisona (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What article?  Sandstein  14:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Latte Art page was deleted recently. I was using it as a reference for a Siggraph 2008 contribution on Latte Art Printing machines. Would it be possible to modify the page so it fits Wikipedia standards? Thank you Opikalo (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if one could find reliable sources to support the article's content so that it would stop being original research, that would be possible.  Sandstein  17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess my publication at SIGGRAPH does work as a reliable source. Can you do the magic and restore the original Latte Art page (it had some good links), or should I start from scratch? Opikalo (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it to User:Opikalo/Latte art for you to work on.  Sandstein  18:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

I noticed that you deleted the Salvation Army filmography article, and I was hoping that you might consider reinstating it. In the deletion discussion, MovieMadness suggested that a proper Salvation Army filmography "should be limited to films in which a major focus is placed on the organization". Obviously, there were many films in the filmography that did not place a major focus on the organization, but many others did. Would you be willing to restore the article if it was reduced to a discussion of films that focus on The Salvation Army? It could be similar to the Filmography of the Rwandan Genocide.

Neelix (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not my decision to make, but the community's. I can userfy the article to your user space, if you wish to work on it. Once it's revised enough so as not to qualify for WP:CSD#G4, you may then move it back to article space.  Sandstein  08:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

That would be wonderful. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to redeem the article. How would I access it once it is userfied?

Neelix (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it for you at User:Neelix/Salvation Army filmography.  Sandstein  14:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ulteo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me!  Sandstein  08:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Canada has been the most dominant ruling power in Canada for the last century. A candidate of a major party for a federal riding is obviously significant. Prodeepster (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly she's indeed notable, but candidates are not notable per se, and Rebecca Finch did not assert any notability. The article may be recreated if it does.  Sandstein  05:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You protected Tosser without discussion? Why? Please comment at Talk:Tosser --ClariT (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is not a prerequisite for protection. See my reply at the article talk page, please.  Sandstein  21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am writing to disprove the two reasons why my article was deleted as not notable:

1) In response to the accusation that supposedly no third-party articles are written about me or lack of credible publications, I submit the below in rebuttal:

http://www.halleonard.com/item_detail.jsp?location=Reference&refer=upcomingReleases&itemid=458&order=60&catcode=5 (publication of Hughes’ play in a the prestigious annual BEST AMERICAN PLAYS anthology, alongside works by Pulitzer Prize winners Terrence McNally and Paula Vogel)

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=1518 (Chicago news article mentioning Jill Elaine Hughes as founder of Stockyards Theatre Project when she stepped down from her post)

http://www.chicagotheatrehistoryproject.org/database.php?personId=223 Included in Chicago Theatre History Project database

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:34cHOmjKfRYJ:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20020104/ai_n9611018+%22jill+elaine+hughes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=59&gl=us Chicago Sun-Times article mentioning Jill Elaine Hughes

http://www.uc.edu/profiles/profile.asp?id=6851 University profile of Hughes

http://www.performink.com/Archives/curtain/2004/6-11Curtain.htm Another article mentioning Hughes as founder of Stockyards Theatre Project

2) Re: accusation that I have never so much as published a paperback book, see below (Amazon pre-order site for my novel MARKET FOR LOVE (to be published under my erotica pseudonym "Jamaica Layne" in October 2008 by Virgin Books; see my website www.jillelainehughes.com for verification that I write under the name "Jamaica Layne"; also see my blog, jillelainehughes.blogspot.com). http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/035234203X/ref=s9sims_c2_img1-rfc_p-2991_g1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=125H946C09BQVRTJVPGD&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=320448701&pf_rd_i=507846

Also, my plays have been produced by PROFESSIONAL theatres (not dinky community theatres) in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, Atlanta, Ohio, Toronto, and the UK.

Is this enough to establish notability? I should think so!! 99.144.249.250 (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

a few more citations in support of Jill Elaine Hughes

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4615911.html (abstract of 2001 Chicago Sun-Times interview of Jill Elaine hughes Note citation of regarding the Women's Performance Art Festival).

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/92296102.html?dids=92296102:92296102&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+28%2C+2001&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&edition=&startpage=6&desc=SPOTLIGHT abstract of 2001 Chicago Tribune article mentioning Hughes

https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=2001/010223/MINIDAMN&search=%22jill%20elaine%20hughes%22 Chicago Reader review of Hughes play

https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=1999/991119/CANDOR&search=%22jill%20elaine%20hughes%22 Another Chicago Reader article mentioning Hughes

99.144.249.250 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The article Jill Elaine Hughes was deleted as a result of the following community discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Elaine Hughes. If you think you are able to write an article that addresses the issues raised in the discussion (i.e., non-notability); the best way to proceed is to create an account and write the article as a user subpage ([[User:<Username>/Jill Elaine Hughes]]), then move it to the main space (Jill Elaine Hughes) once it once it is no longer speedily deletable under WP:CSD#G4. However, you should not write articles about yourself; see WP:COI. For the definition of notability for our purposes, see WP:BIO; note that articles that just mention the subject are usually not enough.  Sandstein  05:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Clean's increased web presence, the addition of sources, the changing of dates and the updating of information qualify the article that "Eenocks" created based on my old (admittedly worse) article make it sufficiently different to not qualify as a recreation of a deleted page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazzout! (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article at issue.  Sandstein  18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Were we ever to meet, I'd shake your hand. The pizza delivery AfD was really closely argued, but I am so glad you managed to see the balanced argument on the side of the delete nominators and voters. The fine lines in deletion reviews are a little more tightly policed than when I last settled down to participate in discussions, so such a fair and open-minded decision is really welcome. doktorb _words^deeds 22:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And since no good deed goes unpunished, I'm sure we'll see it on Wikipedia:Deletion review very shortly! Until then, congratulations on your well-reasoned closure of a heated AfD. --Stormie (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to this article, for obvious reasons I think, any chance you would be so kind as to restore the edit history (just in case if there is anything worth merging) and redirect to Pizza delivery#In popular culture as it is a valid search term (I have seen other websites link to the article) and the AfD was hardly unanimous? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to you creating that redirect. I'll not restore the history, though, unless there is a demonstrable consensus to merge content from it to another article; see our previous discussion at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/May#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien).  Sandstein  17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There were some sources in the now deleted article that could definitely be used to reference the content in the main article and obviously it would be far more easy to just take them from there than to start the search for them all over again. By the way, good calls at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firearms in Miami Vice and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of psychic abilities. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK; I have restored the contents of Pizza delivery in popular culture, for the sole purpose of serving as a source of references, at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Pizza delivery in popular culture. Please tag it for speedy deletion once the referencing is complete.  Sandstein  18:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. One question though, if I use any sources from there, does it create any GFDL issues per Wikipedia:Merge and delete or does it not matter if I was the one to add the sources in the first place? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I should think not; isolated citations are not copyrightable works (due to a lack of originality) and are, as such, not covered by the GFDL.  Sandstein  19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll have a chance to work on it in the next few days (my focus is on a Request for Comment at present), but one other things, while I am familiar with AfDs and DRVs enough to nominate articles for deletion and initiate DRVs, I am not really that familiar with the speedy delete templates. Thus, could you please point me to the relevant page? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Deletion#Speedy deletion. I think {{db|g4}} or {{db|Userfied copy of AfD-deleted article, no longer needed for work on the main article}} should do. Or you can ask me, of course.  Sandstein  05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the link. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You should try the Rangeblock finder on such requests, it works wonders ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  21:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the next step regarding this article should be. You closed the discussion as "no consensus", but you say quite clearly that you think there's a consensus (or near consensus) that the article does not belong on its own. Might you be able to elaborate or clarify? -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Administrators may make authoritative decisions to delete articles through the AfD process, as described in WP:DP et al., but that community-delegated authority is not generally thought to extend to implementing deletion discussions that conclude as merge or redirect. While such closures are common in uncontested cases, a merge closure might be interpreted as an abuse of process in this instance, because AfDs are not really the proper venue to decide on mergers. That's why I described the outcome of the discussion the way I perceived it, but I did not attempt to implement that outcome through the authority of the AfD process. Such implementation - whether in the form of a direct merger or through additional discussion - is up to the community by way of the normal editorial process.  Sandstein  20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to have to follow up on this. As AniMate pointed out on the talk page of the AfD, the third sentence of WP:AfD says "The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." I see where you're coming from when you say the merge and deletion processes are technically different, but I never considered "merge" as an inpermissible result of an AfD. Although I don't frequently close AfD discussions, merge results seem to occur quite frequently, nearly everyday (and sometimes many times in one day). -- tariqabjotu 09:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks; my statement above seems to be erroneous in this respect. However, this does not change the AfD's outcome. I found that there is a consensus (or a near consensus) that this topic does not deserve an article of its own. There was no consensus about what should be done about this, though (delete, redirect, or merge to what extent). That's still to be resolved though the editorial process, except that deletion would require a new AfD. I recommend to engage in a merge-or-not discussion as a next step.  Sandstein  09:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you agreed there was no consensus to delete, and there is a consensus the topic doesn't merit its own article, it would seem the logical implication is to merge and redirect. I object to being forced to rehash the entire AfD on the article's talk page; essentially the same discussion has already taken place. Fletcher (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are not forced to. You can be bold and just do it, but if there's disagreement about the extent of the merger, you need to engage in debate. There was no clear consensus for a merger, so I couldn't close the AfD that way. If you disagree, well, DRV is now competent to decide on the fate of the AfD; it may decide to overturn my closure and re-close the AfD as merge.  Sandstein  13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein I just have to ask, are you sure of your decision to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net? There are more than enough verifiable – creditable – 3rd party sources, as shown here [1] to establish Notability. In addition, 9 out of 10 opinions expressed were for keep. An article written badly and an article that should be deleted are two separate and distinct realities. I hope you will reconsider or, if you prefer, I could ask for a review. Thanks for your time and consideration. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but AfD is not a vote; the strength of arguments is what counts. I have already addressed the value of the Google News link you provide in my closing statement. On that basis, I'm afraid I have no grounds on which to reconsider my decision.  Sandstein  23:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you note, I did not say it was a vote, but stated 9 out of 10 opinions were for Keep. Second, I believe the coverage by Business Wire – Inc. Magazine – South Florida CEO and Palm Beach Post, just to name a few sources that have covered the company, satisfy the requirement, “…An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.” ShoesssS ^Talk 11:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my closing statement and to my comment above.  Sandstein  14:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The result of a 11 delete, 10 merge, 14 keep AfD is somehow "selective merge"? By what standard? And the "keep" arguments were made just as well (and better) than the delete/merge arguments. What were you thinking? S. Dean Jameson 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some problems with your closure of this AfD. User:S. Dean Jameson has started aa ANI thread here about the merging and is grumbling that it was an out of process closing on the article talk page and on the AfD talk page. Perhaps if you could explain your rationale a little more in depth things would go a little smoother. AniMate 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would say calling it "grumbling" is a bit much. I'm frustrated and angry that two of you took a "no consensus" close and tried to unilaterally merge based on the odd closing statement that Sandstein offered, especially given the 21-14 nature of the discussion. S. Dean Jameson 00:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, AniMate, for bringing this thread to my attention. I've replied there.  Sandstein  05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Reaction to Tim Russert's death. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rtphokie (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is the saddest: deciding Ulteo article deletion or the related comment. Ulteo *is not* a Linux distribution, and everything in the debate has proven that it was notable according to Wikipedia criterias.

I think that there is really a big problem of Wikipedia procedure with deletion. It's not tolerable that someone can decide unilaterally to delete an article.

There should be at least five moderators with a high degree of confidence, and the reasons of deletion should be clearly explained and argumented, in accordance with a clear Wikipedia policy.

Anyway, it's now clear that most Web desktop and many Linux projects should now go into a deletion process. On a side note, I think that you are abusing the system, because on the Ulteo deletion processus, there was clearly no consensus for deletion Vautnavette (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I decline to comment.  Sandstein  19:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Vautnavette (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please note User:vautnavette has been adding Ulteo references to a number of articles. I am removing myself from this topic as I don't want to appear as I'm fixated on this. If you would be so kind as to have an admin (or yourself) look into this when you get some time would be great... Moving on to the other NN/RS issues in the other links to Web desktop --Pmedema (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Concur; removed.  Sandstein  17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.42 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was quite shocked by your surprise deletion of this article:

• Yours was a much stricter reading of WP:V than I have seen before. There was a consensus that the subject is notable. I am not aware of any complaints of inaccuracies (only incompleteness, but the author has given a satisfactory answer). There was no explicit warning that the article would be deleted for lack of sources, only "The entire article is unsourced and…" by the nominator.
• Our traditional approach with unsourced articles is to find sources for them. In this case the author was (and is, if they weren't alienated by this) still around and could easily add their sources; as they probably intended to do once the article was finished.
• You obviously made no attempt to remedy the problem. Nobody else made an attempt because nobody expected this deletion.
• You did not make it sufficiently explicit that the deletion was without prejudice. For psychological reasons this is likely to result in yet another RfD if the article is recreated.
• It was a severe case of biting. The author has been with us for less than a month; since you deleted the article they now have only 17 undeleted contributions.
• You offered to this new user to userfy the article on request, when you could just as well have done it immediately to show good will and minimise the biting.

This is completely incomprehensible to me. (Perhaps in part because of discussions on the article talk page that I can no longer see? I am aware that some of my points above may be incomplete for this reason.) I suggest that you reconsider your actions and, if you see no reason to revert them, that you ask for input from ANI to ensure some degree of consistency among admins. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't understand your surprise at this deletion:

• WP:V makes it quite clear that unverifiable content (and in particular, unverifiable content that accuses existing organizations of committing murders) may be deleted at any time: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles." No particular notification or warning is needed.
• I did make the only attempt to remedy the problem of unverifiability that was immediately available to me: I deleted the article.
• WP:V has no exemption for new editors.
• I decline to engage in idle speculation about the psychological impact of deletion decisions. Even if there is any, it is less important than adherence to core policies. Wikipedia is a project with serious real-life impact, not a social networking website.

For these reasons, I see no need to reconsider my decision.  Sandstein  22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't understand my surprise? I am surprised because you based your rationale, for deleting against consensus, on the fact that nobody had addressed the fact that the article was unsourced. I was one of the few people who had !voted, and I had not addressed this simply because I never expected the article to be deleted for such a spurious reason as saving the reputation of ETA and similar organisations. You had a wide range of options for dealing with the situation, from closing with "keep" and renominating immediately with a new rationale to address your concerns, to userfying immediately and giving advice to the new user. But you chose the most confrontational variant.

I can't check now which tags were present in the article and for how long, so there may have been a fair warning. But generally the way you have handled this matter (including your reply above) has given me a remarkably bad impression of your judgement. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my previous comments, except that I have no concern for the reputation of ETA and other terrorist groups as such – but I do have concern for the enforcement of our core policies.  Sandstein  23:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One of our core policies is WP:IAR. One of its main purposes is to remind us that our rules are not more important than the reasons for which they were introduced. Do you agree with this? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, core policies are those that cannot be overruled by consensus – WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. See WP:DGFA#Rough consensus.  Sandstein  05:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you discounted some of the arguments. And then? Was there a discussion left or just a nomination followed by seven days of silence? Shouldn't that have been a reason to be a bit more cautious? I can't see anything in your policy references that says the "core policies" trump common sense. There were two arguments about the substance of the article, but they were rebutted. (It shouldn't exist because there is nothing special about Spain ­­- answer: there is something special, and at least one similar article exists; it's POV because it doesn't deal with violence from the right - answer: it's work in progress and the author was about to get to that part.) So it looks as if you are either putting process above content, or you are seeing problems with the content that nobody else saw. But you didn't mention them in your rationale. As you say, this is not a social networking site. In the hypothetical case that you were feeling a need to show to this user that they are not welcome to build an encyclopedia if after three weeks in this place they still can't properly dot all the i's and cross all the t's, you should perhaps think about whether you are in the right place. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that I need to add anything to what I have already said above.  Sandstein  19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have added only the material (references) that I had added to the other article into the main article with [2] and [3]. So, I suppose the userfied article is no longer needed in my userspace, although please do redirect the mainspace "in popular culture" article to Pizza delivery#In popular culture. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Host.net. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The AFD for Nathan Geist appears to be malformed. The AFD log lists Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Geist but the article's AFD notice links to a second nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Geist (2nd nomination). I noticed when I posted my opinion using the article link to the AFD discussion, and then didn't see it in the AFD log list for the day. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks.  Sandstein  15:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. I created this article u just deleted. I am prepared to remedy the defects you found in it. (There are hundreds of sources which can be used, the most notable one being www.avt.org, Spain's association victims of terrorism which has a list which accounts for 90% of the entries on the article). As you may have noted, the talk page of the article contained all the sources I was using, which I was planning on adding at the end once the list was complete. In any case I put alot of effort into this article.

Could you please restore the article on my page, as you offered to? I will not post it back on wikipedia until it is up to scratch...

Thanks --Damam2008 (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. I have restored it for you at User:Damam2008/Political violence in Spain since 1975. Once the verification of the content is complete, please use the "move" function to move the article back to Political violence in Spain since 1975. To satisfy WP:V, each individual incident of violence should be accompanied by an inline reference (see WP:FN) to a reliable source. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.  Sandstein  15:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you have dealt with this user before (here, where you extended this block, both of which were for personal attacks against other editors). Despite his "I promise to be nice" comment when requesting to be unblocked, he has continued with his previous mindset. He attacked me in this diff, and then replied with this (with the edit summary "Ou est la douche?") and this. I would appreciate it if you could help me deal with this situation. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done; blocked 72 hours.  Sandstein  05:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. If you have come to this page because of the deletion of the article Exopolitics, please be advised of the following: The article was deleted according to our deletion policy, based on community consensus as established in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination). If you disagree with that deletion, you can appeal it at our deletion review page if you think there was a procedural error in the closure, or you can recreate the article, but only if by doing so you remedy the problems identified in the deletion discussion. If the recreated article is not substantially improved, it may be deleted again. For further advice, see WP:WWMPD. Thank you.  Sandstein  12:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On what basis have you removed the Exopolitics article? Are you an expert on this subject? Are you in contact with the those who have founded and developed the field? How many of the 255,000 Google or 650,000 Yahoo page returns for "Exopolitics" have you reviewed? How many books on the subject have you read?

Stephen Bassett PRG@paradigmresearchgroup.org 202-215-8344 Steve (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Th article Exopolitics was removed based on community consensus as established in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination). According to our deletion policy, no further basis for deletion, such as knowledge about the subject, is required or expected.  Sandstein  15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is no small matter. For better or for worse Wikipedia has become a powerful information source. It is clearly useful, but it has major flaws. In particular, these flaws turn up when dealing with emerging issues and very new facts. In such instances Users with little knowledge of the subject make decisions about content and deletion. Also, if there is controversy surrounding the subject there is a higher degree of vanalism on the articles and Administrators toss the article out of irritation.

I have tried to keep the Exopolitics article accurate and appropriate. But, alas, it's Wikipedia.

All of this is, of course, not unique to the Exopolitics article.

But this issue - UFO/ET/Cover-up - is important and has been sujected to censorship and suppression by the state. It is a growing field and is substantially more important and relevant than thousands of other Wikipedia articles now sitting undeleted.

I will be happy to assist in creating an Exopoltics article which is accurate and appropriate based on the growing mass of written material and relevant events. I cannnot stop inappropriate editing, but I am quite dedicated to this issue and will repair inappropriate editing frequently.

I request the Exopolitics article be reinstated for further development. Steve (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your request is declined, because you do not indicate why my closure of the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination) was in violation of Wikipedia's deletion policy. You may appeal this decision at WP:DRV, but be advised that any appeal that does not address pertinent points of deletion policy will most likely be declined out of hand.  Sandstein  16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WRONG ANSWER Steve (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Which means — ?  Sandstein  20:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not having read the deleted article, I can't comment on whether it met Wikipedia standards as it stood at the time of deletion. I can comment, however, on the appropriateness of a good, neutral article on this topic for Wikipedia. Regardless of what one believes vis-à-vis the reality or unreality of extraterrestrial visitation, there is indeed a growing "Exopolitics movement" that has both proponents and detractors within the UFO culture worldwide. Well known researchers, writers, and lecturers within that culture (whatever one might think of their work) are staking out positions on where they stand in relation to exopolitics. A good article would include this diversity of opinion within the UFO field itself. It would also base itself on the work of more than one author. Such an article would state right up front that exopolitics is of interest primarily to those who believe extraterrestrial visitation is actually occurring, although as a movement it might also be of interest as an object of study to social scientists and cultural theorists, like any other movement. This is a prime example of the kind of topic on which it is exceedingly difficult to write a good, neutral encyclopedia article--difficult, but not impossible. The article could be written in such a way as to include all the key information on the emerging movement and its claims, yet remain respectful both to those who believe in extraterrestrial visitation and those who do not. The question is, can parties an opposite sides of this belief fissure summon sufficient maturity and self-restraint to make a good article on this topic possible? 96.225.209.34 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion page of the articles for deletion page for this article has been added to, is that appropriate? [4] Doug Weller (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's allowed, albeit pointless.  Sandstein  14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I should have noticed this also and asked about it. Steve's user page is actually an article about him and about expolitics. And, still searching it gets worse. See [5]:

The Administrator/CFG in this instance who deleted the "Exopolitics" article goes by the screen name "Sandstein." His home in Wikiworld is located at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#Exopolitics

He has no knowledge of exopolitics, its history or the attendant issues and his "decision" was derived from a mock consensus of a few other CFG's who know even less - a rationale based upon the premise that collective ignorance is somehow smarter than individual ignorance - a case of the arrogant leading the blind.

This is also at [6] -- both sites say it comes from PRG, ie from Stephen Bassett. Doug Weller (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. People are not forbidden to rant about evil Wikipedia censorship on their personal blogs. It happens all the time. Per WP:SOAP, it's actually better than ranting about evil Wikipedia censorship on Wikipedia itself.  Sandstein  14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Preceding comment was added at 02:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Keep. Exception was made that Alfred Webre is the only author that discusses this. Researcher Michael Salla also refers to this, you may see his website at exopolitics.org or you may take a class at his exopoliticsinstitute.org, or you may view his video introduction: Exopolitics: New Discipline for a New Paradigm. If you were listening to Coast to Coast on May 13, 2008 you could have heard an 'Exopolitics Roundtable' which included not only Salla and Webre but also Paola Harris and Richard Hoagland. If you lived in Canada you might be interested in being involved in exopoliticstornto.com, which is headed by Victor Viggiani. Another Canadian that is highly involved in this group is Paul Hellyer, former Minister of Defense in the Pearson government. If you like music, you might like the group Muse and their song, 'Exo-politics'. If you go to Google you will find over 250,000 search returns for the word "exopolitics." Over 750,000 returns on Yahoo Exopolitics, then, is a word and a thought that pervades throughout our whole culture and knows no division of country or people or media outlet. To deny that the word and concept exopolitics has no relevance in our society is to turn a blind eye to that which makes up our society. Brian 'C3' Hamby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.59.15 (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr.(Ms.? Dr.? General? Reverend?)"Sandstein", whoever you are, I couldn't help but notice you deleted my User page. Given this is Wikipedia, please feel free to write up my User page for me to meet your satisfaction. Since you know even less about me than you do Exopolitics, I'm sure it will be spot on. Steve (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia user pages may not be misused for self-promotion. We are not your web host. See WP:CSD#G11, WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:SOAP.  Sandstein  05:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris Augustin, Alien/UFO/Paranormal Investigator www.AlienstheTruth.com [7] Thanks for continuing the cosmic conspiracy that the US and world governments have been carrying on for at least 60 years regarding the truth about UFOs and extraterrestrial life. It's easier for people who are uninformed to simply dismiss the topic and the multitude of evidence available instead of studying it for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.72.2 (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The invisible Mr. [?] Sandstein states that the Wiki entry re: Exopolitics was removed based on community consensus. What exactly is "community consensus"? How is it measured, achieved, and monitored? The absence of transparency in this matter makes the process seem more like one of Dick Cheney's energy policy meetings than a genuine user-driven open encyclopedia, as Wikipedia purports to be. To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. Jonathanseas (talk) —

             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Michael_E._Salla