User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

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

Start a new talk topic

psyBNC

I specifically requested that the psyBNC article be moved to my user space instead of being deleted, please review this request and take action accordingly. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Link, please?  Sandstein  11:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Link. Joe Chill (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you want this content for? It needs sources, not general improvement.  Sandstein  15:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I second Hm2k's request. I also originally requested userfication to myself in that AfD, but I will support it's temporary undeletion along with the talk page to preserve the revision history and its move under the Hm2k's user page so it can be properly sourced and still improved overall before being able to move back to the main space. Sandstein, please userfy it to Hm2k. Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, at User:Hm2k/psyBNC. Hint: sometimes it helps to ask politely and to provide the required links.  Sandstein  06:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If I might also comment here, I think many of these articles that were part of the mass-prod/AfD can be improved/sourced/merged but we really need to coordinate the process and possibly divide up some of the work. (Arguably, psyBNC is one of the more historic and well known BNC programs and I don't see why we won't be able to improve that article.) I've had many of these articles on my own "to improve" list for quite some time but the sheer number of articles in this category got to be overwhelming as I continued to catalog and add them to categories. I've not even had a chance to comment in most of the AfDs yet due to the sheer number of them (and I don't like to comment on sources or notability unless I've already done some research). When the mass-AfD nominations began I finally got around to setting up a sandbox for the WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox which may be of some help. Articles (and their associated talk pages) moved/created as Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/articlename will automatically show up in the sandbox index. There is also a topical index and a to do subpage on the WikiProject. Anyone up for a discussion on how to proceed with all these articles on WT:WPIRC? --Tothwolf (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Sandstein won't userfy it for a reason that doesn't make sense, you could request it at WP:DRV or WP:ANI. I doubt that no one will fill the request. Joe Chill (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been userfied here. Talk here. I invite interested editors to come and improve the article. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy of HDB page

Can you send me a copy of the recentky deleted Human Bioversity page? David.Kane (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you want this content for?  Sandstein  15:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate a link, too. It seems you misspelled the title.  Sandstein  15:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume Human biodiversity, a page you deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human biodiversity, was intended. ^Bongo_matic 02:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Restrictions

Hi,

I noticed your work today on the Blocking Guide.

So I wondered if you new of a Guide regarding Restrictions?

Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean.  Sandstein  06:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Scribner block

Hi there,

I posted a quick note for you at WP:ANI and WP:ANEW about your block of User:Scribner. I think you were quite justified in making it, but I'm hoping you'd be willing to lift it to give the idea at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Edit_warring a chance. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning on my talk

Excuse me but why are you warning me? That's my little, mouthy, idiotic brother than you blocked. I warned him time and again to quit. Also please do not delete my comments. Technically it's my IP, I just have good enough sense to use an account. Also, my brother lost his PW and cannot recover it for some reason. Can you point me in the right direction? - 4twenty42o (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am warning you because our civility policy applies to all interactions on Wikipedia, even those with your brother (and we cannot verify that he is your brother). If you want to insult him, please do so in private. Disruptive edits are removed and editors who make them are blocked if warnings are not effective. It is not possible to recover account information except by e-mail (if the Wikipedia account has an e-mail account associated to it).  Sandstein  08:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!! you can block that IP permanently if you want. Its my IP and my brother using it. But seriously why did you block me? I am on your side damn it!! That was really uncalled for.. I was trying to get my brother to shut up!! Honestly man what the heck/ll? - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not on "your side", I'm on Wikipedia's side. Our rules prohibit personal attacks and other incivil disruption by anyone for any purpose. Please see WP:ETIQUETTE.  Sandstein  05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL OK tough guy, sorry to bother you. Wont happen again. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest comment bu anon IP

Per this latest comment, I think you might want to lock the talk page edit rights as well for the ANON IP. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about bibliography articles

Hi Sandstein,

I know you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic and thought you might be interested in participating here.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - interesting question, but a discussion best left to librarians. Best,  Sandstein  15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

PQ Angels

Can I get the deleted article's contents userfied?陣内_Jinnai 19:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To what purpose?  Sandstein  19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning two-fold. One the author may at sometime in the future take up the manga again and/or it may also gain notability as part of a study on the author as she is historically important to the manga/anime industry.陣内_Jinnai 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, see User:Jinnai/PQ Angels.  Sandstein  05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

JollysFastVNC article deletion

Now that you have deleted the article even though I highly doubt that you are an expert on vnc clients on the mac you might have a look if you can delete any of the other vnc clients mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software as they are ALL in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jollyjinx (talk • contribs) 10:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to nominate them for deletion if you believe any of them warrant deletion.  Sandstein  15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator review

Howdy Sandstein. It appears your 'review' went fairly well, keep up the tough work. PS: Ya couldn't pay me to assume that job (administratorship). GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Come to think of it, they pay me fairly poorly, too...  Sandstein  15:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion and Notability of PsyBNC

Hi. I saw the PsyBNC deletion and started to wonder if there is anything I can do about it (to find out if it is really not notable or if there are any print sources). I haven't come up with anything earlier because I am not experienced at all in searching print sources, but google makes it actually easy - and because I thought that nobody would seriously delete the article (I was pretty sure PsyBNC is notable enough). Ok, now it's gone - and I got help with people in freenode/#wikipedia and we came up with this: [1] [2] I feel a bit sorry I didn't come up with this earlier. At least I won't miss google books again when searching print references.

Now, do you think that changes anything? I am still a bit new to wikipedia, but to me it seems to include enough books to say it is if not notable, then at least close to it. Maybe you want to think again about that deletion. I would be glad to add some of those sources to the userfied article if that helps, but as I needed to research first how to format them on wikipedia etc. I thought I'd first ask you what you think about it and if it's worth the work at all - or if those references change nothing and the article should simply stay lost because notability is just not given. Yarcanox (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, these weblinks are just search results, not actual sources. Search results do not change anything. It is not sufficient that books mention the subject; they must describe it in sufficient depth for these descriptions to be the basis of a reasonable article. If you find new sources (i.e., sources not discussed during the AfD) that are reliable, independent and provide substantial coverage, as required by WP:N, you are free to add them to User:hm2k/psyBNC. As soon as you believe that the defects identified at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PsyBNC (2nd nomination) are remedied, you may restore the article to main space, if the notability is now obvious, or else you may ask for a reevaluation of the subject's notability at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you don't think when taking those books into account it will have enough notability? (You seemed to avoid answering that question a bit) Yarcanox (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What specific books? There are dozens in these search results. Google hits by themselves are not meaningful, see WP:GHITS.  Sandstein  17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well... all of them (on the first search link [3]). Maybe it would be worth putting some references to them into the userfied article... I'm simply wondering if that would make any difference in terms of notability. And that's obviously my main interest - working on something that won't become undeleted because missing notability still applies seems a waste of time. But I guess I'm not having a good chance with some security books mentioning uses by trojans/botnets/malware? Yarcanox (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to my advice of 16:09, 6 October 2009, above. I have no time to read all these books and give an opinion about their potential notability impact, sorry.  Sandstein  20:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Given what was documented on AN/I here I don't think the nom's rationale or the !votes from those involved (as documented here) can be taken at face value. This is even more apparent when some of the false or misleading statements from the same editors such as given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitchX and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 29#LeetIRC are taken into account. When such disruption occurs it also influences other editors who are participating in these AfDs (who really should but do not always double check others' statements) so it would appear in many cases these AfDs were severely disrupted due to those false and misleading statements. Note that I'm not even arguing for a keep in many of these AfDs as I feel they are better off merged and redirected per WP:PRESERVE. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)