Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sandstein

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 24 June 2008 (→Deletion of Political violence in Spain since 1975: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:24, 24 June 2008 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→Deletion of Political violence in Spain since 1975: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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


Start a new talk topic


Exopolitics

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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination) was in violation of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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? 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 :
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/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 -- 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 Misplaced Pages censorship on their personal blogs. It happens all the time. Per WP:SOAP, it's actually better than ranting about evil Misplaced Pages censorship on Misplaced Pages itself.  Sandstein  14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ulteo deletion

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 Misplaced Pages criterias.

I think that there is really a big problem of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Deleted latte art page

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

why miss pakistan world was deleted and what are u doing about it

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

See Misplaced Pages: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)

Any issue with Ulteo?

I don't get your point. You don't want any mention of Ulteo in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Answer to your comment about Ulteo

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

Other question about Ulteo

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

By deleting the article you are not creating a new one.. so why is that

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)

Salvation Army filmography

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)

Deletion review for Ulteo

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)


Rebecca Finch

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?

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)

Protest of Jill Elaine Hughes article deletion

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: Misplaced Pages: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 (]), 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)

Deletion of "Clean Sadness"

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)

Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such

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 22:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And since no good deed goes unpunished, I'm sure we'll see it on Misplaced Pages: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 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#Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Firearms in Miami Vice and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of psychic abilities. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages: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 06:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:81.153.81.88

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes

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)

Reinstate the exopolitics entry

I am quite interested in the topic. Others are too.

--Mark Racine, WI, US(A)

208.110.236.13 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not a reason to undelete Exopolitics. See WP:DP and WP:DRV. Incidentally, such requests are usually prefaced with "please", at least in polite society.  Sandstein  21:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I too am very interested in the growing Exopolitcs movement. It would be greatly appreciated if you would please consider reinstating the Exopolitics page. Thank you, David Andrew, Glendale, AZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.167.100 (talk • contribs)

No, our community of editors has decided to delete it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination). I'm not allowed to go back on this unilaterally. That decision can only be overturned if a new article is written on this topic that addresses the problems identified in the deletion discussion.  Sandstein  05:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Political violence in Spain since 1975

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Host.net

Hello Sandstein I just have to ask, are you sure of your decision to delete Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Host.net? There are more than enough verifiable – creditable – 3rd party sources, as shown here 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 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 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)

How do you divine "merge" from that AfD

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)

Reaction to Tim Russert's death

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)

Deletion review for Reaction to Tim Russert's death

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)

Pizza delivery update

Okay, I have added only the material (references) that I had added to the other article into the main article with and . 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 18:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sandstein Add topic