User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2007/April

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.

wow

i apply for adminship and u disrespect me like dat, a simple constructive critisism wouldve worked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.21.52 (talk • contribs)

And who might you be? Sandstein 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:InvaderSora

Given this editor's continuing misconduct, edit warring, and civility, I've blocked him indefinitely. As you dealt with him previously and gave the warnings, figured I'd let you know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I've no objections. Sandstein 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego

I'm going to reinsert all the material you deleted from my user page. Other adminstrators over in the arbitration section said that you should go through a consensus process before deleting the material from my user page and blocking me. Are you going to abide by that convention or act as judge, jury, and executioner again? Billy Ego 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My advice Sandstein is to ignore this remark, they said no such thing. In fact, from their comments when they rejected Billy Ego's case which I repaste below, they said that they "disallow inflammatory use of userspace" and that "user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute are prohibited in any case". In case you are in any doubt at all Billy Ego, this means you. There would be every reason to report your page if you do so, and the best approach in my opinion would be to tag it for immediate deletion and apply for you to be permablocked for utterly ignoring arbitration rulings. MarkThomas 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

<copy/paste of RfAr removed, Sandstein>

No arbitrator suggested anything of the sort you – Billy Ego – suggest; see the RfAr in full. If you continue to violate WP:NOT#MYSPACE and WP:UP by adding political essays and Hitler/Mussolini quotes to your user space, I will block you, and then I will submit that block for review by other administrators. As I have said numerous times already, you may post such material at any length you desire on another website, but not on Wikipedia.

You have been now been amply cautioned that your behaviour is willfully disruptive and is (as was noted by an arbitrator) suited for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. As such, the next block I will impose will be of indefinite duration. Sandstein 23:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This threat will be reported. Billy Ego 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it, administrator Paul August said "Decline. Per Doc above, "moderate declarations of POV" are allowed and can be useful. However what constitutes "moderate" is debatable. Blocks related to this issue, in all but the most obvious cases, should be based on consensus. (Reference: Paul August ☎ 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) [1]) And adminstrator Docg said, "We allow moderate declarations of POV, but we block trolls and disallow inflammatory use of userspace. Sandstein should have sought, and received, support from other admins, but he realises that. There is nothing more here.--Docg 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC) [2]) That's two administrators who say you should first seek consensus. Maybe you missed these comments. So, I ask you again, are you going to act as judge jury and executioner when I restore my user page the way I like it? Billy Ego 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly base my block on admin consensus. Such consensus may, but need not be obtained prior to the block, depending on the severity of your disruption. Sandstein 05:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding USER:Benjiwolf

I saw you indefblocked USER:Benjiwolf. You may also want to nab User:CrystalizedAngels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and protect User talk:CrystalizedAngels -- he's been adding his wikivandal-for-profit business there too. /Blaxthos 05:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Already indefblocked as sock; talk now protected. Thanks. Sandstein 05:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I'm initiating an arbitration case against benjiwolf because of the for-profit vandal service he's offering, along with his sockpuppetry and admitted purpose of getting most of switzerland blocked. Please head over to the current requests and drop in your $.02 (the sooner the better). Also, his talk page will need unprotection, and we'll need to let him have the ability to edit the arbcom case. /Blaxthos 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. His talk page is now unprotected; you may notify him there. He can issue his statement via his talk page. Sandstein 07:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

David Hicks article

Hello there, At present the article entitled "David Hicks" is on the brink of entering a revert or edit war as the user "Prester John" continually deletes cited material that s/he feels is inappropriate but is actually very straightfoward. While it appears that this user is manipulating the article to suit their point of view, there is equal chance theu honestly feel their edits are for the common good. That said, in his/her edit summaries, s/he has made snide comments about "lefties" that I think spoils the community a little. You may feel there is nothing to worry about, but I would prefer an administator look over it.

Vision Insider

Vision Insider 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, admins don't intervene with admin tools in content disputes, which is what seems to be going on at David Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You should both not be editwarring on the article, but discuss the issues on the talk page instead. If there are specific conduct issues, such as vandalism or WP:3RR, please bring them up specifically after discussing them at the other editor's talk page, or report them to WP:AN3. You may also request page protection to stop an edit war from going on. Sandstein 08:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hugin

That's funny. So User:Eloquence started this discussion the other day on how to use meta:Open Source Toolset to promote useful open source software to our users. I created commons:Category:Created with Hugin to showcase a powerful and popular tool which was instrumental in creating two of our featured pictures. I return to the WP page to add a link to the category only to find that you would like to delete the article (via CSD A7 no less!). You know, memory may be failing me, but weren't you the guy who wanted to delete Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra Software, too? I hope this is a freaky coincidence. How about you let me know if you feel like deleting a software article? I know a thing or two about software. I'll be in Bern April 19/20 attending a conference – we could have a drink and talk about notable software :-). Rl 17:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the discussion you mention. I saw Hugin mentioned on a blog, clicked the link, noticed that it had no claim to notability, supplied the appropriate tag. I do not doubt that you are knowledgeable about software, but nonetheless WP:N (let alone WP:ATT) requires that a topic needs coverage by reliable independent sources in order to have an article. Your personal knowledge can't stand in for sources, I'm afraid.

By the way, interesting that you should mention that documents management conference. I got the flyer and briefly considered attending too (the authority I'm with does a lot of DMS-related work), but lawyers are really just a nuisance at such events. Better to have the techies and project managers there, they like the buzzwords :-) Sandstein 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for notability depend on the subject. Scientific journals cover very little beyond scientific software, and newspapers focus on software with large advertisement budgets. Open source software doesn't even have sales numbers. What do you suggest we use to establish notability? – I'd agree that we have too many articles on non-notable programs, but we need something better than the standard notability criteria or we'll throw out the baby with the bathwater. The method you seem to favor is putting articles through AfD and waiting for knowledgeable people to attest to the software's notability, but that's just a more formal way of asking some people about it. Rl 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suggest applying WP:N, that is, looking for reliable independent published sources. If there are none, we ought to have no article on the subject, if only because the article would not be verifiable in the first place. Sandstein 21:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources are perfectly valid (and verifiable), so that's not the issue. What they cannot be used for is establishing notability, and that is notoriously difficult with free software. With ATLAS I was lucky, but even for highly popular software like hugin the typical crop looks something like this: [3] [4] [5]. Would you like to add these links to the article? Rl 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

These sources actually look pretty good to me, especially the magazine reviews. I'll let someone else do the honour of inserting them, because I know nothing about the subject matter of the article. Sandstein 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. I'm going to add one of them and remove the notability template, hope that's okay with you. I'll renew once more my offer to look into software issues if run across them. Then I can dig up references at least for the cases that I know about. Rl 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request against you

I am requesting an arbitration against you for misuse of power, here: [6] Billy Ego 01:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR block appeal

Could you give me a little clarification of why you turned down my appeal based on "a thorough examination would take longer than your remaining block period." You do realize SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) who instigated the block is using this against me[7][8] maybe in part to an issue I had months ago with her.[9] I think it would be best in the future for you to deny appeals based evidence rather than it taking too much time. If its too much trouble for you to review then you shouldn't take the time to deny the block. Addressing the appellates concerns is what the appeal is supposed to do rather than simply supporting someone else's decision.[10] In sum, I'd like to know why you took the time to deny the appeal, but not the time to review it. Arbustoo 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. You seem to misunderstand the nature of unblock reviews. They are not appeals; they are not judicial proceedings and there is no right to due process. They are also not a way to get a full review of your block by a second admin, but merely an opportunity to call attention to egregious errors in judgment on the part of admins.

The reviewing admin will not normally re-evaluate the basis for the block in full, especially in complicated cases, but simply check if the block is obviously erroneous. This is mostly because due to WP:ABP, unblocks need to be done in consensus with the blocking admin except in very rare cases of evident abuse. In the case of short blocks, this consensus-building would generally take longer than the remaining block duration. The unblock reviewer will therefore not generally go to that trouble unless they think it is worthwile because the block is of long duration or because they think the blocking admin is obviously in error. Neither was the case here. Sandstein 05:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I didn't see discussion about my appeal by "other editors - most of whom probably have no involvement in the matter."[11] You were the only one who commented from "outside" and you said it wasn't worth reviewing due to time. While it is too late now, I feel, judging by your comments, that you denied it for the wrong reason; time. In the future, addressing the nature of the concerns would be more helpful for all involved. Arbustoo 17:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi, you recently blocked Ajiboy11 (talk · contribs) for keep uploading images with no copyright tag after i listed him at AIV, however when informing hi/her they hade been blocked by you their was an edit conflict from Orphanbot at 12:06 about inmage copyright problems and you blocked him at 12:04 the block log says, is their anything you can do to stop him uploading images.Telly addict 12:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. The account is now blocked and can (I presume) not upload any more images. What more would you like me to do? Sandstein 12:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh its sorted now, newver mind, thanks for you help! Regards Telly addict 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto

It's back, as a note; as you were in conference with the author on a previous incident with this article - and the fact that my PDF viewer is screwing up, meaning I can't ascertain whether it is another G12 or not - could I ask you to evaluate it? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the current version is not an (obvious) copyvio. The author is somewhat incoherent but well-meaning, so I've let the matter be. Sandstein 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T ...

== PLEASE DON'T I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I'D DONE WAS NEGATIVE IN ANY WAY...DON'T BAN ME OVER THIS I CAN MAKE IT UP TO THIS SITE, I CAN MAKE POSITIVE INFO, THAT CAN BENEFIT THIS SITE AND FOR THOSE WHO LOG ON! ==

please don't block my account over this, if i'm doing anything wrong please inform me what i'm doing wrong as i'm unsure of what i should or shouldn't do! I've even undone what i've currently done to please you.SCOCSOOCSOSC 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I see now from your contribs that this might have been about a fictional character, yes? If so, please make this very abundantly clear next time. Begin with "Jane Doe is a fictional character in ...". Remember, there almost certainly is a real person named Agnes Lenz somewhere, and she would not have liked to read what you wrote about "her". See WP:WAF for more info. Sandstein 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A REAL AGNES LENZ OUT THERE?

So truly sorry But i assumed that the web page was meant to be linked to the Billy Lenz web page which is set on a fictional character. Problem is if there's a real Billy Lenz there could be a confusion later on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I DID MEAN A FICTIONAL CHARACTER

I did mean a fictional character, i just assumed that from the Billy Lenz page linked to this one and with the writing style, (which didn't establish that the character is fictional) that the Agnes Lenz page was a work of fictionSCOCSOOCSOSC 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I NEVER MEANT TO CAUSE ANY OFFENCE...IN ANY WAY...PERIOD

That's not what i'm about i'm only online with Wikipedia to supply odd, usefull and at time valuable info to share with others on a wide degree of subjects.

I NEVER MEANT TO CAUSE ANY OFFENCE...IN ANY WAY...PERIOD 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what i'm about i'm only online with Wikipedia to supply odd, usefull and at time valuable info to share with others on a wide degree of subjects. SCOCSOOCSOSC 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, please calm down, I'm not going to block you. Don't type in ALL CAPS, please, you sound like you're screaming at me. Just try to make it clear next time that you're writing about a fictional character, yes? People don't see which page links to a new article you create; they might not be able to tell otherwise. Sandstein 05:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted article: Realm versus Realm

hello,

My -new- article has been removed by you. The reason was: "CSD g11" but i think you were wrong.

Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#removed_article , this is where i explained why did i add the article and my problem with deletion. A brief description (if you don't have the time reading the full message -which i exquisitely understand-)

"(...)
the reason is i tried to advertise something but this is absolutely wrong: 1st) RvR is really "their word" ('WAR' makers)
2nd) WAR Online, as fully and definitely a game advert is available on wiki (but that's OK imo, there are a lot of definitions like that, e.g. "Portal (computer game)"
3rd) I spent a couple of minutes searching for "RvR" (including wiki) but didn't find it: that's why i decided to create an account here and add the topic so i can save some time of other people
(...)

p.s.: I'm open to remove the "advert feeling" parts of the definition."

Thank you for your time and sorry if my "move" is/was against the wiki policies.

All the Best,
Mark Kondor
aka "foolorganIC"
p.s.: the properly cased article was "Realm versus realm" - which is a typo ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FoolorganIC (talk • contribs) 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC). foolorganIC 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: did not get an answer (did you go to sleep? :P) so re-created the page without referencing any "advert like" pages or adding off site links. The new page can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_versus_Realm_%28RvR%29
Please let me know if something is wrong with it.
Thank you for all your trouble related to my add/edit actions.

All the Best,
Mark Kondor
(aka foolorganIC)
FoolorganIC 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kafka Project

Dear Mr. Sandstein, I am Mauro Nervi, the owner of the Kafka Project (http://www.kafka.org), the most visited Kafka site on the net. I hazardously found by Google that a "Kafka Project" (not initiated by myself) was on Wikipedia until last 25/3, and you deleted it for copyright infringement. May I have some information about it? Sorry that I am not so much into the functioning of Wikipedia. My email is <redacted for spam protection, Sandstein> , but I see that you can answer only on my Wikipedia talk page (that I do not have) or on your talk page. I will try to check your talk page, if I can find it;-) Regards, Mauro Nervi

The Kafka Project: http://www.kafka.org/ 131.114.96.252 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Nervi. The article Kafka Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted because it appeared to have been a copyright infringement. The text of the article was copied from http://www.kafkaproject.com/mission.html. Wikipedia does not allow the posting of copyrighted content. I hope to have been of service. Sandstein 12:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Harrism84

I'm considering unblocking this user given his willingness to engage in dialog and assertion of positive contributions. Will be easier to walk him thru practical contributing 101 that way too. Would you be OK with that? Deiz talk 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. If you are willing to supervise him, then of course I have no objections. Sandstein 06:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fascism

Can you explain why you consider fascism, as described on Billy Ego's userpage (or, rather, on past versions thereof, since the content has obviously been removed) to be a "grossly offensive" political philosophy? While I don't agree with it, it seems that what is grossly offensive here are various other views held by historical fascists and not shared by Billy Ego. --Random832 05:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I' ve made my comment more clear on the workshop page. Sandstein 05:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the base for sockpuppetry confirmation

You have confirmed that user:Fear_the_Fire is my sock-puppet.[12] Do you have any basis for this decision? Me and this user are different person updating from differnt IP Domains. Could you let us know what is the basis for this confirmation . -- Sundaram7 06:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn. Sandstein 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But this sockpuppetry is not valid. I really doubt there are a couple of administrators try to abuse the admin power to block me without a reason. See the case Invalid Sockpupperty Decision atWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. The administrator has put a lot of invalid IPs and Users who are in different IP domains and even different countries. I would appreciate if you can put your hands on it. -- Sundaram7 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

April, thanks for your support in my successful RfA--

your adaptation of the Iliad was awesome.
As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage.
--Akhilleus (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks.

Just wanted to thank you for unblocking my IP :) ttam ~matt 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue letters

Hi, Sandstein. My purpose here is to ask you about the blue letters on your user page. I saw that there are three words on Swiss Federal Supreme Court Building, Pediment incision. The three words are LEX, IVISTITIA, PAX. Could you please explain what does three words mean? Please, reply in my talk page. Thanks in advance! Daniel5127 | Talk 18:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:MPJ-DK

I saw you commented on User talk:Alkivar just before I did, so I wanted to let you know I have reduced the block to one week. - auburnpilot talk 06:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks fo the message! Sandstein 06:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reddi again

As you just had a look at User talk:Reddi, may I ask for your opinion on his "Joshuaschroeder, WMC, etc..." section there. It seems my request on AN/I [13] went unnoticed. --Pjacobi 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see that last time around. My opinion as an uninvolved admin is that [14] indicates that this user is in need of an indef block or ban. I'm not sure, though, whether this would be warranted outright, and have asked for opinions at CN here. Sandstein 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks

Unless otherwise instructed by the arbitrators, if ArbCom bans a user, all known socks of that user will be blocked by the clerk-administrator when the case is closed. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a lot "more" with the same IP's. Besides having roomates that edit Wikipedia, I live in a large city. I recommend that you block the entire city. But even then it can't be that difficult to get right back on Wikipedia through other IPS's with different user names. Ever played Find Waldo Now? Billy Ego 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. Wikipedia is very, very good at whack-the-sock. – Thanks, Fred, for the info. Sandstein 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_That#Robbie_Williams_2

Check it out. This part got vandalised with personal opinion.

DarzieP 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the vandalism. You can do it yourself, too: check out WP:REVERT for instructions on how to. Sandstein 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Josephine Mutzenbacher

Did you know? was updated. On 11 April, 2007, a fact from the article Josephine Mutzenbacher, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? was updated. On 11 April, 2007, a fact from the article Water supply and sanitation in Venezuela, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know? was updated. On 12 April, 2007, a fact from the article Eryx (Sicily), which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 05:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki policies

Hello, Sandstein. My question is somewhat abstract. Are there any policies or guidelines discussing personal attacks made on one particular project of the Wikimedia Foundation, but directed at users from another project? (For example, if I go to Wikimedia Commons, and post personal attacks on Wikipedia's user:Erika_Mustermann, who never edits Commons and has no user account there, would this be seen as disruption and cause for intervention? Are there any policies about this? Thank you in advance, I turned to you because of your processual mind and experience on several Wikimedia projects. I know it's not a good idea, in any case, and, believe me, I don't plan on doing this. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any authoritative meta-project rule addressing this issue (although it may exist in the form of a Jimbo fatwa on a mailing list archive somewhere). This means we must examine the individual projects' policies. As each Wikimedia project is governed by its own policies (which may overlap), it depends on the policies of project X whether you may be sanctioned on project X (e.g. by being blocked from it) for doing certain things on project Y (or anywhere else for that matter).

On en.wikipedia specifically, we don't have a meta conduct rule, but a series of specific conduct policies such as NPA and CIVIL. The only policy addressing this issue (that I can find right now) is WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, which is also not clear as to whether "off-wiki" means off-Wikipedia or off-Wikimedia.

Nonetheless, if I had to intervene as an admin on en.Wikipedia in a situation like the one you describe, I'd take the general circumstances of the case into consideration when deciding whether or not to sanction a user who has misbehaved off Wikipedia. It would, I guess, depend on the severity of the misconduct among other things.

I hope this helps. You might also want to ask an arbitrator or ArbCom clerk. These guys are supposed to grok our Byzantine labyrinth of policies. Sandstein 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift and informative reply! ---Sluzzelin talk 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Zoltán Dani

I corrected the articlehistory template, as the changes there were populating the error category (see instructions at {{ArticleHistory}}). It would be safer to use the old afd templates, and let GimmeBot convert to ArticleHistory as needed—the Article History template is really intended to track featured and good article history. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Sandstein 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ahadland1234

Hi. I'm trying to soothe ruffled feathers with User:Ahadland1234 over the (appropriate) warning you left him. Any chance you could go over and calm him down some? Corvus cornix 21:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the patient intervention. Sandstein 21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WHATS YOUR PROBLEM

So what, I made a few mistaken copyright tags, which subsequntly were in the public domain, so I don't know what you're on about. So, next time you threaten to block me your idiot, perhaps you could consider I don't know how to revert copyright status, rather than getting on your high horse? Thanks --Hadz^Talk 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't the response I was looking for. I did ask you to be polite. Corvus cornix 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For the mood he's put me in, its all the politeness I can muster --Hadz^Talk 21:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Zytglogge

On 14 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zytglogge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein

The arbitration case involving you has closed. Billy Ego is banned for one year as the result of this case.

You may review the case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Did you not read my edit summary: "please refrain from commenting on my talk page in the future"? Why did you restore the comment? El_C 22:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I wanted to post a follow-up comment on it, which led to an edit conflict with your admin-rollback of my restoring the comment. With all due respect, I do not consider myself bound to respect your wish that I refrain from posting (polite and serious) comments on your talk page. You do not own your talk page; it is a medium for the community to engage in communication with you.

Returning to the matter at hand, the appropriateness (or not) of your user page content, I'd appreciate to discuss it with you first before taking any further steps. Thanks, Sandstein 22:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Take whichever steps you see fit; our discourse, such as it was, is over. El_C 22:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lord & Taylor vandalism (again)

Hey there,

I am so sorry to have to ask you for help on this again, but, that autistic teen is at it again, this time frequently vandalizing the page "list of Lord & Taylor locations"

He also occasionally vandalizes the main Lord & Taylor page.

How can we get these pages locked/protected again from unregistered users? Please help. Thanks.

PanzaM22 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Mike

Hey there,

The autistic kid who loves to vandalize lotd & Taylor pages is back with another IP, 72.82.223.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can you block his new IP as well? Thanks.

PanzaM22 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Mike

Done. We should make an entry at WP:LONG at some point so we can refer to this guy. Sandstein 20:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR of user El_C actually 7RR in 24h

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/El_C

Place: Transnistria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.8.231.130 (talk • contribs)

Sorry - because I have recently been involved in a dispute with El C, I must decline to examine this report. You may submit it to WP:AN/3RR, where another admin will take a look at it. Sandstein 15:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia

I saw your concern, and I improvised a way around it. I consulted an administrator about the new format I am using to cite other Wikipedias/articles, but he has not replied yet. This is a new technique I was trying out, and I wasn't ignoring you. I'm sory I didn't reply to your initial concern. So what you are saying is that my new idea does not fix the problem? if it does not, then that is fine, and I shall fix it up. Once again, sorry. Kind regards, --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 05:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Sandstein 05:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, point taken. So, to clear it up, I can't use the idea that was implemented on Johannes Rebmann, Reference section? Ok,m if thats so, what should I do? You have already mentioned interwiki links, but how could this apply to footnotes? --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 05:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your idea appears to be to use a {{Cite web}} template. Sorry, but no matter what method you use, the problem remains that the source as such is inappropriate for citation. Interwiki links don't apply to footnotes, they are navigation aids. If you cite sources, cite the original sources of the original article. If you're translating article text from another language Wikipedia, just mention it in the edit summary. Sandstein 05:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine. What to you actually propose I do aboutn the articles already citing wikipedia? forget the footnotes refering to wikipedia? --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 07:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, footnoting is a way of citing sources; see WP:CITE. What other way of citing sources did you have in mind? Sandstein 07:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what I'm trying to say, in a nutshell, is what would you have me do to fix up the articles that are currently citing wikipedia? I see you have made sure no more of my articles are selected for DYK until this issue is resolved, and I will do whatever it takes to make sure this is done in time. I understand my mistake, I am sorry for my ignorance, and it will not happen again. I am just having trouble understanding what I can do. You have already told me how to stop this from happening in the future, but I want to know what I should do about the articles that are already problematic. Should I simply cut out the notes refering to wikipedia? Should I be tracing the references? And in reply to your question about what sources I have in mind; you are the one raising the issue. I don't care; I just want to make sure my article's are ready for DYk, and that you are satisfied with whatever consesnsus we come to. --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 07:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, please calm down, this is not a life-or-death issue. Yes, you should remove all citations of Wikipedia. Instead, provide the sources that the other article provides for the assertion that was formerly referenced by a Wikipedia citation. If the other article does not provide a source for some assertion, and the assertion is so important that it needs citing, you should do the necessary research yourself (just as though you were writing a new article of your own), or you should not make the assertion in the article. All right? Sandstein 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I overeacted. I have fixed up the articles, so do you think it may be possible that you remove or cross out the things you said on DYK about them not being selected (the 'cautioned to no avail' things beneath the DYKs). Thanks, --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 13:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (PS. If more work is needed, let me know)

Sorry, I forgot about that. The articles seem to have been processed now, at any rate. Thanks for writing Christoffelturm, by the way. I wrote the article about its companion tower Zytglogge. Sandstein 12:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine, please don't worry about it. It's just good that I've been informed on this policy, and that I have learnt my lesson now. For that, I thank you. I have much to learn on policy, but I am trying to correct my mistakes. Oh yeah, and by the way, it was the article on Zytglogge that inspired me to write Christoffelturm, so, for that, I also thank you. Kind regards, --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 06:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your archives

Hi! I have helped a bit ([15] [16] [17]) with your archives (the template should be located before the first thread). However, a couple threads were left because they didn't have timestamps. You can archive them at your will and remove the MiszaBot templates so that the bot doesn't take unnecessary empty rounds through the archives (or just delete the old archives). Cheers, Миша 13 17:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help - and thanks for coding the bot! Sandstein 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Sandstein,

Thank you for dealing with the vandalism I reported so promptly: it is much appreciated. EuroSong ^talk 10:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sandstein 11:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

I know my conduct was bad. I would never do what I said to him. I just knew that he or she is a fan of Aishwarya Rai. He violated Preity`s page and I thought that a little threat could calm him down. Never mind. Just to notice, the information that he has removed was writeen by me and it took a lot of hard work and long time. I warned him once, But I couldn`t support it anymore. I hope you understand. Thanks and sorry again. --Shshshsh 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corey Clark, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.30.94 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 April 2007

That RfM does not exist. What is this about? Sandstein 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Sandstein, I would like to address your oppose vote on my recent RFA. You said that I wasn't ready because of my age. You gave some reasons, but then said, "Although I can't say I've observed TeckWiz lacks these traits". You said people in my age bracket aren't usually able to be able to do something like adminship. You said it yourself: you've never seen me act "in my age bracket." I invite you to check every one of my contributions and show me something that would make you think it's because I'm so young. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz, or R, let me start off by saying that I have the utmost respect for your contributions to Wikipedia, which quite belie your age. Nonetheless, I already said that I did not oppose you for any of your contributions, which is why it would be futile for me to check them now. I opposed you simply because, at age 12, you are a child, and children are, due to their not-yet-fully developed personality, unsuited for the responsibility and stress that comes with the position of adminship. Especially the stress. I wouldn't want to lose you as a contributor because of it.

Please do not take this personally and bide your time. Wait. Literally, grow up. Wikipedia will be still there four years or so later, and I will most likely be happy to support you then. But adminship is not a trophy, and you have many things you can do to contribute without it in the meantime. Sandstein 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Abt Madhesi

Dear sir, the proper term to denote the natives of Terai of Nepal is Madhesi and not Madhesay. In case you are following news of Nepal properly, you might not be surprised to find that people are being killed almost every day because of the Madhesi unrest. The Madhesis consider the term Madhesay very offensive. If you do not delete the page, please do not be surprised to find the good name of wikipedia being associated with their unrest. Thanks. --Eukesh 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, since it's apparently about the same thing, I've redirected the misspelling (or slur) Madhesay to Madhesi. There, you could write about how "Madhesay" is an offensive slur and whatnot, if you have reliable sources for it. Sandstein 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the page "List of Crayon Shinchan episodes"

Hi, could you clarify your reason for deleting the page "List of Crayon Shinchan episodes" that I created yesterday? Your reason for speedy deletion was that it was a "foreign language article that exist[s] on another Wikimedia project." Could you show me this "foreign language article that exist[s] on another Wikimedia project"? Thanks. Crayon Shinchan 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to, I can undelete the article to your user space, so that you can translate it before recreating it in main space. Sandstein 04:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. I'll just rebuild the article and create the page when I'm done.Crayon Shinchan 21:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon

Hello my name is Patelco and I am concerned about by friend Pikminlover. He was recently blocked by you. I know that there is no possible way of unblocking him, but I would like to tell you that he has had no relationship with some of the guys he reported. He told me that he is not a sockpuppet of the x house, yoman33, wheezy 19, and others. The only thing he did was report them. I know that it sounds a little bit weird that they were blocked on his IP address or whatever and I support that you think this is weird too. But in the meantime I hope that you, Pikminlover and I can all sort this out in an orderly fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patelco (talk • contribs)

If Pikminlover (talk · contribs) disagrees with being blocked, he may request review by another admin through the {{unblock}} tag. He'd better come up with good evidence, though, since ss things stand, the chances are high that something funny's going on with his account. Sandstein 22:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your cooperation

- ₪Patelco☻ 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Dear Sandstein,

I got blocked for "edit warring" and I wasn't even aware that I did anything wrong. I thought that removing referenced text was clear vandalism and that no discussion was needed - reverting was the only solution. I now see that I am wrong, that just because a text is referenced doesn't mean it must stay there. Even though I thought there was no need for discussion, because reverting vandalism is non-negotiable, I still commented on the Kosovo talk page, trying to make those who were removing the text stop what they were doing. I am sorry that this whole situation had to end with me getting blocked for 31 hours, without any explanation given to me, other than "edit warring" (at the time of the blocking). If I had known that reverting these changes did count as breaking the rules (if I had been warned before blocked, I would have learned about the rules), I surely would not have done that, I am an older man and I know when to listen to those who know more about rules and regulations. I just hope my collegues at Wikipedia won't get the wrong impression of me for being blocked, because I really try my best to contribute to Wikipedia and I wouldn't want a small misunderstanding to lead to a black spot on my history here. I felt the need to say this, I hope you understand.

I wish you all the best,

--GOD OF JUSTICE 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, which is appreciated. If there is anything I can do to help, feel free to ask. Sandstein 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the Red Line

Could ask for your reason(s) for deleting the Beyond the Red Line article? After all it was a page about an existing free game. ...was an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject. If that is used for the grounds for deleting articles then all articles concerning freely available games ought to be removed from wiki, right? - Wanderer602 05:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, only those that meet a criterium for speedy deletion. In this case, per WP:CSD#A7, the article did not assert the notability of its subject, which allowed it to be deleted. Sandstein 06:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How can any one ever create any content to wiki if pages are deleted before more content can even be added to it? It was concerning a game released in 30th of March (2007) and the page itself was created even later. On the other hand the game has been present (and sometimes even reviewed) in several PC, Mac and Linux related webpages so it is - well, IMO - notable. - Wanderer602 06:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By mentioning how the subject of the article is in any way important; this would have prevented speedy deletion. Note, though, that reviews "on webpages" are not generally reliable sources, which means they can't establish notability, so the article would likely have been deleted regardless. As a rule of thumb, we need multiple substantial coverage by professional media to establish notability. Sandstein 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I take then that PC Gamer (UK), Apple Inc., and Fileplanet are considered not to be reliable sources? Not to mention that Joystick (link to fr.wikipedia page) (biggest game magazine in France) mentioned it (Link to scanned page). No one had time to dig these 'references' up as the page was deleted without any warning. - Wanderer602 07:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No warning is required for a speedy deletion; look at CAT:CSD and imagine what a waste of time it would be if we had to issue warnings for all the crap that winds up there. Articles must at least claim some sort of notability in the first place. Anyway, if you want, I can undelete the article to your user space so that you can recreate it with sources, but it may still be subject to regular deletion. Sandstein 08:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. However i doubt i have time to add the required references there but i'll try either to do it myself or get some one else to do it ASAP after the article has been restored. - Wanderer602 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The content is now at User:Wanderer602/Beyond the Red Line. Please make sure that the article meets WP:N before moving it back to main space. Sandstein 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag

Could you maybe explain at the bottom of Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag what the situation in Switzerland is? Thank you. Lupo 06:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano deletion

You deleted Talk:Giovanni_di_Stefano. The article Giovanni di Stefano itself had been deleted without discussion -- perhaps because it became corrupted. It was a valid article at one time -- see the Google cache here. Can it be undeleted and restored to its "former glory"? I don't know how to do this myself. Thanks, --mervyn 08:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks

Hi. Last month I said after his disruptive incidents I would keep an eye on him. Well, earlier today he ended up blocked for an entire month for more disruption on George.W.Bush dispite 2 earlier 2 week blocks after you blocked him for four days. His disruption never seems to stop. Is there anything that can be done to stop him? Retiono Virginian 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we stop disruptive users by blocking them. If this doesn't work, we block them for a longer time. If this doesn't work, we ban them. It works just fine, usually. Sandstein 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Herrn Jurist: I merely stated the facts of the case.

Herrn Jurist: I have merely stated the facts of the case in my comment to BlueEarth.

1. I stated that BlueEarth's "contribution" to the discussion was "utterly useless". This is a fact. It is "utterly useless" to state "I will name it Magsa" because: a. The naming of planet Gliese 581 c is a question for the IAU, not for BlueEarth, and b. "I will name it Magsa" is not a meaningful discussion about the content of the Wikipedia article concerning planet Gliese 581 c.

2. I asked why BlueEarth was wasting his/her time. This is a question based upon fact; the fact being that the comment in question is "utterly useless", as per section 1 (above).

3. I asked why BlueEarth was wasting the time of others. This is also a question based upon fact; the fact being that the comment in question is "utterly useless", as per section 1 (above).

4. I finally asked why BlueEarth was wasting space in computer memories. This is also a question based upon fact; the fact being that the comment in question is "utterly useless", as per section 1 (above).

5. As far as making "ad hominem" arguments are concerned, if that is what you perhaps wish to imply, I plead "Nicht schuldich!" Insofar as I have discussed BlueEarth's personal qualities at all, I referred to BlueEarth as "...doubtless an intelligent person;". If you think about it just a bit, you may agree that offering intelligent criticism is a form of respect, nicht wahr? I have enough respect for BlueEarth to offer my criticism. I assume that BlueEarth will see and understand what is offered, in good faith. I still assume that.

I rest my case. Writtenright 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Please calm down (and cut down on the pointless legalese). We know there's much silliness on article talk pages; there's no point in getting people upset over it except in egregious cases. BlueEarth is a young user, and a more conciliatory tone would not have gone amiss. By the way, your message would have belonged on his talk page, not on his user page. Sandstein 08:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize: I should have written "Nicht schuldig!", not "Nicht schuldich!" in my previous post. Writtenright 08:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Scientists without borders

Hey Sandstein,

Initially I made a copy of the web page but have now described the Scientists without borders orgranization. Please take a second look at it.

Thanks. --Fat merchant 17:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-deleted, see your talk page. Sandstein 17:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bruce A. Manning

Thank you for your input on the wiki page I just created for Bruce A. Manning.

I fllowed all the links in your message and read what is expectd for a wikipedia entry like this one.

Please note that Prof. Manning is an internationally recognized expert in the fields of Surface Analysis and Mineralogy. In my opinion he certainly qualifies for inclusion in wikipedia.

I plan to revise my entry. Please let me know if you still object.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbspbs (talk • contribs)

Sorry, that was not my message. The article was deleted for not asserting notability. Please see the detailed notice on your talk page. The relevant guideline here is WP:PROF. Sandstein 17:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a page I added, Bruce A. Manning. Would you mind resotoring this page so I can edit it and address your objections to it?

Thanks Pbspbs 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. The page has been recreated at User:Pbspbs/Bruce A. Manning. Once you have modified the text so that it meets the notability requirements explained in WP:PROF, you may move it back to Bruce A. Manning by using the "move" function at the top of the page. Sandstein 17:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the page on Bruce A. Manning.

I have revised this page to emphasize the important contributions of this reseacher. I then moved the article from my user page back to the regular wikipedia. I hope you will agree that this biography warrants inclusion.

Thanks, I am new to this. Pbspbs 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

bluemarine (talk · contribs)

Re this - I think it's something much more sinister going on. The article he is drafting is about himself. Blanking his talk page is part of his cover up. He is also a suspected sockmaster.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing sinister. Newbie users with little grasp of WP:COI are not exactly rare here. What accounts do you think are the socks? Sandstein 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:GSschool is a suspected sock. Just wanted to fill you in, that's all.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think that is so, you should file a WP:SSP request. Sandstein 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure which license I'm supposed to use for the images I uploadedMatt Sanchez 03:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC) I do not use "sock puppets", I like my screen nameMatt Sanchez 03:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC) GSschool is a buddy of mine who goes to the same schoolMatt Sanchez 03:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC) I'd invite you to look at my Discussion Page, there's a lot of "bias" contribution going onMatt Sanchez 03:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeroen Riemsdijk

Hi, I see you deleted Wim Zwaag and Zhislin Piano Quartet after I nominated them for speedy--thanks. I also nominated the related article Jeroen Riemsdijk (see links from the two deleted articles, plus random spam removal in my contrib history from earlier today) but that nomination took me a little longer so you might not have seen it. Someone later changed the speedy nomination to PROD. I won't revert the change but maybe you could look at the article and decide if my original nomination was correct. Thanks. 75.62.7.22 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, maybe prod is better here, as it's not a clear G11, and it asserts notability. If prod is contested: next stop WP:AfD. Sandstein 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: How were these supposed to work?

See [18]; you seemed to have removed the prefixes by accident. ~ PseudoSudo 00:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that's strange, I definitely don't remember doing that; I just copy-pasted the new interwiki. I'm going to repair this now. Sandstein 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech media coverage

Hi, you were the admin who closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre AfD, which resulted in a keep/no consensus. In light of this, I was wondering if it would be possible to undelete and merge content from the Michael Sneed, Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre, and Wayne Chiang articles. The Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre right now doesn't have anything about the initially inaccurate rumor-mongering that was going on, nor anything about the South Korean government's response. Wl219 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The AfD simply says "no consensus to delete this content", not "add that other deleted content". However, if there is consensus that this merger would be worthwile - for example, on WP:DRV or on Talk:Virginia Tech massacre - I'll gladly make the content available. Sandstein 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User Roobit

Could you please look at the user page of Roobit (diff here). He using his user page to promote hatred and neo-nazi views. That userpage has been reported twice ([19],[20]). First time administrator Coelacan apparently felt that very mild warning is appropriate for promoting ethnic hatred and left the "open letter" in place, second time there has been no replies whatsoever from administrators (granted, 193.40.5.245 could have been less impudent in that message, but basically he is right). DLX 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the material and left a warning. Sandstein 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please keep an eye on that user as well, if possible? See [21] for his views on this matter, I doubt that he is done with Wikipedia. DLX 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. User page watchlisted, and for everything else there is always WP:AIV for a fast response to disruption. Sandstein 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For fairly and quickly responding to my plea and making Wikipedia better place for us all. DLX 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)