Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott L. Schwartz: The article is now somewhat better. With help it could be even more so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the lede spam. diff Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being restricted from editing such topics, Radeksz with an IP account is again edit warring this. The IP address account 66.188.186.206 is located in, which is what Radeksz has used.

Can someone promptly ban this asshole?radek (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above seems to be the now-blocked Raxmet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).  Sandstein  05:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand why I was blocked, you are the admin who refused my unblock request, can you please advise me now on how I can have a review and get my block log cleared. Thanks, RomaC (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is no process for that.  Sandstein  05:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does apply because the only thing this person is notable for is being kidnapped and allegedly sexually asssualted. Six deletes indicate consensus. Recommend review as she does not meet WP:N. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the "LP" in "BLP1E" stands for living person, which the subject is not. In my opinion, consensus to delete is not established.  Sandstein  05:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that. However, my point as per the delete votes is she did nothing famous why she lived. If being kidnapped and allegedly sexually assualted is her unfortunate claim to fame, there are thousands of other WP:OTHERSTUFF that would apply. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if you look at the two Keep votes before my Delete vote, those editors make the case she was not notable and recommend that the killer is more notable. I don't concede that however. He's your run-of-mill pervert. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this or should I take it to deletion review? ----moreno oso (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, taking the various arguments into consideration, I think we - narrowly - don't have a consensus for deletion. Per WP:DGFA, "when in doubt, don't delete". If you disagree, you're free to request review.  Sandstein  15:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is a knowingly disruptive and tendentious breach of WP:NOR; and evidence of blatant disregard for the DIGWUREN enforcement warning you posted here [2]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance this appears to be a content dispute which should be resolved via WP:DR. Not every addition of unsourced content to an article is disruptive. Only if this is part of a pattern of problematic conduct does it become sanctionable, in which case you should make a proper WP:AE report with sufficient dated and well-explained diffs.  Sandstein  15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information. I will do that in due course. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm currently restricted to editing via iPhone only and so pasting in links showing that the 21st century claim flies in the face of historical record, media reports of the time, British government statements and the memoirs of Poles who were invited is very difficult. I will post links to sources as soon as I'm next at a proper computer. However, if you think it appropriate I will self-revert until I can post such sources. I personally would think that using a source to support something which the source does not say (and claiming that the source means other than what it says is utterly unacceptable but that's just my opinion). Varsovian (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about your content dispute (though it looks as though that article needs 1RR soon). But I strongly suggest that you do not make potentially controversial edits until you are technically able to make them at an acceptable level of quality, i.e., including any required sources. The only thing that's urgent on Wikipedia is vandalism and BLP violation removal, everything else is not on a deadline.  Sandstein  17:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I didn't actually think that the edit was particularly controversial, given that all but one of the sources which I have now inserted into the sentence in question were already in the article (and the new source only backs up a source which was already in the article). Varsovian (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have made an error in your closure as no consensus therefor resulting perversely in keep. The Article was overwhelmingly decided not to keep. The two results plausible were Delete outright or Move. Keep was not one of them, please can you expand on your reasons and if necessary Move the page over a redirect.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leanne Tiernan. As explained above, there was no consensus for deleting this article.  Sandstein  19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though no concensus to keep the discussion said move or delete not keep. Lucy-marie (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean. Those editors who opposed deletion did so on the condition that the article be moved if it was not deleted. Accordingly, after closing the discussion as "no consensus to delete", I moved the article from Leanne Tiernan to Murder of Leanne Tiernan, but I did this in my capacity as a normal editor.  Sandstein  22:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanstein, before I will proceed to my question, I would like to give you a barnstar please:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I would like to thank you for the topic ban you made me the subject of. It took some time for me to realize, but now I know it was not only the right, but also the kind thing to do. It allowed me to concentrate on the positive contributions and to write few articles that would have never been written, if I were not topic banned because after I was topic banned I tried to prove to you, Sandstein, that I am capable of making positive contributions. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now my question. Yesterday was the last day of my 3 months topic ban, and I am not sure those three months were enough to make me to stay out of the troubles. They probably were not. Could you please add one more month to my topic ban? I am afraid I am not strong enough yet, to avoid troubles on my own, and I need your help. Thank you for understanding. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, thanks. But admins do not generally issue blocks on request, and I do not think that issuing other sanctions on request would be helpful. If you do not think that you can make good edits in a certain topic area, I advise you to simply stay out of it. If you need advice in any particular situation, please feel free to ask.  Sandstein  21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind offer. I took more than enough of your time and from now on I will try to avoid posting more questions on your talk page. I am not sure how to explain it to you, but for the last month I felt as I was learning to swim in a stormy ocean, and the only thing, that will help me, if I was going to drawn, was my topic ban. Now my support is there no more, and I am on my own. I will try to follow your advise. It was great to know you! Regards. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I have a question, if a user with whom I am banned from interacting makes false claims that a source says something which the source doesn't actually say, who and where can I alert of the situation without breaking my ban?  Dr. Loosmark  14:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]