Hello,

I would like to have the Wiki entry for ch put back into the encyclopedia. The interpreter has been useful in the development of my several dozen C prototypes (small C source code of 75 to 400 lines) that can easily be used by anyone to create larger programs. The ch article gives the reader the necessary depth necessary [or certainly helpful] to use the interpreter to maximum benefit.

thanks,

gary kline

Re:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ch_interpreter

kline@thought.org Garykline (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Wikipedia community has decided that the article does not meet our inclusion requirements. Your request does not address these requirements and therefore does not convince me to undo my closure of the deletion discussion.  Sandstein  20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request original entry for 'ch interpreter'

Can you please send the original contents that regarded the ch interpreter to my own user:garykline page? I need to compare the original with things I have found elsewhere.

thanks much.

gary kline Garykline (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a copy at User:Garykline/Ch interpreter. As soon as you no longer need it, please request its deletion with {{db-u1}}.  Sandstein  05:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please address each and every issue raised and give a detailed analysis as to why my unblock was declined. Moreover, please do not provide a pro forma response as that gives the appearance of a particular point of view to my guests. Please also note that having the Marine Corps mentioned more than Arman Manookian's name is of deep concern and troubling to Armenians as the Marine Corps in WWII actively recruited Armenians for Christian Martyrdom to fight in the South Pacific Island hoping campaigns. The fact that most Armenians and indeed, Americans, are unaware is a testament to the Marine Corps' treachery and betrayal of Armenian Americans. We find it highly offensive to have the Marine Corps consistently on an Armenian American Marine's name who committed suicide so as to promote their recruiting efforts. Moreover, I note that as user by the id John DC has purposely delinked Arman Manookian's middle initial for the apparent purpose of directing Google traffic to a Frazer Art. I would like to have a conflict of interest check done on John DC. Moreover, it also appears that John DC, users Sudoghohst and Field marine are collaborating together for propaganda purposes. Please advise how to proceed on this issue as well. Since Arman Manookian is of Armenian decent, I also ask that their conduct be observed in order to prevent propaganda. Monte Melkonian (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you refer to this decline of your unblock request? As my message notes, your request was declined because it did not address the reason for your block, which was violating the WP:3RR rule. As to the other issues you raise, they appear to be unrelated to your unblock request and need to be addressed via the dispute resolution process. Please proceed as described at WP:DR. But note that it is disruptive, and may lead to sanctions against you, to accuse others of severe misconduct, such as "collaborating together for propaganda purposes", without at the same time providing proof in the form of WP:DIFFs. (Please do not provide such proof here, but in the appropriate forum per WP:DR).  Sandstein  05:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not mention this in your closing statement, so I was wondering; would you object to a recreation of the article under the title Micronation diplomacy? The subject is very well sourced indeed under that title. Anarchangel (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a title change solves the problem that the subject was deemed insufficiently sourced.  Sandstein  05:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much. Deemed by who? Not the people at the AFD. Even the delete voters noted that the sources were good. For example:

"Delete - yes, there are good sources. Unfortunately, these sources mostly talk about what micronations are, or interactions between them and normal nations (which would be outside the scope of this article) Kansan (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It seemed as though you might perhaps have taken the comments out of context, when you wrote: "The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the problems highlighted by the "delete" opinions, that is, that such interactions do not seem to be covered by reliable sources."

The one remaining possibility was that you had considered the possibility of renaming the article but found some other reason why that would be inappropriate, which is why I asked if you would consider a title change. The unmistakeable conclusion, based on your answer, is that you misread the comments. I suggest you read the AFD again. Let me know what you think. Anarchangel (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assume if people were of the opinion that the article could be kept with a different title, they would have said so and proposed renaming it instead. And no "keep" opinion apart from yours contained anything resembling a valid (i.e., policy-based) argument. Sorry, I still see a "delete" consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interactions between micronations.  Sandstein  11:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you should reconsider the deletion of Crackle_(physics). I summed up my reasons on the talk page. The only source is a webpage that admits that the terms in this article were made up on usenet. A common usage in mathematical or physics journals or a widely excepted text using these terms would proof their validity. I have not found any such usage nor have I ever heard the terms used in any physics or mathematics class through my graduate work or any presentations. I do not claim the no one has ever used these term I just don't think they merit a wikipedia article.

Phancy Physicist (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, but there was no consensus for this view at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crackle (physics). I recommend to wait a month or so and then to start a new deletion discussion in which you address the arguments raised in the first AfD.  Sandstein  08:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link for Hinkon, is this the right way. I did not know, because I thought keeping the stuff on Wiki was not coppytheft, unlike putting it on a private site or taking content from a private site. --Wipsenade (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've unmerged it flagged it for deleation.Wipsenade (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandstein, I'm looking at a situation for which I'd appreciate your advice regarding how to proceed. I'm asking you since you seem to be more familiar with the workings of ArbCom and WP:AE than I am, although I do participate at WP:AE on rare occasions. I have been involved in longevity articles in an admin capacity only, to ensure that the ArbCom general sanctions regarding longevity articles are adhered to.

ArbCom ruled: User:Ryoung122 "is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted." (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Ryoung122 topic banned).

Last Friday, here Ryoung makes a long, rather non-sequitur comment advocating sweeping changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) in response to a proposal for a well-supported minor change that would broaden the guideline to apply to flags inserted in longevity articles.

A few minutes later, Ryoung122 posts this somewhat incivil message to the talk page of the person who proposed the MOS modification.

This definitely appears to fall under "commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted".

What sort of action is appropriate here? Deleting or collapsing his comments in the MOSICON discussion? Blocking the user for a time? Letting him off with a warning? I'm not comfortable with blocking him as it seems punitive in this case, and I don't like the idea of punitive blocks. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that [1], at least, violates Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Ryoung122 topic banned. There are also other recent such edits: [2] and [3]. The applicable enforcement provision is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Enforcement of decision sanctions. You can either proceed as described there (block or impose a discretionary sanction) or make a request at WP:AE to act on the violation.

I think that a 48h or 72h block is appropriate. It would not be punitive because it prevents (for its duration) and thereafter deters continued violations. You can also delete the problematic comments, but in similar cases I've never bothered to.  Sandstein  17:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]