User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2007/June

Personal Attacks by Laertes

Laertes has been using ad hominen attacks in the the following page Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

"Alexius do you have a problem of understanding things slowy?" "Alexıus you have ındeed a problem of slow understandıng...does your slow workıng braın can get the dıfferences between dates?...Sıgh get a braın please"

He has been offensive and insulting in the past, could you please tell him to stop?

He has also been deleting sourced content, and I think he might be using an anon. sockpuppet, as he has done in the past, but of course I cannot prove this so I don't want to formally accuse him. Would it be possible to run an IP check? He has been blocked 4 or so times already for doing this kind of stuff. AlexiusComnenus 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility issue attended to. As for the IP check, you may want to file a checkuser request if you think the criteria for one are fulfilled. IP checks are only possible via this procedure. Note that posting anonymously is, as such, allowed; it is not sockpuppetry. Sandstein 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed this thread, by following the links from your block to Laertes for incivility. RFCU had already been running while you blocked Laertes. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Laertes d now has a confirmed result. NikoSilver 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to your question at my RfA

I've replied to your question about my username.[1] --tjstrf talk 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 22:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Nlitement

Err.. I could make a new account and you'd never know it. Seriously, I've been blocked for a petty "violation" for 8 months now, and I've been editing it since I completely abandoned my account. Am I just supposed to act submissive and completely avoid editing because of a technical limiation? Sorry, you're only blocking my account, not my access to edit Wikipedia. You're not preventing me from sockpuppeting (for the sake of uploading a few damned images that I need now and then). So, what exactly doesn't sound convincing? The fact that I said "fine, whatever you want me to admit to, please, unblock me, it's been quite a long time since my block, I just need my account to upload a few images, so I'd just like to ask to be unblocked." "NO WAY, I see you're totally evading a ban, that's so very evil. Also, you don't sound convincing." Holy $@!#*, but the fallacy is in the fact that there's no effect in keeping me blocked whatsoever, I was just asking to get my username back. Thanks for your hospitality and understanding, I mean, admins are just regular users, aren't they? Oh, yeah, I forgot about the ego they had (yeah, yeah, WPCIVIL, WPCIVIL, but the fact remains that there's still a conflict about admins thinking they're somehow above regular users). In the unlikely event that you'll unblock me, I'd be thankful. But I doubt it'll happen (hence me saying it's unlikely) because I know some people/admins have this problem with my slightly inflammatory personality, giving an _indefinite_ ban. But we forgot something, I can still use Wikipedia. It doesn't even matter, I just didn't think of using my Commons account at the very moment, I can use it to upload images. Other than that and me having to always request others to make changes to locked articles, I'd have all the advantages of a registered user.. aah, but those dynamic IPs! Too bad you only know me by the info I give you, I can create a new account. The point is, there's no reason for you to unban me, as I can still circumvent anything and you wouldn't know it's me unless I told someone. Hell, I might even become an admin some day with that account, unblock myself, and then team Karma would come in and block both of my accounts. The only difference of you unblocking me would be that I'd get to use the nickname I usually use on the Internet and could finally clean up a silly old conflict. Am I asking you too much? I think you're asking me too much.

EDIT: Let me guess, you think I'm "threating you"? Well, that's how I got it when I read what I wrote, anyway, it' still what I have to say, and I'm being very honest with my rhetoric. Sorry, that's who I am, but you can't argue against the fact that I contribute good content. Let me make it really short: "you can't get rid of me, this is really stupid, so I ask you to unblock my account" --194.251.240.117 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the blocking admin has already declined to unblock you. Under WP:APB, I should only unblock you under these circumstances if the block was manifestly in error, which it is not. Additionally, several admins have declined to unblock you, which means you are effectively banned. Your only remaining option is to appeal to the arbitration committee. I would advise you, however, to watch your attitude and to supply them with other arguments than the singularly unconvincing "you can't get rid of me". (We can, by the way.) Sandstein 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

His declination was relatively old. I'm not given any advice whatsoever on how I could get myself unblocked. I'd ask you to consider in common sense how sensible my ban is. E.g. how will unbanning me harm anyone, or how easily one can apparently get completely banned because of one WP:CIVIL violation and because they request unblocking, and admins repeat their arguments. I don't know why someone should be "indefinitely banned" because they were overwrought by (what I saw as substandard edits, if I recall correctly) yet made GOOD Wikipedia contributions (did I vandalize anything even once? Let's forget about my first edit, it was experimental). The two edits for which I was initially blocked: this one, where as you can see, I removed an edit by someone obviously new, and I was simply angered by the content's unprofessionality, I feel jealous that I couldn't leave my summary without notifying about the "unprofessionality" in it, but I just happen to be a perfectionist, human error, I'm just like anyone, and I highly doubt that the editor whose edit I reverted even ever saw my revert. The second one was very inflammatory, but then again, I'm just the type of person who might yell at something (but not at a person directly) if they attempt not to do something appropriately. I doubt that anyone new on Wikipedia making what seem to be one of their first edits looking into the history tab, but that's just a guess. I didn't go their account and be uncivil, did I? No, I never insult people unless I feel there's truly a reason behind it, and I wouldn't insult anyone directly if they made such a silly edit like in those links. It was more of a general curse you might hear in public, they're not out there to stalk and wanting to insult you, they're just venting some pissed emotions. Here's my edits with my anonymous account. Anything block-worthy? I think none. I have no idea what to do from here on. I hope you're not implying by "we can, by the way" that you could contact my ISP because I keep on asking to be unblocked in a civil manner over two inflammatory edit summaries? It seems that after I have a small conversation with admins who refuse to unblock me, they simply refer me to the "original blocker". And yes, I might've missed one or two other inflammatory edits I was blocked for, but I hope, like some other admins have, are not going to avoid decent discussion by just saying "you forgot this and this, so dwell in your block cage". Ricky asked me to (paraphrased) "at least acknowledge that cursing in edit summaries is inappropriate until I even remotely consider my blocking", then, as I've stated many times already (albeit possibly in an unclear manner), I'm sorry for violating WP:CIVIL several times, and would not repeat it if given a new chance. Thanks. --194.251.240.117 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your statement that you will behave more civilly in the future lacks credence, given that you have failed to heed multiple warnings and blocks to that effect. Even in this unblock discussion you have sought to downplay and justify your infractions, and you have also edited anonymously to evade your block. Editing Wikipedia is not an entitlement, it is a privilege, and that privilege is not to be used to "vent some pissed emotions". Please do this somewhere else on the Internet.

Accordingly, your unblock is declined again, you are notified that you may consider yourself banned from editing Wikipedia, and your IP 88.193.241.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is blocked. Continued attempts to evade the ban will be dealt with more thoroughly.

You may appeal this decision, by e-mail, to the Arbitration Committee. This thread is copied from my talk page to User talk:Nlitement. Sandstein 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Justify? Not exactly. Look, after blocking, I had not denied breaking any policy. I just elaborated [which I mistakingly saw as being blocked for "vandalism"] that I didn't not vandalize anything. I sincerely ask you to unblock me, as a person, just for the sake of making sense. Is it normal for someone to get banned because of one WP:CIVIL unblock? I believe that my chances of getting unbanned from the committee are good, and what I tried to tell you in my previous posts is that this is really silly. Just focus on this one, just give me a response on this one, and I'll leave the issue behind on your part: Don't you consider it silly that after over 4 months after being blocked, I ask to get unblocked and because of simply asking, I am raised to a "banned" status? Besides that, my violation was extremely minor. I can see SPAMMERS get banned, but not someone like me. Oh, and what I'd like you to consider the most is simply how silly this whole thing is, you or anyone could simply unblock me. Do I sound like I have some sinister plans to break policies again after getting unblocked? Seriously!! Don't you think I'd get the message already? There is no sense in this. Are you telling me that you have no right to unblock me? Then say that to me. Do you think there's ANY risk in unblocking me? Am I going to spread my evil wings and destroy Wikipedia? If so, then you can easily block me, I think you have the power to do that, don't you? I have a feeling as if you couldn't feel any sympathy for me, I need to use Wikipedia. Priorities, priorities. I know you just think I'm someone pathetic (you can blame yourself of giving me that idea). You seem to act threatingly and miss what I'm trying to say. Yeah, this is pretty EASY on you, but I'm taking this issue stressfuly., SORRY; SIR; BUT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DAMNED BUREAUCRACY (WP:BUREAUCRACY); SEE FOR YOURSELF, SO PLEASE, I ASK YOU TO JUST DO SOMETHING SENSFUL. Yes, I'm really stressed out because of something as silly as this. Can't you just give someone a hand? I'm going to say "hi" to you whenever I get unblocked. I'm repeating myself many times already, there's no point in this. I was BANNED FOR SUCH A SMALL VIOLATION I know acknowledge breaking policy, but you just spin the mill when you could unblock me. Alright, after all the messy ways I've worded everything, I just want to ask you something, yes, forgot about my previous "challenges", if you skipped to the last sentence, well done: "what would unblocking me do to anyone? It would only benefit the community and me. And if I broke rules, would it need any more effort than a couple of pages to click through on your browser to block me?". I'm offended and am still stressed by your avoidance of discussion with what I find unnecessary wp:bureaucracy and dodging my questions and blocking IPs so that you wouldn't have to handle this issue. Is it so much that I ask you? I'll give you 10 € if you'll answer me with something else than what you have already. This is not the first time I may have an "argument" with someone about something, I constantly ask them to fully debunk me, and if they do so, I applaud them. Good for them, I feel corrected and am thankful to my opponent for actually doing something.

EDIT: And as it seems as something that didn't come clear in your mind, what I meant by that you can't ban me indefinitely that I have the choice to use Wikipedia as long as there's no way to absolutely identify persons' identities on the Internet. Yes, it's a bit of a smart ass thing to point out but the point just tried to explain that keeping me blocked make less sense than unblocking me, since I CAN do it [the slightly harder way]. I'm not even telling you that I'm going, I just feel that you think that I'm only to be blocked, which I counter to by saying that it's just an account that ALLEGEDLY one person uses. I read about the APB thingie you linked, so I don't ask you to unblock me anymore (silly me), but I do still want your opinion and I would appreciate if you'd discuss with Ricky or someone regarding my issue in GOOD manner (e.g. not telling him to ask Wikipedia sysops to ban my country, more about unblocking me) --194.251.240.117 22:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that you have been disruptively incivil, and that you have had several chances to improve your behaviour, which you have not used. That's why I do not think that giving you another chance would be useful. Your announcement that you intend to try and continue to circumvent your ban, which is another violation of Wikipedia policy, confirms this assessment.

If you do believe that your chances of getting unbanned from the arbitration committee are good, I suggest you give it a try. Finally, in reply to your query, it is not because of your asking (again) to be unblocked that you were flagged as banned. You were banned already by virtue of the fact that no admin has been willing to unblock you; I have merely made this more transparent. Your other IP is now also blocked. Sandstein 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If by "have been given a chance several times", you mean an unblocked account, then you're wrong. According to my talk page, I was given only one warning, and then blocked indefinitely and still the same. I don't like the fact that I'm talking about something like this with a lawyer, I shouldn't expect much help of you unless I hire you? No kidding, you only keep on blocking proxies. I SAID "I'm not even telling you that I'm going", verify it from on history tab. I want you to stop dodging and stop talking about irrelevant things such as me "intending to use Wikipedia despite asked not to". I just wanted you to tell me what unblocking me would harm to anyone. Your answer didn't really satisfy me, as you fail to even tell me why you're not giving me a trial. I don't count your "given a chance" response as valid, I don't know if you find my requirements too big on this one, but I was NOT given a chance, only a warning, but we're talking about the block here. You can't argue the fact that it's very easy to just give me a trial, keep track on me and unblock me whenever you find appropriate. Can you tell me why you cheaply banned my IP manually (it's up to the Wiki software to do it, not you, nicely done). Too bad it wasn't my IP. No, actually it was, how could've you even known it? You just banned Jimbo's personal laptop. No, I'm serious, you can't trust my word that it's actually my IP, just wanted to point out an admin violation (AFAIK). And let's rewind back to that point, you can take the huge 8 month period of me making edits as an anonymous user as an example of my behavior, that's a "chance", right? But no, you keep on banning everything and don't even glimpse at it. And I don't see anything attacking persons on that account, more like me revamping a few articles and making small corrections. How evil and disruptively uncivil! Oh, and I didn't disrupt anyone with my anonymous account, by the way. Good contributions. But you completely ignore it, don't you? Does it show me going wild and insulting/yelling at editors? No. It's from the beginning a very silly thing to block me for, by "venting anger" I mean that I simply cussed at NOTHING, not any specific editor per which I was blocked, to be spicific, but I'm not even going to get started with that part, it's way back in time. I'll have a chat with Ricky, be sure to Google for all possible proxies I may use, block them, and make my attempt to solve this issue harder!

Thanks. --200.23.34.91 23:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I might regret this, but I've decided to unblock him. See here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2

(If you haven't seen the original RFC/Bishonen, it's well worth a look, btw!) Hi, Sandstein, I don't know whether you'd care to comment in Ferrylodge's RFC on me, specifically the mentions of you ("Sandstein agreed with Ferrylodge that the block was 'not appropriate'" etc)? Please don't put yourself out if you're busy, though, it's no big deal. Best, Bishonen | talk 08:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

No problem, will do. Sandstein 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppet of User:Vinay412

Hi.

You recently blocked User:Vinay412 for sockpuppetry so I wonder if you can spare a moment to look at his recent activities? He immediately set up another sockpuppet and carried on unhindered. I got suspicious and reported it as a possible sockpuppet here. He's now freely admitted that this was him. I would have expected that was enough for a reviewing admin to take immediate action but nothing has happened, so it seems to have been a pointless exercise.

Your original block has now expired and to be honest it's had no effect at all on this user's behaviour or attitudes because he's just walked round the system. Any thoughts? andy 08:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• No need to take any action - he pushed it a bit too far and now has an indefinite block. andy 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your insulting ways towards me

How dare you accuse me of not knowing what people mean by "IMHO". You obviously misread what I said when I attacked your lack of respect for the english language itself by using acronyms for what used to be sincere words. Stop destroying this fine language. I will say no more. Lord fabs 13:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked user

Since you declined an unblock request from the user, you should be aware I unblocked BalanceRestored (talk · contribs). An explanation of why I did so may be found here. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cheers! Vassyana 15:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use in galleries/lists

Sandstein, I noted that you unblocked User:Jooler, after he was blocked by administrator User:Steel359 and denied unblock by administrators User:Pgk and User:Sr13.

In specific, I would like to note that Jooler was informed of the policy on this issue by me [2]. Of note; he was informed in that posting to his talk page that this is policy not guidelines. and that subsequent to this Jooler decided to revert anyways [3]. He was later reverted by administrator User:Moreschi, and he reverted again [4], indicating in the edit summary that this is a guideline. User:Steel359 reverted him a minute later, and then blocked him informing him of such [5].

In summary, four different admins concurred that the policy being upheld was being done so accurately, and that Jooler was willfully violating that policy. Despite this, you chose to unblock and gave this reason: [6].

In abstract, I refer you to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use which perhaps you are unaware of. This debate centered on the use of screenshots in episode lists, which is essentially the same issue as album covers in discographies. The policy is most emphatically not in dispute. Some editors disagree with it, but disagreement with it does not constitute grounds for suspending and/or vacating a long standing policy supported by Wikimedia Foundation resolutions to this effect (please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, item #3 "minimal").

I remind you that we are a free content encyclopedia (see Wikipedia:About, first sentence). Our fair use policies are centered on that principal, and the Wikimedia Foundation absolutely supports this principal (see m:Mission, "under a free content license"). Fair use must be kept to a minimum to remain focused on our mission. That is why the policy is written the way that it is. We simply do not permit the usage of fair use images in galleries and lists. I would also like to point out to you User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse, where a number of editors (mostly administrators) are working to eliminate overuse of fair use images from a variety of articles and article types, in support of this policy.

The policy is not in question, no matter if Jooler wishes to disagree with it or no. Disagreement does not in anyway constitute grounds for vacating it, most especially when the Foundation itself indicates this is the way it must be. Jooler was informed of the policy, and chose to edit war over it anyway. The block was rightfully applied. I strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions, not to redo the block on Jooler, but to avoid making the mistake of vacating this highly important policy again.

Thank you for your attention, --Durin 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Durin. Thanks for your message. I'm aware of the recent discussions surrounding the overuse of fair use images and, in general, I support and applaud the recent efforts to counteract it (such as removing screenshot galleries from episode lists, etc.).

I recognise, though, that while our relevant policy including WP:FUC is certainly not in dispute, its application to individual cases can be. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether Beatles covers in a discography meet the FUC. Criteria such as "significance" (FUC #8) are by necessity open to discussion, and their application to individual articles should be decided through consensus. It is inappropriate, I feel, for an admin to enforce his opinion about the significance of Beatles covers through a block (especially without prior warning). The situation is too similar to blocking someone with whom one disagrees over the addition of content "because it is NPOV": even though NPOV is not in dispute qua policy, we consider blocking someone over NPOV in a content dispute to be abusive precisely due to that policy's subjectivity.

Accordingly, I unblocked Jooler not because I think he is right about the Beatles covers, but because I think his block (although certainly in good faith) was procedurally highly inappropriate. FUC, like NPOV and V, must be applied though discussions, not blocks. Sandstein 05:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User:Jooler was warned. Consensus already exists on the depreciation of fair use galleries in discographies. This is not in dispute. There's already been heavy discussions on this issue. Your decision to unblock Jooler vacated this discussion and supplanted it with your assessment of the situation, which frankly (with no insult in any respect intended) is inaccurate. --Durin 12:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, "may be a blockable offense" is a bit vague, but you are right, it will do as a warning. I'm not contesting, per se, that consensus may exist that CD covers in discographies are deprecated (but I'd nonetheless appreciate a link to a policy or guideline that specifically says so). What I am contesting is that failure to adhere to that consensus (if it exists) is a blockable offense. Again, not adhering to NPOV or V is also a bad thing, but we remedy it by editing and discussing, not blocking. Sandstein 13:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• A policy is established, it gets enforced. People come along and say "No, that's not right". The policy continues to be enforced while this is discussed, and consensus is that the enforcement is fine. Wikipedia does not have a system for keeping easy track of every time a policy comes under discussion like this. Nevertheless, policies get enforced until such time as they are changed to reflect a different practice. The policy clearly indicates that fair use in lists and galleries is not permitted. Discographies can not be interpreted as being beyond those bounds. Fair use is to be minimal per foundation resolutions. This gets argued repeatedly, but it always turns out the same. The policy is upheld as it is written. I've pointed you to the largest dispute that came about because of this (see the Signpost article). It is a blockable offense to willfully violate policy. Jooler did precisely that. He was educated. He chose to ignore/disagree. He was warned. He chose to ignore/disagree. He was blocked. He appealed and two different admins agreed with the blocking admin. The block was accurate, and should never have been removed.
• What is at stake here is the removal of an important tool in enforcing this policy. If admins are not allowed to block people for violating this policy, we might as well remove it. Discographies, list of episode articles, sports conference pages, sports tournament pages, videographies, video game articles, and more will all contain dozens and sometimes even hundreds of fair use images. The list I pointed to you earlier of thousands of pages overusing fair use contains a dozen articles with more than 100 fair use images See these for samples before removal: [7][8][9][10]. By unblocking Jooler, you've effectively said "this is ok". That's the message you are sending to the people who want this sort of fair use abuse to be permitted. --Durin 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. While it is true that the policy says that "the use of non-free media in lists, galleries ... is normally regarded as merely decorative" (my emphasis), it was argued in good faith that the use in the case at issue was significant. You and others disagree, and I am inclined to as well.
• Still, you are wrong to state that "it is a blockable offense to willfully violate policy". Per se, it is not. Do we go around and block everyone who makes biased and unverifiable edits? No. On the contrary, WP:BLOCK enumerates the things we block users for, and states that "disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures." At issue was not whether WP:FUC should be applied or not, but how it should be applied to the content in question. This is essentially a content dispute, much as when (e.g.) I want to delete a paragraph because I think it is POV, and you want to keep it because you think it is NPOV. The blocking policy specifically states that "administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". We solve content disputes through discussion and consensus-finding in individal cases, not through blocks.
• By lifting Jooler's manifestly erroneous block, I did not send the message that WP:FUC can be ignored at will, but that questions of its application in individual cases are to be discussed on talk pages (or on WP:ANI if need be), not in block logs. Once users disrupt Wikipedia by, e.g., edit-warring to put images back in that consensus says are not appropriate in specific articles, then they should be blocked. Sandstein 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is precisely what happened and what Jooler was blocked for. --Durin 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. Recent discussions at Talk:The Beatles discography indicate that there is presently no consensus on whether or not (or how) the CD covers should be included in the article. On closer inspection, I'll concede that Jooler's multiple reversions of the image deletions could merit a block for edit-warring, but this should not have been done by an admin involved in this content dispute. Sandstein 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• We'll have to agree to disagree. I've previously shown you how consensus formed on this issue. You disagree. --Durin 13:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gods of demential

Hi, regarding this where can I find the discussion and the reasons for mantaining this article? Thanks--Biopresto 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no discussion (yet). The PROD tag may not be readded once removed, see WP:PROD. If you want to delete the articel, you need to initiate a discussion at WP:AFD. Sandstein 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule

I just wonder Sandstein what are you going to do, just foor the sake of curiosity, user Alexiscommenenus is now violating three revert rule [11], regards..--laertes d 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are free to wonder, but if you want these actions reviewed, WP:AN/3RR is the place where you will get it done. I have no time now, sorry. Sandstein 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As you allowed me to wonder, ı wonder why am i not suprised..--laertes d 14:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Shared IPs

Hey when you put in the shared ip template, remember to put in the name of the school/business. You seem to have forgotten to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.39.240.3 . I'll fix it for you Warrush 13:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hello - I am trying to upload an image of an original painting that I own. The painting is a portrait of singer/actress Judy Garland painted in 1940 by artist Sueo Serisawa (oil on canvas signed size 8x10 inches). I am trying to upload the picture to be used in the Sueo Serisawa or Judy Garland related articles or California Art related articles as it is a beautiful picture and can demostrte teh artists style and Garland's youthful beauty. I am confused and find the tagging system complicated - I am happy that the image can be used by anyone to demonstrate a style of painting or in relation to Judy Garland but not for commercial use. Can you advise an easy way to accomplish this or suggest which tags I need to meet the above information? I am not sure if teh upload was successful as I don't know where to find it- Thank youVono 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Your upload apparently didn't work, since you have no image contributions. You would need to upload the image in low resolution, with the {{Non-free 2D art}} tag and with a detailed fair use rationale for each article; see WP:FURG. I hope this helps! Sandstein 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics (again)

Hi, Sandstein. I notice that you were the admin at AFD/Socionomics, the article of which has been recreated at Socionomics. I've compared the new to the old version and it looks substantially the same. Before I put a speedy template on it, I thought I'd see what you thought. Bucketsofg 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. This looks like a serious (although of course WP:COI-ed) attempt to recreate an article which was deleted on notability grounds. It does have - on first glance - substantially more sources now, so I think speedy deletion as "substantially identical" would probably not be warranted. A second AfD might be, though, if the sources are still dubious or insuficient (I didn't check). Sandstein 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let it sit for a while--perhaps it'll improve. Best, Bucketsofg 01:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)