User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/February

Palestinian people
Wow, looking at that, I'm not exactly sure what to do, someone apparently denied the request, don't know who. What would you recommend? Keilana | Parlez ici 19:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to post on the talk, would warning individual users be better? I'm lifting the protection now. Thanks, Keilana | Parlez ici 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

LumberJake
Feel free to bring this to AN/I... I think discussion of the validity of the approach of not taking the word of a fellow admin might be quite beneficial. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have declined the unblock and the matter is closed as far as I am concerned. I won't therefore initiate such a discussion, but I would not be opposed to participating in it if someone else were to raise the matter. Sandstein (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Newarticletext
diff Your signature replaced the &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; somehow. –Pomte 06:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thas seems to be an error in the code I pasted in from the talk page; I think it's fixed now. Sandstein (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RogueNinja talk  18:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no. Your reason for requesting deletion review is too unspecific for me to make any sense of it, and I will accordingly not comment on it. Sandstein (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint About Another User
Hello. I hate to bring this up, but could you please look at the edit history for this user?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jralex%21

They have removed information from the Chris Brown (American Singer) article at least twice now that is factual and should be included. Each time, I have added the information back into the article (said information being in the Featured Singles section, in re: Umbrella (Cinderella Remix). I am not sure why they are removing the information, but it seems to me that if things aren't nipped in the bud, one or both of us could be in danger of a block for an Edit War.  I assure that is not my intention.  I am simply trying to maintain factual information in the article.

Thank you!! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right that this content dispute could lead to a block for edit warring, but it is too early for a complaint. I notice that you have not actually talked to the other user yet. Consider asking him on the article talk page or on his talk page, in a polite tone, why he removes that information. Then, try to find a consensus with him and other editors about whether the information should stay or not.
 * Remember that every user has the right to remove information that is not sourced (see WP:V), so if you want to keep that information, the first thing you should do is find a reliable source for it and add it in the form of an inline reference. Please see WP:DR for other hints about how to proceed in such situations. Sandstein (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have left a comment on his talk page, kindly reminding him that the material in question is accurate and asking him not to remove it. I have yet to see a response, but then again it has only been a few hours since I left the comment.  I'll see how or if he responds before proceeding with anything further.  I just wanted to bring this issue to the attention of an admin so that I have my backside covered, so to speak.  Thanks.  --InDeBiz1 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but talking to an admin will not help you one whit in the current situation. Should this dispute escalate into edit warring, both or either of you may be blocked regardless. Your only option is to pursue the dispute resolution procedure. Consider getting a third opinion, for instance, if you feel you're getting nowhere. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the message you left him was unnecessarily aggressive, IMHO. There is absolutely no need to speak of "vandalism" in a first message of this kind, before you even know what the other user's reasons are (see WP:AGF). Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, I did act in a bit aggressive of a manner. I have rephrased my post on his page and await his response.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:BLP apply to dead people?
About this. Heath Ledger is dead, hence WP:BLP seems to be irrelevant. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If he's dead, BLP does indeed not apply. I didn't look at the merits of the dispute, but just noted that this was not an ANI matter. Sandstein (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Aztec cuisine GAN
I've bolstered the referencing of Aztec cuisine a bit, including the addition of another source, per the request in your GA review. Do you think you could have another look at it?

Peter Isotalo 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. I'll get to it tomorrow. Sandstein (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:82.6.96.66.
Thanks for the heads-up; I've unblocked. · AndonicO  Hail!  16:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (blocks by JzG)
You commented on this earlier. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help with 129.133.124.199. It's good to know that other Wikipedians are working to keep things civil. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

List of members of the Swiss Federal Council by date of election
If you have a few minutes to spare: I have taken some time to improve this list, and I think it is ready for proposal as a featured list candidates. A few things could still be improved (maybe a few more inline citations in the lead), but I'd be glad if someone could have a look and comment and/or make any relevant change. Would you be able to do this ? Ideally, I'd like to propose List of members of the Swiss Federal Council as a candidate simultaneously, but it requires some more work (the lead in particular). Cheers, Schutz (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll take a look and note anything that comes to mind on the article talk page. Sandstein (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. I've also modified (and hopefully improved) the second list. Maybe the statistics should be moved to another article, I don't know. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed comments; I have replied to a couple of them (including more requests for help :-). Schutz (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have received a detailed reply from the Bundeskanzlei, and I am sure it will interest you — I forwarded it to you by email. Schutz (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Great news about the photo, but too bad that we need to do this every year. A clear disclaimer on the website would help. As to the information about the status of people declining their election, I can't really follow the reasoning of the Chancellery official, but, all right, if this is how the federal authorities think it works... I'd be reluctant to use this content extensively in an article, though, because this e-mail is not a published (and hence verifiable) source. The issue is of limited practical significance, anyway. Sandstein (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure we have to do this every year — I did not forward you my original email, but I specifically asked for the pictures in general, so it should not be a problem (although I agree that they should update their "copyright" section on the web page — but I don't want to insist too much, the guy has really been nice). Anyway, if they are as efficient as they were here (emailed yesterday night, got an answer today), it is not so much of a problem.
 * Indeed, the email is not published, but I don't think it is a problem. As you say, it is not so important, but we should add a note in the list (you commented on it, so it is likely that others would do the same), simply refering to art. 175 BV.
 * Thanks again for all your comments on the list; I think I have found a way to implement almost all of them (only for the colours am I not sure how to do it), this should really improve the article. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have made most of the modifications you suggested, including moving and renaming the article (and creating a template Swiss Federal Council which may probably be improved too). Still to do: I think I'll go for featured list soon; only the inline references may be a problem, the rest are smaller details. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The colours... I have improved the blue over orange contrast, but don't really know what else to do.
 * Add old names for the parties
 * Add more inline references
 * User:Docu has commented about the move at Talk:Composition of the Swiss Federal Council, if you have any suggestion.

NYScholar
"As far as I can determine, you blocked this user for archiving or deleting content on his talk page." If you think that is a balanced and accurate summary, then you must not have put very much effort into understanding the situation.

This user is making extensive edits, more indeed than you and I put together. Yet he has a message on his talk page that basically says "please don't post here; I'm not active on Wikipedia, and I'm too busy with real-life commitments to respond". Then, if anyone attempts to talk to him on his talk page, he summarily deletes the message, claiming to be too busy. And he accuses the other person of harassing him and/or upsetting him by ignoring his talk page instructions. And all the while he continues editing apace.

This is his modus operandi not just for trivial messages, but for messages for which he really is obliged to respond. The trigger for all this was his baseless accusation that Moondyne has made personal attacks against him. Moondyne asked him to substantiate the accusation or withdraw it. NYScholar's response? - delete the message. If I were Moondyne I would be supremely pissed off about that. Moondyne has every right to challenge such a serious accusation, and to expect a considered reply. As I said on my original warning to NYScholar: "I'm now giving you a formal warning that your management of this talk page is disruptive, because it is likely to cause anger and frustration amongst your collaborators. If it continues, I may act to prevent this disruption by blocking you from editing, for a time."

NYScholar responded to me, but do you know what? Within a couple of hours, before I had read his response, he deleted the entire thread. Sarah had added her own contribution to the thread. He responded to her, then... deleted the thread. Three times Sarah reverted his deletion of active threads, eventually threatening him with a block for disruption if he didn't stop it.

So I came back after a little while offline to find precisely the disruption I had warned him about. I had stated that his management of his talk page was disruptive because it was likely to cause others anger and frustration. I returned to find that he had continued to manage his talk page in a disruptive manner, and the result was a whole page of disruption, with any number of angry, frustrated people on it. This didn't need to happen today, and I don't want it to happen tomorrow. Therefore I executed the block.

I don't need you to tell me that blocks are supposed to be preventative. Read my block message again:
 * "NYScholar, I told you, very clearly, that your management of this talk page was disruptive. I see in the history that you responded to me, then archived the discussion before I saw it, was reverted, archived it again, was reverted, etc. I wouldn't have even seen your response had Sarah not taken up this issue in my absence. And so others have been dragged in, and we have a dispute that has wasted the time and emotional energy of numerous editors, not least yourself. This is the precisely the disruption I was talking about. "I have therefore blocked you for 24 hours, in the hope that this will prevent further disruption. I suggest you use some of that time to figure out a way of managing this talk page that is in line with community expectations. You might like to use the remaining time to meet some of the real-life priorities that you keep telling us are so pressing that you have time to edit Heath Ledger but not to respond to anyone about anything. Hesperian 04:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)"

I don't see how you can possibly dispute that (a) his talk page management is disruptive; (b) he was warned that it was causing disruption; (c) he continued to manage his talk page disruptively, and disruption ensued.

If you still think the block was unjustified, please explain to me why.

Hesperian 10:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I might add that Sarah gave him a final warning nine hours ago, on his repeated deletion of this active thread regarding his behaviour. She logged off shortly afterwards, and hasn't been online since. NYScholar has now deleted the entire thread again. When Sarah comes online, and discovers that NYScholar has deleted what she has every right to consider to be a still-active thread, then she may well apply a block herself. So what's your position? Will you overturn that block too? Hesperian 11:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And meanwhile I await an explanation from NYScholar re his accusation of personal attacks which seems to have initiated this saga. I am still expecting a withdrawal of the claim or some evidence.  In fact I'd like to see some evidence of ever having issued a personal attack.  The truth is that I didn't and NYS should promptly do the honourable thing and withdraw the claim.  &mdash;Moondyne 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile NYS has issued a few of his own, particularly aimed at Sarah. His first action - to archive his talk page so none of us can further discuss the matter with him. This case in my view is a classic example of why people should talk to each other before unblocking. Orderinchaos 13:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is in reply to Hesperian above. I'm sorry that I was not able to discuss this block with you before undoing it. My schedule has kept me offline from the time of the unblock up until now. That's why I chose to unblock NYScholar under the assumption that you might be offline for a substantial period of time as well.

I'm afraid that I still do not see how your block of NYScholar can be justified under our blocking policy. It appears that you consider NYScholar's alleged practice of archiving or deleting messages (that in your opinion are part of an ongoing discussion) to be blockable disruption. I disagree. WP:UP, a policy, explicitly states that:


 * "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history."

This is expanded upon in the essay WP:DRC. Accordingly, the removal or archiving of user talk threads cannot be construed as disruption, although it may appear impolite. Such removal of content does not prevent others from using the talk page to communicate with the user at issue.

As concerns the Moondyne situation, with which I am not familiar, it might conceivably have been appropriate to warn or block NYScholar for his conduct towards Moondyne; but for the reasons laid out above, it was against policy to block him merely, as you did, for the management of his user talk page.

Finally, your block was not preventative. Because blocked users remain able to edit their own talk pages, the block could not be effective in stopping NYScholar from continuing with the conduct you wanted to prevent, i.e., deleting comments from his talk page. If you had wanted to prevent this, you would have needed to protect his talk page instead (by which I do not mean to say that this would have been appropriate either). Because your block was unsuited, for technical reasons, to prevent the perceived misconduct at issue, it can only be seen as punitive, and for this reason as well it violated our blocking policy.

I might add that I am completely ignorant of the background of the apparent conflict between NYScholar and the other editors that have been posting in this thread, or any possible evolutions of that conflict, and I see no necessity to comment on that matter here. As far as I am concerned, this thread is solely concerned with Hesperian's block of NYScholar, my undoing of that block, and the appropriateness of either action.

I hope that I have explained my actions to your satisfaction and will, of course, explain in more detail upon your request. Sandstein (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't explained it to my satisfaction, but you are welcome not to bother trying again, as we seem to be suffering from a fundamental communication disconnect, caused by a completely different understanding of the role of policy versus common sense on this site. If you don't think the way NYScholar is managing his talk page, as most eloquently described by Sarah overnight (read it if you haven't yet), is disruptive, then you and I are not on the same planet when it comes to our understanding of disruption. I sincerely hope you don't think that the people/community who wrote WP:UP (a guideline, not a policy) intended to endorse this kind of behaviour. Also, as far as I am concerned, the point of punitive v preventative is that blocks should be applied not because a user has done wrong, but because they are likely to continue doing so. I find your interpretation, that a block must directly technically prevent the action for which the block is applied, to be unacceptably narrow. I guess you must overturn every block for block evasion you come across, since block evasion by definition represents the failure of a block to be preventative in your sense of the word. Hesperian 23:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've asked for an outside perspective: WP:AN/I. Hesperian 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vitra Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Vitra Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bern 2006 Executive Council Election Posters.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bern 2006 Executive Council Election Posters.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orlando Figes category
Citation now provided... GrahamHardy (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. A new editprotected request would have been faster. Sandstein (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Indosiar Television Tower
Hi, it will be possible to undelete article Indosiar Television Tower? It is lined from List of tallest buildings and structures in the world by country and List of supertall structures, because it is tallest structure in Indonesia (not an ordinary 200th mast in US). So i think that subject is notable (altough i have no idea content of deleted article). --Jklamo (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The full content of the article is as follows:


 * Indosiar Television Tower is a 395 metre tall guyed mast used for FM- and TV-broadcasting in West Jakarta, Indonesia, completed in 2006.

I don't understand.
Image from signature = My Israeli flag? Ahmed987147 (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I meant, although you seem to have removed it now. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. I only put the flag because I'm an israeli patriot :P. Don't problem, I will never put again that image. Ahmed987147 (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's not the choice of the flag that is a problem, but images of any kind are not allowed in signatures. Sandstein (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

pleaze watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/US_-_Jimmy_Slade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimmy_Slade%2C_US

I'm just one time was wrong. Pleaze unblock me. 89.178.46.84 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Jimmy Slades?
I notice that you blocked and. I've come across
 * - not a real user page
 * - not a real user page
 * - not a real user page

Any idea what's going on? --Calton | Talk 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, looks like a sock farm of a slightly clueless user, but since he is not currently engaged in disruption, I've let it go. Sandstein (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent past
Please see user page 129.133.124.199‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.203 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please tell me what for and provide a link. Sandstein (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Terran Federation
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Terran Federation. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for the barnstar, especially since I seem to be the first recipient ! It took me almost two years to finally finish this table since I started it on a draft page, so I am glad it is done. Many thanks also for the very helpful comments.

Completely unrelated, in case you haven't heard about it but would be interested: the General Assembly 2008 of Wikimedia CH on 15 March in Lausanne. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello! I think the main image in this page is not appropriate for the reasons I wrote on the talk page of the article with IP no:78.180.41.211. But I hesitate to edit the page, to not to start an edit-fight. Could you please erase image, if what I say makes sense? Thanks in advance! --78.180.39.215 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment on the talk page. Sandstein (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've edited it as you said.--78.180.39.215 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed RfA for Seicer
Hello Sandstein,

I noticed that you've had prior interaction with editor Seicer | here and thought you'd be interested in his RfA | here. Regards. Netkinetic  (t / c / @) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. And as a prospective admin candidate yourself, WP:CANVASS is a guideline you might benefit from reading. Sandstein (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha I've never been nor ever will be a prospective candidate, no worries where that is concerned. Simply an fyi, take it for what it is forth. You may be able to give information on Seicer's improved conduct since his block was declined, or may provide some persepctive on the contrary. That's all. Regards. Netkinetic  (t / c / @) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Still, you do have the User wikipedia/Administrator someday userbox on your user page. Sandstein (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, touche! I forgot I placed that on my user page way back when! Removed today as this isn't a realistic nor desired goal. Regards.Netkinetic  (t / c / @) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

wow
wikipedia is so cool, its not important, i hope not to bother you, but thank you for being one of the mods on this wonderful encyclopedia site! it has helped me learn alot!--75.37.59.25 (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You are welcome. Sandstein (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lac de la Gruyère/Lake of La Gruyère/Greyerzersee/Greyzerlake
You may give us your input on the naming issue at Talk:Lake of Gruyère. -- User:Docu


 * Regarding the block of User talk:Rarelibra, I concur with this user that the requested move was very confusingly worded. And there was no edit warring over it.  I haven't looked deeply into this user's edit history, though, is there more to this block than just the reason given?  Mango juice talk 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems the user has been unblocked now. In general, his repeated deletion and editing of others' comments, coupled with his nonacknowledgement that this was a problem, what was triggered the block. Sandstein (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdogsimmons (talk • contribs) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)