User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/January

Talkheader
Hey Sandstein,

Could i copy your talkheader script to my user talkpage i'm wanting to modify it for my talk page. →Yun-Yuu zhan→ 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. All text on Wikipedia is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Sandstein (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. →Yun-Yuu zhan→ 13:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shake (cannabis)
I have nominated Shake (cannabis) for deletion, an article you've edited. Please see Articles for deletion/Shake (cannabis). Zenwhat (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've no objections to deleting this article. Sandstein (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your review of the controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. It will do a lot of good, I think.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (PS there is something wrong with your "click here to start new discussion" link, I think.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I fixed the bug. Sandstein (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Pakistanphobia
Hello, while the term "Pakistanphobia" is a neologisms, anti-Pakistani sentiment has been used in reliable sources. See, , , ,. Please reconsider the deletion, and I can post more sources if you like. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the article(s) or AfD(s) at issue. Thanks. Sandstein (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pakistanphobia. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, these sources mention "anti-Pakistan sentiment", but in very different contexts, and they do not at all discuss it as a concept. As such, these sources do not provide the basis of a verifiable, non-original-research article without running into WP:SYNTH or WP:COATRACK problems. I'm not ready to reevaluate the AfD on that basis. Sandstein (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Userbox
You missed a few. As near as I can tell, eight other users have that same userbox.
 * Mohammad adil
 * Aisha uk
 * Mrizwankhan
 * Enlil Ninlil
 * Yahussain
 * Arab League
 * Eshay
 * Eleland

The last user added the box to make a point. IrishGuy talk 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. These have been taken care of now. Sandstein (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I see, I understand. If I see any other biased userboxes than I too will ask for them to be deleted as being biased. And maybe they will offend me. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical administrative question, and request for action
If a user opens an account, but then edits without logging in, and violates several Wikipedia's rules for which the IP address gets block, can he then log back in to his previous account and continue to edit, or will the blockage of an IP prevent him/her of logging in to the account created prior to the blockage?

I am asking this because, making spurious claims that Argentina is a developed nation rivaling European countries, after being reverted, violated WP:3RR (he has reverted by three users, but he kept on reverting 8 times); developed a theory by engaging in WP:OR at Talk:Argentina, was warned by three users to stop, and his account was blocked. A few hours later, using the same arguments (and even claiming that the ideas of "dual economies", originally pushed by the anon, were his ideas), reverted the article once again. Not only has he used the same arguments, but he has the exact same history of edits (focused on Argentina, North America and Panama City. The anon user also engaged in an edit war and violated 3RR in North America, and Cololiras is repeating the same pattern of behavior there too.

I was considering making a notice of possible sock puppetry, but I wanted to make sure that technically it is possible to log in to a previously opened account before the blockage of the IP. (Although it is also possible that the user is logging in from different location; the pattern of behavior is strikingly identical). Please advise. -- the D únadan 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the block type. In this case, you can see from the block log that 201.218.79.62 was blocked as "anon. only, account creation blocked". This means that a user account could edit from this address even while the address was blocked. Sandstein (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Block rejection
Sandstein,

I would like to personally appeal to you to overturn the unblock application you rejected for User:Freedomfighter1112. As I have stated previously, this user was blocked as a result of a spat between myself and User:ChrisCh. Freedomfighter1112 was unfortunately caught-in-the-middle during this spat for stating their own opinion and as a result I was labelled a sockpuppeter and he/she was labelled a sub-account of a sockpuppeter. By simply viewing Freedomfighter1112's contributions, their FIRST edit resulted them in being indefinitely blocked. While Wikipedia is not a democracy (it is neither a tyranny or anarchy also) I would personally feel if I were in their situation, I had been judged very harshly. - one simple statement, and indefinitely banned. You, as an administrator, would understand how the Wikipedia Community help each other out with contributions; however, this ban against Freedomfighter1112 has tarnished this user's view on the Wikipedia Community. So I plead to you, please overturn this user's ban; this user has been treated extremely harsh as a result of the spat between myself and ChrisCh and has unfairly been treated.

Sincerely Yours,

Australia2world (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Appeal declined. A brief review of the contributions of yourself and makes it very evident indeed that the latter is a sock- or meatpuppet of yours. A genuinely new user would not have made these contributions. Be advised that any further sockpuppetry or disruptive activity on your part may lead to yourself being indefinitely blocked. Sandstein (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Intended purpose of Template:IPsock
What specifically, do you believe the intended purpose of this template to be? It is _not_ merely to identify any connection between a user and an IP, no more than it would be appropriate to tag User:Sandstein II with sockpuppet and your main userpage with sockpuppeteer. It's, quite plainly, a black mark, and I've seen no convincing evidence that it is deserved. —Random832 16:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The intended purpose of this template is to mark the evasion of a block or ban by an editor so sanctioned. This is a discussion probably better suited to Templates_for_deletion. Sandstein (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw no evidence that the user had actually evaded any block or ban. —Random832 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which user was that again? Sandstein (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My post was related to a protected edit request you declined on User talk:67.135.49.177. Sorry for not making that clear. —Random832 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, currently User:67.135.49.177 says that it has been used to evade the block of . Looks useful enough to me. Sandstein (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools.  My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Threats
Sandstein, this is clearly crossing over the line. You're threatening to edit and then "protect" somebody's userpage over content which has absolutely not been shown to be offensive to the wider community. You were the first person to comment on the revised suggestion, "This user supports the political wing of Hezbollah," yet you took it upon yourself to decide what the community thought about it. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The enforcement of policies, including WP:UP and WP:NOT, is my job as admin. If you want a community discussion about this box, you can create it as a userspace template and we can discuss its appropriateness in a MfD. Sandstein (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ... that is, unless the template meets WP:CSD/WP:CSD, where policy empowers admins to make unilateral content decisions of this sort. Sandstein (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

my username...
about my username...

i understand your point of view, but i dont agree with it, please tell me why is my username as Arab League might cause problems in Wikipedia??

especially that all links to my name will include user:Arab League rather then simply Arab League ..

the username Arab League, i have used it since i started using wikipedia, lots of people know me by that name, and i have also used it in other political forums, im pretty sure people will be able to tell the diference between my Arab League username and the organization, plus the organization is actually called League of Arab States and not Arab League...

im not sure what exactly your message asked me to do... but can you please inform me where i can formally discuss this, i mean if you still find it a problem...

thank you, and happy new year... Ma assalama (peace be with you) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tomkraft.at
This seems to be a good faith user who has been editing for almost a year. The point of blocking usernames that look like URLs is because they are often used for spam. This is clearly not the case here and I have unblocked him. Please be more careful in checking contributions before blocking. Mr.  Z- man  11:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The username corresponds to http://www.tomkraft.at, and such usernames are routinely blocked as promotional. The actual contributions of the user are irrelevant. Please do not undo any more blocks without requesting the opinion of the blocking administrator, as detailed in WP:APB. Sandstein (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we block if they are trying to promote something or they are brand new. This was a good faith user making helpful edits for almost a year. In such cases, you should ask the user first using Uw-username or a personal message. Mr.  Z- man  21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right in this respect, but you should not have unblocked him unilaterally without at least requesting that he agree to change his username. Sandstein (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * According to WP:USERNAME - "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited" If you would like to make that request you are more than welcome to, but since he is doing nothing wrong, I saw no reason to make the unblock conditional. Mr.  Z- man  21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of newbee and fair play
Hi I just had a look of the blocking of newbee Twpx who asked me to look at a debate. It appears that he had little guidance about the rules, and that he was blocked when he made a technical error in an edit war which was, according to him, mainly because he "merely restored what was deleted. Since the deletion came first, the deletions must have first violated the multiple update rule first whether individually or deceptively acting in tandem."

I have not checked the edit history to see if that is true or nearly true. But if so, please give him good advice how to deal with such a situation instead of just confirming a block (perhaps he should go for Rfc?

Also, if his accusation about the edit war against him is correct, then why was the other party not equally blocked? Fair play must be enforced.

Regards, Harald88 (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link to the user, in the following form: . Sandstein (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User_talk:TwPx
 * I don't request him to be unblocked before due time (1 week isn't long), but to be kind to inexperienced contributors.
 * Regards, Harald88 (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I see no need for intervention here. The user has received ample warnings with links to the applicable policies. There are no "technical errors" in an edit war; all edit warring is prohibited. You are free to give the user any advice that may be required (our page about dealing with disputes is at WP:DR). Also, we don't block users for "fairness", only to stop disruption. If you think the other user must be blocked right now to stop ongoing disruption, you may report him at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Sandstein (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of receiving a standard Welcome with Good Advice, he was just attacked by everyone, even (as far as I can see) by administrators. OK then, I'll take the role of welcoming him appropriately to Wikipedia and also copy your suggestion (HE thinks the other user should be blocked) to his page. Often it's the shrewd ones that are most skilled to make the rules work in their favour...
 * Regards, Harald88 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jimbo's Redirect Bot"
In hindsight, User:Jimbo's Redirect Bot was kind of humorous... I mean, after all the disruption stopped of course. Guldenat (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Very mildly. Sandstein (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

edits to Deafness
Hi hi! The new edit seems just fine. The part that was POV was from this edit, namely that defining 'useful sounds' is subjective. If i can get someone's attention when their back is turned with a yell, is that a useful sound? Do you mean being able use some hearing to decifer a speakers intent? etc. JoeSmack Talk 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Sandstein (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That Albanian case
Hello Sandstein, sorry for bothering you with this, but you were the only admin who commented at all on my case with that Albanian guy User talk:Burra. Could you just make a decision on this case, one way or the other? I just badly need someone who'll be willing to take the responsibility, since the people over at the Albanian articles won't accept my own judgment as "uninvolved". Either we give the guy another chance, but then we need an admin who'll be available to oversee him. Or somebody now needs to tell him he's used up all his chances. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem, just to confirm: was the guy banned with some degree of formality when he was editing as an IP? And are there any indications, in your opinion, that he will cease the disruptive conduct that got him banned? Sandstein (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, well, the "ban" was somewhat irregular, it was basically just this, from myself. That's why I'm so insistent on having somebody else step in now. There had been multiple previous blocks on various IPs, one or two threads on ANI and a section on the Community Sanctions board which fell through for lack of interest (would need to take some time digging to get the links.) Just look at the history of Talk:Arvanites, almost all the short-lived accounts and IPs there are his (,, , etc.). Currently he is at least in a friendly mood and I'm trying to have a constructive talk with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, I guess that he should not be considered banned per WP:BAN, since that policy says a community ban needs to have "received due consideration by the community". Still, I'm ready to block him for block evasion (of PIRRO BURRI etc.), once you think that your efforts to help him contribute constructively are going nowhere. He may then request unblock from his original account. Sandstein (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I dug around a bit, and here's the links to previous admin discussions:, , I leave it to you to determine if that's "due consideration by the community" enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's good enough for me. I'll block him if you think your talks with him go nowhere. Sandstein (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi
This is just letting you know I have commented on the block on both the user's talk page and mine. SirFozzie (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I seem argumentative, but looking at the amount and cause of his deleted contribs (Template:Pwn?), is why I declined to unblock him myself, I won't argue against an unblock, as I said. SirFozzie (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your rapid response on this issue. Sandstein (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was stuck at work today, anyway. Have a great day.(making up time after illness) SirFozzie (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The map that depicts Ron Paul as favorite does not accurately reflect the votes of the people.
Regarding the page entitled: "Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008."

The straw poll map that shows Ron Paul as the "winner" in many states is simply not representative of the actual "grass roots" votes.

The author's methodology is not standard; therefore, his results are skewed.

For example, he is willing to give Washington State to Ron Paul, when, in fact, Ron Paul's average in Washington State is approximately 3%. The averages of other candidates (Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Huckabee) are in the 20s and 30s, yet he "gives" the state to Ron Paul. That is unprecedented in the annuls of polling.

Also numerous source links go directly to various Ron Paul sites. This is highly unprincipled. Source numbers should go to a verifiable source, not a particular candidate's web site, especially one that asks for donations.

I question why the official (accurate) numbers are being discarded, in favor of "aberrant" numbers. If the reason is that he is looking for "grass roots" rather than "official" numbers then I question his motives, since there should not be any significant difference between the two. Anyone who has studied statistics and polling understands the dynamics of trying to influence a race with misleading interpretations. They also know how to word explanations to sound logically correct, when, in fact, there is nothing logical or correct about their methods.

It appears that this page favors Ron Paul, and that the author will consider any poll, no matter how arcane, or isolated, if it favors other than the front runners. He is assuming that "grass roots" votes for his candidate are valid, but "grass roots" votes for other candidates are not valid. That makes no logical sense and is an insult to all voters that their votes are tossed in favor of votes that the author prefers. This means that the author does not respect, or value, the votes of anyone other than those who vote for his candidate. In fact, there should not be any significant difference between the "opinion" numbers and the "official" numbers and the "straw poll numbers" since they all come from the voters. There should not be any significant difference between the numbers he is using and the "official" numbers of the opinion poll of the Republican Party. Those numbers should be within a margin of error, because the voters are the voters, and they are finite. There is not some obscure group of aliens who are composing another sampling of "straw votes."

In fact, the coming elections are for registered voters only. To read the electorate, the state GOP will take as many straw polls as they have the opportunity to take. And, when those are finished, they average them and make those numbers available to the public and the media. These Republican straw polls have traditionally shown Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee in the top (low 30s or high 20s %), followed by McCain and Thompson (in the 10 - 12 % range) (although McCain is rising by a couple of points). And they consistently show Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in the 1 - 7 % range, depending on the size of the poll. (In small polls they may register in the 6 - 7 % range, and in larger polls in the 1 - 3 % range).

The point is that to devote a page to showing "obscure" or "aberrant" numbers is misleading and causes the map to be bogus. The top tier candidates shares the greatest numbers of votes; the middle tier see-saws back and forth, and the bottom is the bottom. Merely because Ron Paul wins a poll or two in a certain location (and some of those locations have been "spammed" because the numbers are completely out of the realm of possibility, such as Ron Paul coming in with 60 or 70 % when he polls nationally at 3 %, meaning those votes should be discarded) does not mean that he is in the running. In order to paint Ron Paul "in the running" you have to ignore tens of thousands of valid votes. And, because those tens of thousands of valid votes are being ignored, in favor of aberrant votes, in order to be able to call an entire state for Ron Paul, I have to question the motives of the author. All of those tens of thousands of votes for McCain and Romney and Giuliani and Huckabee, are accurate and valid, but the author chooses to not consider the accurate votes in favor of aberrant votes. Why is he using votes that are not representative of the state that is being colored?

I have no particular favorite candidate at this time. But, I think they all deserve a fair chance. This page favors Ron Paul above all others, and the author has chosen to "discard" tens of thousands of votes by people who are just as worthy to vote as the small sampling that the author is using. The results he is using are not the least bit representative of the people. The votes he is using are representative of the Ron Paul supporters. I do not understand why this page is allowed to use a generic title sounds as though it is unbiased, when it is extremely biased in favor of one candidate.

I truly feel that because of (1) the problems with the map colorization, (2) the sources that link directly to Ron Paul sites (either to join, or to learn more, or to contribute money), (3) the lack of consistency in the polls used, and (4) the redundancy of information that only favors one candidate, that this page is nothing more than a Ron Paul promotion site and should by brightly marked accordingly, because it is not accurate for a voter's aid.

Folks look at visuals, like maps, for a reason. Any map that causes folks to come to an incorrect conclusion is not a helpful map. In fact, this site would cause any voter to draw an incorrect conclusion.

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't care about this map. What I do care about are such edits, they are unacceptable. If you disagree with the article's contents, please make your arguments on the article talk page like everyone else. See WP:TPG for instructions on how to use the talk page. Sandstein (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock
I just wish that the other customers at my ISP were as constructive when it comes to Wikipedia! Lankiveil (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Thuringowacityrep
I'm not quite sure what happened there - I think we both tried to decline the request at the same time. Thank you for letting mine stand, but in future, I suggest that you might want to be more careful with your language in such situations. Telling an editor who has a disability to "please try again in coherent English" is not really appropriate. In contrast, I took the time to explain why the reason he was actually blocked was solid. Rebecca (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:User:Nat/pp-sock
Hey Sandstein, could you at least inform me next time you edit one of my user subpages. Thanks, nat.utoronto 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What would you needed to have been informed about? Sandstein (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just give me a heads-up next time, as a courtesy; it is a subpage of "my" userpage. I'm not taking ownership, I just like to be kept informed of any actions taken to change or modify a subpage of "my" userpage, especially one that can be seen on two article talk pages. nat.utoronto 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, although I assumed your watchlist would take care of that. As far as I am concerned, a page that is transcluded as a template on non-userspace pages is part of the public project and subject to normal editing. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Daemonia Nymphe
Hi Sandstein. Someone complained about your deletion and salting of this article on WP:AN/I. I think the best thing might be to undelete it so someone can AFD it, but it's your call. Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  15:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CIA: "Italy and Germany are not part of Western Europe."
On the article Western Europe

Simple conflict resolution. User Pundit stated that the CIA considers Italy and Germany as not part of Western Europe but as part of Southern and Central Europe respectively. He used the CIA The World Factbook to back up his claims.

The CIA The World Factbook simply states the geographical location of those countries, whereas Western Europe is a geopolitical division. Quotations from CIA The World Factbook support my understanding.
 * "The UK is one of the quintet of trillion dollar economies of Western Europe."
 * "Per capita GDP exceeds that of the four big economies of Western Europe.

On the article Eastern Europe

Also Pundit thinks that for the CIA Romania, Bulgaria and others are not part of Eastern Europe. Quotations from CIA The World Factbook debunk his view.


 * "The Czech Republic is one of the most stable and prosperous of the post-Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe."
 * "The Austrian economy also benefits greatly from strong commercial relations, especially in the banking and insurance sectors, with central, eastern, and southeastern Europe."

The lack of letter capitalization on "south-eastern" Europe proves that user Pundit is mistaken about both Bulgaria and Romania.

Could you please, if you have the time, issue a ruling to settle this matter?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, admins do not issue authoritative rulings on content. I'll take a look anyway. Sandstein (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into my problem. I appreciate it. EconomistBR (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?
Could you please explain more fully why you closed Achievements_of_telecom_sector_during_2004-2007 as delete, rather than '''merge?

I spent over half an hour tracking down real references, which Communications in Pakistan, the article two of us suggested this article should be merged with totally lacked.

Okay, my half hour, or whatever it was, was a drop in the bucket in the grad scheme of things. But your closing doesn't say why you discounted the merge opinions. Is it possible that, somehow, you overlooked both of the merge opinions? Otherwise I don't understand why your closing doesn't address the merge option. -- Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there was only one "merge" opinion - yours - as opposed to three "delete" opinions including the nomination. That's clear enough a consensus for deletion for me. At any rate, if you want to, I can restore the content so that you can merge it, provided consensus exists among the editors of the target article. Sandstein (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks.  Could you userify it to User:Geo Swan/working/Telecommunications in Pakistan please?  Geo Swan (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. Sandstein (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

block
In regard to your block of VK, is this the reason for this latest Block, that edit was made prior to the the last block not since that block expired.--Padraig (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That edit was made at 09:08, 25 January 2008, i.e. after the last block, which occurred at 01:57, 25 January 2008. Sandstein (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But dosent a user have the right to remove any post made on their own user pages, as that is a indication they have read the post, also rockpocket has been ask numerous times not to post there.--Padraig (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both these issues are not relevant to the block. The incivil edits by Vintagekits are. I have no opinion about Rockpocket's conduct, as it does not matter with respect to the question whether Vintagekits should have been blocked or not. Each user is judged solely based on their own conduct. Sandstein (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see anything incivil in that edit which is the reason you give give for this block.--Padraig (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As noted on the user talk page, I feel I have explained enough and will not comment further. If the user feels my block is in error, he is free to request its review by another administrator. Sandstein (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Dodona"/User:Burri case again
Seems my little resocialisation experiment failed: Requests for checkuser/Case/Dodona. Could you take the appropriate steps? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done, all socks blocked. Sandstein (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

News from the Dodona case. It seems I may have been a bit too quick with my request there. Given subsequent discussion with Dodona on User talk:Burra, and this additional checkuser clarification, I'm actually inclined to unblock now. Sorry for the trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I have no objections to you unblocking him. Sandstein (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

An opinion please
Hi. I notice you are a vastly experienced editor here at Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could take a quick look at User:Refsworldlee/Oliver Golding, and let me know whether it would pass being introduced into mainspace, on grounds of notability (the subject may have given up acting, at least for now, and does not yet play tennis to the very highest standard, being a minor) or any other criteria you think may fit. This would be appreciated. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 13:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He's probably just notable enough, on account of having received press coverage, but others may disagree. I've no objections to moving this to main space, though. Sandstein (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me??
Excuse me? I'm wasting your time?? I'm trying to prove my innocence and you treat me like that?? What is it? You have a personal vendetta against me or something? Please don't send notes to my talk page ever again if you are going to be rude for no apprent reason. Thank you.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme


 * No, just seeing too many frivolous "my brother did it" unblock requests, as someone has gone to great lengths explaining to you on your talk page. If you do not wish to be in the position of having to come up with better unblock requests, please just edit productively and read up on WP:5P. Sandstein (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummmmmm, I know how to use Wikipedia.... And did I say that "my brother did it"? No I did not. If you don't believe me, then that's fine. Its over and done with, and you'll be eating your words.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

block review
Guy's talk page says that he is retired and has some sympathy messages about a family death. Therefore, I am talking to you instead.

You mention that indefinite block of Fairchoice might not be warranted. Mangojuice also makes another point. As a result of this limited consensus, I will talk with the user and propose to the user a different block duration. If Guy were not retired or if he had a talk page, I would discuss it directly with him. Archtransit (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to give Fairchoice some advice. I asked him to have a cup of tea and come back on Friday (nicer way of saying "blocked 48 hours") Archtransit (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC) I also disabled autoblock so that it will be easy to catch a sock. Archtransit (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No objections; thanks for notifying me. Sandstein (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)