User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/April

Mutoh Europe nv
The page was again deleted after an other staff member restored it. Why was this? Did you even take time to read the article, compare it to others like it? It's just an informational article about a company. .IT (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it was written like an advertisement, see WP:CSD. If you are a staff member of this company, you should not contribute to articles about it, see WP:COI.  Sandstein   09:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conflict of interest: This is the response I got on the deletion of Mutoh Europe nv. I am an economics major doing research on the industry of large format printing. It suprised me that Mutoh wasn't represented, because it's a major player in the industry here in Europe. So I created the page, got some feedback from the company itself when I asked if it was ok to post it. Then it was deleted, I got it back online to be deleted by you. I am not on their pay roll, but I had to contact them prior to making a page about them, so I don't see how a brief contact can be seen as a conflict of interest.. .IT (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'll reply on your talk page.  Sandstein   20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've read them all before. I can quote x independent sources of the notability of Mutoh in the large format printing market. However most magazines don't offer an online version of their mag and scanning it without the permission of the magazine is copyright infringement and is against what Wikipedia stands for. I don't see why I have to an endless debate on the subject, while competitors as Mimaki run around unscathed. .IT (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not concern ourselves with issues of competition. We do, however, only allow articles on notable corporations. If you recreate the article in a neutral tone and with references to independent coverage (even if not online), showing that the company is notable per WP:ORG, the article will not be deleted. Because Mimaki did not assert notability, I have deleted it per WP:CSD.  Sandstein   14:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reuploaded the page with extra links, can you point out the parts of the article that are too subjective? Thank you. .IT (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk page
Hi,

I would like to request additional discussion about the article Talk page, which you redirected per Articles for deletion/Talk page. I do not believe that a good case was made to not have an article about the subject (admittedly, the case for keeping was not argued too well either...) as most of the arguments (ignoring the one or two pure votes) to delete involved:
 * Misinterpretation of Avoid self-references. Violations of the guideline can usually be solved by editing out self-referential text and need not be dealt with through deletion. In this particular case, the topic of the article is a major feature of the MediaWiki software, so it's unavoidable that the article contain references to MediaWiki. The "Wikipedia" section, if not desired, could be dealt with through simple removal (personally, I think it should be pruned down to one paragraph at most), though I should note that at least one of the sources (Broughton 2008) discussed talk pages in the context of Wikipedia.
 * Unexplained claims of original research. While at least three editors (the nom, Theseeker4, and Mr.Z-man) claimed that the article constituted original research, none offered an explanation of how or why that was the case.
 * Claims of redundance to Talk page. While much of the content in the article, primarily that in the "Wikipedia" section, is covered in the guideline, this argument fails to address the real-world notability (or lack thereof) of the topic of talk pages. The mere fact that a topic of real-world notability is discussed in internal Wikipedia pages has no relevance to the notability of the topic and, by extension, the appropriateness of an article about it.

All three "keep" comments pointed—indirectly, in Kingturtle's case—to the notability of the topic (one user actually changed his opinion following improvements to the article made after the deletion nomination), yet only Verdatum actually countered that position by arguing that the material could be covered in wiki or MediaWiki, which is essentially an argument to merge.

I understand your reason for closing the AfD as you did, but you yourself indicated that there was little rigorous policy-based discussion. Since more than four months have elapsed since the AfD, I understand if you are unwilling to just restore the article (of course, that assumes that you actually agree with my argument, which I realize you may not). However, I would like to ask for a second opportunity for more policy-based discussion of the article. Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I myself did not participate in the discussion and only became aware of it because of Uncle G's comment here.


 * Hi. What you say makes sense to me, mostly, but I don't have a strong preference one way or the other. I think the people who would need to be persuaded would be those who argued for deletion at the AfD. At any rate, I suggest that we have a discussion in an open forum before restoring the article, and insofar as I have anything to say about it, I'm amenable to any suggestion. RfD or DRV may not be entirely appropriate fora. Maybe one of the noticeboards du jour? WP:OR was cited as a reason for deletion, so WP:ORN might do. Or you might just want to merge the content, in condensed form, to MediaWiki and later start a discussion or a RfC about whether it should have its own article again, per WP:SS.  Sandstein   20:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you are already coming from RfD. Well, maybe a useful consensus will form there what to do with the now-redirect, such as to restore or merge it; it's certainly within that noticeboard's remit.  Sandstein   20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I will pursue your suggestion to investigate the possibility and appropriateness of merging some relevant content to MediaWiki (the "Organization" section seems to be the most appropriate location for such content) in lieu of posting to a noticeboard or XfD venue. If eventually a consensus develops at Talk:MediaWiki that the subject merits its own article, perhaps then a more general discussion may be needed. Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I see
I'll make sure to remember to quote you the next time I violate the terms of the 3RR. The fact that a long-established user is able to violate this very basic rule with impunity and you as an admin are able to ignore it on account of a technicality, speaks volumes yet fails to surprise me. Frivolous, indeed.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Meowy's block is yet again an example of how every given rule can be transgressed and users have impunity by dishonestly reporting others when they gang up and edit war against that other user. Sandstein, will you be answering to Marshal? Or perhaps you can answer this. Thise are the number of times which Elsanaturk has reverted Meowy in that article., , . Then two reverts by Brandmeister. , . Per wikipedia rules one can not just remove a tag (and this happened several times) without proper explanation. In articles talkpage there were 8 comments, 5 of them by Meowy (current blocked user) and none by both users who have ganged up to revert him. Meowy has justified the inclusion of the tag both in the talkpage and edit summaries. Just like the user above me, it fails to surprise me how you as an admin are able to ignore it on an account of a technicality. Frivolous, indeed. VartanM (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you have more time to waste by blocking legitimate members than taking actions against POV pusher who was found to use socks, who regularly engages in edit warring and using unacceptable language and no one botheres to place him under AA2. Administrators like you are better suited in chopping the heads of members like Meowy for some technical mistakes. VartanM (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not reply to statements made in this tone.  Sandstein   20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no, did I hurt your feelings? I forgot that wiki admins were so emotional. VartanM (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am always ready to explain my actions if asked politely. It seems a waste of time, however, to do so to someone who seems to have already decided that I am acting in bad faith.  Sandstein   20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can prove me wrong by looking and acting on the diffs I provided. As I recall that is what you requested on the sacred AE board which a puny user like me should never ever disturb or else might get striked by a lighting. VartanM (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not in need to prove you wrong. As to the diffs you provide, they do not by themselves constitute sanctionable editwarring, although they certainly go in that direction. I advise you to submit a better case to WP:AE, in which you provide plenty of diffs that show that there is (if indeed there is) a persistent editwarring problem with this user (as defined in WP:EW, not just edits that you don't like), over numerous articles and over extended periods of time. General arbitration sanctions are not handed out lightly, and a normal editwarring block is out of the question now, as the conduct is days old. Oh, and be polite.  Sandstein   21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your conduct towards Meowy and further comments here are just an example of the joke that is called Arbitration Committee. So excuse me if I don't follow your gracious offer to submit my diffs to the wisest of wise of wikipedia. VartanM (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are are the various edit warring which Marshal was talking about (had you followed the users edit history you would have realized that all for yourself)., , , , . Note that those exclude those on the list of renamed cities. Also note that unlike those with whom he was edit warring he didn't even once wrote anything in the talkpages. Now will you be doing what as an administrator you are supposed to do? Are a dozen of reverts not block worthy? not even warranting a warning? VartanM (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to mistake the function of arbitration enforcement. I, as an enforcing administrator, will not "follow the users edit history" to find out what he might have done wrong. It is your job, as the user submitting a request for arbitration enforcement, to tell me what he has done wrong, and to supply all pertinent diffs. I only act on the basis of what you tell me. If you make a report with a lot of talk about how evil the other side is, but do not supply the relevant diffs, even after being asked to, I will close the request as frivolous, and may even sanction you if you continue to make unhelpful requests that waste my time. – You might be interested to know that I am in the process of preparing a mechanism to facilitate such reporting; see Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Instructions.  Sandstein   20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is weird. As if Vartan contributes on Wikipedia to report abusers, he is not an admin and has very limited time... it's not his but your job to track abusers. Vartan already wrote in the past that he will not waste that limited time to report members who he think are abusing the system to compensate the fact that admins are not doing their jobs. This is why he rarely reports anyone. His answer sounds to have only one purpose, showing his dissatisfaction regarding Meowy’s block. The users who were reverting Meowy knew that Meowy will be blocked because they both know that still today Meowy does not recognize he is under the AA2 restrictions. So practically anyone can have Meowy blocked by simply reverting him without ever engaging in discussion or justifying any reverts, like it was the case once again. Your offer under the current situation is far from being productive as you are asking a member to report yet another member, when you know as well as me the disruptive effect of those kinds of reports which end up with the soapboxing of the page and admins ignoring the initial report. Your block, like other similar kinds of blocks, are against the spirit and purpose of the AA2 restrictions to begin with because you just penalised the editor who was discussing. I won't add anything new about this issue, but remind you of the reverts done by the user who was the main reason why Meowy was blocked. ,, , , , , , , ,. In a little more than a week, this user has reverted 10 times other users. Not to say that not once he ever wrote anything in the talkpage and that his edit summaries suggest that he didn't even have a clue of what was being discussed in the talkpages. In fact, this user jumped in those articles in a way which suggests strongly a case of meatpuppeting. That's all I had to say, and no, I won't be submitting any reports, the last one I filled was closed by the admin not even reading it. But you can not claim now to ignore how unfair and absurd Meowy’s block was.

Furthermore, your argument to close Marsh’s report does not make sense. No warning is necessary in Elsanaturk’s case, because he was not only involved in AA, but there was a remedy involving him, see here. The warning concerns uninvolved users who might not be aware of the cases. Sanctions were imposed without warning for those who were involved in AA, which includes the topic bans imposed against Atabek, because they are considered already warned. He is officially warned according to this. - Fedayee (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I may also point this notorious revert by Meowy. This is not how the things work. Vartan and Fedayee, close these pseudo-retaliation tirades and let Meowy speak for himself. brandспойт 08:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be funny? VartanM (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The facts are quite simple. Sandstein was presented with two near identical allegations of breaches of AA2 restrictions done by two different editors but done consecutively on the same article - the result of the editors reverting each others edits. As evidence of the breaches, each allegation contained a set of three diffs, and a link to the list of editors that are under AA2 restrictions. However, rather than place blocks on both editors, Sandstein chose to block only one editor, the one who made good-faith reverts (restoring an incorectly removed pov tag). The editor who made what were clearly incorrect edits (the repeated removal of a pov tag) escaped without any sanction, to the extent that the editor presenting that evidence was threatened and accused of making frivolous requests. It is a clear case of double standards. It also gives rise to a justifiable suspicion of bias and collusion on the part of Sandstein, a suspicion that Sandstein has done nothing to dispell. Meowy 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As you see he ignored my reply and did not answer you. It's the same administrator who placed Vartan on the restriction indefinitely for comments in a talkpage. Actually both he and Deacon of Pndapetzim (who recently placed Vacio under restriction for a very questionable reason) can now be known for their very questionable blocks and always directed at the same side. See here. Scroll down and also see Sandstein’s answer here. You may read the answers received here when Vartan asked for the equivalent question. The first user saying he would consider it as vandalism, the second saying that in the best case it is an ignorant user and the worst vandalism. Of course the best case does not apply here for a veteran user who knew he was inserting inaccurate info when he was reverted by Vartan who thought he was reverting vandalism. See one of the two direct evidence provided by Deacon to justify Vacio’s restriction, which directly concerns this Azeri vs Turkic or Tatar issue again!!! Moreschi is really missed, the only admin so far who bothered checking carefully the evidences provided and their context and the only who cared about the actual content of articles. The guy is gone and replaced by administrators who are abusing their powers. It won't be the first or the last time; this is how it works around here. - Fedayee (talk)
 * Maybe we should now take this matter further elsewhere. Sandstein has made several posts in other parts of his talk page since I posted my opinion on the matter, so it does appear he is declining to give either a justification or an apology. Meowy 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still curious about this: I noticed too that Elsanturk violated his 1rr restriction, though this was three days ago so it's a bit stale at this point. Deacon of Pndapetzim.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Meowy's block has been reviewed by two other admins, who have endorsed it. I'll not comment on this matter further and ask all of you to take your dispute elsewhere.  Sandstein  05:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not commented on this matter at all! Your continued silence does not prove guilt on your part, but it does nothing to dispel a well-founded suspicion of it. Because of that silence, and given there is prima facie evidence of double standards in your decision making and the associated implication of bias, I am obliged to take the matter further elsewhere. And, BTW, my block was not reviewed by any admins - it was rubber-stamped by one admin, your co-worker Deacon of Pndapetzim, an admin who appears to be as adept at double standards as you are. Meowy 09:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why all Armenian propagandists are in this page?Abbatai (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK
I moved your recent nomination to the main DYK nomination page, since April Fool's day is now over. You can view the nomination here. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Sandstein   14:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question on Malcolm Schosha
I notice that someone brought him to IP_Arbitration (ARBPIA) for broadly calling people antisemites, as he has done repeatedly Gilad Atzmon and editors not willing to label him one. As I complained in detail on his talk page. He also insists detailed descriptions of Atzmon's views from WP:RS cannot be allowed because we can't allow an antisemite's views to be detailed unless they are being labeled antisemitic. I've warned him repeatedly about Arbitration in the past and would have reported him if I knew it really worked! I think he'll control himself on such future expressions on that article.

Note two other editors have express similar views, almost as vehemently, and I've also warned them on the article talk page. (One already got a 3rr/edit warring 24 hour block.) I have considered bringing all three at once to arbitration, if they continue past behaviors. (Other editors in the past have asked these editors to stop editing the article at all because of their obvious bias.)

Having established his (and the other two editors') POV that the article must basically prove Atzmon is antsemetic, he (or they) may continue deleting material vs. this POV. (Schosha already refuses to remove unbalanced tag from the article even though it's got a huge section on allegations of antisemitism.) Probably tomorrow I'm going to put in 4 or 5 paragraphs on WP:RS 3rd party sources on Atzmon's views that don't label him an antisemite. If Schosha - or the other two editors - immediately delete them, given their past statements, should I complain to arbitration, even if he/they come up with some wikipedia acceptable excuse? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While not expressing an opinion in the dispute at issue, I note that WP:AE is only for the enforcement of specific remedies in an arbitration case. Which case and remedy do you think is violated in your case?  Sandstein   14:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if not clear. ARBPIA per current block. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Arbitral sanctions are not imposed easily. If you think they are appropriate in this case, and I am reserving judgment as to whether they are, you would need to back up your claims with an appropriate number of well-presented diffs that prove that ARBPIA remedies have been violated, and you must argue why these edits did violate these remedies. In general, I think the dispute is within the scope of the case.  Sandstein   15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be happy if he changes his contentious editing behavior and becomes more cooperative through sanctions already imposed. Time will tell. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the case
The case, you were gonna address has moved to:



But it wasn't resolved? Can you help resolve it, and get the opposing party blocked. Cheers Universal Hero (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, see my comment there.  Sandstein   20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough but I still can't believe he has been let away 21 times after being blocked, with racism, abusive vandalism and utter rudeness to adminstrators being among the agenda. Surely, you can push for the case. x Universal Hero (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Darco Trifunovic
Hello,

I know very little about this article, or the person that it is about. From reading I gather he is a professor. User:Darko_Trifunovic claims to be the person the article is about and he feels that the whole article is a personal attack. He has Blanked the page, and done various other things to get rid of this article. I just stumbled across this little dispute last night and thought I would inform you of these happenings. The user described his concern to me here. If you could take a look at that and maybe assist the user it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that there's now a WP:ANI thread where the matter is being looked into.  Sandstein   20:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks. I told User:Darko_Trifunovicto contact you with any questions or concerns.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Query
Hello,

Just a little question. Are comparison articles (eg. One product compared to another product) considered encyclopedic and Wikipedia material? Thanks.--gordonrox24 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, any topic that meets WP:N and is not prohibited by WP:NOT is considered encyclopedic, but users will often disagree in individual cases. There is, as far as I know, no general rule with respect to the question you ask, and so each case will have to be evaluated on its own merits.  Sandstein   16:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Problematic block
I had decided to take a break from from this yesterday, but remain troubled this block, and your explanation why it was justified.

The comment that I was blocked for making, that you considered a personal attack, was a part of discussion concerning this item in this arbcom case. You blocking me for my very attempt to explain why the proposal was problematic, amounted to your weighing in for one side of the issue.

What I was trying to explain my edit (which I will copy complete below) is that if it is known that a certain percentage of the population holds, through cultural heritage, or otherwise, garden variety antisemitic views, there is no reason to think pro-Palestinian activists are less antisemitic than the average. There is therefore no reason to supply diffs when there is no personal accusation made. It is presented as a statistically existing problem, and accusations of antisemitism are not personal attacks unless a person is specifically mentioned. As for Pedrito's claim that I made a personal attack against him, I did not know who filed the arbcom case request, I have never had any contact with him, and know nothing about him. In other words I did not know he existed. In addition, because I know nothing about the process, I assumed that it is a group of users who sign on to the request who initiate it, and what I said was directed only at a group, at a statistical antisemitism (not individual).

This is the complete edit:


 * "Concerning antisemitism, from my point of view Nishidani's suggestion ('If there are anti-Semites in the I/P area, I think you should get your evidence together and make a case before arbitration, as it is an extremely serious charge...') is complete nonsense. It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism."


 * "''The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. My personal view is that probably 90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it, are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless."

The issues the particularly bother me are
 * 1) I was blocked over an issue that is complex, not simple, without being given time to explain; and what explanation I gave (when I requested a review) was brushed aside as irrelevant.
 * 2) Your action reflects on an important issue in an arbcom case, and serves to bias discussion in favor of one side.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment is noted, but I do not believe that I have anything to add beyond what I and Mangojuice - who declined your unblock request - have already said.  Sandstein   16:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lesson lost...
Hi Sandstein,

I hate to bother you with this issue again, but, judging from the comments on User talk:Malcolm Schosha, I think he just doesn't get it. Not content with repeating the (unfounded) accusations, he slaps-on a few more personal attacks.

Cheers and thanks,  pedrito  -  talk  - 06.04.2009 12:42


 * Could you please provide the relevant diffs?  Sandstein   12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure., , , (see summary). Cheers and thanks,  pedrito  -  talk  - 06.04.2009 13:06


 * I think I make it pretty clear, above, my views on this subject. It this user does not want to hear those view, he does not need to try to stir up an argument on my talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Block issued. We do not go around calling fellow contributors antisemites and whiners, Malcolm Schosha.  Sandstein   13:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time! Cheers,  pedrito  -  talk  - 06.04.2009 14:11

Ksnow
You blocked User:Ksnow indefinitely and indicated that this would depend on agreeing not to delink dates. Ksnow has agreed to discontinue, so I'm requesting that you unblock. --Michael Snow (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I can discontinue this" is not a sufficiently clear statement of intent that the user will not continue to violate the injunction at issue if unblocked.  Sandstein   16:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He'll just have to post an unblock request in the vein of "If unblocked, I will modify my bot so as not to unlink any dates", and I expect any reviewing admin to unblock him. I'll be offline for a bit now.  Sandstein   16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not somebody that is using a bot, nor a party to the arbitration case in any way. There's nothing to modify. It's simply someone going about normal if systematic editing. I'm not sure why some precise form of statement should be demanded in order to unblock. --Michael Snow (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, I misread that about the bot. The problem is that he has been doing something prohibited by arbitral injunction, i.e., mass delinking of dates (even though coupled with other edits), and when warned about it, deleted the warning without comment. See Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. I'd prefer an unequivocal statement that he will no longer do so, instead of just a noncommittal "I can discontinue this", and have so advised him.  Sandstein   20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan on AE
"a WP:DIFF of the user's notification has still not been provided" I have added the notification to the report yesterday. I agree that most of the discussion is irrelevant and nonconstructive, but you have not addressed the primary issue: do you think that accusation of "crypto-nationalistic bias" merits no action, in addition light of a user making it being a subject to an arbitration warning which clearly states: "that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". In other words, are you saying that such accusation is not a serious violation of our standards? And if you were accused of this very thing, would you just treat it as a normal part of a discussion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You added an internal link, not a diff.
 * As to the comment you refer to, it is clearly a personal attack and I do not condone it in any way, but it does not by itself warrant a topic ban or similar general sanction, which generally requires evidence of sustained and severe topic-related disruption.  Sandstein   20:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think there was a difference between the internal link or a diff? I was under the impression that the sanction facilitates dealing with users even if only a few diffs are reported; consider this. Even if you disagree, I'd appreciate it if you could copy your statement that it was, indeed, a personal attack, and should be avoided. Even a little bit of warning would help to make Wikipedia a nicer place :) PS. As for sustained topic disruption, how about the number of times in the past ~3 days that Dr. Dan has tried to steer discussion to his favorite topic, the naming of Cracow/Kraków, in dozens of unrelated discussions:, , , , , , , ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if uncalled for it's rather saintly compared with much of the stuff admins say on AN/I (not to mention the stuff Piotrus' allies say but never gets reported). And I'm sure the knowledge they have that Piotrus will report any slip is enough to keep them in line generally (wouldn't still be here otherwise), and for outsiders should be enough to know that any slip is due to forgivable human frustration. Context is always important. As an observer of this area, I think both sides need to be given a bit of a break from incivility persecution (and users on both sides here are very civil compared with many other areas). Constant AE reporting (and admin badgering like above) is far more damaging to relations in this area than edits like this are. And the one thing we don't want to do is come down disproportionally on users like Dr Dan when there are so many real bad apples out there. Just my 2₵ worth. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Screen Shot License
Hello,

I am trying to upload a screen shot for my article, but am not sure how to go about getting the copyright license. If I contacted one of the games Developers, and had them contact somebody here, would that be sufficient? What can I do do get a good picture that is allowed on Wikipedia? Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha
Hey Sandstein:

So, I'm not sure we've communicated before, but I've seen your contribs and generally found them to be sensible. That said, I think a 48 hour block for Malcolm -- or any block at all, really -- is overkill. Yes, he should not be calling people whiners, but if that's the minimum amount one needs to say to get blocked, I can provide an endless list for you (e.g. almost everyone involved on both sides of any affair involving Giano). It's just so minor, and I've seen people simply shrug at far, far worse. I'm sure you're acting in good faith, so no cries of "rouge" from me, but I wish you'd reconsider. IronDuke 19:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input, which I appreciate. Evidently, we don't issue 48h blocks just for people calling others whiners. The problem with Malcolm Schosha, as I see it, is that he just got off a 24h block for calling fellow editors anti-semites, and that not only did he not recognize this to be a problem, but he re-iterated that attack in the series of edits for which I blocked him . Of course, he may at any time request a review of my block by another administrator, and I will unblock him myself as soon as I am convinced that he will not continue to interact with others in this vein.  Sandstein   20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no I get that, and I disagree with MS about that and have said so. That said, there have been studies shown that anti-Zionist feelings pair with some frequency with antisemitic ones. Is that happening here on WP? Without a doubt? 90-100% of the editors in the current arb case? I'd be very surprised. But, just as a thought experiment, what if MS had said, "I read in a reputable study that X percentage of antizionists are antisemites. Therefore, I induce that X percentage of anti-Zionists on WP are antisemites." Still blockable? I am genuinely curious. IronDuke  20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am reluctant to address hypotheticals, because each case of possible editor misconduct needs to be evaluated in its actual context (such as, e.g., whether it occurs in the area of conflict of an arbitration case, or concerns an editor with a prior history of disruption). But speaking generally, disparaging statements about non-identifiable other editors are much less likely to be seen as blockable disruption than are disparaging statements about identifiable other editors. However even non-blockable statements of this sort are probably best avoided in any case, because they too may contribute to a less than congenial collaborative environment.  Sandstein   20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with all that. Thanks for your full and frank replies. IronDuke  23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Given this second sanctioning, one would like to think that Mr. Schosha would have learned something, but just today here he repeats basically the same line: "I appreciate Nableezy making some intelligent points here. A big improvement over Pedrito's whining."
 * The comments for which Mr. Schosha was sanctioned are mild compared to what we overly timid editors let him get away with on Gilad Atzmon and who knows how many other articles, for how long. I complained on his web page here about even worse comments he had made repeatedly at Gilad Atzmon talk and if he makes even one more I'll bring the whole list with diffs here. Usually he and two other editors just make the somewhat more subtle argument that Atzmon IS an antisemite and the article has to prove it, without accusing us of antisemitism for trying to follow BLP etc policies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly seems that Malcolm Schosha has not learnt much from his block, but I think a further extension of the current block would be futile. I'll keep the matter in mind, though, should any similar issues be raised in an administrative forum. If you think there are editor conduct problems at Gilad Atzmon, please follow WP:DR; it is not clear to me from your comment that there is anything actionable at this point.  Sandstein   13:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you advice. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, now he's making fun of the sanctions: You will understand a certain amount of displeasure on my part over the shitty treatment....even if the further blocks, over calling Pedrito a whiner, were funny. Doesn't give one much faith in. WP:ARBPIA. Maybe the administrators need/have an internet meeting on this sort of thing. I'll be glad to forward my most incriminating diffs from Gilad Atzmon if you want them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not prohibited to make fun of sanctions. And any diffs with respect to any previous dispute Malcolm Schosha may have been involved in are not actionable now that he is already blocked. I advise you to drop the matter now and seek appropriate administrative intervention should further conflict ensue. In this conflict-laden area, all editors should take particular care not to offend others.  Sandstein   17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for clarification in this new area of editing (which I'd prefer to avoid). Not sure what mean by "appropriate administrative intervention." In other words something more specific to behavior like NPOV/3rr/civility noticeboards or ANI instead of WP:ARBPIA? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends. If you believe a sanction under WP:ARBPIA is justified, use WP:AE, but you would need to make a good case showing substantial and ongoing topic-related misconduct over a period of time. Otherwise, you should use any appropriate noticeboard from among those you mentioned after trying to resolve the issue through normal discussion.  Sandstein   21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. For info, he has learned very little, it would seem. He's repeating his "anti-semitism" and "whining" attacks, and also disrupting a thread on the current ArbCom workshop page, which was specifically shut down by the committee clerk, with a warning not to reopen it. Details and links to be found here. I guess if we want anything done, we need to head back to the WP:AE page? --Nickhh (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems Tznkai has blocked him now.  Sandstein   17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Block of Giano II
Hi. I am currently attempting to find the ArbCom restrictions on blocking Giano regarding civility before notifying the admin community at ANI. To speed things up, can you drop the link to where you discussed this with ArbCom and got their permission (although I thought it was to be by ArbCom members, but that might have changed). I do not think that Giano had violated NPA in that what he said regarding the candidates actions were an interpretation based in truth (a claim of falsehood is only an attack if that falsehood had not been made), and will be inviting comment on that basis. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom stuff isn't applicable, and the parole has expired anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (e.c.) I've replied with respect to the ArbCom issue on Giano II's talk page. As to the substance of the block, I think that looking at the edits he made before being blocked, res ipsa loquitur.  Sandstein   20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify the first part of the complaint, I'll post the motion regarding the civility parole blocking; "Until further notice, no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee." (emphasis mine). Indeed, if Sandstein had blocked as enforcement of the civility parole, it should have been supported by ArbCom. The parole has now expired however, so this was a simple block for incivility so the written permission is no longer required as there is no civility parole to enforce, just normal communal civility.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sand. I don't think there's any disputing the incivility, but I do think standard procedure would have been to deliver a warning first. I wonder if unblocking and warning might be a good way to go? Anyway, sorry to wade in where I'm sure I'm going to step on some toes, but that's my 2 cents. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I think that in view of the block log of, he did not need a warning to know that we have a policy prohibiting personal attacks, and that it may be enforced with blocks. Best regards,  Sandstein   21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. In this situation a warning might have been sufficient, but I certainly understand your position. Thanks for your response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand by every word . You feel it is clever to lie and disgrace the project off-wiki - I do not. You feel it is clever for a liar to attempt to become an admin - I do not. You feel it is wrong to defend oneself from vicious slurs and lies - I do not. You and all the other admins had the chance to challenge him when he first made his lying attacks - you did not. You and the other Admins had the chance to overturn you bad block - you did not. I have honour and integrity, I still have it. Giano (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think that you expect a response to this ... statement, but at any rate, I advise you not to continue to misuse Wikipedia as a battleground for the disputes (about the substance of which I care not a whit) between you and other editors, or you may find yourself blocked for longer periods of time.  Sandstein   20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are ignorant of both facts and what is now what. Take your threats to somewhere more deserving or better still resign your undeserved and misused tools. Giano (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As Giano has blanked his talkpage I have continued a discussion with one of the participants at User talk:Synergy. In doing so I have given my opinion on your actions and, because I have a recent Barnstar saying I am a fair administrator, I am letting you know in case you wish to voice yours. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

liam richard francis sweeney
hi i recently created a topic of the above person. this person is a very close friend of mine and i am currently writing a biography on him, i would like to know why you have deleted my post on him and would like you to place this page back up ASAP for good reasons. thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlaracy (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a linkt to the page at issue.  Sandstein   17:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

e/c
I happened upon your curious use of "(e/c)". I can't recall ever having seen it before, and spent a few minutes on en:WP, en:Wikt, abbreviations.com, and finally Google, all to no avail. FWIW, i quickly treated as implausible its being a variation on etc. (and &c.), and my guess per context is "Extension of comments" (perhaps only because of the jargon "permission to extend and revise comments" in the U.S. Congressional Record), but i Thanks for your attention, --Jerzy•t 17:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) remain curious myself, and
 * 2) hope there's some value in letting you how likely it is to provoke head-scratching.


 * Er, sorry, I guess what I meant was "edit conflict", though I have no idea why I chose to use that abbreviation.  Sandstein   17:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty good, and needed, abbrev! I may use it, with a link to WP:EDCONF, er, WP:Edit conflict. BTW, i was surprised by C-SPAN Congressional Glossary, which may reflect a reform from the situation i recall hearing of, when i understood it meant pretty much "let me cover my tracks by concealing what i really said with something easier to defend."  Thanks! --Jerzy•t 17:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just reread the above, and noticed that we both said "er". It sounds a little as if i were mocking you for using it. While i think it was power of suggestion rather than mere coincidence that made me use it, i did so w/o awareness that you had! --Jerzy•t 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

About my recent ban: A request for clarification
I am starting this discussion on the talk pages of the three administrators involve with my recent ban: I wante to talk to the three editors/administrators I see as having the most understanding of the dynamics surrounding my recent ban: PeterSymonds, Sandstein, TheRedPenOfDoom. I am not sure the most efficient method of doing this, so I will post it to each of your talk pages, as well as my own talk page. I if this is the incorrect procedure or if this is too long.

I do this as an effort to better understand where the dividing line lies between promotion and inclusion of legitimate inclusion of material, to better understand the dynamics of my recent ban further, and so I don't make a similar mistake in the future. And because I am really confused.

What I am lost with is how can it be considered promotion when including a individual in a wiki page when they actually are notable individuals in relation to those entries? I'll talk about specifics in this case:

Michelle Belanger in relation to the topics of DragonCon_Dark_Fantasy_Track, Urn_(band), Vampire_lifestyle, Vampire_Secrets. Belanger has a notable part in these topics. She has been and continues to be a recurring presenter for the Dragon Con. she did appear in an Urn video with Don Henrie. She was the first third party published author to discuss psychic vampirism and the in a non hostile manner. And she was in fact one of the authors who appeared on the show Vampire Secrets. Additionally, with the exception of the Vampire_lifestyle page, she was listed in conjunction with with other individuals, and Belanger's inclusion in those entires was was done by third parties.

What I might be guilty of in those cases, and I will admit to this, is blindly undoing a series of deletes performed by another editor who might not have been aware of her involvement, when I probably should have more selective in my actions and what I chose to reinstate.

As for the Vampire_lifestyle page, I did seek to include the writers Raven Kaldera, and Lady CG, but since their works were self published, those references were removed. My choice to remove the references Asetian Bible from the Vampire_lifestyle entry came about only after a discussion I participated in on the Ankh page clarified to me that it was considered self published, and therefore did not meet the criteria of a reliable source.

Could I be considered a Belanger fangirl? Likely. But I would would doubt any entry that references notable individuals are free from input from those persons' fans.

But I am also a participant in the vampire community. A community I feel very strongly about, and one that I do want to see properly discussed in the wiki entries, especially with the sort of attention we have been getting because of Twilight, True Blood and all the other vampire related topics out there. And this includes being aware of the activities of one of our more prominent members – one who has even appeared on Fox news on December 8th as "an expert on the vampire community".

And if I were really out to be promotional of Belanger, I would have sough to include her on the Don_Henrie entry (a person she has had repeated contact with) and the Paranormal_State entry (a show where she is a recurring psychic consultant for). Instead, I've chosen to not involve myself in those entires, respecting the fact that if it is considered notable to other editor, she will be added. I've also not attempted to create a page for Belanger. Again, I leave that to come about on it's own from the collaboration of other editors.

What I feel I see happening with here is struggle I suspect occurs with an individual in the process of actually gaining notoriety. It might appear that the inclusion of Belanger on these topics is promotional attempts, but, like it or not, the reality is that she is indeed an author, presenter, singer, and television personality at this point. And the editors adding her to these entries are aware of this.

Now, if it will help, I will dig through and cite every single possible appearance of Michelle Belanger I can find in media that is not from a vanity or self-published source.

Thank you for any clarification you might be able to provide on this matter. And I hope that simply asking for and attempting to give clarification doesn't get me banned again.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI Repeated_personal_attacks_of_User:Shannon_Rose
FYI. Ikip (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rock of Oetre article
Hi Sandstein,

I am going to leave a chat on the article talk page for Rock of Oeutre. In the mean time I have undone the change. Thanks SimonTrew (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to let this be and you undid it anyway. I am in general agreement with you, and no bollox about "per talk", you canvassed and got one opinion in favour. Now, I think it should go, as you do; BUT I think that as articles start getting linked together (I have linked a few others today) there can sometimes be surprises and that content gets regenerated elswehere or whatever. So I think it is worth keeping it for a few days. That is all I was asking and there's no point saying "per talk" cos it is on talk that I asked specifically that.

Although it was a pain in the ass to translate I don't mind it going, indeed when doing it I was wondering whether I should bother, but I just want it to have a brief life where others can comment before it is put out of its misery. One opinion from 3O is not good enough, I think we need opinions from people who know and care about this region.

For example as I was stumbling around the Normandy articles someone asked me are you THE Simon Trew-- the "other" one being a military historian at Sandhurst. Well I am not, but it shows that people are paying attention to these articles. Unfortunately many even on French wikipedia are just stubs, but as a first pass I think a literal translation is best-- that way, other editors can make a comparison. 'after that, we can do the changes and references, indeed, scrub the walks section etc, but I think best in the first place to translate what is there (changing references, idioms etc as best one can).

I'd probably get rid of the pic too as it is already in other English wikipedia articles that this article links from.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you agree that it does not belong, I do so too, and the person from WP:3O does as well, there's really no reason to keep it in the article. It's still in the history for those who need it for some purpose.  Sandstein   21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have three reasons. First, burying it in the history does not allow any reader or editor to find it and object, add, or anything else to it. Second, this is a tranlation from French wikipedia and I have positive comments from there saying thanks for adding it. Third, I specifically asked on talk for it not to be removed, and so it seems to me not in good faith then to remove it without subsequent discussion.


 * I AM JUST ASKING FOR A FEW DAYS BREATHING SPACE for it, in case there are any comments, links etc, after that, it can go. I have just wikilinked Oscar Wilde to a Normandy article (the name was there but only mentioned once in the article with no reference), these things happen. Please give it a chance. I am not asking too much, I think.


 * it's a really minor article. It's not doing any harm. I am conversing on French wikipedia about how we translate place names etc, for the section itself I don't care, but it's important to have it as an example. Don't go off on how wikipedia is not for editors but for readers; this article did not exist until I made it so nobody is getting hurt. And I am not claiming ownership-- yeah I think the section should go, but not yet until others had have time to look at it, and certainly not by a unanimous decision to delete.


 * Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I should add it is nice arguing with a constructive editor. Thank you. SimonTrew (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've addded a few redirect links. The French respondents also are in a similar fix on whether to anglicise (and this is less important thatn e.g. Swiss Normandy) for that particular problem, and I wouldn't add them out of sheer spite but assume there is no doubt the article stays, just probably not that section. SimonTrew (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am having frankly great problems understanding why you think it would be beneficial for content that in everyone's opinion violates our content policies to stay in an article, but it's not worth raising a fuss about, so, all right, let it stay for a few days.  Sandstein   05:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost every article is against some policy. You have to assume good faith seems pretty simple to me. If you go salap slap not a referemce, not verifiable, bad English, doesn't look nice in Elbonian, you might as well shut up shop. I've just translated another article, and that took me about an hour and a half for what is little more than a stub (you can have a look at Thury-Harcourt if you'd like to destroy that, though it had a tag saying to translate it from the French article, bit I don't imagine that you care about that, cos it hasn't references or something). Just chill and let people develop the encyclopaedia would you? I don't know why you can't understand that you seem quite a sensible person. But good articles don't happen instantaneously they need others' help, that's the whole wikipedia ethos, and if you deny that help by simply giving an article a still birth then I think that's going against the ethos of the project. This is a very minor article so I dread to think what you might do with a more important one.


 * S.

Lolene Page
Dear Sandstein,

Could you please un block the page for Lolene. I created it with the permission of Lolene, and forgot to add references, and it seems to be automatically blocked now!

Thanks

Lolenelolene (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link to the page at issue.  Sandstein   21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RTPark CSDd
Sandstein:

We just posted a wiki entry for the University of the Virgin Islands Research and Technology Park, which you promptly CSDd. We'd very much appreciate understanding what you saw that prompted the action, so that we can post without the problematic material. We're affiliated with the University of the Virgin Islands (which is wiki'd), and were established by the US Virgin Islands government as a cornerstone of the USVI's economic development mission. We're not attempting to blatantly advertise anything, other than providing information to the public on how interested parties could learn more about our legislative charter and mandate. Point being: we will remove any offensive or inappropriate material, but since we got thrown under the bus rather quickly it would be helpful to know where the specific problem lies. This is our first post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmzumwalt (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with was that it used language typically employed in advertising copy ("Significant Incentives and Tax Benefits", "Legal Protections for Contracts", "Access to Significant Global Connectivity", etc.) and in general fell far short of our expected standards. It was accordingly deleted per WP:CSD. Please note also that writing about one's own institution, etc., is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia; see WP:COI.   Sandstein   15:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK we'll edit it down. Is the deleted copy available, or do we start over and make a point of saving externally next time?  Finally, I understand your point about writing for one's own institution, but how do university-related entities get written up if not by the entity itself? Dmzumwalt (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Many articles for educational bodies are written by students, local residents or other persons interested in the institution and its history. Since I believe that enabling you to write an article about your own institution, in the promotion of which you have a vested interest, would not be conducive to our goal of providing a neutral general interest encyclopedia, I will not make the deleted version available. Moreover, if you continue to insert promotional content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Sandstein   16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I clearly got your message the first time (your warning above was a bit heavy handed, though). I believe I have interacted with you professionally during our short discourse.  I'm a public-sector (government) employee trying to respond promptly to a suggestion from the public that we post a wiki, but so as to avoid all doubt and preclude further irritation, I'll suggest that "a student, local resident or other person interested in the institution and its history" come forward instead. Dmzumwalt (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a good idea.  Sandstein   17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Locked article
Sandstein, I am bringing this question to you because no one could say I am asking an administrator partial to my editing approach. And, also, because you seem to have a good understanding of WP rules, which is what I need.

The Gilad Atzmon article was locked with this rational: "(Protected Gilad Atzmon: Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy: otrs:2009041510025323 ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))"

Before the block a substantial amount of material was moved out of the article to the talk page. A request I made to move further material to the talk page, that I think has substantial WP:SOAP problems, has not gotten a reply.

There have been many claims of BLP violations, which if true need attention, but have not been explained. I have asked for specifics, but have not gotten a reply. There is an RfC, but no one but the regulars have come to the party. Right now there is plenty of talk, but with the article locked things can not change.

If you have any suggestions, or specific observations of BLP problems, I would be happy to hear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume this is about this? Since the article was protected following an OTRS request, which most admins can't access, the article is unlikely to be unprotected before consensus is reached on talk. The content at issue doesn't seem to be an obvious BLP violation at first glance, being sourced and all, but this does not mean it may not be objectionable per WP:UNDUE or WP:NOR, and editwarring about it was also a bad idea. I may leave a comment on the RfC, and I suggest you participate in it and attempt to gain further neutral input through channels such as WP:3O, until a rough consensus forms. At that point, you can request unprotection at WP:RPP.  Sandstein   19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit warring had nothing to do with removal of the content, but was because
 * I thought it a bad idea to remove such a large amount of content in a disputed article without discussing it before, not after, the removal. (In fact I have argued for reducing the problematic content, which is in any case a quotefarm.) Also, it would have helped if the administrator who came to oversee the RfC, had said that he was an administrator there to oversee the RfC, instead of just calling me a "dick".
 * The removed material added by one side in the dispute was removed, while equally disputed material added by the other side in the dispute has remained in the article. That leaves the article unbalanced in the way one side wanted it to be, which creates both a fairness issue, and (more importantly) a NPOV issue.


 * Thanks for looking, and replying. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, Malik Shabazz was upset that I said no one but the regulars showed up for the RfC. I forgot about him, and he is not one of the regulars. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thanks for endorsing the block of. Unfortunately, that level of common sense apparently doesn't exist at Ani. Too bad nobody thought to notify you of the discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gage
Why do you keep deleting info on this man? I've perused wiki before most people even knew about. I know the extent of info on here and its relevance and its "notability" - plenty of non notable personages in fact have writeups on wiki. I find that this decision is an intentional pretense of lack of "notability", used as an excuse behind which this is another underlying motivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.229.171 (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not reply to messages that assume bad faith and provide no pertinent links.  Sandstein   05:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Academy_awards_2010&action=history King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think we have it unentangled now, do we?  Sandstein   05:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Chakras - Number of Petals
Hi Sandstein,

I appreciate it that you closed the discussion and deleted the article (Chakras - Number of Petals). I had already attempted to 'delete' the article myself after I had copied it to my userpage for later attention. My deletion though was only a blanking and it got restored later by someone else. Oh well. Upon my return from an extended trip to Europe I intend to carry on with the article (the one on my userpage [wv]) and will provide all the inline citations and footnotes necessary. I will also attempt to see if I can merge it with the Chakra article as the topic really belongs there. Thanks. wv (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How do I get more time to improve a page?
Dear Sandstein I am the editor of the page Microtube_(E-Learning_Project). You proposed the deletion of this article, what I basically can understand in the form it is now. We would like to improve it, as we think this kind of project and idea can have some impact in the way of teaching in high schools and universities. We also have contact to some other universities about this kind of project. The problem is, that I only work one day per week as an assistant and this weeks day is already filled up with a lot. So basically, what I would like to ask you is how to get more time to improve it then just these few days mentioned in the deletion bar. I think 2-3 weeks would be enough to have another try to reach the notability condition. Are you able to give more time or should I work with a "under construction" bar? Thanks a lot and kind regards LSVandI (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm currently at work and will reply later.  Sandstein   08:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. It's fne now, my boss decided to let the page be deleted. Thank you anyway. Regards LSVandI (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Sdar2tn.jpg
I'm quite saddened by your action regarding File:Sdar2tn.jpg. It illustrates all that is wrong with Wikipedia. I trust you are now happy. Ozdaren (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories.
Hello,

Just wondering if we are allowed to put user sub page articles in categories or do we have to wait until they are in the mainspace? Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The latter. Best,  Sandstein   21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Queen bootlegs
Hi Sandstein. This discussion was compromised by sockpuppets. User:JamesBurns, User:TheClashFan, and User:Iam are all one and the same. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What do you recommend I do about the AfD?  Sandstein   05:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's difficult, because frankly I thought your close was very thoughtful. However: I think the discussion was sufficiently poisoned by the sockpuppetry that a new AfD is in order. I'd suggest changing the result to a "procedural keep", and then tell the participants who had !voted "delete" to consider starting a fresh AfD if they still believe that the article should be deleted. Another way of handling it would be to relist it, with the sockpuppet !votes stricken. As I said, I think it's a bit of a difficult call. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I should note that Black Kite did not think it was worth relisting, believing that "merge" would have been the likely outcome anyway. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I, too, do not think that the outcome would have been much different had the socks not participated, so I'll take no corrective action on my own. But I'll link to this discussion from the article and AfD talk page. Any interested users are free to initiate a new discussion on the article talk page or in another appropriate forum to reevaluate the consensus (if any) to retain or undo my merger.  Sandstein   19:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All right, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

meatpuppetry
Dear Sandstein,

you recently blocked Perscurator for Meatpuppetry. As I understand WP:TEAMWORK it is strongly frowned upon, but not forbidden. So I am not sure whether you have made a right decision in this matter. What is you view on this? &mdash; Xiutwel ♥ (msg) 05:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref: ANI, not yet archived, estimated archive: 40


 * I'm currently at work and will reply later.  Sandstein   08:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is true that Sock_puppetry, a policy, stops short of prohibiting meatpuppetry outright, instead telling us that it is "strongly discouraged". This still makes it quite clear, however, that meatpuppetry is not an expected standard of behavior on Wikipedia. The operative remedy at issue, ARB9/11, provides for sanctions against any user who "seriously fails to adhere to ... any expected standards of behavior". In this case, Perscurator seriously violated an expected standard of behavior by recruiting third persons to push a particular POV in a highly contentious area of Wikipedia. It is for this - a violation of an arbitral remedy, not ordinary meatpuppetry per se - that I sanctioned him.  Sandstein   20:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Gilad Atzmon/Subpage
You deleted a page that was being used to develop a new version of a disputed section in the Gilad Atzmon The article itself is locked until this issue of that section is resolved. The page was created by Malik Shabazz for that purpose, and his efforts has been very helpful. Considering that, would it be possible to get the page restored? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Gilad Atzmon.  Sandstein   13:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sports Nutrition article
I am going to continue to edit this page, but will put more focus on the copyright rules.Nutritionfan (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Making you aware..
That I have filed a request to formally have the 1RR section apply. Considering it's been used at least 10 times since December 2008, I think your interpretation is overly bureaucratic and rule bound in an area that if left unchecked will be in a constant state of edit warring. You can see the request here. SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
(If this comes off as brusque, I apologize in advance--I'm not the best at bringing this sort of thing up tactfully; it's just meant as a gentle suggestion.) While I wholeheartedly agree with the overall content of your closure on  (and god, that's a pain in the butt to wikilink!), I think it might be a bit more helpful in the future to include a suggestion to editors making such AE postings as to where they could take their concerns that would be better suited to it--I know that Shoemaker's Holiday is an established editor, but I've been on Wikipedia for several years, and I'm not sure where I'd take such a concern, except maybe AN or ANI. Not only could it be helpful in the immediate case, but it might also help prevent similar issues in the future by giving newer users a bit of gentle guidance on where to bring up such concerns.

Just a suggestion for the future... rdfox 76 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:98.247.98.191
Hi, Sandstein.

Please bear with me, I'm not suggesting that you did anything wrong, but this is another example of some of the deficiencies of our culture, and areas we need to improve somehow.

Just listened to a phone message from this guy--who is very confused about why he's been blocked, and why we have not been able to remove the unsourced information from the Eddie Rickenbacker article. I think that automatic messages on his talk page have been entirely unhelpful; they don't address the problem that he was having, the lack of understanding that commentary is not welcome in the body of the article. It's hard to convey his interpretation of our actions, but

Looking at the section he was trying to remove, it actually seems like teh only unsourced information in an otherwise well-sourced article, a bit of silly trivia, and probably should be removed anyway. We do need to be a little more mindful of automatic messages like these; for the 90% of people who aren't used to editing, it's not easy to interpret them.

Perhaps we can take the block off the IP address and try to leave messages geared toward helping the user contribute the way that we know how to contribute, rather than the messages that are on the page, that don't do anything toward that end. Bastique demandez 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Looking back, I do understand that my approach to this guy may have been a bit WP:BITE-y. I agree with you and will unblock the IP, remove the unsourced passage at issue from Eddie Rickenbacker and attempt to explain our editing etiquette on his talk page. Thank you for your coordination in this matter.  Sandstein   05:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How do I report an editor for Harrasment
I am currently being Harassed by an editor. Do I Report it at A/E? and if so how?

Thank you Drsmoo (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, to begin with, it's best to follow the steps described at WP:DR before reporting somebody somewhere. If that does not help, go to WP:WQA and report it there. WP:AE is only for incidents requiring the enforcement of a specific arbitration case.  Sandstein   14:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Help
Tznkai is swamped, according to his talk page, and you were the first admin to deal with this issue and this user. He's continuing to make extremely unhelpful and polemical commentary on talk pages, and contributing nothing in terms of content to the articles he is critiquing. Please see this last diff and read upwards in the conversation from there. Note he was blocked twice for this already, and restricted from participation in Arbcomm because he continued to make such comments. I don't want to see anyone blocked, but when you ask someone to desist from doing something entirely unhelpful and offensive and he continues to do so, I'm not sure what else can be done.  T i a m u t talk 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't immediately see anything objectionable in that last edit. What specific statements do you object to, and why?  Sandstein   16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, characterizing the title of an article as a headline out of Der Strumer is a hyperbolic charge of anti-Semitism that is unsupported by any references. While Malcolm has been encouraged multiple times to add any referenced material on the anti-Semitic allusions of the term Judaization to that article, he has not done so. Instead, he keeps repeating that the article title Judaization of Jerusalem is anti-Semitic, without providing any sources that say that. His comments do nothing to help article improvement and pollute the editing environment with vague accusations of bigotry that seem to be largely unfounded. However, if you do not see a problem with this, and do not see it as an extension of the behaviours that got him blocked twice already, you are of course free to do nothing about it. I'm sorry I troubled you with it.  T i a m u t talk 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is content, in this case the name. "Judaization" was used in Der Stürmer, as can be seen in the caption of the image there. WP policy is to use neutral names, and I do not see how it can be thought Judaization of Jerusalem is a neutral name. WP policy is for neutral namesas described here:


 * "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either 'for' or 'against' any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming 'Criticisms of drugs' to 'Societal views on drugs'). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."


 * Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Malcolm, you are using deductive logic to make WP:OR conclusions. The word "the" appears in Der Strumer, should we avoid using it because of that?  T i a m u t talk 18:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What does OR have to do with not neutral article name? "Judaization" as been used by antisemites. Why should the article have a name that carries even a hint of bias when a neutral name could describe the article content just as well?


 * The truth is that the whole article is nothing more than a POV fork of Demographics of Jerusalem -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If "Judaization" has been used by antisemites, how is this relevant? Anti-Semites use many words. Once they use them, do they become disallowable for use by others?
 * And OR has everything to do with this. The idea that Judaization has any anti-Semitic overtones is your own. If you have sources to attest to this, please add them to Judaization. If you have sources that say that Judaization of Jerusalem is an anti-Semitic concept, please add them there. Repeating your unsourced opinion that Judaization is anti-Semitic on the talk page of latter is unproductive.
 * And regarding POVFORK, the AfD (which made that charge) closed with no consensus. As I said on the talk page to Wikifan12345, if you still feel strongly it should be deleted, you can renom again at a later date.  T i a m u t talk 18:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The name of the article should be neutral, that is WP policy. The current name of the article is not neutral. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask both of you to continue this dispute somewhere else. This looks like a content dispute taken much too seriously on both sides, not a conduct problem. I assume that good faith arguments can and should be made both for and against an article name such as this one (a WP:3O may help) but, Tiamut, you will be more successful if you remember WP:NPA's instruction to comment on content, not on the contributor. As Malcolm Shosha knows from his own experience, I take a dim view of personal attacks and battleground mentality from either side of this exasperating conflict.  Sandstein  20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Sandstein, did I make a personal attack against Malcolm here? I did not intend to. Nor did I intend to discuss him as an editor. Rather, I was merely trying to unpack his argument. Could you point out for me where I crossed the line and how so I can avoid it in the future? Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 09:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you made sanctionable personal attacks, but painting someone's conduct with too broad a brush ("His comments do nothing to help article improvement and pollute the editing environment") tends to be unproductive, in my experience, unless one is willing to spend hours collecting diffs to back it up. And even then, very general statements of this sort are very difficult to prove, even if they are true, and are thus best left unmade.  Sandstein   14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose I could have phrased that differently. I guess I was having a tough day and let my rhetoric get the better of me. Thank you for offering a different perspective on the matter which I'll keep in mind for the future. Your suggestion re a 3O though isn't really applicable. The dispute involves more than just Malcolm and myself. If Malcolm would like to pursue the issue, he might consider opening an RfC. On my part, I cannot see how a name change is necessary given the tens of scholarly sources, whose authors include Israelis and Jews, and who use the term to refer to a program/policy affecting Jerusalem under Israeli rule. Further, given Judaization of the Galilee was a program explicitly named such by the Israeli government, I have difficulty seeing how the term is anti-Semitic. I don't believe the Israeli government, who represent the Jewish state, would name a program in a way that would be offensive to Jews. T i a m u t talk 06:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes....I suppose. Only the situation is hopeless, really. The problem is that assuming good faith does not necessarily actually produce a neutral article when the editors believe in the importance of their editing goals so completely that winning becomes the only important outcome, resulting in the discarding of Wikipedia collegiality. Clearly, editors are carrying the Israel/Palestine conflict into WP itself by trying to control the information the public reads on WP. In other words, it is not an effort to produce articles with encyclopedic balanced information, but articles that are propaganda.


 * WP rules are intended, in one sense, to act as an immune system to protect against this sort of informational infection; but my observation is that WP defenses have failed in this respect. It is a difficult thing for me give up on something I have started, but -- at this point -- it is impossible to see a different course.


 * I believe that you have sincerely tried to do the right thing as you understand it. I appreciate that, although (as you know) I disagree with many of your judgments. Also, do not think I am accusing anyone else of bad faith. Everyone involved really is trying to do what they think the right thing. I have absolutely no doubt about that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything particularly wrong here. The article is hot (controversy, POV, etc..) and is likely to stir up many editors. I don't think referring every little argument to an admin is helpful. If an objective opinion is desired, file a formal 3rd opinion request. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Sandstein already recommended the 3O. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to undelete article on S Wright.
Susan Lucille Wright. I strongly disagree with the deletion of this entry. I have read the Wikipedia policy on BLP. Wright was convicted in a public trial of first degree murder. This is a matter of public record not of opinion. Further, deleting the entry does not square with the notoriety of this case and the overwhelming number of entries on Wikipedia which are far less noteworthy yet remain published. This case was at least twice featured on the CBS show "48 Hours". The show draws millions of viewers each week. I have also seen this case discussed on a number of other mainstream television shows and even on my local news in Chicago. I did a quick check and found that each of the persons I randomly selected as subjects of other "48 Hours" episodes had entries on Wikipedia, e.g. Hans Reiser, Christopher Porco, Mark Jensen. There are many, many more, but for brevity I have not carried them here. I also did a Google search (and found that Susan Wright had 10 to 20 times as many hits (17 million compared to a much lower number I saw referenced in the talk log) as these other entries. (There are others I did not mention). Further, I found that there are a total of 80 entries under People Convicted of Murder by Texas. No one on that list is as notable as Susan Wright - with the possible exception of [Charles Albright]. The entries I checked were not as well sourced as the entry on Wright. I believe your decision in this case was incorrect. I am a law student and monitor criminal cases across the country carefully. This case is both as noteworthy and legally significant as any that I have seen on Wikipedia in which a person is convicted in a court of law of a serious crime that is reported in the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomd0428 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I closed the discussion Articles for deletion/Susan Lucille Wright based solely on the arguments that were offered in the course of the discussion. To contest that closure, you would need to make a request at WP:DRV and convince others that I did not evaluate these arguments correctly. Such a request would likely be unsuccessful.
 * You will be much more successful if you first create a draft article at User:Tomd0428/Susan Lucille Wright, containing the references required to prove that she is notable per WP:BIO, and then make a request at WP:DRV arguing that this draft addresses the concerns raised in the deletion discussion.  Sandstein   05:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
Please semi-protect this, as it was before you fully protected it. We have a persistent sock puppeteer using IPs and throw away accounts. Jehochman Talk 13:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been one edit by an IP, 24.4.168.11, since my protection, and none by apparent throw-away accounts. I do not see the need for protection based on this one edit, sorry.  Sandstein   14:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was semi-protected before you full protected. When you undid the full protection, you should have restored the former semi-protection which another administrator had decided was necessary due to persistent socking.  Shall we have to suffer a bunch of new sock attacks and then have to go back through the bureaucracy of getting semi-protection put in place again?  I think your proper action would have been to restore the protection level as it was before, semi. Jehochman Talk 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, the semi-protection I put on previously would have run through 10 May. Since none of the regular editors who joined in the WP:AN thread seemed to think that the semi-protection was unfair, or that the socking problem was overstated by Jehochman, I think that 3 months of semi could be justified. The constant arrival of new accounts that aren't autoconfirmed can be helped by the semiprotection. How much time is JEH expected to spend defending this article, given that the defence appears to be endorsed by the community? The truthers have had a chance to make their case in discussion, but they have not gained any consensus for their desired changes. The renewal of semiprotection would not shut out serious long-term editors who hold truther views. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, I did not see that the article was previously semiprotected. Still, per WP:SEMI, temporary protection is appropriate for articles "subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption". The policy also notes that "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes."
 * As no substantial anon disruption is currently ongoing, I do not think a renewal of the protection would be appropriate at this time. I or another admin at WP:RPP will certainly semi-protect the page (which I have watchlisted), should substantial disruption occur.  Sandstein   19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Substantial disruption was going on, then the protection stopped it. Now that the page is no longer semi protected, the puppetmaster will register a new crop of accounts and harass us (the reasonable editors) for a few weeks until we get that crop of accounts blocked, and get the article reprotected.  It's not fair that we have to waste so much time playing Whack-a-mole. Jehochman Talk 20:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice a JEH proposal about 9/11 is being considered over at WP:RFAR. I see the arbitrators' position, but I assume their view means that admins can keep on doing the admin thing. That should include opening up special threads at WP:AN to ask for special sanction, if an unusual semi-protection seems to be needed. Another possibility is to take all the socks that were blocked in the recent SPI case and add them to the log of 9/11 blocks and bans. That would raise those actions into the official view of the arbitrators. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It may not be fair to have to play whack-a-mole, but since policy dictates that semiprotection may not be used preemptively, we will have to.  Sandstein   20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The same IP just attacked the page again. Jehochman Talk 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You basically reversed another admin's semi-protection decision without discussing it with them. We're dealing with at least one very persistent puppetmaster/banned user. Semi-protection seems to be the only way to shut them down. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists/Archive. Jehochman Talk 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing one single additional IP edit,, and that edit does not seem to be prima facie disruptive. The fact that you disagree with the edit does not make it disruptive; semi-protection is not a tool for keeping an article in one's preferred state. No matter what we may think of these conspiracy theories (which is a content issue), the requirements for semi-protection (such as an ongoing serious sock/meat attack) are simply not present at the moment. I won't object, though, if another admin, including he who originally semi-protected the page, re-institutes it.  Sandstein   04:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no content dispute. There are single purpose accounts, meat puppets and sock puppets violating WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NOR, and there are a handful of editors trying to stop them. Anyhow, I've decide to stop editing the article. Its just too frustrating in this environment. Thank you for your help. Jehochman Talk 09:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Sandstein says he will not object, I have put back two weeks of semi-protection on this article, so that the expiry will be at the end of the original month of semi that I put in on 10 April. My understanding is that the original thread at WP:AN endorsed this, or at least acquiesced. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Robert V. Gentry
An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert V. Gentry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is an AfD from 2006. Also, I don't think I have ever edited that article.  Sandstein   07:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, I participated in the first AfD. Well, I've taken the liberty to close the second one now that you've withdrawn the nomination.  Sandstein   16:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

File:BlocklandScreenshot.jpg
Hello,

The is listed as a Non-free use media rationale for Blockland and all the information given says that this is a screen shot. This is not a screen shot, it is the logo for the company. Would this logo not fall into the catergory Non-Free logo on this page? Thanks! --gordonrox24 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a logo and should be tagged as such, like File:Pepsi logo 2008.svg. The image is hosted on Wikipedia (as it should be) and not on Commons, because Commons does not allow fair use images (such as logos), as explained on the page that you linked to.  Sandstein   16:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So how would I go about changing the tag from Screen Shot to logo?--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the text of File:Pepsi_logo_2008.svg. You would need to replace the Non-free use rationale box with the more specific logo fur (supplying parameters and text as needed), and also replace Non-free game screenshot with Non-free logo.  Sandstein   16:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No edit conflicts
Weird. That happened to me on another page today. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons picture.
Hello,

Just wondering if you can delete an image I uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. It is found. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.  Sandstein   21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned at request for arbitration
Hi there. I'm letting you know that I've mentioned you in a statement I made at a request for arbitration. See here. It relates to a 6-month hardblock you did of an IP address. Would you be able to comment there? What I wanted to know was how you determined whether it was a correct autoblock or not? Is that just a technical matter, or do you look further into the block that caused the autoblock? Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying me. I'll leave a comment.  Sandstein   05:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. The autoblock has come up again in the statement made by Jediknight. Could you opine on whether it is a plausible scenario? What was said (in part) was: "Noticing the 'block' on my logon and not having access to my system (which is a work one). I attempted to logon from his computer to find out exactly what the 'block' meant. This resulted in his IP being used to log into my jediknight95758 account and resulted in his IP being blocked also." I'm currently awaiting technical information before deciding whether to accept that explanation or not. Presumably the person who left the autoblock template would then be this other person. I'm also wondering how common that sort of situation is. Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)