User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/July

AfD on Han Moo Do
You do realize that one editor voted keep twice, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors do not vote at AfD, but yes, I did not count Jafeluv's opinion twice.  Sandstein   06:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly think you needed to do the "it's not a vote" thing? It's a commonly used term. I didn't realize that vocabulary was going to be an issue on a one line post. Sorry I tried to mention anything to you. I won't make the mistake of doing that again. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Brett Salisbury...Why is he deleted? what he has done lately is extraordinary.
If you go to www.TransformDiet.com Brett Salisbury has now teamed up with Rudy whom the movie Rudy was made after. His book is the hottest selling book on Diets. Please go to breaking news on his website. I believe and convinced he is well deserving of being on wikipedia. Again google him and look at his website. His radio interviews, his breaking news and the author tab will just guide you to what he is all about. Thank you for your consideration Mike Dunbar, Seattle Washington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.42.14 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link to the Wikipedia page at issue and tell me what you want me to do about it.  Sandstein   10:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Brett Salisbury...What I think should be done
Here is the link you asked for: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Brett_Salisbury_(deleted_23_Aug_2008_at_19:54) or simply go to box and type in Brett Salisbury on left side search page.

I would like you to take him off the deleted wikipedia site. He was a controversal figure and as I read everything written up to his deletion, there may have been a point I favored with you. However, to the changes and things he has done, he is more than qualified to be on wikipedia and not a deleted figure that was once on here. Hes done to much now to be left off this site. The publicst who represents him who represented Johnny Carson and all U.S. Presidents calls him the next "superstar." His book is selling rapidly and just look under breaking news on his website at www.TransformDiet.com It should say it all. Also the author tab of just what he has done, including top model and starting quarterback for the University of Oregon as well as Wayne State College All American. Again, Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.42.14 (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot "take him off the deleted wikipedia site", because I have no influence over the content of the website http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com. Please provide the link to the Wikipedia page at issue and tell me what you want done with it.  Sandstein   14:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is about Brett Salisbury which was deleted at Articles for deletion/Brett Salisbury. I am not the IP and have no interest in the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Brett Salisbury 11.2
It says that you were the final decision maker of this deletion. Who does have the power to bring him back on to wikipedia. I dont see where Issue is found. Please give me a direct link and with your help if you could be so nice, investigate why he should be back on. There has to be a group of you that can help. Again thanks for any help you can provide me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.42.14 (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Sandstein...please help me with this...
Brett Salisbury taken off wikipedia is a tragedy. Who can you help me with this in bringing him back. His work NOW speaks volumes. A published author making waves in the diet community. an Ex Pro Football Player and top male model. Please go to his website www.TransformDiet.com or google him. Countless interviews now have been done. Can you please help direct me to the correct person? Please? I see that a person who has no interest is from Denmark. The United States of America the Transform Diet is becoming a brand. I need your help as your the one who deleted this gentleman. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.42.14 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has been deleted according to a community discussion, Articles for deletion/Brett Salisbury. To overturn the outcome of that discussion, you would need to provide references to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources so as to prove that Brett Salisbury meets our notability criteria for biographies, WP:BIO. Please provide these references here.  Sandstein   16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Brett Salisbury Independent references
June 23, 2009: Daniel Eugene "Rudy" Ruettiger (b. August 23, 1948 in Joliet, Illinois, United States) is a motivational speaker and former collegiate football player best known as the inspiration for the motion picture Rudy. Brett Salisbury and Rudy are under contract to writing a second book together titled "Transforming Rudy" by Brett Salisbury. The book will cover a day to day transforming of Rudy and how he used the transform diet specifically to make the transformation to a lean body at 61 years old. Rudy is now an officlal partner of the Transform Diet. Rudy Ruettiger, Las Vegas, NV  Website and Email: http://www.rudyawards.com/   ND45@RudyInternational.com Rudy contact number: 702-498-9512

April 30, 2009, Brett Salisbury to be represented by Bruce Merrin. Bruce represents A-List and emerging stars in movies, television, music, authors and sports. He is often cited as the leading talent publicist in the United States. Merrins clients have included every U.S. President From Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton. From Johnny Carson to John Grey's NY Times Bestseller, Men are from Mars Women are from Venus. He is responsible for the launch of Jenny Craig's career. Bruce, is a graduate of the UCLA film school, and has offices in both Beverly Hills California and Las Vegas Nevada. Merrin calls Salisbury the "next superstar." Bruce Merrin email: Merrinpr@lvcoxmail.com  Bruce Merrin Phone Number: 702-768-8204   Bruce Merrrin Website: http://www.celebrityspeakersentertainment.com/about.htm

http://www.rtironline.com/blog/_archives/2009/2/1/4076462.html RTIR REPORT

http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000069030 (Please see each tab, it will provide all info to whom brett salisbury is)

http://www.powerfulpatient.org/ (please scroll down to Brett Salisbury and his picture in GQ magazine. You can also listen to interview live)

http://www.inspire.com/joyceg98/journal/trouble-losing-weight/ Interview with Joyce on Brett Salisbury

http://www.campusexplorer.com/colleges/A3829E9F/Nebraska/Wayne/Wayne-State-College/ Wayne State College Notable Alumni.

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-12-20/sports/sp-9419_1_quarterback-sean-salisbury  Brett Salisbury signs with University of Oregon as top quarterback in the united states out of junior college written by LA Times

June 23, 2009: "It was magic radio Brett, you are one of the best interviewees I have encountered in a 47-year career. The radio audience will really get something out of the information." -Vin Smith: USwebtalkradio, Midnight BookWorm, With Host Vin Smith (hour show aired live June 22. 8pm) www.USwebTalkRadio.com

April 10th, 2009: Entrepreneur Magazine- 5 Stars given to Transform Diet http://www.palomar.edu/athletics/football/history/   scroll down. It shows what team Brett Salisbury Played for in pro football and he was a first team all american quarterback

http://transformdiet.com/index.php?page_id=236  how to get the book through amazon, barnes and noble, iuniverse etc.

http://transformdiet.com/index.php?page_id=275 author by nations master interview, as you scroll down you will see him playing against UCLA in the Rose Bowl.

http://judygordon.biz/Judy+Resume  Judy Gordon who edited Brett Salisburys book on her best seller list

http://www.americola.com/sites/Brett_Salisbury

So many more interviews and sites. Do I need to go on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.42.14 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am unconvinced that this amounts to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. You also sound frighteningly like a promotional campaigner, and we frown on that. But you may attempt to convince the community of editors otherwise by making a request for deletion review at WP:DRV and linking to this section.  Sandstein   20:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Sandstein...
I just wanted to thank you for your help yesterday and offering more of what we can do to prove Brett Salisbury is wikipedia worthy. I have many more articles coming out that I know of personally and will get them to you. Again, I appreciate your patience and voicing what to do to get him back on Wikipedia. Hopefully you can see he is a full fledged author with such a great background and his book is being considered by everyone as the diet of 2009.

Thank you Mike Dunbar, Seattle Washington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.42.14 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, Mr Dunbar, are you affiliated with Mr Salisbury?  Sandstein   20:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Allachbronzwflag.jpg
Ok, I think I have the tag fixed now. Can you take a look at it and if I have it done right this time maybe remove the deletion warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasweed (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCommons
Dear Sandstein,

Please consider passing the 2 flickr images which I mentioned on your Commons talkpage...some days now. Since they failed flickrreview, no one dares use them sadly. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks.  Sandstein   06:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Terms
Hi, could you clarify the terms of topic ban, that is whether I am still allowed to revert obvious vandalism and banned users? Brandt 11:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Which topic ban, please?  Sandstein   12:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This one, of mine: . Brandt 13:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the topic ban makes no exceptions for reverting vandalism or edits by banned users, but you may report such issues to WP:AIV or another appropriate noticeboard.  Sandstein   14:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Bronze cast Allach SS Flag Bearer by Theodor Karner
Ok, if you look at the “Summary” for the image I put “Fair use, Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary” under “Permission”. So what am I doing wrong? How do I tag it as that? To be honest I have looked at the Fair use rules page and have been trying to do it properly. I really don’t know what I am doing on here. All my efforts have been through trial and error. So, If you know how to upload an image to be used under “Fair use” could you tell me how to do it? Like make me a step by step set of instructions? I really am tired of having photos deleted or threatened to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasweed (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, I went and reworked the info. Could you take a look and tell me if I did it right. I am trying to fix all image info problems that I might have. This image is not replaceable by a free content image. The artwork is in a private collection and is not exhibited publicly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasweed (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg L block
Hi there Sandstein. I see you just blocked Greg - did you know that the diff you blocked him for was from March? I think you might have made a mistake here. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. My apologies. I'll undo this.  Sandstein   13:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Sanstein for your quick action - it's an easy mistake to make. Take care,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, that was a March 2008 diff :/. Also, Greg informed me via email that he is still blocked. Is there a technical issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it has something to do with autoblock, but, not being an admin, I don't know what exactly is wrong here. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a message at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard to ensure a quick response, as you don't seem to be online at the moment. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Block #1506928 has been removed. –xenotalk 18:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Xeno. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeal
I have filed an appeal of my restriction at. I would very much appreciate any help in re-formatting the request properly.radek (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I see as pretty knowledgeable about the formats and proper structure of cases at AE and that's why I'm asking you here; Deacon moved around and split up my response to his accusations so now it looks like I'm replying to no body in particular. I'm also not sure how I'm supposed to address his allegations so that it's clear about where am I replying to what. I hesitate to undo his moving around but it appears extremely disruptive and just muddies everything up.radek (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a bit confusing, but it seems Deacon intends to use a format similar to WP:RFAR, where everybody only comments in their own section. Could you try and adapt your comments to this format where necessary? I'd rather not complicate the issue with a discussion about formatting.  Sandstein   17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD result for Steven Dale Green
You might want to be aware that User:Badagnani has removed the merger tag you placed on that article after the AfD twice so far. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that will be disruptive if it continues. The best thing to do would be to go ahead with the merger so as not to invite an edit war about this tag.  Sandstein   05:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Im not affiliated with mr. Salisbury
Hi, You had asked if Im affiliated with Brett Salisbury. NO, I bought his book and read his story. He has changed my life and my families by the diet he recommends. Every source I gave was seperate from his own. Not sure what you need to prove he is the real deal. You can hear live radio interviews, read book reviews, and read his bio from sources not related to his website. Does he need to make the NY Times bestseller list to convince wikipedia he is noteworthy? He is changing lives, thats all I know... Thank you Mr.Dunbar 2129 Rickler Ave Seattle Washington Certified Dietician138.210.42.14 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me a small piece of advice
I have not voted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_Dale_Green and i have no opinion on its outcome. But some people working around this topic have. . I just want to ask you, not to choose to be the closing administrator for Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_29#James_P._Barker or the possible following Afd. This is not because i do not trust you on that. I just think these topics are closely connected and Wikipedia has a lot of uninvolved administrators, that would not give people the chance for false claims administrators would put personal preferences over community consensus. Iqinn (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll take that under consideration.  Sandstein   05:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland in the Roman era
I've put it on hold - just a few small things to sort out, nothing major. Obviously, going forward, relying on one source (that happens to be in German) is not ideal, but I wouldn't not recognise all your hard work just because of that. Cheers, - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review! I will make the necessary improvements, address the points you raise on the talk page and notify you as soon as it's done.  Sandstein   17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Question relating to a topic ban
Hi Sandstein! You recently topic-banned Brandmeister from all pages related to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran, and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area (all broadly construed) for 6 months. I'm not sure if you're aware of this. My question: isn't that a way to circumvent the topic ban? Sardur (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically, no, because the page Reliable sources/Noticeboard is not related to the area of conflict. Should problems arise, I may extend the topic ban to all discussions related to the topic.  Sandstein   05:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Russavia's 1RR
Since we now seem to be following ArbCom's ruling to the letter, could you (or anyone) please point out where exactly did Russavia receive a formal warning about the Digwuren sactions, as this was cited by Thatcher as the reason why Russavia's restriction was left in place but others' was removed. Offliner (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Russavia was indeed never placed on notice prior to his 1RR restriction in June. He has no blocks related to WP:DIGWUREN either... PasswordUsername (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He was previously blocked for two weeks under WP:DIGWUREN which was logged here. --Martintg (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If Russavia disagrees with sanctions imposed against him, he can take it up with Thatcher or appeal the sanction as provided for in the discretionary sanctions remedy. I see no reason to concern myself with the situation prior to such an appeal. Also, Offliner, the next time you want me to look at something, I would be glad if you would provide links to whatever you are talking about.  Sandstein   05:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Firearms and Wikiprojects
I appreciate your input at Talk: SIG SG 550. As you might have noticed I have approached various firearms articles with the intent of adding a few subsections to better organize extremely long sections, and I have faced significant difficulties with a few members of the Firearms Wikiproject who disagree with my intentions, forcing me to escalate to proposing project-wide structure guideline changes. I am wondering whether my not being a member of the project invalidates my opinions. Are there any policies that say that Wikiprojects or their members have certain authoritative rights, or that outside editors may not make certain changes that fall under the scope of the project? Any guidelines, policies, or advice regarding any of this in either direction would be appreciated. Some guy (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears you posted at the MILHIST discussion while I was writing this. Some guy (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to my knowledge all editors are equal with respect to content contributions, barring special rules such as WP:COI. Certainly no WikiProject has any special privileges regarding the articles it covers. I am not sure whether there's a policy page saying so explicitly, though.  Sandstein   11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks. Some guy (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
While your comments at my appeal weren't exactly supportive, I still wanted to thank you for the time you took to look at it and for your participation, as well as the help with the formatting. Please keep up the good work.radek (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  Sandstein   13:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't already know...
...this would make it completely obvious that you are an attorney! Nathan  T 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Déformation professionnelle, I'm afraid.  Sandstein   18:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Smith2006
I would just like to say that I support your block of Smith2006. I have had unpleasant interactions with this individual before. Please read this odious edit summary |. He is also openly pro-Hitler. There're more edits in the same vein. Prior to the expiry of his block, I will ask for it to be made permanent, but thank you for the relief you have provided. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots
What do we do about this ridiculous behavior? . His attempts to avoid all discussion that isn't him criticizing someone are a serious problem. He continues to revert other users' work while refusing to discuss it (obviously not while he's blocked but you get the idea). He seems to believe that no one else's opinions are valuable and that any attempt to discuss his reversions is harassment and vandalism. These behaviors are immature and a massive difficulty that many editors are faced with. Some guy (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, while the attitude exhibited in these messages does give one pause, as an administrator I can't do much about it unless it exhibits itself in outright disruption, which these edits do not constitute. On the other hand, if he continues to insult people or otherwise clearly disrupts our project as soon as the block expires (note: disagreeing with you ≠ disruption), he'll have to be blocked again. If several editors share similar concerns about another editor, it may be useful to hold a WP:RFC about it so as to establish consensus for any corrective action that may be required.  Sandstein   21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you can't do anything directly, but other than that I don't know how to approach the situation since he refuses to discuss anything. I'm mostly looking for advice. I know disagreeing with me is not disruption (I did not file an ANI for his disagreeing with me or even reverting my edits, I tried to leave that out of the equation entirely and said so in the ANI), but when the disagreement expands to blanket reversions that strikes me as disruptive. Is reverting someone's edits and removing that editor's attempts at discussion disruptive? I know that edit warring is considered disruptive. When his block expires, would you mind if I approach you for questions or advice if I feel his behavior continues to be disruptive? How many times can I use the word disruptive in one paragraph? :P Some guy (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if there continue to be problems after the block expires, I'll try and help. Removing your comments on his user talk page is not disruptive per se - users are allowed to delete these messages and it shows that they've read them - but reverting without discussion is edit warring. Though, of course, it usually takes two to edit war.  Sandstein   05:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Refusing to discuss a situation is trying to win by default - either the other editor gives up entirely or continues to edit due to lack of discussion and gets accused of edit warring. If one user is continually reverting good faith edits and will absolutely not discuss his reversions, this is a one-sided edit war. That's my opinion, anyway. Some guy (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Swiss Cuisine
Congratulations on your status as an Administrator. This means that you must have lots of skills and experience in establishing articles up to Wikipedia high standards.

I am not as experienced as you and just trying to do my best.

Looking at the above mentioned messy article - with the request for a clean up - I have tried and did my best to revise it for the better.

You have flatly "undid" my version with the remarks: "lots of spelling mistakes and other problems".

I would like to kindly challenge your wisdom is this instance, for the following reasons:

1. spelling mistakes have never been a ground to cancel any text (and in any case, I challenge you having made many spelling mistakes in English) 2. my proposed version is down to facts, easier and clearer to read and understand and IMHO more WIKI-like than 3. the old version, which you have returned to, unamended, and still having the request for a cleaning up!

Please believe me, I am far beyond putting any personal ego into the matter and tend to believe that I am being met with the same attitude and wikipedia criterias.

Kindly take up the challenge and let's try and find a common solution in the best Wikipedia interests

Kind regards

claude (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Claude. Thank you for your message. You see, the reason why I reverted your edit is because it contained some rather glaring errors, such as "Some of regional dishes", "cream souce". Also, I believe your edit made the language rather too simple, as when you replaced:
 * Swiss grandmothers used to use stale bread to make fotzel slices, which made it an ideal recipe for homemakers accustomed to the rule: "Never throw any bread away."
 * with this, which wrongly suggests that we - Wikipedia - advise people not to throw bread away.
 * Fotzel slices: using up the stale bread, as one is not supposed to throw bread away."
 * But of course you are right that the article needs cleaning up, and I thank you for trying to help out with it. Should we try it together? We could for instance work on a draft at User:Claude girardin/Swiss cuisine until we're both happy with the result.  Sandstein   06:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

Tks for your explanation.. I appreciate your offered cooperation and shall soon have a go at it with some draft!

So long.

claude (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Errors of judgement
Perhaps Sandstein, you would like to add your apology here as you were one of the editors upholding a wrongful block. I suggest that you examine you strongly held attitudes before even more editors are blocked as the result of such intransigent and harmful views as yours. Giano (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, thanks.  Sandstein   13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I rather thought that would be your response. You are arrogant and totally unsuited to be an Admin. I strongly advise you to wise ap and loosen up a little. Giano (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger Federer
Is it possible to make the page semi-protected, as I am getting a little concerned about the amount of edits that have occurred recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaselig (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A link, please.  Sandstein   20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer - sorry about not signing earlier, brain of a goldfish. Joshuaselig (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the problem? There's no obvious and frequent vandalism.  Sandstein   21:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by TennisGrandSlam seem to be frequent and he appears to be getting quite animated, just wanted a second opinion Joshuaselig (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Frequent edits as such are not grounds for protection under WP:PP. If only one editor disrupts a page, we usually block him and do not protect the page. Which specific edits do you consider problematic?   Sandstein   21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

question
I just can help but wonder about this - was my appeal the first one at AE, or the first one for Digwuren, or have there been others? I ask you because you seem to have been around these parts longer than I have. Thanks.radek (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I'm only watchlisting AE for a few months now, and in that time yours was only one of two appeals that I remember. The other was a complaint made by a user immediately after the imposition of a restriction on him.  Sandstein   21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

HELP
God, we were actually having a civil discussion about changing the policy and it's spiraled out of control into disaster-territory again. User:Commander Zulu has gone off on a tirade against me; you noticed his repeated attacks against me at the MILHIST discussion and his insistence that my opinion was invalid. He continues to misrepresent my words in a manner that seems like baiting to me, presenting twisted versions of my suggestions in All Caps As If They Were Mandates. He has been going to Nukes and Koalorka's talk pages to rally up support against me, and now they're all talking about what a terrible person I am, how I am clearly a vandal with only bad faith, and Zulu got both of them complaining they are being prevented from involvement in the discussion they had already chosen not to take part in. I hope you recognize how hypocritical this behavior is considering how much they criticized me for attempting to get feedback through multiple venues and accused me of things such as "forum shopping".

To make matters significantly worse, User:Georgewilliamherbert, an administrator, is nagging me on my talk page claiming there is a clear consensus against me and a large number of editors looking down on me and generally disagreeing with my ideas and behavior. He has repeatedly ignored and then denied my requests for him to back up these claims. He is also going around, to the ANI, and to Nukes and Koaolorka's talk page, accusing me of baiting, and rallying more support against me. His words will only serve to incite Koalorka, Zulu, and Nukes further, making them even more convinced they are right and giving them new ideas about ways to criticize me.

All of these things are contributing to making me extremely angry, whether or not this is the intention, and when I am extremely angry it impairs my ability to act civilly. I am continuing to try to act civilly at this point but as you might imagine I don't like being extremely angry. I just want to have the damned structure proposal over with and get back to adding subsections to the firearms articles. I don't want to fight anyone.

I don't know what to do. Please help. I am going to post this message identically at another user's talk page since he has also tried to help me act calmly and resolve conflict. Some guy (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response to George at the ANI about Kaolorka socking, but he is continuing in his behavior. His comments towards me are not in the least bit helpful - they are extremely aggravating and have persisted to the point of harassment. He's trying to make me play games and hunt down the supposed heavy consensus against my behavior and all of the instances in which I have supposedly baited users into being blocked. What happens if I waste my time looking for these supposed things that he refuses to provide edit diffs for? Will he accuse me of being too stupid to understand and block me indefinitely? He is using my refusal to continue discussion with him as "evidence" that I have a communication disorder and is going around trying to discredit me, while he continues to threaten to block me indefinitely. There seems to be no substance to his complaints; he is "trying to help me understand" that other people have complained about me. I am aware of everything that everyone has said to me directly and responded to most or all of it. His behavior is extremely inappropriate. I have told him that if he has concerns of any merit about my current behavior, I request that he forward these complaints to an uninvolved administrator who can address these complaints appropriately but he has not responded to this directly.


 * I have asked User:Toddst1 for advice at his talk page but he has not been online since then. Notice that George carried over his harassment and his game to Toddst1's talk page as well. I am not asking you to do anything specific at this time, as I am still awaiting for Toddst1 to respond. Sorry for all the trouble :/ . Some guy (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started an ANI discussion on Some guy: WP:ANI You may want to comment there. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that the ANI has been filed in pursuit of harassing me. This is all terribly convenient how he's set this up, so anything I say can be used as "evidence" that I have a "communication disorder". Anyway, that's enough from me. Some guy (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

MY RfB
Hi. So as not to clutter up the main RfB page, I'm going to try to explain my position a little better. Indeed I have read the relevant policies, and I understand that in most cases AfDs should remain open for the full seven days. However, WP:IAR is also a policy; in my opinion it's detrimental to the project to "process-wonk", for lack of a better phrase (or for lack of sleep and I just can't think of a better phrase!). I'm not in any rush to be the first to close AfDs, and I don't view it as a race, but there are some rules that can be ignored when the situation demands it. I'll explain further if necessary. Cheers. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, WP:IAR can at times be invoked for closing discussions early, but only in the rare cases when the project clearly benefits from ignoring the 7 day rule, e.g. in cases of excessively conflict-laden AfDs whose outcome is clear. In most cases, however, closing discussions early is no benefit, because there is no harm in waiting the full period. Moreover, the deletion policy is clear that AfDs must, not "should in most cases", remain open for seven days. I believe that you misunderstand both our deletion policy and WP:IAR, which is why I am sorry to say that my opposition stands. (In addition, I see process wonkery as a desirable trait in bureaucrats.)  Sandstein   15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, fair enough, but in theory IAR supersedes all other policies. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It does, but it must be correctly applied, otherwise it's just an excuse for doing whatever one wants to. IAR reads: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This means that, in order to ignore a rule under IAR, you must demonstrate that following the rule would prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Because waiting a few hours until the seven-day period expires does not prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you cannot properly invoke it to close AfDs early as a matter of routine.  Sandstein   15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to butt in because of the history between Sandstein, but I wanted to bring to everyone's attention the nature of Snow closes at both AfD and RfA which are not in either of the policies but connected to a mere article. Crats and admin have allowed even non-crats and non-admin to close based on Snow. This shows that there is community wide acceptance (if not consensus) that there are nuances to AfD and RfA which are not blatantly stated. These have also happened for longer than a year. So, if there is "wonkery", it is negated by the mass acceptance of these closures. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not object to the occasional WP:SNOW closure. Such closures can be necessary sometimes. I object to systematic closures a few days or hours early with no compelling reason, WP:SNOW or otherwise.  Sandstein   16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If consensus is not changing then why allow an extra hour? What about AfDs that go over extra hours because there is constant changings? This has applied to RfA also, especially in the classic question about DHMO's RfA in which Crats seem to unanimously agree that it should have been extended in order to appropriately measure how consensus was changing. WP:CONSENSUS is our primary policy in the matter and should be upheld before RfA or AfD standards are upheld. If it can be shown that consensus would have directly benefited from the extra time (such as people trying to edit it or complain about it) then you would have a point but I have not seen such yet. Now, if you look at RfA, my RfA went over by quite a bit before it was closed. There were many Crats watching, but no one bothered to end it immediately. In the actuality, very few people close things on the dot, and it would be a little strange to demand such particularality. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not expect AfDs to be closed exactly after seven days. Policy states that there must be at least seven days of discussion. That's a difference. There is no problem if an AfD takes a bit longer than seven days to be closed. We have instituted this delay for a reason - to ensure sufficient discussion. We have even recently increased it from five to seven days. That is a good reason to observe it.  Sandstein   16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS states that consensus can change. Since there is mass reliance on SNOW closures, the Deletion policy does not accurately reflect the consensus on the matter. Thus, your adherence to the letter of policy is to adhere to something that goes against one of our strongest policies, consensus. Furthermore, Crats discuss closing of RfA, so any discussion about closing of AfDs as reflecting RfAs has no direct connection. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If consensus with respect to AfD closure has changed, which I do not believe (and note that I am not talking about SNOW closures, just non-SNOW early closures), written policy should reflect it. You can try to propose such a change on the policy talk page. As to relevance, Juliancolton's adherence (or not) to deletion process is relevant to whether he is likely to observe RfA process if promoted, in my opinion.  Sandstein   17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a valid concern, but if it helps I assure you I would not close RfAs against process or consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And as a side note, if you ever take issue with any of my AfD closes, please leave a note on my talk page so I can learn from my mistakes. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will. I had not previously noticed that you were one of the administrators closing AfDs too early.  Sandstein   18:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it turns out that I did contact you about this once, see .  Sandstein   05:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, you state that Consensus has not changed. If so, why are there snow closures at all? According to the letter of the policy which you claim should be adhered to, there is no mention of snow being acceptable in any kind of form. Thus, the policy is very outdated, as Snow has been around for over a year and should be reflected as acceptable. You can have one or the other in this situation - a strict adherence to what is stated, which would defy reality, or an admittance that the policy as written does not reflect the consensus of closures as a whole. It would be hypocritical to ignore the large amount of Snow closures as they are part of the not closing at 7 days mentality. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so. Since WP:SNOW applies to every process, it is just not reasonably possible to mention it explicitly on every policy page to which it may conceivably apply. And I say again, I do not object to WP:SNOW closures. I object to normal closures made too early. Actually, even WP:SNOW closures should be made only if the outcome is very clear after a short time (such as 20 keep, 0 delete after a few hours), but not a few hours prior to the expiration of the delay. That's because the very point of SNOW is not to waste effort on process if it is patently not needed - but it takes very little effort to wait a few more hours.  Sandstein   18:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, Snow isn't a guideline or a policy. It is an essay. It doesn't apply anywhere, unless you are willing to say that consensus has changed on those other processes and allowed it to apply. If so, then your argument above has no bearing. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust you will excuse me if I stop replying at this point, so as to avoid repeating myself.  Sandstein   18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is obvious that your original position has no merit. You claimed that the policy had to be followed strictly. I proved that the policy does not adequately reflect the totality of the situation, therefore, is flawed and cannot be followed strictly. Now, you are dodging the argument. If you don't want to reply, fine, but it is obvious that your oppose on these grounds lacks any merit and you are unwilling to acknowledge the reality of how Wikipedia operates when it comes to closing. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If people were having a problem with the closures they would be taking them to DRV. I don't see this, so I would assume all of these closures are warranted and uncontroversial.-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 20:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a longish discussion at WT:AFD about this, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 50 and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 50. I did take a bunch of early closures to DRV once, at Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1 although there was no consensus to reopen them solely because of this procedural error. (Reviewing that DRV page again, I see that it was indeed Juliancolton who was the admin who had closed them early. I had forgotten that it was him.)  Sandstein   05:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

← Pardon me for posting to this thread, rather than starting a new one, but I had a question/observation that might be relevant in a "side-note" sort of way. I noticed that the RfA pages clearly state the closing time to be: "Scheduled to end nn:nn, dd Month 2009 (UTC)" Perhaps if we got someone to code that type of thing up for XfD items as well, it would help encourage a more standard procedure. Just a thought. — Ched : ?  21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'm not much of a coder, unfortunately, or I'd do it.  Sandstein   05:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely support such a thing, if it would help to prevent mistakes or misunderstandings. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll follow-up on it then. — Ched : ?  13:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * posted at: XfD thread — Ched : ?  14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How far goes Original Research?
Hi Sandstein,

I have some problems in War of the Pacific and hope to get some advice from you.

I try to make it short. There is a Treaty, officially titled "defensive treaty" and are a lot of references saying the treaty is defensive. But there are (far few) references that say, it was a menace for Chile.

In my opinion, a treaty, like a knife, is not intrinsically good or bad, defensive or offensive. That are properties given by the observer and stakeholder of the situation and that has to be said explicit to the reader.

My opinion is that Wikipedia can not state "the treaty was defensive" but "the treaty was interpreted as defensive by XX and YY and offensive or as a threath by ZZ".

What do you think about? Is that the first discussion in Wikipedia about the issue?

I hope you have time to answer this question before I throw my PC through the window.

Im voraus vielen Dank, --Keysanger (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I can't help you with the specific question because I know nothing about the historic period at issue. In general, per WP:NOR, we must reflect the preponderance of academic opinion. But significant minority views should be given due weight per WP:DUE. You may want to gather opinions on WP:POVN or through WP:3O about this.  Sandstein   22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd
Dear Sandstein, Skäpperöd probably shouldn't have gone to WP:AE, but he is a good-faith editor. Please don't take any action against him. AdjustShift (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I'm not about to sanction him, just to warn him as described in the AE thread.  Sandstein   20:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Skäpperöd has done some nice work; if he faces any trouble I'm willing to help him. AdjustShift (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

blocking
Explain how that wasn't a flagrant COI, and I completely agree with Giano's comment that you are arrogant and unsuited as an admin. I was very mildly uncivil, and it seems to me you were watching closely for any mistakes I made. There's *no* way you would have done that if I agreed with you on the RfC, is there? User:Pzrmd 08:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And don't call my decorations "junk." My comments were no more uncivil than that. Pzrmd 08:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How what wasn't a flagrant COI?  Sandstein   08:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocking me. Pzrmd 08:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which interests do you believe conflicted in that case?  Sandstein   08:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your participation in Docu's RfC where you have endorsed like every summary opposite of my view, and you know how heavily I have participated in that. Pzrmd 08:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of your participation or indeed of any of your edits prior to the incivility for which I blocked you. Even if I were, this would not constitute a conflict of interests. Just because I disagree with you on some point of policy does not prevent me from enforcing our (other) policies with respect to you.  Sandstein   09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have both participated a lot in that RfC, and have strong opinions either way. It was a completely weird reason to block. I called you arrogant above, and that is worse than what I said at the RfC. Did you read my statement there? then you know how strong my opinion is. You endorsed like every view opposite of me and made your comments. I am convinced that if I were on your side you would not block me. Power-hunger…. Pzrmd (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not read your statement, and your conviction is wrong. As to for your attacks on me, would you like to be blocked for these too? I don't normally sanction editors for disruption aimed at me personally, but I can make an exception for you if you ask nicely.  Sandstein   20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You did the same thing to my talkpage only you didn't revert it. Pzrmd (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, did you read SchmuckyTheCat's, Juliancolton's, Xymmax's, and/or Wangi's statement? Pzrmd (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know; possibly I did. By know I don't even remember what the discussion was about.  Sandstein   05:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very hard for me to believe you happened to skip my statement and supported a lot of other statements surrounding mine. Pzrmd (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you now concede that your block was wrong? Pzrmd (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. As I said, me disagreeing with you on a matter of Wikipedia governance (a disagreement that I was not even aware of) does not constitute a conflict of interest that would have prohibited me from taking administrative action against you.  Sandstein   08:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You obviously knew my position by reading what I said that made you block me. It was a stupid thing to do and I'm sure you satisfied your power-hunger. We have both participated heavily in that, and the fact that you saw that insignificant skirmish shows how closely you were watching the RfC. I guess being prepared for an edit war is actually worse than being one? And vandalizing my talkpage: don't ever comment on my talkpage again. Blocks are preventative, not punitive; maybe you should have threatened me about a block instead (still quite idiotic). Why was that not a better thing to do? huh?Pzrmd (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't answer to queries made in this tone.  Sandstein   12:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since blocks are preventative and not punitive why was it better to immediately block me rather than threaten to (for still, a very stupid reason). Pzrmd (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To prevent you from making more personal attacks and from edit-warring as announced here. This is quite enough now; I'll not answer any more questions about your block. Get over it and make productive edits, please.  Sandstein   21:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But why wasn't a threat better than a outright block. Roux said he would stop. I said I *would* be ready for an edit war if he didn't. So I guess that's worse than actually being in one? So what the hell were you preventing when you blocked me?  ~  21:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Pzrmd, just let it drop. The block was fine. Sandstein did not have a conflict of interest, your behaviour on that page was becoming increasingly disruptive, as you well know, and threatening to edit war is never a good idea if you don't want your ability to edit restricted.  This discussion is going nowhere.  The block has expired.  Move on.  Exploding Boy (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then. The block was unjustified, it didn't prevent anything since the skirmish was already over, and it satisfied Sandstein's power-hunger. And the same goes to you. Pzrmd (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm not at all being disruptive on my own. It is you who decide to make me disruptive. Pzrmd (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This all happened eight days ago. Get over it.  Also, Sandstein has made it clear s/he is no longer interested in discussing the matter with you.  Your continuing to harass them isn't going to accomplish anything.  Exploding Boy (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're only escalating this right when it ended. Sandstein would have stopped so I would have no other reply. (your block was idiotic too, btw) Pzrmd (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Matthead
I know that there's been a lot of drama and AE reports of questionable quality lately, so I hate to bring up more stuff (which is why I'm bringing it up on talk rather than filing a report), but I think this comment by Matthead is extremely offensive. Starting with the "If the Nazis were so bad..." (obviously implying that they weren't bad - because they didn't destroy ALL Polish cities) to the implication that Poles got what they deserved from the Nazis since they supposedly have been plotting against Germany for 600 years... my first instinct was to remove the whole comment from talk. At the very least it's extremely incivil and intended to create a battleground and to provoke Polish editors (I admit it worked somewhat). At worst ... well, I'll hold my words here.radek (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My relatives perished in the Holocaust in Poland....I find Masthead’s comment extremely offensive, I could not believe my eyes when I was reading it!!....--Jacurek (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked Matthead to comment. (Briefly, politely and to the point, please; I'm not interested in discussing the relevant history, just the user conduct on the talk page at issue.)  Sandstein   06:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, on what am I suppose to comment, without discussing the relevant history? (Thus, I do not back up my statements here) My vote was cast in the subsection "RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw" of Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. This article should cover the expulsion of Germans, yet some users want to give undue weight to said Nazi atrocities in Warsaw, without being able to source that these were a, or the, reason for the expulsions. The talk section "Nazi-occupied Warsaw" is a 100kByte battleground, and I have contributed very few edits to it. The Rfc subsection is similar. Now Radek is once again attacking me, this time by claiming that I was "implying that [the Nazis] weren't bad". All I have done is pointing out, in the form of a rhetoric question, that prominent buildings in other cities were not destroyed by the Nazis, but the city in which German troops were attacked was partially razed afterwards. Just stating the obvious. Radek's claim violates Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons ... harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans". -- Matthead Discuß   00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...not even a small attempt of an apology for your unfortunate comment? Not even when you are now aware that your lack of understanding and bad judgment has offended other users?--Jacurek (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets look again what Matthead wrote: If the Nazis were so bad, why did they destroy the relatively young Warsaw after the Uprising of 1944, but not other, much older cities and buildings with cultural importance to Poles? Why are Wawel Castle and the cathedrals in Posen and Gnesen still standing, after 6 years of German occupation? First as others noted the wording "if the Nazis were so bad" is very, to put it mildly, unfortunate, even for a rethorical question. Secondly "the relatively young Warsaw" is a bit stupid, at the time when the Nazis started their bandit destruction, Warsaw was the capital of Poland for 348 years and not to mention it was a notable city in the 14th century already. Third he should look at the map of the occupied Poland, unlike Warsaw, Poznań and Gniezno were incorporated directly into the Third Reich, even the Nazi weren't so completely retard to start to devastate what they considered their own country. Should that really be used for rethorical "if the Nazis were so bad why.." type of questions? Me thinks not. Finally the city wasn't "partially destroyed" as he claims here, it was nearly completely devastated (around 90%) by the Nazis under orders of Hitler and Himmler.. I don't know if Matthead writes his comments to provoke or in good faith due to ignorance, but what he writes comes out as offensive and i'd suggest he avoids doing it in the future. Loosmark (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if anyone cares, here's my opinion. I (being neither of Polish or German birth or ancestry) am disgusted by that whole article talk page, which is largely a battleground over the merits of various historical grievances and atrocities. In view of that, I tend to take a very dim view of anybody who engages in such battleground-like behaviour. Matthead, your comment about "if the Nazis were so bad" was ill-phrased at best; you should understand that it can cause offence and apologize for it. Jacurek, Loosmark and Radeksz, you contribute to the battleground atmosphere by loudly taking offence at trivia of this sort instead of assuming good faith and carrying on with the substantial discussion. By this conduct, all of you are causing that discussion to generate more heat than light. And now I would like not to hear anything more about this incident; thanks.  Sandstein  06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite talk page protection
I remember you saying somewhere that talk pages should never be fully protected, even if the editor has retired, unless Right to Vanish has been invoked. Could you take a look at this talk page? Shubinator (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unprotected.  Sandstein   06:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete astrotheology? afraid of the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.44.15 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why has Astrotheology been deleted???
I want to know the exact reason behind this, it has been deleted 4 times, why is this being censored, why can know one read the page, this is completely not right and acceptable? What is the explanation, and it better be a good one, and if the church can have its own page, hundreds of other scientific fields has a page, why does this not? This is completely unacceptable and needs to be put back on immediately.

Your angry reader who is offended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.177.50 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Provide a link, please.  Sandstein   20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User block on User:SOPHIAN
You may also be interested as an admin who has been involved in SOPHIAN controversies: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=302387535&oldid=302377030 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Block
You habve posted this block to an archived and collapsed section. Please re-post properly. Some people will want to comment, and some may even deel you are pur heightening drama for the sake of it. Giano (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: It's OK, I have unarchived it for you . Giano (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that's strange. I began my edit at a time when the section was not yet collapsed, and my edit did not cause an edit conflict even though the section had been collapsed in the interim.  Sandstein   12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These things cannot be explained by the powers of this world. Giano (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock
Hi Sandstein and thanks for your note. I'm happy that you were not upset by my actions. My goal was to de-escalate a matter that was producing unnecessary bad blood on ANI. I'm pleased that the situation appears to have been quelled. Kindest regards -- Samir 06:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in retrospect I should definitely have let you know. I usually am more courteous than that if reversing the actions of colleagues.  Take care -- Samir 06:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

hello administrator
I need help, I have uploaded an image for a project, I have not started the article yet, but will soon. Now my question is, is this image ok to use? or is it copyright infringement? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eight_Gate_Damascus.PNG --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to be okay fair use per WP:NFCC, or will be as soon as there is an article. It is better to first write the article and then upload the image, as it may now be speedy deleted before the article is written.  Sandstein   20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will start the article today or tomorrow.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

AA user sorting
Good call with separation of warned users from the rest but there is one major problem remaining. May I suggest you go further and separate those who were party to AA1 but who are not currently under restrictions? This will help avoid mistakes and provide more clarity for admins who are not very well familiar with the case. See: Essentially this will be a list of users who can be placed under restrictions without a warning since they already have been under restrictions previously.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow you. Why can editors party to AA1 be placed under restrictions without a warning?  Sandstein   21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess a warning is still necesarry since expiration of the sanctions reverts a user to a pre-sanction state but the "List of users placed under supervision" still might be unclear for those who don't know each users history or are unaware that sanctions from the 1st case have expired long ago.--   Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 22:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what you propose.  Sandstein   22:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the users under "List of users placed under supervision" are not under any sanctions currently. Separate those whose sanctions have expired from the main list.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 22:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who would that be? And what practical relevance would that have?  Sandstein   22:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note
This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --Vassyana (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Since the ArbCom decision encouraged mediation I would like to participate in this .Momento (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, and why are you telling me this?  Sandstein   05:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because some ArbCom judgements and Request for arbitration enforcement decisions are made at the whim of the decision maker with no reference to facts or Wiki policy.Momento (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean, what would you like me to do? What is the problem?  Sandstein   22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I cannot rely on decisions to be based on fact or logic, I thought I should check that you will not infinitely ban me if I agree to the mediation.Momento (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (sigh) Why do you think I would ban you?  Sandstein   22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on your response to my complaint about Will Beback anything is possible. But you've answered my question so I'll go ahead in good faith. Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made no assurances whatsoever. Could you please provide the link to the decision or discussion based on which you believe you could be banned for agreeing to mediation?  Sandstein   22:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well at least you've proved my point, twice. Firstly, since you banned me "from initiating or otherwise participating in any discussions related to Prem Rawat in all Wikipedia discussion pages and other fora, including article and user talk pages, WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:ANI and their talk pages", I thought I'd better check if I could "participate in this mediation", you replied "OK". That's an affirmation. And now you're asking me to provide a link I've already provided.Momento (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, you see, I forgot that I issued such a ban. All right, the ban is suspended exclusively with respects to edits made in official mediation fora.  Sandstein   06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Perhaps you can explain to me why my complaint about Will Beback is "frivolous" and warrants an eight month ban when you took no action about these two fraudulent complaints by Francis Schonken.Momento (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to this complaint about Will Beback.  Sandstein   05:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the link but please read every word and follow every diff. Thanks.Momento (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the reasons for the action I took in the relevant AE thread. I have nothing to add.  Sandstein   05:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Thank You
Sir, I justed wanted to express my appreciation for your willingness to hear me out in addressing the issues raised against me. I also am thankful for the thoughtful consideration of fellow admins Lifebaka, Luna_Santin, Anthony.bradbury and jpgordon. Thanks! Highspeed (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Momento
Recently, you left this on Momento's talkpage, he has now suddenly added himself to the Prem Rawat mediation, here. Would the ban imposed on him not automatically dis-allow this? -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 15:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see a few sections further up.  Sandstein   16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian violence AfD close
Good close and good job explaining why you saw it that way. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconded. This is exactly how it should be done. One of the top two closures I've ever seen. Nick Graves (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Sandstein   14:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hussein Salem Mohammed
I just tried to edit Hussein Salem Mohammed, only to be confounded by the "View Source" link instead; turns out you protected the page over BLP concerns - but forgot to add a "Protected" tag to the article; can you just slap one on, it's there for a reason...very helpful in instantly informing me there's an ongoing spat, rather than "That's odd...this article can't be edited..." Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks.  Sandstein   15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Kitten
 62.194.6.92 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Thanks!  Sandstein   16:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Halimi
I believe that the technical meaning of the presumption of innocence refer to the burden of proof being on the prosecutor. For this reason, the principle does not apply to the media, the police or, for that matter, wikipedia. There was no need for anyone outside of judiciary to presume the innocence and people is free to presume guilty on the basis of available information. Moreover, I would appreciate if you can enlighten this but procedural basis of the burden of proof on the civil law doesn't quite work in the way of common law. I believe Inquisitive system could request the defence to prove certain aspect of claim for example. Vapour (talk)
 * It appear that "presumption of innocence" has very specific legal meaning in the common law while in the civil law, it is more a matter of principle. It appear that I was correct in deleting that part but not for the correct reason.
 * Timestamp to allow archiving.  Sandstein   16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Utgard Loki page
Hi Sandstein. Over at the arbitration noticeboard talk page, you mentioned the edit warring at the Utgard Loki page. I noticed that as well, over the past couple of days. I've commented here. Would you be able to follow that up, or ask someone else to look into that slow-motion edit warring and the editors involved? Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. I believe no action is needed now that the warring has stopped, and the only person reverting more than once was Bishonen, who as admin needs no warning.  Sandstein   22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think you may have misread the timeline though. The edit warring took place before any announcemnt. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian violence
Hi, thanks for posting such a clear explanation about the nc decision. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No disrespect
...is intended in the current discussion at AN/I. I bow to your superior abilities as regards knowledge and interpretation of policy. I am striving to avoid any tone of hostility or sarcasm and express my honest doubts about the situation as I see it. Thanks again for the time and consideration you have given this issue. In the real world I am working (at an honest job!) right now and my responses to discussion may be delayed. Sincerely, Doc  Tropics  18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No disrespect was assumed. Whether my interpretation of the applicable rules is found to be correct will remain to be seen...  Sandstein   20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your time and effort regarding the various aspects of the Matt Sanchez article, its subject, and the editors involved. While I have no idea what the outcome(s) might be, I'm thoroughly satisfied that it is now getting the attention it needs. I'm interested in the issue of BLPs in general, and this has certainly been a learning experience. Thanks again for all your help, Doc  Tropics  18:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Recognition
I admire your tenacity, dedication, and impartiality. I also wonder how many aspirin you needed to take by the time you finished wading through that? Doc  Tropics  20:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate them, because approval by anybody is rare in arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein   21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and no aspirin. I'm doing this as a hobby, and will stop as soon as it gives me a headache...  Sandstein   21:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Contempt of cop
Hi Sandstein. The source used in the article describes flight from police as a "variant on the 'contempt of cop' theme." So presenting it as an example isn't quite accurate. Also, it's probably best to be cautious about making sweeping assertions based on a single source. I have already posted to the talk page noting my concern that the article offers a particular point of view that borders on legal advice without fairly representing other points of view and interpretations of the law. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandstein you seem to be playing it very fast and loose with the way statements in the article reflect the sources. A source stating that fleeing the police is a variant of contempt of cop, does not mean it is an example of contempt of cop. This kind of thing can lead to misunderstandings. Also, a source stating that: given the relationship of some young black men to the police, it may be more likely that they are involved in these situations does not mean that a blanket statement about young black people is appropriate. Opinions should be attributed and unless something controversial is well established in sources it shouldn't be stated as fact. I haven't seen it stated anywhere that an arrest for yelling or cursing out cops is inappropriate let alone police misconduct. That may be your point of view, but we're an encyclopedia, so we have to go with what the laws and the history, and the sources say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm seeing this post only now. Could we continue this on the article talk apge, please? I'd be interested to hear what others think.  Sandstein   21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bluemarine unblocked
Hello! Please be advised that I have reviewed the unblock request for User:Bluemarine and that I have agreed to unblock that account. I have spelled out my reason for the unblock on Mr. Sanchez's talk page. However, I have also requested that Mr. Sanchez consult with his mentor, Durova, prior to any further editing until his murky status is resolved. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Take action or close
Just to note that Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement has been recently very active. The argument is that the Arb final decision was that both Scuro and Jmh649 were restricted, with the wording (with my emphasis) "Scuro is limited to one revert per page per week and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Scuro exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Scuro may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below". The argument that seems carry some water is that during the edit war Scuro had reverted "generally" from the article without discussion. Could you please look over the recent submissions and either take action or close the thread as it's turning into another sling match, just as the other thread calling for a restriction on Jmh649 had done. Cheers, Nja 247 09:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Swiss municipalities/Article title conventions
Hello Sandstein. I am puzzled by your recent removal of the page at WikiProject Swiss municipalities/Article title conventions, and wonder if you may have fallen into a trap.

The page has been in existence for some four years, linked from Naming conventions (geographic names), without any problems. That is, until Pmanderson, on 31 May 2009, whilst sulking over the move of Bern from Berne, noted it as historic. His argument on Talk:Bern was that the page had not been amended in that time and was therefore redundant. The usual way of seeing this on Wikipedia would be that it was stable and had gained consensus.

The current notation that "This page has been superseded by Naming conventions (geographic names), which applies to all Wikipedia articles on places." could equally replace any of the conventions on individual countries. However, as with the other sub-pages, this convention covered much more that the name of Bern, and was largely about how to disambiguate Swiss geographic articles, something which is not adequately covered at Naming conventions (geographic names).

If Pmanderson took such objection to the page being cited as a reason to move Bern, then the correct thing to have done would have been to seek to change the policy set out on the page or, as he did, to discuss at Talk:Bern, but also to have added a notation to the page that a discussion was ongoing at Talk:Bern.

His addition of the historic tag should be seen in the same vein as his placing of a neutrality tag on the Bern article. He has failed to gain any support for his arguments on that page and has failed to win any support for his campaign against the administrator who closed the discussion. Indeed, he appears to have alienated more editors by his actions.

In view of this, can I ask that you reconsider your action in deleting the page's contents. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. As you may know, I disagree with Pmanderson about the Berne/Bern naming issue. But my move was not triggered by this and I believe that it should be considered independently from his strange actions with regard to "Berne". I believe that a naming guideline that directly contradicts the main guideline should have broader project-wide consensus, and I can't see this here. The main guideline tells us to use the most common form in English, while Docu's guideline would have us use the local official form. That's a rather big difference (in theory; in practice they generally match), and though a Swiss myself I am unconvinced that our geographic names warrant any special treatment. That said, if you believe there might be consensus for such special treatment, I am not opposed to you undoing my actions if you start a discussion in an appropriate forum about whether these rules are sustained by consensus.  Sandstein 
 * Thanks for your speedy reply. Can I suggest you read what you deleted again.  It did not "have us use the local official form" instead of the most common form in English.
 * The opening paragraph, titled Naming of articles, stated "The article is placed at the title with municipality's official name in the local language, if there is no other article with the same name and if there is no usual English name" Skinsmoke (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True. But in that case, what need is there for a special guideline for Switzerland? I'm not in principle opposed to one if there's both such a need and consensus behind it. So far I see neither, just one page written in one edit in 2005 (when I presume there was no clear general naming guideline) and never changed since.  Sandstein   20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban
Dear Sandstein, I have constantly noted my willingness to abide by my 1RR restrictions and to discuss any and all edits and I honestly didn't believe that removing that tag constituted a revert when I introduced the sources to backup its conclusion. Administrator Nishkid, who immediately made an edit after mine, had no qualms in it and simply corrected my own grammatical error. My response on the AE page may have sounded like I was attacking other editors but I have no interest in doing so and was simply explaining the chronology of how and what happened. I ask you to please reconsider your decision as this was a very simple confusion on my part of what constituted as a revert at that moment and I had no desire to make edits that would have violated my parole. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why and how exactly were you confused that this edit is a revert of this edit made half an hour earlier?  Sandstein   20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that by removing that tag and simultaneously pointing to him the sources to support the wording would have constituted a revert; I felt that it would simply count as a new edit, since the dubious tag is no longer be need when the multiple authors cited on the talk page make mention of the wording. Nishkid's follow up edit only served to confirm what I felt, as he did not add the tag back but merely corrected a grammar mistake I made. It was only a little later that it dawned to me that my edit might be construed as revert, and I was going to immediately follow up my edit by citing the four or five sources listed on the talk page to support the phrasing had not time considerations prevented me from doing so. There was a lapse of reasoning on my part in all this, absolutely, but I didn't expect that someone would say I was committing a revert by removing a tag that was no longer needed. Thank you for hearing me out.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will ask Nishkid64 and YellowMonkey, who have experience with your conduct, to comment.  Sandstein   22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandstein, just let you know that the DiamondApex was not exactly a sockpuppery case and that once he leaves California he will request an unblocking. Consult Nishkid64 for further info. Also, I find the rationale of a topic ban for the only user who wrote FAs (from scratch) on those heated topics pretty weak. I can understand a topic ban against Brand since he mostly reverted in those articles, but a topic ban against the only user who has several FA's under his wing and also happens to be the most proliferant article creator in Armenian subjects is a little too harsh. May I suggest reducing the scope of the topic ban to the article in question where most of his recent activity was concentrated? After all his second revert was essentially a result of the user incorrectly assuming that a removal of the tag wont count as a revert.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whose this user with multiple FAs? Also in addition, I know some guys with FA credits who are extreme racial POV-pushers but since none of the people from the "opposite" race exist on wikipedia and neutrals either don't know or can't be stuffed spending 3 hours a day on something they don't have a natural interest in, they can do what they want :(  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think that an experienced user such as MarshallBagramyan would not know that removing the tags added by another user would constitute a revert. He has been involved in this controversial topic area for years, and been a party to 2 arbitration cases. And the tags were added for a good reason, discussed on talk in much detail. As for the article in question, MarshallBagramyan has been extremely disruptive there, edit warring and preventing other editors from adding any info to the article. He was blocked twice before for edit warring on that article, first because of 1RR violation, second time for sock/meatpuppetry. I was even forced to file an arbitration request, naming MarshallBagramyan as a party, but arbitrators decided that the DR opportunities were not exhausted yet. However considering the behavior of MarshallBagramyan on this article, DR is unlikely to give any result, since he refuses from any mediation. Note that the editors he opposes to in this article (except for me) are not even regular contributors to AA topics, they are third party people who have nothing to do with either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Yet they are unable to edit the article, as every edit they make and which contradicts the POV popular in Armenia gets instantly reverted. I don't think that such approach to editing the controversial topics is acceptable, and MarshallBagramyan has been given enough chances. Also, I don't think that Nishkid64's edit fixing a typo could be construed in any way as an endorsement of MarshallBagramyan's actions. Grand master  05:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban reduced
Because of the possibility that the 1RR violation might have been a honest mistake, and acting on the advice of other administrators, I reduce the duration of the topic ban from indefinite to one month, to run concurrently with the 1RR restriction, which (like any other applicable sanctions) remains in effect unchanged.  Sandstein  07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Does this mean that I cannot participate on the talk page of articles as well?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, as detailed at User talk:MarshallBagramyan.  Sandstein   16:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as Sandstein and the other "usual suspects" are around, by hook or by crook they will eventually get you, MB. I notice that Sandstein made mention of your trumped-up sockpuppet block ("block for topic-related sockpuppetry") in his attempt to ban you. The lesson all must learn is that unless an editor challenges in the fullest and in the most public way an unjust, wrong decision, and does it as soon as possible after the event, that decision will eventually and inevitably be presented as an unquestioned correct decision and used against that editor. By not formally challenging the sockpuppetry ban, by Wikipedia's standards you are simply admitting your guilt. You are also allowing exactly the same fate to fall onto other editors. Meowy 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Meowy, you don't give up, do you? Marshall has already admitted meatpuppetry, which is taken just as seriously as sockpuppetry. Why do you keep on making ridiculous claims about this case without knowing hardly anything about it? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Take this discussion elsewhere, please. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with ANI
Hi Sandstein. Would you like to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard? Perhaps we could set up a template for ANI reports and make it non-mandatory. Jehochman Talk 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
You got my e-mail, right? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, saw above. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)