User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/July

Radeksz sockpuppet
Despite being restricted from editing such topics, Radeksz with an IP account is again edit warring this. The IP address account 66.188.186.206 is located in, which is what Radeksz has used.


 * Can someone promptly ban this asshole?radek (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above seems to be the now-blocked .  Sandstein   05:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Block log
Hello. I understand why I was blocked, you are the admin who refused my unblock request, can you please advise me now on how I can have a review and get my block log cleared. Thanks, RomaC (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there is no process for that.  Sandstein   05:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Leanne Tiernan Deletion Closure
I believe you have made an error in your closure as no consensus therefor resulting perversely in keep. The Article was overwhelmingly decided not to keep. The two results plausible were Delete outright or Move. Keep was not one of them, please can you expand on your reasons and if necessary Move the page over a redirect.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Leanne Tiernan. As explained above, there was no consensus for deleting this article.  Sandstein   19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Though no concensus to keep the discussion said move or delete not keep. Lucy-marie (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what you mean. Those editors who opposed deletion did so on the condition that the article be moved if it was not deleted. Accordingly, after closing the discussion as "no consensus to delete", I moved the article from Leanne Tiernan to Murder of Leanne Tiernan, but I did this in my capacity as a normal editor.  Sandstein   22:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban question
Hi Sanstein, before I will proceed to my question, I would like to give you a barnstar please:

And now my question. Yesterday was the last day of my 3 months topic ban, and I am not sure those three months were enough to make me to stay out of the troubles. They probably were not. Could you please add one more month to my topic ban? I am afraid I am not strong enough yet, to avoid troubles on my own, and I need your help. Thank you for understanding. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, thanks. But admins do not generally issue blocks on request, and I do not think that issuing other sanctions on request would be helpful. If you do not think that you can make good edits in a certain topic area, I advise you to simply stay out of it. If you need advice in any particular situation, please feel free to ask.  Sandstein   21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind offer. I took more than enough of your time and from now on I will try to avoid posting more questions on your talk page. I am not sure how to explain it to you, but for the last month I felt as I was learning to swim in a stormy ocean, and the only thing, that will help me, if I was going to drawn, was my topic ban. Now my support is there no more, and I am on my own. I will try to follow your advise. It was great to know you! Regards. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leanne Tiernan
WP:BLP1E does apply because the only thing this person is notable for is being kidnapped and allegedly sexually asssualted. Six deletes indicate consensus. Recommend review as she does not meet WP:N. moreno oso (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, the "LP" in "BLP1E" stands for living person, which the subject is not. In my opinion, consensus to delete is not established.  Sandstein   05:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Understand that. However, my point as per the delete votes is she did nothing famous why she lived. If being kidnapped and allegedly sexually assualted is her unfortunate claim to fame, there are thousands of other WP:OTHERSTUFF that would apply. moreno oso (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you look at the two Keep votes before my Delete vote, those editors make the case she was not notable and recommend that the killer is more notable. I don't concede that however. He's your run-of-mill pervert. moreno oso (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this or should I take it to deletion review? moreno oso (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On balance, taking the various arguments into consideration, I think we - narrowly - don't have a consensus for deletion. Per WP:DGFA, "when in doubt, don't delete". If you disagree, you're free to request review.  Sandstein   15:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Failure to comply with an enforcement warning you posted
This is a knowingly disruptive and tendentious breach of WP:NOR; and evidence of blatant disregard for the DIGWUREN enforcement warning you posted here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At first glance this appears to be a content dispute which should be resolved via WP:DR. Not every addition of unsourced content to an article is disruptive. Only if this is part of a pattern of problematic conduct does it become sanctionable, in which case you should make a proper WP:AE report with sufficient dated and well-explained diffs.  Sandstein   15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your information. I will do that in due course. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that I'm currently restricted to editing via iPhone only and so pasting in links showing that the 21st century claim flies in the face of historical record, media reports of the time, British government statements and the memoirs of Poles who were invited is very difficult. I will post links to sources as soon as I'm next at a proper computer. However, if you think it appropriate I will self-revert until I can post such sources. I personally would think that using a source to support something which the source does not say (and claiming that the source means other than what it says is utterly unacceptable but that's just my opinion). Varsovian (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion about your content dispute (though it looks as though that article needs 1RR soon). But I strongly suggest that you do not make potentially controversial edits until you are technically able to make them at an acceptable level of quality, i.e., including any required sources. The only thing that's urgent on Wikipedia is vandalism and BLP violation removal, everything else is not on a deadline.  Sandstein   17:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I didn't actually think that the edit was particularly controversial, given that all but one of the sources which I have now inserted into the sentence in question were already in the article (and the new source only backs up a source which was already in the article). Varsovian (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Question
Sandstein, I have a question, if a user with whom I am banned from interacting makes false claims that a source says something which the source doesn't actually say, who and where can I alert of the situation without breaking my ban? Dr. Loosmark 14:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't.  Sandstein   15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this make this ban actually counterpoductive in such situation? Meaning that it is better for Wikipedia to have something false presented on its pages than Varsovian/Loosmark informing anybody about it? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. If it's important, somebody else will point it out.  Sandstein   17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
I sent you an email regarding misunderstanding of the situation. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * May I ask you what kind of action Molobo wanted to initiate. As I'm currently the only user in a discussion with Molobo and he withdraw his misinterpretation of a source I used, I'm probably the affected user. Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was about something I observed, nothing about any editor I am in contact with.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I normally act on interaction ban violations only after a report by the other editor, simply because I do not wish to create additional problems for all concerned. If you believe action is nonetheless warranted, you can make a report at WP:AE.  Sandstein   16:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if its sanctionable or not. The interaction ban seems to be a new invention and subject to your interpretation as an admin, so I am unsure of its rules. That's why I ask for clarification. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of interaction bans is for the users to leave each other alone. Third parties pointing out alleged interactions is often conterproductive to that goal.  Sandstein   18:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting arbitration enforcement
Sandstein I request arbitration enforcement against user: Varsovian. He made this beyond pale bad faith accusation that I made "deliberately provocative edit designed to trap him". Please note that the only diff which was made by me is this: in which I have simply corrected a link which was broken. (Somebody forgot to put an "<" ). To claim that it is a deliberately provocation is... well out of this world. I request you stop the bad faith accusations by user:Varsovian and enforce the non-interaction ban. Yes, we are allowed to report each other but IMO only if there is really some substance in the claim. Otherwise the report can simply be misused to defame the opponent. Dr. Loosmark 12:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Declined. Enforcement requests to uninvolvement admins are allowed under the terms of my ban. I'd make an exception only for obviously abusive requests, which the request by Varsovian is not (or at any rate not more problematic than this request by you). Both of you seriously need to stop obsessing about this victory parade, or more substantial sanctions might be needed.  Sandstein   13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not abuse request? ok could you please just tell if you believe that my correcting a link was a "deliberately provocative edit designed to trap him"? I just want to know what am I allowed to do and what not. If now I cannot even correct a link then basically any edit of mine can be claimed to be deliberately provocative or what. Dr. Loosmark  13:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That enforcement request by the other party has already been evaluated by another admin and I see no reason to do so again. Now please stop arguing about this and edit somewhere else.  Sandstein   13:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well fine. It's very stressful for myself that even the most possible innocuous gnomish edit can claimed to be deliberately provocative and I am sorry you can't see that. But anyway I will go to edit something else thanks and bye. Dr. Loosmark  13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban again I'm afraid
Does this edit violate this interaction ban? Specifically is describing this request as "beyond pale bad faith accusation" violate the restriction against "The other party may not to be informed of, and may not reply to, that request unless asked to by the admin."? Please note that I make no comment on and make no reply to the request made in this edit. Varsovian (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC) On second thoughts, I'll do something constructive instead. I'd like to delete this post from your talk page but I'm uncertain if I'm allowed to delete any content at all from another user's talk page and hence I have only struck it out. Please consider deleting it yourself. Varsovian (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict with the preceding, now struck-out text:) See, mutatis mutandis, my reply to the request above. While you are indeed both prohibited from replying to enforcement requests by the other, you are also allowed to make new enforcement requests. I'm resolving the conflict as follows: You are both prohibited from making enforcement requests that allege that an enforcement request by the other violates the interaction ban. Of course, administrators may still sanction, on their own initiative, any abusive or frivolous enforcement request. And my patience with both of you wears thin.  Sandstein   13:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing that up. And thank you for your patience, I'm sorry to have tested it and assure you that I will try much harder in the future. Varsovian (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrative question
Hi Sandstein. I am curious-could you tell me on which Wikipedia rule/guideline is the interaction ban imposed by Varsovian/Loosmark based upon? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DIGWUREN.  Sandstein   15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

John Buscema
Fair enough. It means the article will remain as encyclopedic as it is for a year. That's the important thing. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I mention you (briefly and conditionally)
here.radek (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At the AE report you stated "All other involved editors should do likewise and drop the matter. If no other admin objects, I will close this thread without action.". Because of you saying this I have not made any statement at the report, since I became aware of it only after you made the above statement. Others, however, seem to be unable to let the matter drop and continue making false allegations pulled out of thin air, as recently as few minutes ago. Hence I was wondering if you now intend to let the thread remain open and if so should I make a statement, or will the thread be closed. Thank you.radek (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've closed it now, thanks for the reminder.  Sandstein   13:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
Apologies any trouble regarding the AE thread. This wasn't my intention. I added a short clarification and have nothing more to add there. As per your instructions I will not ask about interaction ban on AE implemented on Varsovian and Loosmark. Have a good day. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Rodger Young
See comment on this DYK.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

AE closing
Hey Sandstein,

I opened "my" section at the Varsovian AE at noon, but only now found time to edit and save it. When I hit save, I realized you had closed the thread an hour ago. Can you please look at my entry anyway. Further, you have not addressed the points raised by me and FPaS. Have you not addressed them because you did not find them to be of concern, or have you decided that only Varsovian should be the subject of the thread and that everything else is irrelevant? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've undone your addition, because closed sections should not be edited and discussion that does not relate to the subject of the request (Varsovian) is not helpful at AE. As you correctly surmise, I usually don't even read such tangents. You should not edit AE threads unless you have something useful to say that directly addresses the topic of the request.  Sandstein   15:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I have addressed the request directly, diff by diff. I have also outlined the connection between the "further-investigation-needed"-section and the request itself and given the reason why I added this to the Varsovian request instead of opening another one. Independently, another editor in good standing had posted similar thoughts to the same request . If I remember correctly, there were AE cases in the past where investigation was not limited to the initial subject of the thread when discussion revealed that there is an underlying problem concerning several parties? A hint that any additional evidence not strictly regarding Varsovian will be ignored would have been helpful, as obviously neither FPaS nor me posted the additional evidence with any intention to derail the case.
 * Regarding my (inadvertedly) post-closure request, which you undid: That was a maintenance request where I asked for a redaction, and I have no problem with the post being removed but I do uphold the request since it does not matter whether the redaction is performed pre- or post-closure. I understand that you haven't looked at tghis request but only removed it because it was added late? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was that post-closure request that I referred to above: it's off-topic since it concerns Chumchum7, not Varsovian. I personall prefer AE threads to remain focused on one request, but I sometimes also take action against the requesting party if it rapidly becomes clear that their action is also sanctionable.
 * With respect to your statement concerning Loosmark, Radeksz and Molobo, that is also outside the scope of the AE request concerning Varsovian. It is also probably beyond the scope of AE itself, since allegations of complex multiparty misconduct normally require the investigative capacity of a full arbitration case. I, at least, do not have the time to investigate this sort of vague allegations concerning many users, especially, if as here they do not look very substantial at first glance. I very strongly suggest you do not make allegations of that sort at all except backed up by very convincing evidence and in the course of a dedicated AE or arbitration request. Otherwise you just contribute to the all-round disruptive mudslinging and may be sanctioned for that.  Sandstein   16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The User Rangersarecool
When I got to Wikipedia I was amazed I could edit. With the account Rangersarecool I did some stupid things. I then regretted that and created a new account, Darknesswolfs, to start clean. My friend Foxcow Created User:Rangerarecool1234 vandalized, than admitted it to get me blocked. It worked. But I wanted to be a user on Wikipedia too much. I went nuts on the alts, Shadowwolfs, SecretSpy101, lots of them. My first and only successful was Programmer13. Look at the contributes. I passed a Adoption program, made B-class articles, and became a normal obbsessed wikipedian. I come back here because I want to come clean. I want you to look at the contributes of Programmer13 and tell me if that should be blocked. I used to always worry I would be found out. So here is your chance. Block it. Block my account Programmer101, which I created after I forgot the pass to Programmer13, not quiet as successful. So do what you think is right.

Programmer101TalkWhat I do 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

List of cultural property of national significance in Switzerland: Aargau
Hi Sandstein, I was just looking at this list of A-list sites in Aargau, and I had a few thoughts. I'd like to change the CH1903 coords to WGS84 and link them through the coord template (so you can get to a location map easily and quickly). When I did that, I found that the list started to look pretty ugly, which got me thinking about moving this into a table. Maybe a table with a picture, name, street location, CH1903 location, WGS84 location with coord template. I had also thought about making it sortable (which would be a single table with city names in a column) or creating a bunch of tables (one for each municipality). I'm interested in your thoughts on this change. Here's an example of what I was considering Tobyc75 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think that these are great ideas, and your example looks like something that I had in mind when I started that list (only I didn't have the time for the nice formatting). If I may, I'd suggest that we combine all coordinates into a single column (since people are unlikely to sort by coordinate), but add columns for the municipality and for notes (if any). I also suggest to limit WGS84 coordinates to four decimal points, because more would be unnecessarily precise (on the order of a few meters).  Sandstein   14:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Novak_Djokovic#Proposition_about_parents
You are invited to join the discussion at. Tadijaspeaks 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) (Using ) -- Tadijaspeaks 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't normally participate in such discussions because a) I neither know nor care about the topic and b) I might later be asked to make admin decisions about it.  Sandstein   21:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Request.
Sandstein, we do not see eye to eye in your admin actions. You have previously blocked me for what I consider bullshit, all that aside I have a request. Please review my "uncivilness" to a user and comment on their "evidence" I attacked them. I am confident this is no where near disruptive, harassmment or offensive. Please block away if you consider these edits over the line. [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being late in replying to this. As the content concerning you has now been removed, this would appear to be moot, yes?  Sandstein   21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * yes thank you. I had missed the vacation tag. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Ballad of Rodger Young
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why the delete?
Question 1. Kevin Craft is a division I quarterback who played at UCLA. He is on wikipedia without any issues. He in my opinion is not credible, but if that is all that it takes then why is ex division I quarterback who started for the Oregon Ducks in the same Pac 10 schedule deleted? Salisbury also has a top 10 book out, the transform diet and played pro football after as well as being a top model in europe? Can you please explain the difference between Kevin Craft and Brett Salisbury? I don't understand. I think a page should be started for Salisbury or he should be taken off the deletion list. Tom Kraft has no more credibility than Brett Salisbury. Thank you 24.253.27.16 (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Jill


 * Please link to the article at issue.  Sandstein   21:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thank You for looking into this deletion. You can google article after article. Here is the delete after being on wikipedia for 3 years of Brett Salisbury. Again, like Kevin Craft, they BOTH started at Division I schools. Brett at Oregon and Kevin at UCLA. The USA Today shows the scores that Salisbury played in with a google search. Craft is on wikipedia and Salisbury is deleted? It's a double standard. Salisbury is far more credible. http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Brett_Salisbury_(deleted_23_Aug_2008_at_19:54) Please google Brett Salisbury Model, Brett Salisbury Quarterback, Brett Salisbury Author Transform Diet. Kevin Craft is a division I quarterback and nothing else. Please don't let this hypocracy happen. Thank you Mr. Sandstein. 24.253.27.16 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC) January 7, 2010, Jill P Here again is the deleted article, I apologize I didn't put the brackets: [] Thank You. 24.253.27.16 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC) July 7, 2010


 * I think I have discussed this previously. Please see somewhere in User talk:Sandstein/Archives.  Sandstein   22:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read through the archives that you did write. They are obsolete. 1. The claim was made that Brett Salisbury was not an author. We know this to be un true. His book is available anywhere from Barnes and Noble to Amazon. His book ranks 6th in sales as of January 2010 in the United States [] 2. Brett Salisbury is a ex Divison I Starting Quarterback THE SAME AS KEVIN CRAFT WHO IS ON WIKIPEDIA, THIS WOULD MAKE SALISBURY A DIVISION I QUARTERBACK ON WIKIPEDIA, THERE IS NO FURTHER REASON TO GO ON WITH THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE: [] 3. Brett Salisbury is a highly respected model, qualifying him for male models in from america, This article by radio talk show host joyce graff proves the point. She is amongst 18 others verifying this author, model and ex divison i football player, Please read this and listen to radio interview if you need to: [] 4. Kevin Craft remains on wikipedia as simply a division I ex quarterback? Please read his wikipedia article. [] 5. Please explain to me the difference between Kevin Craft and Brett Salisbury? How does Craft qualify to be on wikipedia and Salisbury not? The archive material is outdated and holds no substance. Brett Salisbury is an author, a model (you see the pic of GQ) as well as an ex divison I Quarterback. Please explain the difference, Salisbury in fact started against UCLA at the Rosebowl and is pictured on www.TransformDiet.com in the author tab. This cannot be denied. Please help resolve this as Salisbury by being a Division I Quarterback alone qualifies him to be on wikipedia the same as Kevin Craft. The only difference is Salisbury is a much bigger celebrity. I need your input and for you to take a serious look at this. Thank You again Mr. Sandstein. I know you are fair and balanced and just. Please look and view. This is a verifiable error that can be corrected with you as it takes 10 minutes to verify, Again Thank You for your time. 24.253.27.16 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Sandstein, I have not seen you answer the last question concerning Salisbury. Can you please as you have answered others soon after. Thank you. 24.253.27.16 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't argue with me. I neither know nor care about this guy, I just closed the community deletion discussion. If you want to restore the article about him, first write a userspace draft that clearly meets the requirements of WP:BIO and then seek community consensus for its inclusion at WP:DRV.  Sandstein   12:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not arguing with you Mr. Sandstein. You don't need to "care" about "this guy." Wikipedia is not about you knowing "the guy" but more if the guy is credible for wikipedia as he is. Your answer is really pathetic. I have lost all respect for you and your credibility with such an answer is completely lost. I will be sure to let the board know just how you handle things and I can see from 11 others you truly have issues with power. Remember the Karma rule mr. sandstien. What goes around comes around. You WILL lose your rights as a wikipedia contributor, I promise you that. 24.253.27.16 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter Burien
Please reinstate his bio page, Please no BS. Vacation....You must work for the government —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcenel (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. See Articles for deletion/Walter J. Burien Jr. and WP:WWMAD.  Sandstein   04:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

RfA
I've replied to your oppose !vote. Connormah (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi
User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi Sir,I have since managed to include the already listed citations in my article and also established the needful links in accordance with my limited understanding of wiki -procedures.Can I now expect some response from your end;the long wait has already begun to kill whatever interest I have still left in this particular exercise.My appeal is pending with you for nearly two months.I am approaching you because whether to restore or not to restore my article this decision is yours and yours alone.So far,I have not noticed any editor initiating the required consensus process.Thanks. Regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to restore this article to main space, it is up to you to initiate a WP:DRV discussion. Nobody else will do it for you. As far as I am concerned, the problems identified in Articles for deletion/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi have not been convincingly addressed.  Sandstein   12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir,Thanks.You have responded but negatively and discouragingly.It is not the question of my wanting,certainly all articles that are posted are basically intended for being on the main space.You have noticed my measured efforts,the article is not what it was at its early presentation.Your remark that the problems identified at Afd have not been convncingly addressed I regret to state has pained me beyond words.Any further effort on my part will unnecessarily make me enter the unwanted research-range.I have sought the deletion review and invited the needful discussion howelse to proceed do tell me.Frustrated I am certainly because of my basic incompetence and also my inability to understand your level of requirement.In the meanwhile I have contacted the editors who had first seen and evaluated my efforts,one of whom have responded and I have since worked on his suggestion.Thanks.Best regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Sir, I have just now learnt that only 1% of the articles listed for deletion - review actually reach the discussion stage and 90% are decided at the level of the administrator who had decided the delete.If so,the fate of this article depends upon your verdict.Therefore,kindly let me know where I have lacked so that I am able to re-work on the problems and convince you.Please be specific.You are kindly aware that otherwise the standards and the criteria pertaining to personal conviction widely vary from one person to the other,they have never been uniform.Even though I have sensed the tone of finality in your closing remark and now I am not that very confident about my article reaching the main space even then I do not mind giving it a re-try whereafter I can take a long soothing rest feeling assured that I had afterall tried valiantly for a right cause.Please do respond.Thanks. Best regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Sir,I am sorry to have given vent to my feelings but then to whom else can I describe my pain.Zia fatehabadi was not a celebrity,he was not a professional writer,he does not seem to have enjoyed any kind of patronage.I just happened to come across his name in the list of Urdu language poets and decided to draft a suitable write-up for which task I had no prior experience.I contacted people who knew him,they provided his books and information about him.I began relishing this work.I do realise that my first write-up was awful,I ought to have consulted someone.The editors who firstly read that write-up actually made me work hard and learn the required technic through hit and trial method.I think by now I know a fair bit.The present version of the article is very close to the prescribed standards.I am reproducing herewith for your ready reference my note on my talk page:- (Note for kind attention of the Administrator and editors:

I am to request you to kindly re-examine my redone article – Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi, also in the light of the citations now online.

I have in my possession certain books and articles written by the subject and on the subject, they are in Urdu. It is not possible for me to translate all of them to be placed before you. You have already cautioned me that I am not to conduct an original research but to stay neutral and simply establish his notability based on incontestable reliable sources. This I have done faithfully.

As is evident from the little material before me the subject had gained an eminent position in the Urdu literary circles and field, and also in his official life. His contribution is distinct. But, as has now become known the subject was by nature a reserved and publicity – shy person, he was not in the habit of projecting his own image and works, preferring to remain aloof, therefore, did not mix freely and mostly avoided attending poetry symposia etc. Yet, he was asked to be Chief guest and preside over many a seminar. Thus, the first Presidential address contained in his book, Masnad-e-sadaarat se, was delivered on 27-01-1952 at Presidency College, Chennai, and the last i.e. 25th, on 19-06-1982 in Sapru Hall, Allahabad as Chief guest of Anjuman Ahal-e-adab. I have also been told that in his official capacity he had remained on the Board of Directors of some commercial banks as a nominee of the Reserve Bank of India and had also gone abroad as member of Government delegation. In fact to the Sunday Statesman (17-08-1986) he had talked about his strict service condition which did not give him liberty to publish his own works freely. It is only after his retirement from service of 35 years that a great bulk of his writings came to light. He really rued the time he had lost.

As is reported on P.25 of Aajkal Feb.1985, we learn that on 06.03.1976 Zia Fatehabadi was conferred the title of Siraaj-e-Sukhan by Adaaraa, Bazm-e-adab, Kamti,Maharashtra. 0n the same page a notice of the publication of Muzaameen-e-Zia (essays of Zia) and Zia Fatehabadi ke khatoot (letters of Zia Fatehabadi) has also been taken but so far I have not been able to lay my hands on these two books and therefore do not know when they were published or by whom though I have included them in the main list.

Zia Fatehabadi's first poem was published in " Chaman " Amritsar in the year 1929 heralding his appearance on the Urdu literary stage. His first essay was published in Adabi Duniyaa, Lahore,Drama number of 1935 and his first short story " Andhere " in Asia Weekly, Agra in 1946. During 1935 and 1936 his translation in Urdu of " The trial and death of Socrates " was published serialised in Monthly Asia, Meerut and Monthly Kanwal, Agra. Aajkal reports that he had also been a member of the Managing Committee of the Delhi branch of Anjuman-e-Taraqi Urdu.

The names of the books written by his eldest son find a place in the main article. Sushil Kumar Soni is a poet, his books are - 1)Serving the columns, published by The Writers Workshop, 162/92, Lake Gardens,Kolkata in 1996 and Perceptions, published by Raj Prints, Naraina, New Delhi in 2009.

The news of his death disseminated by our main National news agency, United News of India, on 19.08.1986 was carried by all national dailies on 20.08.1986.)
 * I am not trying to force a decision but to emphasise that a celebrity status is not a perenial noteworthyness.If you knew Urdu and happened to read Zia Fatehabadi's poem you would know the value and extent of his contribution to Urdu Literature.Already we know of three persons who had chosen to do doctoral research on his life and works.Mr.Radiofan has observed that the article is long,that it is over-referenced and there is mention of other persons. Sir,I have collected and given in my article that much basic information which can assist beginning of a research and its development which is Wiki's aim in respect of all noteworthy persons;is'nt it?. Thanks. Best regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop bothering me. As I already told you, I am not in a position to assess the notability of this man, notably not on the basis of your poorly written hagiography, User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi. Please find somebody else, who can read Urdu, to assist you. I will not react to your future messages. If you believe you have addressed the original AfD's concerns, you are free to initiate a WP:DRV discussion.

RFC closure
First, thank you. But second, I have to question your actual findings. You wrote that to determine which description should go first that it "would require a consensus about how reliable sources generally and primarily refer to such localities, and that's exactly the consensus we don't have here." Not one person disputed that reliable sources generally and primarily refer to such localities as "Israeli settlements". I dont know if you looked at the talk page of the RFC as well, but the argument given to support placing "town" or "village" ahead of "Israeli settlement" is that it was a "neutral" term, not that it was the term used in the sources. It is not even in dispute that reliable sources primarily use "Israeli settlement" so I cannot understand how you can say that there is "non consensus" on that point.  nableezy  - 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "it is not even in dispute that reliable sources primarily use 'Israeli settlement'", but you are right that the discussion did not center on this specific question; the disagreement is probably better described as being about whether one should follow what some people say is the terminology of international (reliable) sources, or of what others say is the terminology of Israeli (reliable) sources. At any rate, at the end, there is still no consensus for any general solution.  Sandstein   16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So what exactly should I do now? Should I demonstrate on each talk page that the sources overwhelmingly use one phrase instead of the other, perhaps opening an RFC for each? Or should I just allow the language of an extreme minority to be used ahead of standard terminology in a supposed encyclopedia article?  nableezy  - 16:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to answer loaded questions, but as far as I see it, as long as there is no consensus on the issue in general, the only way to proceed is to find consensus in individual cases. Frankly, I don't see how it is so very important whether one uses "city and settlement" or "settlement and city", as long as (and most seem to agree about this) both terms are normally used.  Sandstein   18:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One last question, hopefully not as loaded. Your closing statement says "editors remain therefore required to examine how relevant sources refer to each individual locality." If it were somehow demonstrated that 1 of these terms was the primary description in the relevant sources, would that be determinative in deciding what term Wikipedia should use? And would a head count in an RFC for that particular locality that resembles this one result in "no consensus" regardless of the usage in the sources?  nableezy  - 20:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather not express an opinion about this hypothetical situation, because I suspect editors will disagree about which sources are relevant, and another admin may approach any future RfC (which may involve a specific locality and specific sources, unlike the one I closed) very differently.  Sandstein   20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and in an unrelated note, I request that you either spend the time filling out your project at WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/IP/Users or delete it. You currently have a page dedicated solely to documenting my supposed faults. At the very least I ask that noindex be used.  nableezy  - 16:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've blanked that content until others are interested in participating in the project; it's currently unfortunately rather inactive.  Sandstein   18:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARPIA-related request
Hi Sandstein! It has been brought to my attention by more than one editor that the user Preciseaccuracy has been making some problematic edits on Art student scam and its talk page, such as this one. I am an involved editor (although I've not edited this particular article IIRC) and in any case do not wish to get into a dispute I'm not part of. Therefore, I am pestering you about it ;) it would be much appreciated if you could notify the editor in question of WP:ARBPIA (and any other editors who haven't been notified already). Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick heads up. I recently made a change that might make Preciseaccuracy a little happier. His overall point of the "urban myth" thing was valid to some extent. Assuming he is not a sock, there is some learning curve that we have to deal with, Ynhockey. He needs to be aware of the AE stuff regarding 9/11 and maybe I-P (seems like the same editors but even broadly construed may be a stretch).Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am worried about this user's conduct: her battleground behavior (two different posts at AN/I about the same matter: [), complete inability to assume good faith ), canvasing: ; repeatedly claiming at least on two different venues and in two different posts that the user is lying: ("The fact is that Huey45 has been repeatedly lying with the purpose of mutilating the content of this article"; "He even continued to lie in the above thread";"What's worse, other users are claiming that Huey45 didn't lie, when it is clear to someone with only moderate familiarity with the previous and/or current sources that he is deliberately lying" even after she was asked to stop). It is  SPA. So far the user has made 121 edits,and each and every one of them concerning the article in question. I am not arguing that the user should be topic-banned right away, but IMO the user should be at least notified. It will help her to learn, and to fix the behavior. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor feels he is being ganged up on, and has tended to respond defensively. Problems are that he does not seem to be able to present his arguments concisely, also the editors opposing him have been dismissive at times. But a look at the history of that article does reveal that it had been steered away from the Israeli student/spy event into a general article about fake/overpriced artworks around the world. Maybe two articles would be the solution because Chinese tourist traps have little to do with the allegations in the Israeli case. RomaC  TALK 01:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is more than should be on dude's talk page probably. If you are interested, there is an ANI you can address and a notification could be useful if you get to it, Sandstein. I'll make a mention on RomaC's bit on the article's talk page since that has crossed my mind as well. That should be enough for here unless we are missing anything.Cptnono (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite see how all of this is in the area of conflict of WP:ARBPIA. It involves Israelis, yes, but not Arabs or Palestinians. This means that this is a "normal" case of personal attacks, etc., of which I cannot easily determine whether they are blockable at this stage. If the attacks persist after the warning on their talk page, WP:WQA or WP:ANI would be the proper forum to raise any continued concerns.  Sandstein  05:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an issue with the 9/11 terror attacks and alleged Israeli connection to these that this editor came with recently. As for his learning curve, he's very well familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and etc. --Gilisa (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 9/11 is a different arbitration case. Can you give me a diff of problematic editing in that area?  Sandstein   15:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, nothing actionable really, but considering the problems he had on the "Israeli art student scam" I think it would be better if someone will notify him. Here and in regard to the discussed article, he asked whether he could enter this source into the article as reliable. --Gilisa (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see nothing here that warrants an arbitration warning.  Sandstein   20:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He is seeking inclusion of material that sometimes discusses Israel knowing about 9/11 before it happened. It should be in the diffs although it might be a pain to find with so much back and forth. It isn't about a "warning" or anything but there is some beurocratic mess and he needs to be aware of what is going on. In the perfect world he will never see AE anyways. I have given him a heads up even though it isn't binding in anyway.(User talk:Preciseaccuracy) I believe I worded it in a way that does not come across overly BITEY.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEAT question
I have concerns that an editor has repeatedly violated WP:MEAT by attempting to recruit editors to join him in editing certain pages with a certain POV. However, to make this case would require linking to off-site publications that contain the editor's real name which would violate WP:OUTING. What should I do in this case?  nableezy  - 07:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've too little experience with such issues to give sound advice. You should ask this question on a relevant noticeboard.  Sandstein   12:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list
Following a motion at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 20 of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 00:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

I sent you email
Hi Sandstein, I sent you an email about email I got from Bern's library. It contains a private phone number, so I decided it is better to send it to you via email rather than to post it here. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not currently interested in writing about the geology of Bern. Should I ever decide to, I'd not be able to cite a conversation with that professor anyway. I'd need to get a book from the library and cite that. Regards,  Sandstein   15:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ARBPIA notification
Hello Sandstein, could you please notify of the ARBPIA case? In the last week the user has reverted multiple users on two different articles attempting to remove a quote from Moshe Dayan. The reverts are, , on Golan Heights, and , , , , ,  on Syria. In fact, every edit the user has made since 09:54, 13 July 2010 has been to remove this quote from these two articles. Thank you,  nableezy  - 07:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And another revert on Syria. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the account has now been blocked for editwarring about this, a warning is in order. You can, however, also make it yourself; the WP:ARBPIA arbitration case does not impose any restrictions about who has to issue the required warning.  Sandstein   15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scruples prevent me from doing such things, though if you rather I bother another admin with such requests I will oblige. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein, you forgot to log your notification of Pantherskin at WP:ARBPIA. I hope you don't mind that I logged it for you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

List of debaters temp un-delete request ?
Back in November 2008 you deleted List of debaters following Articles for deletion/List of debaters, is it possiable that you could temporarily restore a copy and the history to User:Codf1977/List of debaters (for say 48 hrs) ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this ok ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see your question. For what purpose do you want this content?  Sandstein   13:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats ok - thourght that might have been the case - I have been doing some work on Debate related articles and AfD and a number have refereed to this would like to see what it contained before it was deleted. Codf1977 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not restoring this because it's not WP:BLP-compliant, but the content was: "This is a list of university debaters from official international competitions, in any debating style. Individuals who have not been in a winning team, won top individual speaker, or been public speaking champion at an official international championship event (e.g. World Universities Debating Championship, European Universities Debating Championship, North American Debating Championship, Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships) are not included on the list. World champions are indicated in bold font so as to stand out. Information on each debater includes country of origin or citizenship, school(s) represented, and accolades in major debating and public speaking competition." and then a very long unsourced list of people in the following style: "<Name>, Australia, University of Sydney, 2005 Australasian debating champion and top speaker".  Sandstein   14:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * that's fine - one more question were there any links to any articles (not interested in red-links that have never existed) ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To the various universities, and to World Universities Debating Championship, European Universities Debating Championship, North American Debating Championship, Asian Universities Debating Championship, North American Public Speaking Championship.  Sandstein   14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry should have made the question clearer; was more concerned with individuals than universities or "championships". That has sorted that out anyway. Thanks for your time and help in this. Codf1977 (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

About time
re. Still though, better late than never, so thank you. Unfortunately as you note, the problem is a long standing one and it is all essentially Varsovian vs. the world in terms of the the slow moving edit warring. I'm not sure if there is a single editor he has NOT reverted since he appeared on that page. Being pessimistic, it's most likely that he will just "take" his one revert per week to do as much as he can on that particular article and then go cause the same kind of trouble elsewhere for a day or two then return in the following week (which is precisely what he has done every-time his actions at LVP have been scrutinized). Still, it's better than nothing.radek (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment regarding the above message on your talk page Radeksz. Varsovian (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

London victory parade restrictions
Could I ask you to please clarify the restrictions on this article. I read the text "You may not make more than one revert of this article within one week (i.e., any period of 168 hours). A revert is any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." as meaning that only one revert of the article per week is permitted; I personally would favour that restriction. However, on second reading I see that it could be interpreted as meaning that an editor can revert as many sentences/parts of the article as they wish, provided that they do not revert the same sentence/part more than once each week. That second reading would mean that editors can continue to argue about the article by arguing about each individual sentence, and that is something to be avoided! If you have time, could you perhaps clarify what you meant with the restriction? Thank you in advance. Varsovian (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, a revert counts as a revert irrespective of whether it contains content that has been the subject of a previous revert.  Sandstein   13:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm also a bit unclear on this - what is the distinction between an edit and a revert? I understand 'revert' to mean the use of the 'undo' button or editing that has the same effect, is that correct? Whereas an edit is a straightforward change of text that has not just been added, correct? -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The meaning of "revert" is explained in the sanction and at WP:3RR.  Sandstein   13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not completely clear about this so I've self-reverted my last edit. If, de facto, this rule means we can make a maximum of 1 'edit' per week, I think it would be most useful if the guidance clarified that for everyone. Thanks for helping on the article, -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * as per WP:3RR "Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")" does not count as a revert for a xRR rule. Codf1977 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you might also like to self-revert the second edit you made to the article today too, this one. I personally would prefer not to see limitation to just one edit per week, one revert yes but one edit no. I am reminded of what happened when EEML was in its prime: an editor makes an edit (perhaps adding something), an EEMLer immediately reverts it, the first editor revert that and then a tag-teamer comes in to undo that revert (I'd like to make it clear that I am not accusing any editor of engaging in such behaviour or any other misconduct). Using the talk page is an excellent idea but how do well handle an editor refusing to discuss the problems with the text he proposes and instead focusing purely on the person of the other editor? Varsovian (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that Chumchum7 was or is part of the EEML? No? Then please drop the obnoxious insinuations and the "hint hint" personal attacks. Let me also point out that at least one administrator (actually a few more too) have threatened to sanction people for "throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"" - which is exactly what you are doing, your obviously bad faithed "I am not accusing any editor..." excuses not withstanding. Whatever problems there were with EEML that in no way legitimizes your actions at the London Victory Parade article (or a few others for that matter).radek (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Any questions about the meaning of 'revert' could be raised at WT:AN3. The word 'revert' is defined in WP:3RR. I don't think Chumchum7's self-revert (the one noted above) was needed to stay within the 1RR/week restriction. Ask on my Talk if this point isn't clear. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston, thanks very much for this guidance; and Sandstein thanks again as well.-Chumchum7 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Shuki AE
Could you possibly elaborate on your grounds for your comment? Thanx Misarxist (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think my comment needs elaboration.  Sandstein   13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean can you give reasons (another admin has asked the same thing). You're not being asked to adjudicate on a content dispute and while Shuki's actions seem like straight-forward disruption what are you objecting to in Nableezey's behaviour? Misarxist (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Like Stifle, I prefer that discussion about ongoing AE threads remains focused on the AE page.  Sandstein   17:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

AE
Hi Sandstein. Where can I make an appeal? Could you please direct me by providing a link? Tuscumbia ( talk ) 14:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The appeals procedure is explained at ARBAA2.  Sandstein   14:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sand, just to make sure. I appeal on the same page Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement using Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal? Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 15:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is one of the possible avenues for appeal.  Sandstein   15:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sand, please see the appeal:
 * Also, do I need to notify anyone else? Other editors, administrators? Please let me know. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 16:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No further notification is required.  Sandstein   16:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sand. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 17:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic Deletion
I am editting "Races in the Elenium" and I have the neccessary data, but not the expertise at editting pages. Please bear with me and I will return to update daily.

How do I suggest it is not deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyFoolMrT (talk • contribs) 11:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, the problem is that the topic as such is not suited for this encyclopedia, because it is not the subject of reliable third party sources. See WP:N. No amount of editing can help this. This amount of plot detail is better suited to another website than Wikipedia.  Sandstein   21:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban
You might be surprised to hear it, but honestly, I think your topic banning of me is not too unfair a judgment. I've been burned out over the past few months with everything and so I'm now thinking that if I'm prevented from engaging in these acrimonious debates, I will be doing myself more good than harm. My statement itself was poorly phrased but it was meant to show a trend, rather than besmirch the name of an entire people. I'm not going to appeal the topic ban (I view it as a mixed blessing actually), but would it be too presumptuous of me to ask that it be commuted to, say, two months rather than three? Best,--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, ask me again after two months.  Sandstein   17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ...see what I telling you about being burned out? I'll keep your advice on hand. And don't worry, I'll still keep in touch :) Have fun sorting through the rest of the ArbCom complaints or fixing other peoples' problems. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Recently, a bot archived a number of Arbitration Enforcement threads which had not yet been reviewed by any administrators. I just re-listed one of them, which was actually re-listed by an editor named Ionisdaz. Since you initially presided over that case and stated that you would take a look at it once the editor against whom the complaint is filed fully recovered his account (which he has now done), do you think you can re-assess the validity of the complaint (as well as the new claims that have since been introduced by Ionisdaz)? I have preserved the filing in its original form and have not made any emendations to it. Thanks. Regards,--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, no: your topic-ban also covers this dispute. If you continue to pursue this request, I'll have to block you.  Sandstein   20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? In that case, am I thus entirely barred from filing complaints on Arbitration Enforcement regarding Armenia/Azerbaijan 2 for the length of my ban? This is news to me.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the topic ban covers "all edits or pages related to the topic".  Sandstein   21:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I relisted it. Ionidasz (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One more request for slight clarification: am I allowed to revert edits which are obvious cases of vandalism? Because I just did so on the Malatya article, after waiting for a couple of days in vain for someone else to take action. I figured I'd inform you about it before someone goes off reporting me for it. In case the answer is in the negative, I apologize for being too presumptuous about my current editing rights.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In principle, yes, you may revert obvious vandalism ("PENIS!!!" or the like). But this edit is not obvious vandalism, because there may be valid reasons to remove this content (even if I can't see any right now). If in doubt, don't revert, because if an admin disagrees with your assessment about whether something is obvious vandalism you may be blocked. You may report the case to a vandalism noticeboard instead.  Sandstein   05:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

re submitted
per your request though i had to copy-paste every bracket in there (and here, tildas too). Also, let me know if I need to restore your comment (re submitting) radek (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As usual, I wait for a statement by the other party before evaluating the request.  Sandstein   20:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels
This user has come back with a more explicit response here. As MuZemike is offline for a week, could you take a look and see if you're seeing any behavioral linkage I'm missing? Due to the nature of the sockmaster, I'd like to be cautious. Kuru  (talk)  20:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Kuru   (talk)  15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI
I have filed the SPI as mentioned at the Matthead AE request. I agree with FPatS that Matthead should be conditionally unblocked so that he can say things in his own defense. Of course his edits should be limited to the SPI report.radek (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing Deleted Page
Hi there. I'd like to edit the Arrica Rose page that was deleted. I have what I think is relevant information as in her music featured on NBC's Lipstick Jungle in Paste Magazine May 2008 and Esquire Magazine (Best Cover List), iTunes biography, All Music Guide credits as well as several other articles. She is also the founder of a notable non-profit called I HEART Inc that produces charitable events. Arrica and her band shared the stage with performers like Fran Drescher, Jackson Browne, Whispertown2000, and Local Natives at various I HEART events. Although I'm not quite sure exactly how to go about editing the page (attempting to research that!) now that it's been deleted, wanted to present the information to see if you could steer me in the right direction. Thanks so much!Jtbelle (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, to overturn the "delete" decision you'd need to demonstrate the subject's notability per WP:BAND, that is, provide references to coverage (text, TV reports...) about Arrica Rose by reliable third party sources (newspapers etc.) that is detailed enough to be the basis of a neutral article. The links you provide above do not lead to such coverage; in particular, "Lipstick Jungle (TV series)" appears to be a comedy drama and thus not the sort of content that can be the basis of an article. Do you have references to coverage that fits the bill of WP:BAND?  Sandstein   06:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Not sure how else to contact you. Hope you don't mind me posting here. Thank you for reviewing my unblock request. I appreciate your taking the time to examine the issue in order to make what I (needless to say) think was a fair judgment.

As I already expressed on the Talk page prior to the 7 day block, it's proven futile for me to try to maintain the agreed version (pending revision through further discussion and consensus), as my efforts to undo the reverts of people who refuse to make any kind of effort to discuss their objections on Talk continually (well, twice, prior to this 7 day thing, which doesn't count on this point) result in me getting blocked. Thus, as I said on Talk, I'm going to stick with helping Ling.Nut get his rewrite ready. I hope admins will continue to monitor the Six Day War article and protect it so that versions which have had gone through extensive discussion and consensus-forming processes are not simply reverted by these guys who refuse to discuss their objections/suggestions, etc. If you can do anything to help out the majority of editors who are reasonably working together to improve the article in this regard, I would appreciate it. And it's probably fair for me to speak for that majority in that regard. I trust my decision to let other editors whom I discuss the wording with actually implement the agreed version(s) will demonstrate my good faith to admins responsible for twice blocking me. I just want to see this article improved, including by keeping it in compliance with WP:NPOV. Thanks again. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Trudy Späth-Schweizer
Hello! Your submission of Trudy Späth-Schweizer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are two more sources to confirm your hook ; .Both have only one sentence mention about her, but it could be added for the hook I guess. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, adding these sources would be a plus, not so much to re-verify the hook, but so that the article has more than a single source. Nsk92 (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one more . They call her "Gertrud Späth‐Schweizer", but I believe it is her.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Actually, the first link is a copy of a Wikipedia article, but the third is useful for the official name ("Gertrud").  Sandstein   17:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi Sandstein, I'd like to ask you a question please. I need to upload somebody's else image to be used in the article. The image is released with a free license, but the site is a commercial site, they sell those items. Will this be OK to use the image and link it to the commercial site in the source field? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, as a form of attribution to that company as the copyright holder... I think we can use such external links in the image description.  Sandstein   15:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)