User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/October

Have a look please
Hello. Could you please look here. I really don't understand what to do in such case. Should I complain somewhere? --Quantum666 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a very long discussion. What, in a few sentences, is the problem?  Sandstein   19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all I want to say who is User:Quantum666 and what he want here. Not far time ago he was participating in Russian chapter of wikipedia. Here You can find a list of blockes of this user. Some of them are Edit warring, Sock puppetry and what he is doning now - Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. In the Russian chapter he was doing the same as here, but when he was blocked for infinity (there was really big case) he relocated his activity to the English chapter of wikipedia. So what he is doing? He have not created any article in English and only make very disruptive edits in the Armenian-related articles. For example he is deleting images, , filling wrong information (there are only some thousands) or just this edit when he filling as a source Tomas de Vaal who in Russian wikipedia is unreliable source, so he has decided to try his luck with it here. Such edits or such edits where he is spoiling article with request of the source everywhere (while in Azerbaijan-related articles he delete such requests ) and such edits where he is changing words that Armenian liberated Armenian village to Armenian captured Armenian village is absurd. More than that. For the short time of participating in the project he has got a lot of conflicts with other users: , , , , , , , . So I'm not sure if I should start here discussion about his new conflict with me. He is full of Anti-Armenianism and 90% of his contributions are anti-Armenian. After the block in ruwiki he replaced his activity to here. He tries to discredit the Armenians, wherever possible. It is not normal in my POV. So I'll ask directly do we need a user who was blocked for his activity in other chapter of wikipedia for the infinity period and continues his activity in other chapter? Thanks for the answer.  --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sanctions in other Wikipedias do not apply to this one. By your above comments, you are casting aspersions of serious misconduct on Quantum666, without adequate evidence (the diffs you cite seem to reflect mere content disagreements) and in the wrong forum. You do so despite my explicit warning at WP:ANI not to do this, and are therefore in violation of Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight. Consequently you are blocked for 48 hours; if you continue to approach disputes in this manner you may be made subject to arbitral sanctions.  Sandstein   06:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Briefly the problem is that Lionking tries to link two problems in the article: presence of Armenian name and choosing the sources to show the population of the region. Lionking agrees that the Armenian name shouldn't be there but continues to revert forcing me to "make compromise" about the second problem. User:Golbez has already told him that such linking is unacceptable a few times but Kevorkmail doesn't hear him too.

P.S. Does the previous comment of Lionking violates WP:PERSONAL. If so I would like to make a request about this. Where should I appeal? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The conduct of Ліонкінг should be addressed with the block imposed above. I cannot help you resolve the content issue; for this see WP:DR. But I can address conduct problems. Both of you have been edit-warring for a month or so on . This is unacceptable and must stop now. I will block either of you who continues to revert the other on that article. I note that Ліонкінг has been previously sanctioned for edit-warring in this topic area and been given a four month revert restriction. It does not appear to have helped. Accordingly I recommend that you request arbitration enforcement against Ліонкінг to prevent him from continuing to edit-war in this topic area.   Sandstein   06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick help please
A user with no edit history other than this (sock?) keeps erasing completely a big overhaul I made to the article Polish–Ukrainian War, wiping out an hour of work. Here is what he did. Prior to me coming in there was a large section with almost no refs. I expanded - here is what I did. Now I see that User:Loosmark has joined him. Help would be appreciated!Faustian (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that "sock" is correct, as far as I can see you have tried to insert the comical claim that the Ukrainian morale was high while the Poles wanted to go home. Classic Faustian, really. Dr. Loosmark  15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I added the detailed reference about thyat statement. It comes from a claim by people within the Polish government. So you erase all the info about the diplomatic maneuvers, Romania joining Poland, etc? Every statement I added, that you blanked, came from a reliable source, books published by universities. If you have a problem, discuss the specific points on the discussion page rather than blank everything.Faustian (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's your old tactic to make changes to the article and add statements to sneak your Ukrainian propaganda. You are claiming that patriotic Ukrainians were fighting with high morale, while the Poles wanted to go home because they did not want to fight Ruthenians in Ruthenia. What a joke. Lwow was the most important Polish city and every Pole would fight for it, in fact it was unthinkable for it not be a part of Poland. As for the demographics go check Austro-Hungarian census before spreading more nonsense. Dr. Loosmark  15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not discuss content disagreements here. You are all edit-warring at and must stop this. I have issued the appropriate warnings to . Should the warnings not help, please use WP:AN3. You may also consider using WP:SPI as the editing pattern is indeed suspicious. Loosmark seems to have violated his topic ban; this will be dealt with separately.   Sandstein   15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Faustian (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request
Remembering what you kindly told me here, I'm drawing your attention to this question. ---Sluzzelin talk  16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've attempted a quick reply.  Sandstein   18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Once again, you've provided a well-rounded summary which doesn't only help convey some of Switzerland's identity to the Ussland, but is edifying to citizens in permanent identity crisis as well! ---Sluzzelin talk  18:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that content quality will suffer greatly?
''I'm also not sure that content quality will suffer greatly. I expect the basic science of climate change to be pretty much covered by now.'' - so, that's "thanks for all the hard work" (well, except of course you *aren't* offering any thanks at all) ", but we don't need you any more, so we'll junk you now". What a wonderful message William M. Connolley (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it encouraging that, despite their differences, screaming matches and bitter feuds, most people sanctioned for disruption by the Arbitration Committee at least agree with one core policy: "The others are the problem, not I!"  Sandstein   21:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So, you've totally ignored my point. That would be because you have no good answer? As to yours: the supposedly exemplary arbcomm are clearly badly at fault, but fit your description to a tee. You should start at the top and address them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Q.E.D.  Sandstein   21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of blame to go around, I suspect no one is entirely blameless in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there might be a few among the millions of Wikipedians who might be excused from blame, perhaps because some do not even know what climate change is... But with respect to the people whose conduct is being discussed, yes. Although that seems to be a feature of most arbitration cases.  Sandstein   21:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well ya, I didn't mean every single wiki[p|m]edian :) Just everyone mentioned in some way (even in passing) in the case plus all the arbs and their clerks. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously, a case whose duration is beginning to be measured in units of geological time, and which has probably generated more text than some smallish civilizations did during their whole existence, is not an exemplary case of efficient dispute resolution.  Sandstein   22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the obscene length. In William's defense, he did write a very substantial fraction of the climate change articles on Wikipedia. Sure, he may not be the most subtle of editors, but my concerns about the blocking of those who have built the subject and know it still stand; for their flaws, they are more valuable to the project that the multitudes who flock to it with strong opinions and no particular knowledge base. Want to take the bet [of course replacing "every arbcomm member" with you]? Awickert (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a betting person. Without wanting to comment about anyone in particular, in my opinion a competent but disruptive editor is always a net detriment to the project. If editors cannot collaborate with others productively, they should leave, no matter what the merits of their contributions are.  Sandstein   09:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad - you're missing out on an excellent opportunity to spread embarrassing photos on the off-chance that I become famous. Awickert (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody can collaborate with several of the denialist editors, not the mention the IPs and socks. They are not interested in collaboration. William manages to collaborate fine with many other editors, both in and outside the climate change articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have successfully collaborated with William on several occasions. On the topic of those with whom William does not get along, I would get really sick of being told that my former career was a bunch of lies by editors who don't know the first thing about it, and my brusqueness in response to that might unfortunately carry over to other interactions. Awickert (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to your experience, but to me the recent history of this talk page alone is an indication that the approach now pursued by the Committee is sensible.   Sandstein   10:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose I would have kind words to say if I were about to be topic-banned from an area I helped build from the ground up. Awickert (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Note to others: I withdrew my comments above, due to Sandstein failing to even to attempt to answer my questions, and the puerile and un-self-conscious (yes, I know, don't bother) nature of his second reply. Sandstein has restored my comments without any attempt to indicate that I removed them, which is impolite of him. Note to Sandstein: please don't post to my talk page again until you're prepared to answer these questions, either here or there will be fine William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See here Count Iblis (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi Sandstein, it is a question about this image. I'd like to use for the article. As you see it is a copyrighted book's cover, but the portrait itself should not be copyrighted because it looks like it was made during her life time. If I am to take the image, and in a photo shop remove everything but the portrait itself, would it be OK to upload it with public domain? Of course I do not know who is the painter and what year this portrait was made. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, probably yes, but as long as you don't know who made the title image, and when, you can't really be sure that it's PD. But you may be able to find PD images of this woman in the Google book preview at http://books.google.ch/books?id=ory5H2l7bxMC. There is one said to be of her at p. 27.  Sandstein   05:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba's debates
I'm wondering whether Vecrumba's topic ban covers debating EE-related POV and battleground disputes, like he is doing here? Offliner (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not currently active in AE, please ask another admin or use WP:AE. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for resolving my inquiry on the incident notice board. It's frustrating to deal with a user who's clearly not interested in making positive contributions! --Drm310 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Articles for deletion/Cracking the Quran code
Is there any reason not to Relist to see if we can gain more consensus? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * AfDs are normally only relisted if after seven days there has been insufficient discussion. We've heard many opinions here, it's just that they don't agree.  Sandstein   17:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cracking the Quran code
The was a clear consensus and majority to delete in this case. One "Keep" was from a SPA who hasn't edited since the night he made the comment, another is from someone who gives no rationale and has a history of bad AFD !votes, and a third is the author. The book isn't notable and the article is complete garbage.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 18:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, being the article's author is no disqualification in an AfD, and there were also other, more informed "keep" opinions. I agree that the tendency of the discussion was towards deletion, but not quite enough to constitute consensus, in my opinion.  Sandstein   19:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Side note I have opened an SPI on our SPAsThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a clear agreement from those knowledged in the subject that the article should be deleted. In all, there were only two decent Keep rationales, both of which were refuted by others in the deletion discussions.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cracking the Quran code kept?
I respect your knowledge and integrity (I've seen you around a long time). However I would ask you to reconsider the decision on Articles for deletion/Cracking the Quran code. I think all the delete !votes were sensible, and the few keep !votes were kinda crazy. But more importantly: there is some sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry there, involving vote stacking. See the SPI I initiated at: Sockpuppet_investigations/Curvesall. At least two of the keep votes should be discounted (User:Dallas hero1989 and User:RS101) for reasons explained in the SPI. Whatever you decide, I respect your decision. The world won't come to and end if the article remains :-) --Noleander (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry ... I just noticed the thread above on this same subject. Pretend this is within that thread.  --Noleander (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take a closer look at the AFD later today based on how these SPIs conclude.  Sandstein   06:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * After reconsideration, I maintain my closure. The core argument for deletion was lack of sourcing. It is true that Vejvančický was the only person making a reasoned case for keeping the article. However, he introduced a number of references to sources discussing the book that make a prima facie case for notability. The merits of these sources were not discussed by anybody but Bali ultimate. The other "delete" opinions, which don't address these relevant-looking sources, carry little weight. On the basis of the rather limited discussion concerning these relevant sources, therefore, I can't find a consensus for deletion. You're welcome to renominate the article, thereby allowing for a discussion of the article based on its current sourcing level.  Sandstein   19:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cracking the Quran Code
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cracking the Quran Code. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
Hello. I need advice about using/licensing images. Here is the map from the UN site. What should I do to use it in Wikipedia? Should I modify it or maybe there are special rules about using UN data? --Quantum666 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a copyrighted work. It says at the bottom: "© 1998 EUROPA TECHNOLOGIES LTD." You cannot therefore use it except as described in Non-free content. You should not use it at all unless you are convinced that you fully understand and comply with that policy.  Sandstein   09:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK.Then would it be the violation of copyright if I created my own map, based on the data provided by the copyrighted map? As an example I mean taking any free-license map of the region and drawing there the locations of IDP settlements according to the copyrighted map. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that should not be a problem, at least as far as copyright is concerned. Facts cannot be copyrighted.  Sandstein   10:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Where to inquire about incivility
Could you show me where to report incivility on my talk page? I have had quite enough of this puerile ignorance. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally at WP:WQA. But in this instance, I have blocked the user directly for a week for misusing Wikipedia as a battleground. Be advised, though, that this misconduct does not make it acceptable for you to refer to this editor with words like "dogshit" or "puerile ignorance". If you continue to do so, you may wind up blocked yourself.  Sandstein   07:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You may do so at your leisure. After numerous accusations of racism, vandalism, the 4 attempts to have me removed(without even notifying me) and just plain personal attacks, even I have my limits for dealing with those types of people. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mässmogge
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Troublemakers
If you have time, could you please address this issues here:. It follows on the heels of this: and is just the latest examlple of a longstanding pattern of similar falsification of sources by a user, Jo0doe (talk), who had been blocked for a year and then for 6 months from this wikipedia and who is permanently banned from Russian wiki (see here: ) for similar behavior. I had addressed this issue to Fut.Perf. ☼ but he said he has neither the time nor the energy to sort it out. Before turning to user conduct RfC or WP:AE (which may itself be a lengthy process, when the case seems black-and-white) I was wondering if you could take a look. Thank you.Faustian (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that looks rather complicated, and I can't read Russian, which would seem to be necessary for a dispute of this sort. So I regret to say that like Future Perfect at Sunrise I don't currently feel capable of taking this on.  Sandstein   14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The other guy likes to obfuscate a simple issue by throwing stuff in. I provided the original and translation, one can verify with googletranslate. It's a simple case of falsely claiming what a source says, to build up a POV. It's your time, of course. I guess if you won't get into it I'll have to go through AE, but it seems like such a big waste of time for a black-and-white example of falsification by a twice-banned user. Thanks anyways however.Faustian (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - everyone can verify with googletranslate that it does not suggest "Soviet agents" for "soviet civil servants" sentence (as argued upon ). Nor page 232 in edits cited. Similar effort  explained here  in details - I don't have time/intent to provide similar analysys. I guess why there no time to find  non existed at source text .ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, bury a clearcut case of your falsification with more falsification. BTW you are incorrect - it was "servants" not "civil servants."Faustian (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronsax
...see my comment here ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I made the decision not to go near anything at all regarding Ron Holloway after my last comment on the article talk page. I discontinued editing and comments, and have distanced myself as much as possible from both the talk pages for User:Ronsax and the article about him: Ron Holloway-- as well as Ron Holloway himself. Initially, I considered requesting he be unblocked (as the article means so much to him), but I think he would interpret this as proof that his allegations me were true, not to mention the fact that he still either doesn't understand (or care about, it seems) the guidelines for editing and participating in the Wikipedia community. As for my part, of all the numerous emails I've sent to Ron, it was just this last week that I finally became upset after his complaints about a few spelling errors, but my email to him had no agression, nor foul language. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, staying away from the article sounds good, thanks.  Sandstein   15:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not an admin review, but I have started a discussion at WP:ANI ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Classic lightweight (bicycle)
Hi Sandestein. Thanks for your work on the classic lightweight (bicycle) article.

I'm a bit surprised that this article was deleted when consensus clearly hadn't been reached. I I disagree with Novaseminary's analysis of the sources - unfortunately I was on holiday when the debate was relisted, and improvements to the stub article that needed making - such as adding inline citations - was impossible while I was away. Essentially, I think those who objected to the article did so on the grounds 'I've never heard of it' - an argument that should have been avoided.

How can we reopen the debate and get true consensus?

Parsonscat (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, the person to talk to about this is, who closed the discussion. In general terms, if you can't come to an agreement with him, you can appeal his decision at WP:DRV if you believe he assessed consensus wrongly.  Sandstein   18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Superscissors
This guy looks ok to let loose, but I did find two other accounts belonging to User:Potato3719. If you do release the autoblock for Superscissors, you may want to immediately reblock that IP address for a week or so. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks.  Sandstein   06:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (Conservation status)
Just a thank you for writing a better intro to conservation status. —Pengo 23:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Drork evading sanctions again,
See here. Since you previously extended their block to 6 months, perhaps this is reason for another extension, if not indef.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * is already blocked indefinitely since 20 April 2010.  Sandstein   05:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that. My bad, I was just going off of your last message to their talk.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 09:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Summer truffle
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your assistance in the discussion regarding the recent dispute, and that of the other Admins. I take your advice seriously, and as for my part, I don't intend to have any contact with the other party, or his biography. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Sandstein   10:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Offensive user name, redux
유태인 아웃 user appeared at a race article (I reverted), now in Korean for "Juden Raus". If you could address (again), it would be much appreciated. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef.  Sandstein   15:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick action. I had responded to the post and then did a check just on a hunch. Best! P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hello. Could you please do something to stop these personal attacks:,,,. I asked him to read WP:PERSONAL but it doesn't work. Thanks. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the third diff is potentially a personal attack. I recommend proceeding as per WP:DR, e.g. at WP:WQA.  Sandstein   06:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Darkness2005
Hi Sandstein. You blocked Darkness2005 for a week in 2009. If you take a look at his talk page it seems that in a wide variety of ways he has continued to damage or disrupt many articles. Yesterday he went through a series of UK tv channel articles removing the dimensions of each station's logos so none of them now displays correctly. Is there anything you can do as an administrator to help an editor who is seemingly doing nothing at the moment to attend to the warnings and requests of other editors? Thanks for any advice you might have Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, my block was for 24h then, not for a week. I'm not sure what the point is of his removing the logosize parameter in infoboxes, but this does not mean that logos now don't display "correctly". Who determines what the "correct" display of a logo is? At any rate I recommend that you follow WP:DR and start by asking Darkness2005 himself why he makes these edits, and try to come to an agreement with him. You haven't left any message on his talk page except a template message about edit summaries. With respect to the other problems indicated on his talk page, if you think these continue unabated even after serious attempts to discuss them with Darkness2005, the next step would be a WP:RFC/U. Right now I don't think that an administrator can do much here.  Sandstein   04:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * By "correctly" I meant in proportion to the page, so that the logo does not occupy more than half the page or is not so small it cannot be read; sorry if that wasn't clear. I guess the correct size, like most things, is established by consensus. Thanks for taking the time to explain things and for your advice. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Untitled 2011 AMC television series
Odd that I am saying this being the goober who originally punched it delete but good call. Also a good example of why we should be careful when quoting "pseudo-policy" like WP:HAMMER in AFDs. (see here and here) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Gotthard Base Tunnel
--Nice work, thanks. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the tunnel just completed today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_switzerland_world_s_longest_tunnel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifanator (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we need to be careful: it's complete in the sense of being bored through, but not yet operational, so it may well at the same time be described as "completed" and "under construction".  Sandstein   21:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Single Use account blanking info
User:23Michal is edit-warring by blanking referenced info. Please see here. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave him a warning here: . I am continuing to add info to the article despite the disruption.. So, I am not reverting, although he is.Faustian (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to simply revert now, but he has now reverted 5 times. Faustian (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Information which Faustin is trying to publish in the article is not correct, it is a defamation of the Carmelites, the claim that they removed the dome because "it disrupted Przmysl's Polish skyline" is pure defamation. They are church people not nationalist. Also Poles have not occuppied church, it simply passed to Poland when borders changed. (Same as 300 or 400 Polish churches went to Ukrainians after the war. Nobody is saying that Ukrainians have occupied churches, same should be for Poles). Faustian keep trying to publish that in the article that's why I remove it. Also the claim that the "Polish nationalists became determined to erase traces of the church's Ukrainian history" is lame, his source is "http://www.jimmie.tv". He has also accused me of being a "Polish nationalist" which is a bad attack. 23Michal (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you a sockpuppet? At any rate, all info is from reliable legitimate sources. ""http://www.jimmie.tv"" is just the website that put up that academic journal. The article is here. The sentence about destruction is from a book by Timothy Snyder of Yale, in a book published by Yale. He uses the word "destroy." I even included the link to the book. Ultimately the problem here is not a content dispute, however, but WP:BLANKING by a user which is either single-account or, more likely, someone's sockpuppet. Judging by the comments above and from the edit summary, he is some sort of Polish nationalist or something. Please do something about him so I can restore all the info he removed. Faustian (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop yours attacks. I removed your information because it is wrong, Carmelits did not remove the dome because "it disturbs Polish skyline". Carmelits are religious people not Nazis. 23Michal (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my claim, it's that of Timothy Snyder. Sheesh.Faustian (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He can make this claim, it does not mean it is true. Please consult Polish sources on this. 23Michal (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I trust a Yale specialist over Polish websites. At any rate, this isn't about content but about behavior. You are blanking very legitimate, referenced information simply because you personally find it objectionable. You have made reverts even after being warned - 5 total so far. (I have restored the previous version 3 times - but when adding more to the article I have gone back to the pre-blanked version and added to that, instead of to the blanked version). I also strongly suspect you are a sockpuppet. Faustian (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, just because Snyder claims something it is not commonly accepted, not close, check Polish sources (and I don't mean "Polish websites" but publishing books.) And why do you keep attack me that i am nationalist, socks etc.etc.?? I can make same attack on you. You seem angry I found your weak source "www.jimmie.tv" 23Michal (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't listed Polish books by reliable sources expressing the contrary. If you find such a book (no nationalist publishers please, but academic institutes or universities) then by all means include that, too. Or open an RFC on Snyder's work. Just refrain from blanking, please. Erasing people's work is not a nice thing to do.Faustian (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How does wikipedia work? I think when you accuse the Carmelites of removing the dome from the church because it "disrupted Przmysl's Polish skyline" you must prove this with certainly not that I must prove it is not. I don't want to erase your work I only removed information because it is not sure (based only on 1 source?!?). what is a RFC? 23Michal (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like the situation has, hopefully, calmed down?Faustian (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
With prevailing conditions in place, in your professional opinion, am I permitted to edit the following article: Ararat rebellion? Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What conditions? Sorry, I don't remember the exact situation of all people I've ever interacted with. If you are subject to any sanctions, please link to them.  Sandstein   07:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thisa one, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems to involve a territory (Ağrı Province) close to Armenia and which was involved in Armenia-related conflicts, so, if you want to be on the safe side, don't edit it. But the final decision is up to the admin who decides whether or not to enforce the topic ban.  Sandstein   19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Gotcha.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Racism
Hello. I made a request at WP:WQA. I think comments made by User:Taron Saharyan violate not only civility but also Arbitration enforcements about AA conflict. Here is the translation of his comment (to be objective I made it by Google translate without any change) "I am sorry for you. I feel like a doctor who watches over the dying lab rat who wants to vybratsya of the cage. And this, of course, applies not only to you personally. You (the Azeris) bigot, bigotry, lies very deep in your blood. You can not make a decision, you can not watch over a part. Why? That's why you igrirmidord sarydzhaly and that's why you Tatar you - a backward periphery of the Muslim East. Your (Azerbaijan) uches - to blow up himself, or be shot by civilization. You are a thief, you're fine kormanschik, your national and civilizational status is extremely low. You are cannon fodder to "heroes" of the same level. You are a nomad, and it is your personal history of the tribe. But the most beautiful thing that you'll never understand, because the gene is an integral part of your mind all the above-mentioned circuit." --Quantum666 (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. This should be examined at WP:WQA, not here.  Sandstein   16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Taron Saharyan
Please see translation of more extremist and racist remarks by one editor here.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  01:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask the admin who blocked (only) for a week, not me. I'm not going to override another admin's block for stuff that happened before the block.  Sandstein   07:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin behaviour
User talk:86.11.254.79

I note your comments and I offer the following:

I believe This Wikipedia admin User:Toddst1 is violating WP:GAME (by following the rules to their advantage when they feel like it) and WP:ADMIN (by personally involving themselves e.g. making AFD's out of spite (as already suggested) and blocking me because I disagreed with their behaviour) and WP:HA by Wikihounding - which is an unusual step for an admin to take. For example, despite it being very early in the morning, this administrator made a knee-jerk reaction when I posted something on my userspace User Talk:Badanagram disagreeing with his tactics. The fact that this admin did this within minutes of my response shows that this admin was actively toting for a reason to block me whilst giving the impression to others that this was passive.

Although according you yourself I did not address the reason for the block - I would like someone to review the Admins recent decisions made and also make the admin community aware of his over-the-top behaviour in relation to an isolated incident that only required a deletion of the comment in this instance. Instead this admin decided that I had sockpuppets, I had created my IP address to be abusive to him (I made one comment, also creating an IP address as a sockpuppet makes no sense, the IP address is static in this case) and making AFD listings on one of my articles, blocking my IP, making boxes linking ALL my identities DESPITE my change of name request being accepted for very good reason then changing his reasons for the block when he realised it was too weak - to add insult to injury the admin bullied me in to accepting some kind of deal on my userpage as if he was some kind of LAPD cop!

This admin was completely over the top in exercising his admin tools and I do not beleive he is fit to hold these tools if he continues to abuse them in this manner. Behaviour like this will make most casual editors like myself believe that Wikipedia is nothing more than a meritocracy Badanagram (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs)


 * This is not very useful since it does not contain any diff as evidence of the alleged misconduct by Toddst1. It is also rather confusing. I'll ask Toddst1 to comment on this. It would be interesting to know why your apparent IP, 86.11.254.79, was blocked for a month and your user account was not.  Sandstein   19:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it would be very interesting - the reason being is that this would expose the Admin for his apparent ability to apparently behave himself impecabbly whilst blocking the IP but then following wiki conventions when it comes to my userpage.. I don't know how to list diffs as evidence. However that should not be a hinderance to me reporting wrongdoing by an admin. Unless you're all like this...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Sure. I had asked Badanagram to take this to ANI, but s/he is apparently WP:CANVASSING admins. Here's the nutshell:
 * Badanagram had logged out to make some snarky/WP:PA type comments is probably the most relevant.
 * A little looking around turned up evidence of the obvious ipsock
 * I issued both an NPA and sock warning to both the IP and Badanagram, posted a confirmed sock tag on both the IP and Badanagram with the above link as evidence. No blocks were issued. I also redirected Badanagram's old named acount to his new one.
 * Several weeks later, more ipsock activity showed up and I blocked the IP, not Badanagram.
 * Then Badanagram removed the confirmed sock tag on his user page and I told him, per WP:Blanking that is one of the few things he couldn't remove. He mentioned there were circumstances around his name change, which I researched and it turns out his employer found out about his old username and was the reason for his change.
 * Since that history linking the three accounts was the main evidence for proving the sock tag, I was reluctant to remove it but told the editor if he made a an edit claimed the IP, I would replace the evidence he objected to with the new diff (removing his old account Pigeonshouse from the evidence). He did and I changed the sock evidence.  I also removed the redirect from his old account, Pigeonshouse. I thought I was helping the guy out.
 * Apparently he's a bit upset after the fact.
 * Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The only thing I am upset about is the fact that you have used bullying behaviour and suggested I am a sockpuppet and put several boxes around my account over an isolated incident. Badanagram (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I really don't like the fact that my lack of WP knowledge is being used by you to single me out as a target for online bullying Badanagram (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And the only reason I've not used ANI or whatever it's called and appealed directly to other admins is because from what I have looked at, you yourself patrol that noticeboard and have posted comments in order to dissuade editors from taking things up properly on there - this means I do not feel confident that I could post there and the fact that you offered it as an avenue makes me feel like you have a group of admins on there ready to take your side no matter what - I just want all this stupid stuff caused by one incident taken off my userpage Badanagram (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Badanagram, stop throwing accusations of bad faith around, it does not help you one bit. Toddst1, is there anything that makes you believe that Badanagram's failure to log in was an intentional attempt at sockpuppetry rather than simply an oversight?  Sandstein   22:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question: It seemed like obvious obfuscation when he didn't sign his post  but on further review he did sign this next one, .  You may have a point there that it could have been inadvertant edits without logging in.  I did leave a note on badanagram's talk page about not logging in but the next comment was also from the IP which led to me blocking it.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Do you think that we could WP:AGF and write off this whole issue as a misunderstanding due also to, er, less than optimal communication skills on the part of Badanagram? This would allow us to remove the blocks and sockpuppet tags and deescalate the drama.  Sandstein   23:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, I'll try and write this down as reasonably as I can without panicking like I was yesterday and include a timeline from my POV:


 * If you look at my contribution history, you will see that I very rarely make edits to WP. In fact the IP address had only previously been used to blank my old userpage (legitimately) before I made the less than helpful remarks that Toddts1 is referring to - and was an isolated incident, I dunno maybe I was drunk or just p£"$^ed off that day.


 * I have been asked to not assume bad faith - when after the event:


 * 
 *  A warning comment akin to "You thought you could get away with it didn't you, well I'm watching you...." was thrown at me here.
 *  He then obviously saw that I'd written an article that he could passive-aggressively do an AFD request on here
 * An attempt to 'out' my online presence on the page that holds the IP address - for people other than just myself, although I doubt the others would have any inclination to edit WP - was made
 *  When I asked him (on that IP) to stop using his admin tools in such a manner as to hound me at 6:38am yesterday, a response was given almost immediately at 6:49 by blocking that IP (I can't see any other justification for it than pure spite on the part of the admin, disagreeing with an admins attitude isn't a reason for blocking as far as I'm aware).




 * The admin then went back in to passive mode from aggressive mode and started picking holes in any other edits that I made and defending his use of admin powers to, when he realised he was being unreasonable, he dangled a carrot re: the other identify if I admitted to wrong doing but still keeping his other impose sanctions on the page . The fact of the matter is, it wasn't the fact that I logged out, it was more that I neglected to log in, as it were. I'm sorry if my comment that started this all apparently upset Toddst1 but since then, the fact that he is an admin and his actions (requiring a high level of knowledge and experience of the site and sometimes the use of admin tools) to apparently carry out some online campaign against me since then have made me feel very uncomfortable about using the site any more - as is made clear on my user page and I do not think it is fair that other admins feel able to treat this less seriously because I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor. Badanagram (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I tell a lie, I've just had a look that IP address was used to make minor edits to other pages, I added Interact and Rotaract to the list of Youth organisations and I substituted Farnham for Fareham (people get confused between the two, despite them being 40 miles apart) - how that can be considered an abusive 'sockpuppet' of myself is beyond me. The block itself doesn't concern me as I'm moving out of this place soon, it is more the unprincipled and sinister behaviour of the admin since then Badanagram (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Badanagram, I'm trying to help you resolve your situation here, but you're absolutely not helping. It is very unlikely that you will get the resolution you want without the agreement of Toddst1, and your constantly assuming sinister motives on his part will not help bring that about. Admins can make errors of judgment just like everybody else, but as community-trusted veteran contributors to this project they are very unlikely to actively want to make somebody else's life miserable just for the sake of it. Any further comment you might make in this situation should be very firmly grounded in that assumption. And if you really just want to leave Wikipedia then please just do so, stop commenting here and let me spend my own time more usefully. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really know what else to say - I can't help how I feel as the whole experience really did unnerve me when I went to Wikipedia to find something (on that IP which I hadn't used for a couple of weeks) and found all of this stuff had happened - apparently over course of a Sunday evening in October - over a comment I left 3 months ago and had forgotten about - and from there, because I was already upset, it just got worse! I'm just trying to 'clear my name' as it were. Which is why I offered my POV. Maybe Toddst1 didn't mean for it to be like that but it does feel to me as if my 'Education' and the lengths the admin went to over one comment went OTT and the assumption made by that admin that I am a habitual offender of the WP Guidelines around personal attacks and sockpuppeting, which is what unnerved me as I know that not to be true. Maybe I should just forget about it but what if I get more free time later on in life and try and start editing articles properly like I used to? I feel as if anything I put on there from now on will not be 'trusted' because of the boxes all over my page which I can't remove so it's sort of hanging over me Badanagram (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) After about 15 minutes of reading, I'd suggest that the reason the editor did not take it to WP:ANI is WP:BOOMERANG - I tried to AGF until the ends of the earth on this one, but the actions, attitude and behaviour doesn't permit it for long. Badanagram is fortunate to not find himself blocked for WP:SOCK, so that appears to be the biggest WP:AGF right now. Kudos to Toddst1 for that level of AGF. There's no way - and no reason - to "clear your name" unless you intend to act poorly or WP:SOCK in the future. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I think I'm just going to leave this alone as I'm getting nowhere. I raised a genuine concern over this and I don't intend to act poorly. I'm not sure how on one hand it's not ok for me to make assumptions but admins are then free to make their own. If that's how admins react to genuine concerns then that is how it works I guess - but I have acknowledged that I made a mistake. I was sort of hoping that the admin may come to the same conclusion in the fact that he unnerved me with his decision making. It seems I have two choices here 1. Carry on using Badanagram with the block notice up there until the project finishes in whatever decade that happens to be in the future or 2. If I want to make contributions say when I'm 40 or 50 but without being associated with this username and the block notice - I don't think I'd be doing things properly under WP:SOCK. I think I've spoent enough time on this now and will have to forget it and deal with any issues re: editing Wikipedia in the future and live with the fact that this one mistake can cause so much trouble Badanagram (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually one more thing. Up until now I've been happy to financially contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation (in small amounts each year), however I have decided not to continue to do this in the future due to the reasons listed on my user page - not that any of you probably care. It appears from reading WP:ANI and the contribution history of some of the admins that have contributed to this discussion so far - that you are so disconnected from reality that you have turned Wikipedia in to a 'computer game' where you 'win' against real people and somehow you think you can 'play' with people in this fantasy RPG game forever. Well have arbitrary fun on your 'World of Wikipedia' - be warned, you will receive a huge reality check when this community funded project eventually becomes unsustainable and your barnstars and 1,000,000 edits and league/status tables of users blocked etc become nothing more than a part of the faded history of the internet at the beginning of the 21st century like IRC and newsgroups did at the end of the last century. I say this as a former teenage geek who realised there are better things to spend my time on than people with aspirations to become the 'ultimate sysop' Badanagram (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, I apologize for this spilling on to your userpage. I hope I don't singlehandedly bring financial ruin to the Wikipedia Foundation. Toddst1 (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ayyubid dynasty
User:Karimoglu has changed referenced information concerning the Ayyubid dynasty. Changing Kurdish to Turkish despite two requests to use the talk page and ignoring evidence I posted on User:Karimoglu's talk page. Can you inform this individual how to edit properly? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've issued an edit warring warning. Shouls the other user continue to revert, you can use WP:AN3. I recommend to request a WP:3O or find some other way to get third party input about the content issue, as you too should not continue reverting.  Sandstein   22:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about blanking
What is the protocol when anonymous (IPs or new accounts whose sole account histroy involves the blanking) decide to blank information? Here someone's blanking information that could be perceived as negative of Ukrainians in Brazil: (although, could that IP be a sock of User:Ukrainians?)

Is restoring clearly referenced information blanked by an IP whose edit history involves nothing more than blanking, subject to sanctions against edit warring? Faustian (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit warring does not depend (except on WP:BLPs) on whether content is sourced or not, or whether an IP or a registered user does it. Should the warring continue despite warnings, you can use WP:AN3, or WP:SPI if you believe an editor abusively does not log in.  Sandstein   13:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. A related question - if I am building an article and in the process of doing so someone starts removing info, is it considered a "revert" for 3-RRR (or edit-warring purposes) if I add information to the previous, intact, version of the article rather than the latest version with the info removed by the other person? Or would it be best to stop editing the article completely until the situation gets sorted out through WP:AN3 first.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A "revert" for 3RR purposes means undoing edits by others, no matter how. So if you add information to a previous version, that version becomes the current version, thereby reverting any edits made in the interim. AN3 is not principally a forum to "sort out" a conflict, it's the last resort if a disagreement can't be resolved through discussion. So in any event, if you are in an edit war, stop and talk rather than revert.  Sandstein   13:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. My example was based onthe assumption that discussion hadn't been working (I wasn't clear in writing that, though).Faustian (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:CompleteThisEncyclopedia
I see at User talk:CompleteThisEncyclopedia that, after first asking for my comment on my block of user, you then declined the unblock request anyway on the basis of another editor's comment. Very likely therefore you no longer care, but, since you asked, if it is of any interest to you, there were innumerable coincidences between this account and other socks of the same user. These included: similarity of user name; editing articles on the same topic; creating an article on a member of a family that had had articles created by other socks, (and that had the same surname as at least one of the socks); being the same age as other socks (to the day) according to user page information, etc etc. It took a bit of searching to find all the evidence, but when that was done it became as much of a WP:DUCK as I have ever seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I agree completely.  Sandstein   12:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and 3RR violation by User:J.kunikowski
See the edit history here:. His last rv was after he had been warned here:. He chose to remove the warning:. An attempt to discuss the issue on the article's talk page was met with abusiveness. See here: .Faustian (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I am new here and I don't know the rules about removal of text. I removed the claim that the highly educated Polish professors, who were massacred by the Nazis, "cooperated actively with the Soviets" and "were in talks with the Soviets to form a pro-Soviet government". According to the wikipedia policy I found here: exceptional claims require exceptional sources (note plural). So far the only source presented is an Ukrainian pdf. I request solid, possibly English language, sources to back the expectational claim which Faustian tries to insert into the article. J.kunikowski (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with your violation of 3RR despite having been warned. And I find it interesting that somehow you appear right after the additional fact was added to the article...you just happened to discover wikipedia. This phenomenon of recent discoveries of wikipedia is a remarkably recent pattern of Polish IPs or single-use editors in the last couple of days (such as this). A coincidence? Sockpuppetry? Off-wiki canvassing? Hmmm...Faustian (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

J.kunikowski is now blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. Faustian, next time please use WP:AN3 for such requests, because they will be read and processed sooner there.  Sandstein  16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will do so.Faustian (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein thank you for your help. May I ask what route exactly should I take if I believe that the "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" policy was not observed on that page? The page your linked for resolving a dispute has so many options that I feel a bit lost in there. Who does make the ultimate call in situations like that on wikipedia? J.kunikowski (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the second part of your question is easier to answer: nobody makes the ultimate call on wikipedia. We have to discuss until we reach consensus. About the route to take, try discussing the matter with other editors at Talk:Massacre of Lviv professors. If you can't agree on a solution, try to get the input of others to help break the tie. You will need to read all of WP:DR for this to work, I'm sorry. Since the dispute seems to be about whether a particular source is reliable, you can try WP:RSN. Finally, you need to be prepared to accept the possibility that consensus is against you and (almost) all other editors think that the sourcing is sufficient. If that is the case, you need to be able to recognize that and abide by it.  Sandstein   18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. IMO the sourcing is not sufficient, not even close. If such a thing would really be true, that's to say the highest level of Polish intelligentsia actively collaborating with the Soviets, entering talks with Stalin to form a pro-Soviet Polish government (to govern what exactly btw?) then there would a huge number of sources discussing those events. I will try to discuss these issues on talk but from what I have seen there so far I do not have high hopes to succeed. J.kunikowski (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mute (short story)
Hi. :) This is not an unambiguous copyright violation. Please see the note I had just attached to the ticket; if you read the ticket, you'll see he's not claiming we copied from him, but instead asking if he needs to change his own content. (Adding: I had just blanked it and relisted it at CP, but was about to reverse myself given a closer reading of my own of his note.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did read your note too late, see your talk page.  Sandstein   21:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was unfortunate timing. :) We were both working on that one at once. I think it probably is reverse infringement, and I'm willing to write him back and tell him that further investigation suggests the content evolved here naturally. The likelihood that our content contributor copied his text but changed the name of the main character, misspelled a word and messed up punctuation--all of which were corrected by later editors at different times--is pretty slim. :/ Do you mind if I take over the ticket and communicate with this man? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, go ahead. You are more familiar with this case.  Sandstein   21:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) I had forgotten until after I blanked it myself that it had already come through CP and been cleared. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've written him. Good luck to me! :D Hopefully I've struck the right tone to allow him to give credit if he did in fact get it from Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just nudging in here uninvited, but where/when was it listed at CP? It's not in any of the backlinks to the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Himmlers Hirn heisst Heydrich
Hello Sandstein. I just bought the Czech translation - it's a hit in my country. I admit, I'm a bit scared after reading Les Bienveillantes (Goncourt, 2006) :) Thanks for this contribution. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've read and appreciated both novels, but have found HHhH much more accessible. To my surprise, Binet's acerbic humor works really well, considering the subject of the book.  Sandstein   15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Joy Masoff
Can you speedy close that? While it was a good-faith nom, I already put a link to a NYTimes review on the talk page in an attempt to head this off. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably enough. I've closed the nom.  Sandstein   16:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Need advice
Hello. What should I do to resolve the dispute if the other party doesn't agree to start a mediation process. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I can provide much advice that's not already in WP:DR. Do you refer to Requests for mediation/Dadivank Monastery? You can't force others to agree to mediation, and they are not required to. It appears that there is already a third opinion at Talk:Dadivank Monastery. Unless you can persuade other editors (perhaps at WP:ECN or WP:CNB?) to reevaluate the issue and arrive at a consensus position distinct from that opinion, I recommend that you abide by that opinion.  Sandstein   18:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Need your opinion
Does the information in an Info box need a source?

In the Battle of Szigetvar article, the info-box has for the result;"Ottoman pyrrhic victory" with a Note 1 for a "source"/explanation.

The Note 1 consists of:"Although the Turks won the battle, the outcome can be seen as a "pyrrhic victory", because of a heavy Turkish casualties and the death of Sultan Suleiman. Moreover, the battle delayed the Ottoman push for Vienna that year and suspended the Ottoman expansion in Europe." Is this WP:RS? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's not a source, that's part of the article even though it is in a footnote. As such, it needs a reliable source if it is contested. Without a source it sounds like original research to me ("can be seen").  Sandstein   18:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sandstein. I'll tag it with a citation and post on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Joy Masoff
Thank you for help and interest today in the article. Racepacket (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AN post
Please explain I don't understand why you closed this without a consensus; it seems like everyone who participated was willing to lift sanctions. I'm lost and frustrated here--can you please explain this further on my talk? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Forget it I see your box at that post is pretty extensive--you thought that more persons would have to be involved or more positively inclined to lift the sanctions. I guess I'll go back to ArbCom at some point. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I appreciate you posting to my talk again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheese
I believe you are mistaken. The consensus was to merge - 6 people out of 12 have mentioned it. The consesnsus was to keep the information in the article but to merge it with one that's better titled and describes the process rather that its product. It was rather well argued by all people who wanted to merge it. Michał Rosa (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

HupHollandHup
Hi, Sandstein, could you do me a favour and give this guy the ARBPIA sanctions warning?

He's also an obvious reincarnation... he shows up in July and in days was making very sophisticated edits with no mistakes and in weeks was voting in AFD and editing obscure project pages and just now he templated me. I don't keep track of banned accounts so I wouldn't know where to begin with a sockpuppet investigation, though. Any ideas? Factomancer (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What, do you think, justifies a warning?  Sandstein   15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Today HupHollandHup was edit-warring on Operation Damocles. In the past, HHH has edit-warred on other articles related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Today, I twice added sourced material that was removed without explanation. In the past, Malik Shabaz has edit-warred and violated BLP on other articles related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict . If you feel a warning is appropriate, I accept that - please make sure Shabaz receives one as well. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The revision history of is a disgrace to almost everybody, as usual. But if there has been edit warring by HupHollandHup, this request does not contain the necessary evidence (as would be needed at WP:AN3) for me to find so. HupHollandHup's allegations against Malik Shabazz are likewise not supported by any diffs and are not actionable. Please see WP:DR for how to proceed in case of disagreements.
 * People, my talk page is not a dispute resolution forum and I am not currently active in arbitration enforcement. If there has been misconduct by HupHollandHup, please bring it up in the appropriate community forum (AN3, AE etc.) in the appropriate form with the appropriate evidence and request the appropriate admin action (warning, block, ban, whatever). Thanks,  Sandstein   19:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the future, how do you suggest editors request a the notification template? It is only valid if left by an admin so an admin is needed. It also is not an indication of any wrongdoing so making the request at ANI seems a little over the top. I asked this at the template's talk page sometime ago but never received a response. AN maybe? Even though you are not currently active in AE, you are familiar with it so any input (not specific to any editor) would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the remedy does not require that the notification be made by an administrator or even an uninvolved editor. If you prefer somebody else to make it, though, I recommend that you ask for it in the same forum in which you bring up the misconduct that gives rise to it, e.g., WP:AN3 in the case of edit warring.  Sandstein   06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh oops. I didn't realize the template used wording not in the actual decision and there was even a dispute about it on the talk page. I'll just stick to that then. The template is a little too impersonal anyways. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I provided him the relevant info here so if he wasn;t already aware of what is going on he is now. This should probably be closed out now if you are sick of seeing it on your page, Sanstein.Cptnono (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, what part of the history is disgraceful? The part where I painstakingly wrote a well-sourced neutral article with 10k chars or the part after 3 measly reverts I decline to prolong the edit war and instead went to the effort of civilly and honestly discussing the substance of the disputes on the talk page? And I wonder why I don't feel appreciated on this site... Factomancer (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that this is another ideological edit war among the very same editors that have been edit-warring with each other for what must be years now is disgraceful.  Sandstein   06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edits?
Hi Sandstein. I have a question regarding the inclusion of certain material on the 2010 Medicaid Fraud article. Given the media attention it has received in the States lately, I'm assuming that you have heard about it. According to the federal government, the fraud was allegedly perpetrated by an Armenian organized crime group (half of whom, however, are non-Armenians, according to the FBI). However, a few editors, including its creator, have been aggressively trying to include cases in which Armenians from the United States have been involved in such acts in the past (see, e.g., here). Now, is this just the cynic in me or is this simply an abhorrent thing to do, to try to connect an ethnic group to a certain crime and give the impression that this is something which people from this ethnic group have a history of committing such crimes? Isn't this similar to adding cases in which Jews were involved in Ponzi schemes in the Bernie Madoff article? I plan on taking this to the article's talk page and would have done so had I not noticed that it has been added and removed numerous times now and am thus notifying you for your assistance. (e.g., here and here). Thanks. Regards.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an American and havent' heard about it. We should not consider editing disagreements in terms like "abhorrent", but rather in terms of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV. Per WP:AGF, you should also not start the discussion with the assumption that people are editing Wikipedia with the intent of disparaging your ethnicity. Rather, I recommend that you start a discussion on the talk page, outlining why in your opinion certain edits are not compatible with specific Wikipedia policies, taking care not to attribute improper motives to anybody. If that fails, you may want to get the attention of others through e.g. WP:3O and WP:CCN.  Sandstein   06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry about that. I understand what you are saying but the point of the matter is that this is not a content dispute per se. If I'm to look at this from a neutral standpoint, I would say that there is something wrong in trying to include examples of similar crimes committed by a certain ethnic group. The fact that this material has been re-added several times over by a number of editors naturally raises suspicion and is a cause for concern. As I mentioned above, would any editor be amenable to including cases in which Jews were involved in Ponzi schemes in the Bernie Madoff article? or in any article regarding a certain ethnic group? Just saying...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Whenever people disagree how an article should read, it's a content dispute. Per WP:V and WP:NOR, we follow our reliable sources in how to describe events. If all reliable sources say "X was killed by a group of Foo-ians", it is appropriate to describe the perpetrators as Foo-ians in the article. Otherwise, not. But that is a matter that should be discussed on the article talk page.  Sandstein   20:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The edits in that article concern members of an ethnic group defrauding the government programs for poor and elderly in the same market and industry which is a repetitive pattern and the history section should be a good part of the article. Also, it would be nice for user Marshall Bagramyan to stick to polite language.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  18:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ban appeal
Please see here I figured I should notify you specifically since you closed the AN discussion. If you feel like I should alert anyone else or go about this in a different manner, please let me know on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Gratitude
Thanks!  Sandstein  12:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hello. You banned me from "the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, for the duration of six months". Does that ban cover German football players? An IP editor has recently removed text which I added to an article about a German football player and has edited the article so that it now specifically says what the source does not say (this is the edit). Am I allowed to revert this vandalism? Varsovian (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The ban does not cover German players in general, but certainly those parts of articles about them that deal with their Eastern European origins, as in this case.  Sandstein   15:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I wasn't so much referring to the origins as to the deletion of the text regarding the player's choice of national team. Is that also covered by this ban? Varsovian (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it is about the Polish national team, yes, of course.  Sandstein   15:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I don't actually agree with what you say but I guess that my opinion isn't of much importance here. Varsovian (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot!
There's a new editor (in en.Wikipedia, that is.. probably more on de.Wikipedia) here whose primary language is German. I promised to find another editor to help explain a few things in German, hopefully. Could you help him or find another fluent German literate editor to assist him? His user talk page User talk:GreatOrangePumpkin. It sure would help. I'm limited to Portuguese, English, and Spanish. Thanks!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try to help. What's the problem?  Sandstein   18:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?
You saw through the facade of the LibiBamizrach account who was abusing multiple account. Now this IP has shown up started edit warring and spreading disruption on a variety of articles:

Back to the LibiBamizrach accounts version at Israeli salad: -  also notice that the IP says: "this does not belong here" while previously the LibiBamizrach account had said on the talkpage: "does not belong in article about food"

Back to another blocked sockpupptes version at Um al kanatir: -

Reverting Tiamut

Reverting RolandR:

Reverting Nableezy: and at another article that the LibiBamizrach account edited:

I don't think its a coincidence that all these people he is reverting are "well known" editors within the Arab-Israel conflict articles, Me, Nableezy, Tiamut, RolandR, only shows that this IP is controlled by an old user.

Also notice that the LibiBamizrach account had previously changed "Bethlehem, on the Palestinian side" to "Bethlehem in the West Bank" at Israeli West Bank barrier:, and the IP did almost the same thing at Palestinian freedom of movement: "The restriction of the movement of Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories" to "The restriction of the movement of Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a matter best suited for investigation at WP:SPI, possibly by a checkuser, sorry.  Sandstein   10:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
Sandstein, can you explain to me what I should have done differently? Thanks. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't really say more than what I and other admins have already said in reply to your unblock request, but in a nutshell: Revert less.  Sandstein   05:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't the other guy need to revert less, or commit to reaching agreements on discussion pages? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Everybody who is in an edit war needs to revert less. But if you are in an edit war, you may be blocked no matter what other people do, ought to have done, or whether they are blocked or ought to have been blocked. You are responsible only for your own conduct.  Sandstein   21:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're going to WP:OTHERPARENT all over the fricking project, I will no longer be responding on my own talkpage. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well here would be fine, if you want it all in one place... SpecialKCL66 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not here. SpecialKCL66, please carry on any discussions with other people elsewhere. Thanks.  Sandstein   21:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bravo re Naria!
I wanted to congratulate you on the little article you wrote about Naria. As a rule, discourse on ancient Celtic religion tends to be dominated by obscurantist garbledegook, so I was very pleased to see a new article on the subject that stays close to the sources, stating what we know and how we know it. It's also rather satisfying that we now have something quite close to everything known about this goddess summarized on her page. Keep up the great work! Q·L·1968 ☿ 00:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and a thanks also for the expansion. That reminds me that I really ought to finish that article about the Muri statuette group....  Sandstein   07:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Grandfatherings.
You missed File:Abu Ghraib 24.jpg on User:Writegeist, File:Abu Ghraib 48.jpg on Charles Graner, File:Abu Ghraib prison abuse.jpg on Ivan Frederick, and File:AbuGhraibScandalBrown55.jpg on User:Blankfaze/imagelist. Hipocrite (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC) (re MediaWiki:Bad image list, updated comment Hipocrite (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC))
 * As a courtesy, could you please provide links to these pages, as per the request in the edit notice of this page? Thanks,  Sandstein   08:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Hipocrite (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done with respect to the images that were used in articles. Not done with respect to the images used in userspace, as there is no compelling encyclopedic reason for their use there, which per WP:MUG is required for their use.    Sandstein   08:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that you are applying WP:MUG to pictures that contain no identifying features. However, unless someone else speaks up to the same effect, I'll let this lie. Hipocrite (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What matters is that the image is of a living person, not that it has identifiable features. The men depicted, at least, would recognize the images of themselves. Also I suppose they can be identified via court documents, etc.  Sandstein   08:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi Racist user who threatens other users and admins
Greetings, Since you take care of Armenia-Azerbaijan stuff, I thought I should mention User:Iksus2009 who warned for his racist comments here: by Nishkid64. Note the comments he made are: " find it very peculiar how the modern Iranians are attached to their historical past. Really. It is not healthy to be so chauvinistic and supremacists (everything in the region was invented by you, right?) ", "If anything, don’t look at the past, look at what Iran is right now: one of the most backward countries on Earth, living according to a dark-age ideology, abusing women’s rights, and electing a total clown as your president.", "Really. What did this ancient Persia do? Greeks kicked your ass, and you left to the world 0% of what the Greek philosophy and science have left. You claim to fame is to have been beaten by an Ancient great nation, and is such a very derivative notion." Well he is back at again here where he has threatened Nishkid64, and has called Persians/Iranians biased, chavaunists, and etc.

He has threatened Wikipedia here : "And if you ban me because of what I say, I will file another formal complaint against you to disbar you from an editorial position on Wikipedia. Because your job is to edit not to censor." and this here: "He is a poet who was born in a city that is now part of Azerbaijan. It is a sign of clear Iranian bias to hide this fact. Instead, some ambiguous terms such as Transcaucasia, etc is mentioned. Come on guys. Why let your chauvinism make you so blind to facts. It is a simple FACT that he was born in Azerbaijan. Or are you afraid that the mention of this straightforward fact might lead the reader to a common-sense conclusion that Nizami is an Azerbaijani poet?". He has also been editing NK articles with controversial remarks:.

Besides any actions that you beleive is necessary, I could use help on this issue. While all Western scholars of Nezami, and Nezami himself have called his own poetry as "Persian poetry" and Western scholars use the term "Persian literature", this guy further deletes a reference and just writes: "Literature written in Persian language"! Note this article has been fairly generous in not mentioning him as a Persian poet in the introduction, because the first thing any living Nezami scholar states in the West is that he is a Persian poet. Note, there is even an anachronistic Azerbaijani alphabet/language which did not exist even at the time of Nezami Ganjavi. However, with the behaviour of such users, I think there is a limiting point. There are many sources as well (which I omitted) which explicitly mention that the USSR nation building tried to change the status of Nezami from a Persian poet into an Azerbaijani (which to the USSR meant actually Medes/Caucasian Albanians and they also tried to downplay the Turkic components of modern Azeris). But due to nation building in Azerbaijan, it is hard to mention these facts without getting vandals to damage the page. So that is why a concensus introduction was formulated where we do not mention him as a Persian poet in the introduction. However, I believe this is downplaying historical truth, but I have been content because I know 7-8 million citizens will be vandalizing the article (with specially the aggressive nationalist attitude) in the Caucasus. If I were to take this issue into Arbcomm, would they rule on this issue? I am tired of dealing with such vandals and new users, who accuse all Iranians/Persians of being racist/chavaunist. I have gathered 130+ sources, and also more importantly, sources from current living Nezami scholars (all of them affirming Nezami as a Persian poet), as well as sources that show the USSR tried to give Nezami an unexistent and anachronistic heritagage. Also the living Nezami scholars can be jointly contact with Arbcomm board members and resolve any debate issue that might come up. Here is what one of them states about Nezami:. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not the one who "takes care of Armenia-Azerbaijan stuff". There are two aspects here:
 * Conduct: If you believe that another user violates Wikipedia norms of conduct in matters related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, you should first attempt dispute resolution. If that does not work, you may use WP:AE to enforce the provisions of WP:ARBAA2. Because I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement, I'll not be the one to take any action there.
 * Content: The issues about Armenian occupation or Persian literature are content disputes that can only be resolved as described at WP:DR. Admins won't intervene to determine what an article should say. I know nothing about the subject, so I can't help you there.  Sandstein   09:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay will do but how many times does one have to waste time in reporting racist users?--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not casually call others "racist", or you may be sanctioned also. That is a severe insult.  Sandstein   09:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OKay but I meant this: ""If anything, don’t look at the past, look at what Iran is right now: one of the most backward countries on Earth, living according to a dark-age ideology, abusing women’s rights, and electing a total clown as your president". "What did this ancient Persia do? Greeks kicked your ass, and you left to the world 0% of what the Greek philosophy and science have left. You claim to fame is to have been beaten by an Ancient great nation, and is such a very derivative notion".. these comments came out of nowhere and were not related to the topic.  I never started such political talk or talked about "greatness".  The user made these outburts..From a Wikipedia point of view, what is the correct label for these comments?  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From a Wikipedia point of view, the most important thing is to always accompany such complaints with a diff of the edit in question, which you have not done.  Sandstein   09:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here (see the statements in end, user warned) and here:  (user threatening the admin who gave him the warning as well as using terms like Persian bias, Iranian bias, Persians overruning the page...).  Now how do I exactly label the first comment?  Should I say it was not xenophobic and not racist?  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, in Wikipedia terms, such comments are problematic per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPA. They are not, however, racist, because they do not attack anybody on account of their race. They are merely chauvinistic, which is silly and inappropriate, but absolutely not the same as "racist". Keep in mind that you need to observe WP:NPA yourself. If you disagree with somebody, attack their arguments, not their person.  Sandstein   09:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree on this: " because they do not attack anybody on account of their race. ". Yes they are attacking a whole group of Wikipedia users based on their race.  But you are correct about WP:NPA.  Anyhow, I will file a request.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you help keep an eye on...
There was a dustup on ANI and then their talk pages and finally my talk page between Roux, Rlevse, and Neutralhomer.

They all seem to have gone to bed by the time I got on and started reviewing, so it's not active right now, but if you have a chance and can scan over what happened, the warnings I handed everyone, and perhaps be prepared if anything more happens tomorrow earlier and you happen to be on and see it. I'm at a technical conference this weekend and responding intermittently rather than all the time...

Also, if in your judgement my warnings missed something or were just wrong somehow, feel free to say so. It's late here and the whole incident made me sad and grumpy as I tried to figure it out.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've replied on your talk page.  Sandstein   10:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Error in forthcoming DYK

 * Template:Did_you_know/Queue

Since past mistakes are being pointed out onANI and I'm not quite know where to post a problem with a shortly forthcoming DYK for speedy attention, I noticed that the chorale Bin ich gleich von dir gewichen from the cantata Ich armer Mensch, ich Sündenknecht, BWV 55 and the St Matthew Passion BWV 224 is wrongly labelled as Erbarme dich in one of the forthcoming DYKs. Erbarme dich is both an aria and recitative in this cantata and, more famously, an aria in the St Matthew Passion, so the "information" in the DYK is quite confusing. I'm probably going to add the image from the autograph score to the article.

In other words Bin ich gleich von dir gewichen should be substituted for Erbarme dich in the DYK. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, the claim with respect to Erbarme dich is referenced to a reliable source in the article, and I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject for me to feel comfortable to override the DYK message at this stage. That should be discussed with the author(s) and reviewer(s) of the article first. If it isn't resolved until the DYK goes live, we can still consider kicking it back to T:TDYK then.  Sandstein   10:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, unfortunately. The closing chorale is the movement that is duplicated. I have the 2006 OUP copy of Alfred Dürr's monograph. On page 619, the statement is, "This solace also radiates from the four-part concluding chorale [Bin ich gleich von dir gewichen], which is more restrained in expression than the setting of the same verse in the St Matthew Passion." In the article the link is to this chorale and was incorrectly written up as a DYK. The DYK anyway contradicts the article which states (correctly):


 * "The closing chorale is the same text and melody as in the St Matthew Passion, here in a simpler four-part setting. Those two occurences are the only ones of the text, whereas the melody was used frequently in other context, best known in Wohl mir, dass ich Jesum habe closing in two verses both parts of Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147."


 * The reference there is to the older first edition of Dürr in German. There was a simple error in transferring this information into a DYK. The pages on the cantata in Dürr's book can also be read on amazon.com here. Mathsci (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The wikilink in the text says exactly the same thing I have written: that the melody of Schop was used twice to the same words in BWV 55 and BWV 224. Mathsci (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've asked the article author to comment here. It's not that I don't believe you, but this is just to complicated to evaluate on my own without reading these sources in detail, and the author will be better suited to quickly determine whther the hook is in fact erroneous.  Sandstein   11:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just noticed it by accident, because of all the current DYK problems (I rarely look at the main page). It's going to go live fairly soon. You could also check with User:JzG who I believe might actually have sung this chorale in the St Matthew Passion in London. I would assume that he knows the aria No.39 (Erbarme dich) and the following chorale No.40 (Bin ich gleich von dir gewichen ) that's the subject of the DYK (from St_Matthew_Passion). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Editor's note: the hook doesn't say the chorale IS Erbarme dich, but that it is combined with the words in both cases. Cantata: Aria Erbarme dich, recitative Erbarme dich, chorale. Passion: Aria Erbarme dich, chorale. This is so and also in the web-ref. But tricky to say that in a short hook. If there was no recitative it could say: same sequence of aria Erbarme dich and Erbarme dich, chorale. If you can change the hook, go ahead, but I think it is not wrong. I am off now for choir rehearsals all afternoon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see now that this is a problem in sentence structure. The DYK summarises this statement on page 618 of Dürr:
 * "The third and fourth movements are linked by their common opening line, 'Erbarme dich!' ('Have mercy!'). These words and the chorale that follows—the sixth verse of the hymn Werde munter, mein Gemüte of Johann Rist (1642)—anticipate the movements with related text in the St Matthew Passion, which originated not long afterwards."


 * A slight rephrasing might make this clearer: did you know "that the aria Erbarme Dich and the following chorale in the St Matthew Passion of J.S. Bach were foreshadowed by similar movements in his cantata Ich armer Mensch, ich Sündenknecht, BWV 55 ". Mathsci (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Back from the Verdi requiem rehearsal: a nice approach, but "similar" does not state clearly that it is the very SAME choral, text and melody (only different harmonisation), btw the only two occurences of this verse in Bach's works. If we follow Gardiner who has reason to believe those three movements may have been composed in Weimar already, the Passion followed rather long after that. - Also, without counting, that phrase seems too long for DYK, especially in the middle of all the spooky ones today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, but my knowledge of Bach is so slight that this all goes way above my head. I'll make whatever change to the DYK summary that you two can agree on.  Sandstein   17:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't change.It raises curiosity, is not wrong, and the article clarifies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Should have gone with "Fish", man.
Just sayin'... Half Shadow  22:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fish? I actually don't think that an administrative forum is the best place for jokes.  Sandstein   22:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)