User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/May

Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)
Hi Sandstein. You closed Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter as delete. Your closure was contested at Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has been amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Shutterbug investigation
a quick FYI, I have reopened the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbugsock investigation. The original claim was closed but overturned later. You were in the discussion which overturned the ban. It is being reopened because the user in question has shown new editing patterns since the original ban was overturned.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nom
Thanks, however I don't usually do DYK and I therefore have under 5 past DYK's: "New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review requirement"

I usually do GA only. If that changes at least I'm now aware though :) FT2 (Talk 09:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, all right, thanks.  Sandstein   21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

More on Victorian scientists
Sorry to return to something that was archived, but I only just checked to see what you said in reply here. I looked up a few sources on this, if you are interested, to give a flavour of how fluid the boundaries were then. I'd be wary in general of applying WP:PROF in that era, or indeed any era before the 20th century. Much better to see what coverage exists in sources explicitly dealing with the history of science, as it is the authors of such sources that will have done the notability assessing for us. Anyway, the sources are: (1) ‘Men of Science’: Language, Identity and Professionalization in the Mid-Victorian Scientific Community, Ruth Barton (2003), History of Science, vol. 41, p.73-119; (2) Victorian Science in Context (Bernard V. Lightman, 1997), and in particular chapter eight of that essay collection 'Ordering Nature: Revisioning Victorian Science Culture' by Barbara T. Gates; (3) Desmond, James D. (2001), "Redefining the X Axis: "Professionals," "Amateurs" and the Making of Mid-Victorian Biology – A Progress Report", Journal of the History of Biology (Springer Netherlands) 34 (1): 3–50. There is lots more on the role played by Victorian amateur scientists where that came from - it's a fascinating topic. If this comes up again, I'll post something at WT:PROF, though it has likely been discussed there before. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the interesting info, though I have an absolute layman's understanding of the history of science. Even though if WP:PROF doesn't apply to such amateur scholars, though, it seems to me that the general criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO should still be applicable. After all, without some third party coverage, there's little chance that we can write a non-OR article about the person or that they are in a general sense interesting enough for anybody to want to read an article about them.  Sandstein   21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shinese
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shinese. 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. ''Against my better judgment, but since one participant is blocked and another seems to have gone inactive after a failed RfA, I'm giving it some kind of shot anyway. At least I can say I tried.'' – anna  02:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hans Adler is not an administrator (perhaps you meant editor). Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, indeed. Amended, thanks for the notice.  Sandstein   22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC draft: Restoring to merge after deletion at AfD
I have started a draft at User:Flatscan/RfC draft: Restoring to merge after deletion at AfD. You are receiving this notification because you were involved with a past instance. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Request
Hi Sandstein. I haven't looked at wikipedia since you topic banned me several months ago. I recognize that what I did was wrong and understand that misrepresenting a source is a serious offense that undermines the integrity of the entire project. I also wish apologize to you for my knee-jerk response to your 6-month topic ban. I was obviously upset but that's no excuse for rude behavior. In any event, I'd like to start editing in the topic area again. You have my promise that I will not repeat the same transgression that led to the instant topic ban.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, what concerns me is that you have made no edits at all since you were topic-banned. I therefore have no basis on which to determine whether you are able to competently use sources in other areas of Wikipedia. Your lack of contributions to other parts of the project is also worrying because you were also banned for persistent ideological POV-pushing, which your message does not address. If you are not interested in contribution to Wikipedia outside of the I-P topic area, this may be an indication that you are mainly here to promote a particular point of view rather than to contribute to the neutral collection of human knowledge. For these reasons, I will reconsider your topic ban on your request after no less than two months of competent, unproblematic article editing by you in other topic areas.  Sandstein   15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban question
Hi Sandstein, I have a question about the scope of my topic ban please, sorry to bother you. I would have asked my banning admin instead, but he indicated on his talk page that his on wiki time is limited now. So, may I please ask you, if under my topic ban I am allowed to write an article about notable medieval Jewish poet, who between other things wrote erotic poems about Arab girls? I am asking you this question because an user questioned, if I did not violate my topic ban while writing such articles as Encyclopedia of Pleasure and Sayyida al Hurra of course the latest was written a few week before my ban, but who cares, right?

So this time before starting an article about medieval Jewish poet, who wrote erotic poems about Arab girls, I'd like to clear it with you please. If the permission is granted I would write this article in my user space and present it for your review before it is moved to mainspace, if you'd like me to. I have asked the same question here, but was told to ask Gatoclass. Gatoclass is an involved admin. So here I am, asking you.

Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please link to the decision specifying the ban?  Sandstein   05:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that an article about a medieval Jewish poet who wrote erotic poems about Arab girls is not within the scope of your ban, unless the poet or his work are somehow significant in the context of the modern Arab-Israeli conflict. But my opinion is not binding on any other admin who may interpret the scope of your topic ban differently, depending also on what you write. For this reason, I am also not competent to review your work.  Sandstein   05:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, may I please ask you what should I do next? Ask my banning admin?Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you are still uncertain.  Sandstein   06:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, I am 100% certain that the article I am going to write has absolutely nothing to do with any conflict at all. So I guess I will go for this. I would not like to bother yet another admin. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See this. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Karl Girardet
Hello! Your submission of Karl Girardet 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! 4meter4 (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DrKiernan's recent actions.
I'm afraid I have to report this. Per the restrictions you had both myself and DrKiernan agree to, he has acted inappropriately. It is in regard to the page of  Constantine II of Greece . As required by you, DrKiernan, instead of reverting or removing the monogram, started an RFC on the talk page of that article, stating that he feels the monograms should be one colour, including the crowns, and that therefore the crowns should also be blue. He waited exactly one day for comment, and then, having received none, rather then archiving his RFC in the Talk Page archive, completely removed it, marking it as "done", and then proceeded to go to Commons and edit all the Greek monograms to have blue crowns, without the permission or even the contact of their creator, as well as without any sources. I have not yet reverted them to their original state, and so far, neither has the creator of the files, but this is inappropriate because he is still trying to push his POV without discussion. I don't know if this would be considered Arbitration Enforcement, but if it is, I will redirect this report there. Fry1989 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not AE as there is no arbitration decision to enforce. I'm asking DrKiernan to comment. In the meantime, please see WP:GRA.  Sandstein   05:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the content issue, what's wrong with blue? You insisted that they were blue, and I have abjectly conceded that they can be blue. I don't see how the particular file under discussion differs from the source provided.
 * On the behavior issue, I have adhered to the letter of the agreement. I have not reverted Fry, and as I have conceded to the color of the monogram, an rfc is unnecessary. I did wait for 24 hours and for Fry to resume editing before matching the color of the crown to the color of the lettering as announced on the talk page.
 * I have made concession after concession. I disagree with the addition of the monograms, the color of the monograms, and wish to remove the style infoboxes from the articles. Fry insists that the monograms must be added, that they must be colored, and that the style infoboxes must remain. I have conceded that the monograms can be added. I have conceded that the infoboxes can remain. I have conceded that the monograms can be colored. And yet still he adamantly insists on his view alone and refuses to compromise to any degree. This is unreasonable. Editing should be collegial, not combative. DrKiernan (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * DrKiernan, I agree that you did not violate the terms of your agreement but it would have been better for you to wait for the outcome of an RfC rather than taking unilateral action. Fry1989, the permission of the creators of the monograms is not needed. While it would have been better practice to create a new variant of the monogram rather than overwrite the old one, I do not see how DrKiernan's actions can be characterized as "POV pushing". A color is not a point of view. I propose that you both undertake not to take any more actions with respect to the monograms at issue except as a result of consensus as established after 30 days by an administrator in an RfC. If either of you continues to take unilateral actions of any sort, you risk being blocked for edit-warring and disruptive editing.  Sandstein   10:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. DrKiernan (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, I don't have an issue with a blue crown or not. I have issue with how DrKiernan is going about it. He starts an RFC, and one day later completely removes it, barely even giving it a chance of attention. That makes no sense. And then marking it as "done"??? Done by who? Nobody even commented yet. In all probability, the crowns are meant to be blue, but how can I know when DrKiernan has chosen this course of action? Fry1989 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Users Dreadstar, Sandstein, and Ludwigs2 are encouraged to read and reflect on the remedies applicable to them. All administrators who intend to enforce or undo an action linked to an arbitration remedy are advised to read the principles and remedies of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 19:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Western Betrayal and General Help Requested
Hello, a few weeks ago you officiated when another editor, Volunteer Marek, took me to some kind of Wikipedia process because of activity on the article Western betrayal. I thought the whole process was overblown but I appreciate that you approached it fairly. Today a brand new editor changed the Western Betrayal to its form desired by Volunteer Marek. I reverted it. (this is all an edit dispute over two words, 'and Poland.') Volunteer Marek than responded on the article's discussion pages supporting the 'new' editor. Independently I've researched this larger matter of Volunteer Marek and the group he was/is in, which seems/ed devoted to 'nationalistic' causes. I don't have any experience with Wikipedia beauracracy, I don't have the interest or the time to deal with the neverending attacks and I appeal to you! If you are at all interested in keeping editors instead of reducing them, if you are interested in trying to maintain the goals of Wikipedia (instead of giving in to those who try to overrun it with red-herring appeals to rules and lawyering)...then please, advise me what to do, help me here and help all the editors who are repeatedly harassed by the same group that was already noted and sanctioned repeatedly. kind regards Leidseplein (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't remember the issue you were talking about, but it was probably in the context of a process called arbitration enforcement, in which I am no longer active. Please see WP:DR for general advice how to proceed in the case of disputes, and WP:GRA for how to write your request for assistance in a form that administrators can act on it.  Sandstein   05:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Block of Whose Line is it Anyway?
The user has requested unblock, which I'm personally not very thrilled about as the user was on a vandalism spree earlier. However, WLiiA has made constructive edits as well, and by what I've understood created no new pages after the final warning, so maybe shortening/lifting the block would be appropriate? Zakhalesh (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If they convince you that they want to do something useful (i.e., something else than writing promotional pages about their non-notable Youtube show), I don't object to an unblock. But their current unblock request is not helpful in that regard.  Sandstein   09:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree because I'm not exactly fond of editors that go on sudden vandalism sprees while behaving at other times. However, I've seen people get one week blocks for much worse (one guy just released from a block with no constructive edits was practically dominating a talk page with a dozen socks). Zakhalesh (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An indef block is not necessarily worse than an one week block. Both can end at any time: as soon as an administrator is convinced that the user is ready to contribute productively. In this case, this would mean making useful edits rather than spamming his Youtube show.  Sandstein   19:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. I personally doubt WLiiA will continue spamming (at least right away) but I trust your judgement and of course it's better to have their own assurance about it. Cheers! Zakhalesh (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama's family
You were nominally the creator of this and so may be interested in Articles for deletion/Family of Barack Obama (2nd nomination). Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you should tell . He wrote the article, I just made a redirect.  Sandstein   08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did already. Twinkle stalled when it came to doing the notifications so I notified you both manually. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK to log this?
Hi Sandstein. You warned an editor here, in April of 2010. I don't see any mention of the warning in WP:ARBPIA. Do you mind if I make an entry in the log for this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, go ahead.  Sandstein   05:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron
Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron - you turned down an unblock request fo this guy before and told him (on December 7th) to stay away from Wikipedia for 6 months. He came back last month and was blocked after SPI investigation now he is back with same IP and yet another account. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What would you like me to do?  Sandstein   10:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for copyedit help
I'm writing an article that is fairly technical and covers a lot of ground (major article for its field). The basic text is about 2/3 done, with formal cites and outstanding fact-checks to come. Without going into the technicality of the subject, I would really appreciate it if you could review it for style and flow, and make any improvements you see fit. While I may or may not agree on them all, I like your copy-editing approach (seen it before!) and it's likely most or all improvements you find would in fact be good ones. Especially, I suspect I have redundant or duplicate text laying around in it too.

Draft article link

Thanks!

FT2 (Talk 02:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry, but I currently don't have the time to review and copyedit a text of this length and technical complexity. Regards,  Sandstein   10:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Arrangement of interwikis
Hi. Regarding your reply here: I don't quite understand your rationale for so replying. It is true that while participating as an editor in the project, I have often neglected, forgotten, misread or misunderstood some Wikipedia policies, and this has resulted in some rather embarrassing and painful situations at times, and even now I don't exactly know what "find consensus" should mean and how it should be achieved, but in this case I do feel that my request was obvious and uncontroversial because: (1) of common sense - if all interwikis follow a pattern and this one does not fit into it, then it has likely been misplaced by oversight; (2) my request matches what the instructions say at the second paragraph of this section, which has, I believe, been written there after a consensus; (3) that's how interwikis are generally arranged throughout all articles - choose a random article, preferably an article on a better known topic which will have a greater number of interwikis, and you'll see that ivrit is indeed sorted under "I" and not under "H". If you still disagree with this, please be kind to explain me how I should proceed in order to "find consensus" that will support making the edit. --Theurgist (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, protected pages are only edited if there is consensus for the edit or the edit is uncontroversial. In this case, at least one person disagreed with the edit, so it is not uncontroversial. Consequently, you need to establish consensus for your proposal before requesting that it be implemented. See WP:Consensus for how to do so.  Sandstein   10:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lara Logan
Hi Sandstein, as you've already taken admin action in relation to this, I'm wondering if you could address some of the talk-page comments that are appearing. Logan is a journalist who experienced a serious sexual assault in February. Examples of the comments in question are that she's hot, that her career advanced because she's attractive,  a chuckle about the expression "digital rape,"  and describing what happened to her as "manhandling." I've asked that it stop, but it has continued.

Would you be willing to ask people to put an end to these remarks? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll reply there.  Sandstein   05:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, do you mind if I move your post to a new section so that it's more prominent? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 06:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this would be appropriate as a matter of talk page structure, as it relates to the section "Comments" which you started.  Sandstein   06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, no worries, I'll leave it where it is. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets not repeat the same mistake again.
Sandstein, the last time JJG was topic banned, admin told him it could be lifted prematurely "if good work in other areas can be demonstrated, you are welcome to appeal again in two months' time.". After it was lifted prematurely, he made all those edits that violated npov and misrepresented sources.

So this time, admins shouldn't repeat the same mistake and lift it in advance regardless of his work in other fields, as it doesn't mean anything as evident from the same previous situation.

If you would like to reply to this you can do it here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Hi Sandstein, I would like to ask you about appeals rules that are applicable to the editors that were sanctioned at AE. I know that Arbcom has the right to specify in how many months after being sanctioned an editor might appeal the sanctions. Do AE administrator have similar rights? My second question is: are these number of months that should pass before the right to appeal is applicable to any duration of the sanctions or only to indefinite ones? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not currently active at AE. Please direct the question to the Arbitration Committee, which in any case is the only body that can authoritatively answer it.  Sandstein   18:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Pardon,
Since I have tried to careful as possible with my sourcing, could you be specific regarding Ms. Logan? Otherwise I may stay most puzzled by the warning and not gain any benefit from it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly. In this edit, you wrote that a certain living person, which you identified by name, has "degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards". You did not provide a reliable source stating that this person has degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards. This violates our policy, WP:BLP, which stipulates that any material about living persons "challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." If it is not clear to you how the said edit by you violated this policy, please ask and I shall explain in more detail. In the interim, I ask you one last time to immediately remove the said text from this page or I will block you from editing Wikipedia.  Sandstein   18:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the detailed answer. My response is on my talk page, and look forward to continued dialog to correct you mistaken apprehension. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)


 * Sandstein's threat to block is inappropriate and an abuse of admin privilege. The comment in question is an editor's opinion made in Talk. No sourcing is required to give an opinions in Talk. Opinions given in Talk are not subject to BLP. Sandstein's rationale for threatening to block wrongly presents the "offending" comment as an edit to an article. Threats to block based on dishonest assumptions are abusive. Mindbunny (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (Duplicated text above removed) That is wrong. WP:BLP applies to all pages, including talk pages. The policy says in its first sentence: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", emphasis in original, and continues: "This policy applies to BLPs, ... and to material about living persons on other pages".  Sandstein   19:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request for User talk:128.193.80.102
I'm not sure you read that correctly -- could you take another look at it? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I understand what you mean, but the IP has now been reblocked for another reason.  Sandstein   06:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U on you
See here: Mindbunny (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See here: WP:BOOMERANG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Particularly in view of ANI, but I'll leave any action that may be required about this to another admin.  Sandstein   06:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice
On April 18 moved Rebellion of wójt Albert from its stable location to Rebellion of vogt Albert without a talk comment, and with a rather uninformative editing summary. I reverted him with a more informative edit summary and as I saw no further activity on the article, I thought the matter settled. Today he moved the article again, with a hardly more informative edit summary. I reverted him (since it was almost a month since the last revert), explained my rationale in detail on talk, and noted that explanation in my edit summary, also asking that any further moves are made through WP:RM. Less than an hour later, he revered me again, this time with an incivil edit summary ("some Polish nationalists"). He has ignored my talk page comment, and the request to use the RM procedure. That editor has already been warned of the discretionary sanctions (User_talk:Mibelz). Should I report him at AE, or would you have any other suggestions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 18:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, but I'm not currently active in AE. I recommend that you ask another administrator or the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein   18:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not asking you to take any actions, just for your advice on what I should do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 18:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I have withdrawn from AE because I believe that it is a waste of time under the current Arbitration Committee, which is why I also prefer not to give advice in AE-related issues.  Sandstein   18:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

jaanwar
disamb page u creatd thats great but the issue is when one types in google jaanwar the artcile which appears is 1999 films whereas it should have been the 1983 film which should come.i only want to ensure that when the word jaanwar is typed the 1983 article should appear first in searches.presently the below link is coming which according to me is wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaanwar_(1999_film)Paglakahinka (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we can't influence how Google ranks search results, not should we want to. This is not our purpose as an encyclopedia. Our purpose is to write articles and to organize and name them per our manual of style.  Sandstein   18:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

you did not get me, iam not talking about google! the point is page ename. even in wikipedia if you type jaanwar then the article which comes is 1999 film and not the 1983 flick.Paglakahinka (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Try it again. If you search for "jaanwar", you will be shown the disambiguation page at Jaanwar.  Sandstein   19:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

dhawnan
similarly even when one types dhanwan in wikipedia the default serch shows dhanwan 1993 instaed of Dhanwan (1981 film) as chronologically speaking and as well as mater of significance and popularity the 1981 filck needs to appear. so what can be done to rename the page or move page as..

all i want is dhanwan when some one types, 1981 films should appear and not the 1993 flick.Paglakahinka (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC) coorected Paglakahinka (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The correct way of resolving this problem is making a disambiguation page at Dhanwan, which links to both films, which I have now done.  Sandstein   19:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

disambiguition pages needed
1 ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amrit and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amrit_(film) - Type Amrit 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput_(1982_film) - For Rajput 3) Chakravyuha - ONE IS Military formation narrated in the Hindu epic Mahabharata. AND OTHER IS 1978 film 4) Aanchal one is Pakistani Urdu newspaper and other is 1980 and 1960 film. 5)Zamana - a 1985 blockbuster film and another is about Cezary Zamana 5) Maalik - islamic name and another is 1972 movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maalik_(film) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaalikPaglakahinka (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for creating disamb pages. there are few more to be created, please do create it.

1) Choti Bahu - one is 1971 blockbuster for which page has not been created in wikipedia. another is a serial ( 2010) part 1 and 2 at present serial is coming as the first thing.serial's name is not Choti Bahu but its Choti Bahu - Sindoor Bin Suhagan. 2) Joroo Ka Ghulam - 1972 hit film and 2000 flop film 3) Chakravyuha - ONE IS Military formation narrated in the Hindu epic Mahabharata. AND OTHER IS 1978 hindi film.Paglakahinka (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please feel free to create these pages yourself. WP:MOSDAB will tell you how. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at WP:HD.  Sandstein   21:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the unblock review. Most appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Regards,  Sandstein   21:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts
Hey Sandstein, would be interested to hear your thoughts on an issue I'm mulling over on this page. Cheers. ← George talk 03:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, but I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein   06:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, no worries. Cheers. ← George talk 00:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Peters unblocked/Mass killings
Hi, do you recall by any chance an incident from June 2010, where a certain user posted my full name on your talk page in an attempt at harassment (oversighted and rev del edits)? It turned out that that user was a sock puppet of User:Jacob Peters, a notorious sock puppeteer that had been indefinitely banned. At that point in time alone he was active with at least six sock puppets which he used for disruptive behavior (like the harassment of me on your talk page). Since his indef ban he has had 33 confirmed and a few dozen more suspected sock puppets.

Well, in what I can only describe as ... well, I better not describe it, anyway apparently User:Jpgordon just granted an unblock request from Jacob Peters because ... "three years is a long time", despite the fact JP was active with sockpuppets less than a year ago if not more recently. And despite the very obvious post on Jacob Peters' talk page which says that an unblock can be done only by ArbCom.

Anyway, unsurprisingly, as soon as he got unblocked (which is going to get reviewed one way or another), JP jumped straight into controversy by going to the Mass killings under communist regimes article and blatantly violated the discretionary sanction you imposed on it. Can these edits be reverted without running afoul of the discretionary sanction, and can you enforce that sanction by blocking the user pending a review of the original unblock?Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely there are more pleasant things to do than try to persuade moderators to ban me? I was basically banned and unable to edit on Wikipedia in a normal way since 2007 mainly because as a teenager I did not take it seriously and did not understand the rules. I last used an account back in 2009, and I think that 4-5 years (since 2007) of being banned and irregularly editing is punishment enough. I haven't broken any rules since being unblocked and already you are passionately appealing to administrators to ban me. Jacob Peters (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've withdrawn from arbitration enforcement because it appears to be ineffective under the current Arbitration Committee. If you believe that there are grounds on which to request enforcement of discretionary sanctions, please ask another administrator at WP:AE.  Sandstein   06:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted at Mass killings under Communist regimes
I think a "newbie" has fallen afoul of the rules on that page (or perhaps I've misinterpreted them). In any case, I've reverted him and ask that everybody stay cool until a consensus is reached. Do let me know if this is not in line with your rules. Smallbones (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh, it's not a "newbie", see my section right above. It's a notorious sock-puppeteer User:Jacob Peters,, , , , and so on and so forth, who had been indef banned (and this one was indef as in "infinite", not indef as in "until he apologizes", see his talk page) for, in addition to running more than 50 socks, for extreme harassment, incivility and outing of other users. For some unexplainable reason he had just been unblocked by User:Jpgordon who I think just wasn't aware of whom he was unblocking. Needless to say, JP dived right into controversy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, by focusing too much on the attempts of others to use your old name you will achieve the opposite result: everyone will remember your old name which will become a secret de Polichinelle. That reminds me the Yellow Monkey, a story from the book about the eponym (a new username) of one of your colleagues. If you want people to forget your old name, let them do that.
 * Secondly, I sincerely believe that the stories that happened two or more years ago do not cast a shadow on the users, and that is equally applied to everyone, including ex-sockpuppeters, ex-tag team members, ex-off-Wiki coordinators, in other words, to everyone. If you want others to assume your good faith, please, behave accordingly.
 * Thirdly, in a situation when experienced users have to ask the admin about essence of the edit restriction every time before making any change in the article is a demonstration that something is fundamentally wrong with these sanctions, which in this case are de facto endorsement of the current version. In my opinion, the sanctions in their present form have accomplished their goal, and, taking into account that one of the most active edit warriors who was active on this page has been indefinitely blocked, and one of his most persistent opponents has been warned, we cannot expect a new outburst of this edit war if the sanctions will be partially lifted. In connection to that, I suggest Sandstein to consider to partially lift the sanctions. I think, the best way to do that would be to invite all users who work on this article to elaborate new editing restrictions that would allow us to edit this article comfortably. As the starting point for this discussion, I propose to look at the WWII article. This article is also devoted to the very sensitive topic, however, the users working there managed to elaborate mutually acceptable rules that effectively prevented any edit wars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If my sanctions are no longer useful, I don't object to them being lifted or changed by administrator consensus at WP:AE. As I said above, I am not currently involved in enforcement matters and therefore refrain from involving myself in this situation. Regards,  Sandstein   07:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Much ado about a banned user, apologies that editors have taken your time here with pontificating. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243
FYI, I have listed a note at WP:AN regarding the listing of your RfC/U which I took upon myself as User:Mindbunny did not list it following its creation and is now blocked. Please let me know if you have any questions.  Cjmclark (Contact) 18:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore the malcontents. You keep up the good work.BarkingMoon (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words.   Sandstein   06:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that frivolous RfC/U a few hours after it was created, but decided there would be less drama by letting it die due to lack of merit than by summarily deleting it. Keep up the good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented on it as well ... but I do not feel that deleting based on procedural grounds (non-certified within 48hrs) made me WP:INVOLVED. Always interesting that people choose to ignore their own actions and blame others for their problems. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Drat - I thought perhaps those making the accusations should be held accountable. Collect (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be harsh. Someone apparently actually felt wronged ... smacking them in the head for that feeling doesn't go over well. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they've already been blocked and I hope they learn from that. That should be enough, I think.  Sandstein   06:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are Bilaterial relationship guidelines
There are guidelines for Bilateral Relations. . This includes military operations between two nations, which these two nations clearly had. Thanks for explaining your decision making process in your closure of Articles_for_deletion/Albania–Netherlands_relations, although it is ridiculous to dismiss the opinions of so many people. You don't need the guidelines to form a consensus on whether something is notable, although in this case we did have them. Now that you are aware that these guidelines exist, and have clearly been met, perhaps based on that you will agree it should be closed as Keep, not no consensus.  D r e a m Focus  19:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There wasn't exactly a strong consensus for those guidelines, though, and there is a reason for that. "Albania declared independence from the Ottoman Empire in November 2012, during the First Balkan War." Really? Why would we want such unsustainable articles that nobody cares enough about to bring them in good shape, that almost nobody is going to watch, and that almost nobody is going to read? It's a pity I missed the AfD. The article clearly fails WP:GNG. Hans Adler 20:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a rather large number of us during the first wave of AFDs for bilateral articles who wanted them. And one simply typo in an article, someone writing out 2012 instead of 1912, is easily fixed, as I have done so, and not a reason to delete the article.  The statement already has a reference proving that point, someone just typed it in wrong.   D r e a m Focus  03:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the criteria you refer to (they are not guidelines in the sense of WP:Policies and guidelines) and have made reference to them in the closing statement. Arguments made with reference to them are valid, but not particularly strong, since these criteria are project-specific and don't represent community consensus the way WP:N does. Since the outcome of "keep" and "no consensus" is the same in that the article is not deleted, I see no point in examining this further.  Sandstein   06:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

They were simply guidelines and have not been endorsed as part of notability criterion. There is no agreed criteria for bilaterals. Dream Focus is rather rude in what Sandstein was very entitled to act in closing as an admin. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (separate matter) I generally agree with the way you went about discarding various points in the first part of your close. I wasn't a fan of your last few sentences though, where you basically said "It's 3-2, can't do anything about it." You're a closing administrator; you're supposed to weigh their arguments and not simply vote count. NW ( Talk ) 05:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've weighed arguments by discounting the invalid ones. What remains is a disagreement about notability in which the remaining few (and nearly equally divided) arguments are all, at least, defensible. I cannot find a consensus to delete under such circumstances, as that would mean imposing my own personal opinion on the other participants, which is not a closer's job. Rather, I follow WP:DGFA, which says that "When in doubt, don't delete."  Sandstein   06:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Current person template
You're welcome. Just so you know, the template is extraordinary. I will remove the tag when the number of edits drops to a number where it is clear that editors are not likely to step on each others edits. Perhaps tomorrow. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, I don't know what you mean. Did you mean to message somebody else?  Sandstein   19:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the help. Skuld (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism
If I remember correctly, you were an admin who imposed a 1RR on this article. I think this restriction should be complemented with the article's semiprotection. It is desirable for several reasons, and one of them is that the article is being edited by British IPs who are editing in the same vein as the indefinitely blocked user Marknutley/Tentontunic did, which suggests that these IPs are his socks. If that will continue, this user may be community banned for continuous disruptive sockpuppetry. Semiprotection may effectively resolve this issue. Thank you in advance. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, this seems to be a WP:AE issue. I'm not currently active in this field, so you may need to ask another administrator, or at WP:RPP.  Sandstein   20:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While you (or a page lurker) are at it , note the colloquy at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.  I think it may be illustrative to you of some of the similar problems at Communist terrorism. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

RFD community bans
(This is intended as a general policy question, and not as a specific incident-based question. As you are particularly active in closing RFDs, I thought you would be the natural person to ask.) Is there any precedent for community-banning people from RFDs for continually posting votes not based in policy (or even misstating existing policy), or is this generally considered overkill? Kansan (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean WP:RFD? I'm not active there, I can't remember the last time I closed one. I'm also not aware of a precedent of the sort you describe, although generally doing stupid things for a long time tends to result in exclusion from the project in some way sooner or later. See WP:IDHT.  Sandstein   20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant AFD, sorry. I'm more active on the Simple English Wikipedia, and we call them RFDs over there. Kansan (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in principle a ban of this sort is possible, but the misconduct would have to be very blatant and persistent for the community to enact it. People would also expect you to have tried other forms of dispute resolution first.  Sandstein   06:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

British Gazette blog.
Re the conditions related the unblocking. Not a problem. However more than one of my regular readers has advised me that they will look at creating a separate article about the British Gazette blog and a disambiguation page. I advised them to wait until the situation vis-à-vis the blocking issue had resolved itself and that were they to create such an article it should present a neutral description – which in point of fact my text that had been removed had done. However, given the questions over notability I would ask your opinion as to the perceived status of such an article. I do not want any of my readers to spend time writing an article if it is likely to be deleted as it is regarded that the blog is of insufficient note. Please advise. Britishpatrioticindividual (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. The relevant standard is WP:N. In short, your blog can have an article if it has been the subject of coverage by reliable sources (i.e., sources with editorial oversight, such as major newspapers, not self-published sources such as other blogs) that are independent of you and if such coverage is substantial enough to write an article based on it (i.e., if it goes beyond a mere mention of the existence of your blog).  Sandstein   06:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And if an article is created about your blog that meets these standards, it should be at British Gazette (blog), not in the existing and unrelated article British Gazette. Disambiguation techniques can help find people who search for one meaning of the term to find the other.  Sandstein   06:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

==

Thanks for replying. I have advised some of my readers - via email - of this and have asked them not to bother writing any article until such a time as the above conditions are met and have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting your explanation. There is no point whatsoever in writing articles that will be deleted soon afterwards and I do not want people to waste their time writing such. Clearly, blogs such as Conservative Home have been mentioned in the mainstream media and meet these requirements hence the continued existence of Wikipedia articles on them.Britishpatrioticindividual (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Edit war"
Hello, sorry for writing here, i'm not very good in wikipedia's system. I felt very aggrieved after You wrote that i'm participating in "edit war" in article about Lithuanian writer Wladyslaw Syrokomla. Fact is that i tried to make reference to his own self testimony, in his own text where he wrote he was Lithuanian. And as "edit warrior" was called not that person, who deleted it, but i. Well, if wikipedia doesn't need refecences to sources, i don't know what i was doing here... --Egisz (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.   Sandstein   11:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. http://kpbc.umk.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=29219&from=&dirids=1&ver_id=900016&lp=6&QI=!39A39046A5BD3A6D3BF93B4A3F543FC7-1. There is possible to download Syrokomla's book. In page nr. 97 he writes "Being Lithuanian, i was unable to speak with Lithuanian". And somewhy other people deleted it without any explanation. --Egisz (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC) I was speaking about this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Syrokomla --Egisz (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the point is that you are not allowed to edit-war (that is, participate in a sequence of edits which revert one another). This applies no matter whether you are right or wrong.  Sandstein   15:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi, I would like to draw your attention to this edit, where the author particularly says "Author Hovann Simonian does not count at all as he is an Armenian." Your comment would be appreciated. Thanks -- Ashot ( talk ) 19:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, because of inadequate support by the Arbitration Committee, I'm not currently active in issues related to WP:AE. Please use that noticeboard or another appropriate option from WP:DR.  Sandstein   06:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to avoid formal procedures and an admin's comment would be a perfect solution to the matter... Could you recommend someone who is now in charge? Thanks in advance. -- Ashot ( talk ) 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is ever in charge of anything here... You may want to ask one of the admins who are currently active at WP:AE.  Sandstein   16:51, 21 May 2011 anks.
 * Sure, I meant authorised. Thanks. -- Ashot ( talk ) 15:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Use Flying Fische still removing templates despite three warnings and two blocks
Despite multiple warnings from three different editors to Flying Fische about removing templates without addressing the issues they raise , and despite two previous blocks for this offense, one of them by you , he removed yet another maintenance template today. Since he has ignored all warnings and learned nothing from his blocks, I believe a permanent block may be in order. Qworty (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've already raised this at ANI, I see; no need to forum-shop it to several administrators as well.  Sandstein   19:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Macula Risk
Howdy,

Please explain to me why the reason cited for deletion of this page is '(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)'. As an employee of the company, I have given wikipedia permission (I am still waiting for the conformation reply from this mystery permission-en mailbox and it has not yet come)

The page you cite has no information on the issues being raised by all the non-helpful individuals. Everyone claims the text is promotional. How can independent academic studies on candidate genes, published by top academic centres in top journals be promotional instead of informational? The text in question has now been deleted, so I need to figure out a way to edit whatever it is was I wrote, to please the arbitrary decisions being made by administrators here. I now know how George Orwell wrote 1984....

Again, please walk me through any text that you SPECIFICALLY feel is a problem and I will gladly edit it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbelgraver (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to release your website as CC-BY-SA, please change the site's copyright disclaimer to say so. You can't just give Wikipedia permission, a CC-BY-SA release gives everybody permission to reuse your text. But apart from that, Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise your product, and text copied from a corporate website is not appropriate as the contents of a neutral encyclopedia. If your product is worthy of encyclopedic coverage, please wait for somebody else to cover it and write the Wikipedia article.  Sandstein   13:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP, admin abuse: Arbitration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Does_WP:BLP_forbid_criticizing_people.3B_Administrator_abuse:Sandstein.2C_JamesBWatson Mindbunny (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutralhomer
Thanks for the message and fair review. After looking at the input of others I agree I could be considered WP:INVOLVED. I feel I acted fairly with warning to him and am just trying to end the dispute but I can see the views of others. I have unblocked and so noted his talk page and the AN/I case. --WGFinley (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that seems like the best action to take under the circumstances. Feel free to notify me if you would like another admin to take any action should the problems continue.  Sandstein   21:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Procedure
Hello, you recently closed some AFD's in which I addressed problematic procedures by the nominator. See Articles for deletion/Philly Sound Clash and Articles for deletion/Semper Satago. My comment was to recommend Speedy Close because the nominator said nothing but "non-notable" - which violates several parts of WP:ATA and gives no evidence that he observed any parts of WP:BEFORE. I could care less about the articles in question, but the nominator is required to provide reasoning as to why an article should be deleted. Also, when you said about me "The 'close' opinion does not address the merits of the article" - I am not required to do so when pointing out a procedural problem. You should have commented on the errors and lack of effort by the nominator, not me.

Once again, I don't care about those particular articles one way or the other. But based on the way these AfD's turned out, I could go to Barack Obama or The Beatles or Jesus Christ and start AfDs saying nothing but "not notable" and wait for everyone else to do the work I should have done as nominator. And if one person voted delete, would that count toward the consensus? Sincerely, -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Just not notable" is a weak argument, but not so weak that it warrants speedy closure, unless it's about an obviously notable subject such as Barack Obama, in which case the nomination is frivolous and may be speedily closed. Otherwise, if nobody else comments, the AfD will normally close as no consensus, and if better arguments are brought forward, as in this case, there's no point in dismissing them just because the initial nomination was weak.  Sandstein   21:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Return of a troublesome editor
Hi Sandstein. Do you think you can take a look at the recent edits by an anonymous IP 193.140.194.102? In March of this year, he was blocked numerous times for making disruptive edits which showed no indication for compromise. Now, he has returned and his edits are in much the same vein. His edits show a very strong strain of anti-Armenianism and he has gone on several articles such as Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, the Battle of the Caucasus, Antisemitism, Holocaust denial, etc. adding trivial bits of information which appear to show Armenians in a negative light. These edits aren't new and those editors who had once removed them did so under the basis that they not only lack notability but are obviously aimed to push forward an agenda. Why else would one add a photo of an Armenian battalion - and only the Armenian - in the German military on an article which is supposed to be about the Battle of Caucasus? Then he's went around and removed other pieces of information which show certain authors who have Turkish sympathies in a negative light. He's been reverted elsewhere but it's not hard to guess that he's doing this more for fun than for any genuine concern for accuracy or development of these articles. And while he is clearly editing from his university's computer, I have no reason to doubt that these edits belong to those made some weeks ago. Thanks. Best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. My username is not "Sand". The issues you mention are within the scope of WP:ARBAA2, but I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement because AE is not taken seriously by the Arbitration Committee. I therefore recommend that you WP:SEEKHELP on a relevant noticeboard.  Sandstein   22:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry about that Sandstein. But in any case, someone else apparently beat me to it. Thanks a lot. Best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I submitted an ANI about the editor. Not sure what he was trying to prove on holocaust and antisemitism articles, but I hope he's blocked.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom
It is a bit annoying, isn't it? As I said in the case, I don't really even demand that they actively do anything in this case, but it would at least be nice to see a motion that acknowledges that the blocking and wheel-warring were the problem, not that I dared apply standard protection policy while I was going down a list of articles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong opinions about the issue of protection etc., but I agree that the involved blocking and wheel-warring is by far the most severe problem. If the arbitrators would take their job seriously, they would desysop by motion any administrator who does something like that.  Sandstein   22:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We have to open a case to desysop under non-emergency circumstances. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, and that's probably a good thing.  Sandstein   16:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Weight Training content quality
You recently removed my content re weight training, but you mentioned flixya.com/blog/2982663/Bodybuilding - that is an EXACT copy of my original words I wrote 2 days ago for weight training. Did you put them on flixya.com/blog/2982663/Bodybuilding (because I didn't)? If not, then someone copied my work and put it there before you deleted it. Btw, that content I wrote is not to be found anywhere on wiki and it deserves a place (flixya.com/blog/2982663/Bodybuilding seems to think it's worth having). Why does everything need a "reference"? What about these common terms that everybody who works out knows the meaning of - can't some things just simply be added by an "expert" (which I consider myself to be on weight training)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.124.99 (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, are you ? Please log in to your account, it facilitates communication. The blog post is dated "Published May 19th, 2011", whereas you added it to Wikipedia on May 22]. This makes it implausible that the blog copied from you rather than vice versa. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR for the reasons why all content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and therefore referenced.  Sandstein   16:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Apologies - yes I am Cuneas (logged in now). I tried adding exactly that content to Body Building before Weight Training, but it got rejected too. Perhaps the guy who rejected it saved it to flixya before deleting it. Those words are definitely absolutely all mine and were written for the article. The chances of an exact coincidence are zero, so someone/something (webcrawler?) put it there. How about my proposal for the content on Talk:Weight Training - sound OK? Cuneas (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "reverted" is the correct term as opposed to "rejected" - and no I didn't save your material. Wikipedia keeps records of old versions of articles, so it would be a waste of time copying your material to an external source. Your material was removed from the Bodybuilding article for being off topic, and for the obvious lack of sources as I explained on my talk page; and for being mostly original research, and for being a slang, jargon or usage guide- I didn't even notice it was copied from somewhere else unless it was pointed out when reverted from the weight training article.
 * And why does everything need a reference? Okay, so say you post your little bodybuilding jargon guide on the weight training or bodybuilding article, and in a couple days, someone else who thinks they're a "reliable source" too because they've lifted weights a few times and read some Muscle & Fitness decides that your material is totally wrong and changes it? What then? Are you going to revert it back and start and edit war? What if a third self proclaimed reliable source has a different opinion and changes it again? That's why everything needs references. Otherwise, it's random people's opinion or their interpretations of fact. Find a source. If your material is worth adding to Wikipedia, there should be hundreds of sources for it, written by people who are truely experts and are seen as such. --Yankees 76 Talk 18:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons
Would you mind deleting the following redirects to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons ? Thanks, --Anthem of joy (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * GAT-01A1 105 Dagger
 * GAT-X102 Duel Gundam
 * GAT-X103 Buster Gundam
 * GAT-02L2 Dagger L
 * GAT-04 Windam
 * GAT-X370 Raider Gundam
 * GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam
 * GAT-X131 Calamity Gundam
 * GAT-X207 Blitz Gundam
 * GAT-X303 Aegis Gundam
 * GFAS-X1 Destroy
 * TS-MA4F Exass
 * TS-MB1B Euclid
 * TSX-MA717/ZD Pergrande
 * YMAF-X6BD Zamza-Zah
 * YMAG-X7F Gells-Ghe
 * AMA-953 BABI
 * AMF-101 DINN
 * TFA-2 ZuOOT
 * UMF-4A GOOhN
 * UMF-5 ZnO
 * UMF/SSO-3 ASH
 * ZGMF-515 CGUE
 * ZGMF-600 GuAIZ
 * ZGMF-1017 GINN
 * ZAFT Armed Keeper of Unity
 * ZGMF-X11A Regenerate Gundam
 * ZGMF-X12A Testament Gundam
 * ZGMF-X13A Providence Gundam
 * ZGMF-X23S Saviour Gundam
 * ZGMF-X24S Chaos Gundam
 * ZGMF-X31S Abyss Gundam
 * ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam
 * ZGMF-X56S Impulse Gundam
 * ZGMF-X666S Legend Gundam
 * ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam
 * ZGMF-X2000 GOUF Ignited
 * MVF-M11C Murasame
 * ORB-01 Akatsuki
 * ZGMF-XX09T DOM Trooper
 * MAW-01 Mistral
 * NMS-X07PO Gel Finieto
 * GSF-YAM01 Δ Astray
 * GSX-401FW Stargazer


 * Is there no article they could be usefully be directed to?  Sandstein   20:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They could be redirect them to List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam, but they're not mentioned on that list and are probably too obscure to be likely search terms. Anthem of joy (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, done.  Sandstein   04:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Anthem of joy (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan notification
Dear Sandstein, I ask you to take a look at this issue regarding MarshallBagramyan. You indefinitely restricted him not to make any derogatory statements about authors based on their background. Yet he did it again. Given your experience in this matter, your insight would help in this issue. 17:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please WP:SIGN your posts. Sorry, I'm not currently active in WP:AE matters; please ask an administrator who is active on that board or see WP:SEEKHELP.  Sandstein   22:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request
I wanted to personally thank you for looking at and accepting my unblock request. This is a second chance that I will not mess up. :) --StrikerBack (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.  Sandstein   05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Keyser Sözetigho and Link1914
Hi Sandstein. I have to ask: Why aren't both blocked indefinitely? You'll find that User:Keyser Sözetigho's edits are only about NXIVM anyways. I'm a little worried that he will come back and be just as abusive, just as one-sided as before. In any event, thanks for your help.--JamesChambers666 (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another admin has now reblocked for 3 months after another sock emerged, I'd have indeffed at this point.  Sandstein   05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well I suppose I have to confess I was wrong. Your pointless, pedantic and punitive block did more than just piss me off after all. It meant there were several vandal edits to pages on my watchlist that I couldn't revert, including some that stuck around for several hours, so you managed to piss me off and damage the project too. Please accept my hearty congratulations.

You made a block made without regard for timing, circumstance, or anything except a blind, jobsworth-like adherence to the letter of the rules.

The sarcastic applause you can hear in the background is coming from the ever-growing number of people who think WP administrators are largely a joke, and whom you have just helped prove correct. It's admins like you that give the whole WP admin team a bad name. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I shall choose to be the adult, and not be baited. Any other passing admin might fancy a wee visit there. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention, but I personally would not have blocked Rpeh for this comparatively moderate rant, even though they are evidently mistaken in believing that (a) edit-warring is ever justified and (b) anybody but themselves is to blame for their block.  Sandstein   21:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Flying Fische
, who you blocked earlier this month for deleting article maintenence tags without rectifying the problems mentioned, is still at it – there also seems to be a very serious underlying competence/disruption issue: for instance, a notification that one of their articles has been nominated for deletion was met with a response of, "No. DO IT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS," ('SHOUTING CAPITALS' is something that I've cautioned them about before) followed by an accusation of vandalism, which is another pattern; for instance, they recently re-inserted unsourced content about a living person with an edit summary labelling it as vandalism.

Just a week ago they were warned for repeatedly deleting  BLP PROD tags without adding the requisite reliable sources, and obviously more general disruption ensued.

I think that given this behaviour, with particular regard to their absolute refusal to adhere to the BLP policy, a further block is in order? ╟─TreasuryTag► co-prince ─╢ 13:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked indef for persistent disruption.  Sandstein   13:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ta. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► without portfolio ─╢ 13:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @TT - Be nice if you checked for references before you removed complained about the reinsertion of that material. Typing both names into google gives alot of joint pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not complain about the re-insertion, as is very clear from my comment above. I complained about the edit-summary labelling its deletion by as 'vandalism'. ╟─TreasuryTag► constablewick ─╢ 13:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you are reinforcing a battlefield mentality here, so Flyingfische makes an ill-conceived comment, time to 'go after' the editor then. As well as the concept of you calling someone out on the adverse presentation of their communication. Strikes me as a hypocritical action given complaints by others of your interactions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are criticising me for "going after" an editor who has no regard for WP:BLP, no regard for WP:NOTVAND, no regard for WP:BLPPROD, no regard for WP:NPA, no regard for WP:CANVASS and no regard for WP:V, then I can only recommend that you re-examine your position. Incidentally, I also wouldn't mind if you stopped commenting on every issue where my name appears on your watchlist. ╟─TreasuryTag► assemblyman ─╢ 13:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice the Norma Percy article is still there, and ermm, you labelled his edits as vandalism - he removed a tag but he added information, which you removed. And he did finally add a source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So Sandstein, what about TT reverting his edits (which included adding of material) as vandalism then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I used the rollback tool to revert Flying's removal of a WP:BLPPROD tag. Removing BLPPROD tags without adding a reliable source is vandalism. Incidentally, I also wouldn't mind if you stopped commenting and attempting to get me sanctioned/blocked on every issue where my name appears on your watchlist. ╟─TreasuryTag► inspectorate ─╢ 14:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So don't use an automated tool if it is going to misrepresent your actions in any way in a tense or volatile situation. And avoid getting into confrontations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:VANDTYPES, "removing afd, copyvio and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content" is defined as vandalism, so the rollback as vandalism was correct insofar as it reverted the removal of the BLPPROD tag. It was not correct insofar as it reverted the addition of content, which was not vandalism. TreasuryTag, please do not use the rollback tool to remove non-vandalistic content again, or I will remove your rollback access. Casliber, I would prefer it if you would continue any conversation you wish to have with TreasuryTag somewhere else.  Sandstein   14:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * < I was under the impression that reverting vandalism was precisely what the rollback tool was for, but whatever, sure. ╟─TreasuryTag► person of reasonable firmness ─╢ 15:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but of the three edits you reverted, only one was vandalism. You were not allowed to use rollback to revert the other two.  Sandstein   15:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The rollback tool automatically reverts to the last revision by someone other than the editor being undone, and I understood that it was common practice to revert such blatant BLP vandalism using the tool even if that involved deleting 'non-vandalistic' content – which in this case was unreferenced information about a living person, so not altogether acceptable anyway. However, I will be more careful in future if that is your wish. ╟─TreasuryTag► Counsellor of State ─╢ 19:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Pietà for Vittoria Colonna
Thank you, nice translation! as far as I know the drawing is quite sure by Michelangelo himself, while it's uncertain he did painted the same subject in oil and it is most uncertain that that painting still exists. The one they found in America, you can see the image, is quite low in quality, especially in faces and hands... comparing to the drawing, anyone can see the difference. unless they find something hidden with restoration it will be quite hard to prove that panting is Michelangelo's ;) --Sailko (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry, another question: when you write ma è descritta da Ascanio Condivi, do you mean that the drawing or the (presumably lost) painting is described by Condivi?  Sandstein   06:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Cabinet of Switzerland
Hi Sandstein,

Thank you for approaching me about this move rather than reverting it outright. I am not convinced that the Federal Council of Switzerland is not a cabinet, but "Federal Council of Switzerland" appears to be the far more common name for the organization, so feel free to revert the move.

Neelix (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Well, it is a cabinet, functionally, in that it is a bunch of minister-like officeholders who govern the country, but it is not called a cabinet, ever, by anybody.  Sandstein   15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it :) MLauba (Talk) 15:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your warning to User:Andreasegde
is not a vandal account, although he does get a bit "gobby", but a contributor with FA's and GA's behind him. You were right to warn him, but perhaps it might have been a bit softer? Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the warning should have been even harsher. I have higher, not lower, expectations regarding the conduct of experienced editors.  Sandstein   19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am no fan of WP:DTTR, but, yes, a warning noting that as an experienced and long time contributor that they are expected to know about BLP and have no excuses would still acknowledge their contribution otherwise. Same result, a final warning, but more... orientated toward a result? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, but there is a certain simplicity and uniformity to template messages that appeals to me. They represent the notion that the rules apply to all of us equally, no matter what our social status in this community is. That's why I intentionally try not to become aware of the social status of the people I warn or block, except insofar as it may have a bearing on my admin action (block log, past warnings, arbitration sanctions etc.)  Sandstein   20:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Close of AE Concerning Supreme Deliciousness
Hi Sandstein -

I posted a fairly comprehensive statement of concern (link/snapshot) to EdJohnston's talk page on this matter, and he recommended I ask for your comment. I won't copy that statement here, but would you mind having a look at his page and let interested parties know what you think, wherever you choose to post that evaluation, whether here or at Ed's page?

Briefly, the gist of my concern is that Ed appeared ready to close the request with no action, which other admin comments on the request thread seemed to support, and then had the courtesy to ask AGK if he wished to make any final comment. Instead of doing so, AGK posted on the request page, asking whether Ed favored a topic ban, but then removed that question two hours and forty-five minutes later (before Ed had replied, from what I can see) and proceeded to close the request himself, giving SD a six-month topic ban.

Given AGK's recent and very unusual intervention (snapshot) on a particular highly-controversial editor's behalf, and his remark on that editor's "ostensibly bad record", and a couple of other things I won't mention at this time, this most recent action ... well, I won't say that it rings some alarm bells for me, but it does seem a legitimate cause for concern and for discussion in some appropriate and (ideally) low-drama, non-adjudicative venue. Since it was clear from one of his comments in the AE request that AGK's is rather unfamiliar with ARBPIA/2 − he didn't know that IP edits could be reverted without violating 1rr restrictions (diff/ context) − perhaps he's also just not aware of the history of the topic area's prominent dramatis personae, either.

In a nutshell, and unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like AGK raced Ed to the finish line when Ed didn't know it was a race, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he did so in order to enact a sanction that opposed the apparent consensus among admins who commented in the request thread. I'd be very pleased to learn that I'm somehow mistaken, and Ed's being very "meh" about it.

But if that's what happened then it don't seem pretty: I don't see why an editor should be subjected to a six-month topic ban against apparent admin consensus, just because a single admin raced ahead of others to impose it, in what looks like a deliberate attempt to usurp the result to his liking. Again, I'd be pleased to learn that I'm mistaken in how it looks to me. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've stopped activity in AE because I believe that it is currently a waste of time because of lack of support by the Arbitration Committee. But in general, and without having examined the matter beyond what you write above, discretionary sanctions are not consensus-based actions. They are individual actions by individual administrators, like blocks or protections. An administrator imposing such sanctions is therefore not bound by any other administrator's opinion, let alone consensus. But of course any sanction imposed can be appealed as provided for in the relevant remedy.  Sandstein   20:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wrote this before Sandstein's above comment, and got an edit conflict; his comment makes clear that he doesn't want to get involved in this. That's a pity, but I respect his point of view. I can see how it would wear down anyone. I also agree with his opinion. (my comment from before the edit conflict, follows)


 * I'm rather puzzled by all this too... in fact I find AGK's recent actions in this topic area to be rather puzzling overall, but I am assuming good faith. And AGK did indeed mention (somewhere...) that he prefers to be rather more strict on such matters, to make things fairer overall. He even opened one or two AE cases on this topic himself, I think, although they seem to have been closed without action for some reason.... I wonder what that was about.


 * Now, we know that Sandstein always goes easy with sanctions against people involved in ethic conflicts is the perfect person to bring in to quash people who mess around in arbitration areas, in fact that's how I first met him. I did get the idea that he had decided to take a break from the AE arena, and who can blame him? But, I must still note the humour of someone complaining about an AE admin being overly strict, and deciding to appeal to Sandstein as a "less strict" admin. Ed, you intended the humour, right? :)


 * I will note that the edit notice for this page says "Please do not ask me to take arbitration enforcement action on this talk page". I am guessing a lot of people asked this of Sandstein because he was perceived as being more likely to impose harsher sanctions. How it applies to requests for review of existing sanctions, is quite another matter. Certainly some recent actions have been highly unusual to say the least. That doesn't mean Sandstein is required or forced to deal with them, but I think such actions need review in some forum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Demiurge, the topic is sort of couch surfing right now, wandering around homeless between Ed's talk page, AGK's, and here. Since there does seem to be interest in discussing this, could someone quickly suggest or provide an appropriate centralized location for this discussion to proceed? I just hate those discussions that are strewn across several pages, and almost impossible to follow with any certainty as to who said what, when, for that reason. What's the right location to move this to, before we get so much commentary about this as to make such centralization unfeasible? –  OhioStandard  (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I suggest that it is not my talk page :-) Seriously, the only appropriate forum I can think of is an appeal discussion initiated by the sanctioned user. If the sanctioned user accepts the sanction and does not appeal it, there is probably nothing to discuss.  Sandstein   21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Eden Gardens Editing Dispute
Hi Sandstein!! I am sorry for being engaged in an editing dispute but I have tried to resolve the matter using the talk page. The user Shovon was not agreeing with my sources and reverting all my edits. I also requested to semi-protect the page but that was declined. The user Shovon has also been in such dispute with some other before, you can see that in his talk page. All the sources that I provided were: SOURCES: PICTURE SOURCE: In the picture you will find "CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL" written on the board of the stadium, clearly Cricket Association Of Bengal is the owner of Eden Gardens. LATEST SOURCE (VIDEO): Listen to the commentators carefully (Listen them from 00:08:00). They say, "80,000 viewers came to watch this match". With regards, Iamgymman123 (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * www.EspnCricinfo.com
 * www.Yahoo.com
 * www.Kolkata.org.uk
 * www.IccCricketWorldCupLive.com
 * www.Youtube.com
 * Hi. The point of the policy WP:EW] is that you are not allowed to revert others repeatedly even if you are right and even if you provide sources. So the sources you list are not really relevant to the edit-warring problem. Please read [[WP:EW and WP:DR for further information.  Sandstein   05:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Declined AFD of Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation‎
Hello Sandstein. I filed the AFD you declined. This was my first AFD filed and I think it's safe to say that I'm a newbie when it comes to the bureaucracy behind article deletions, so please excuse my ignorance. I agree that "no consensus" was reached, which according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Afd#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed should mean that the request should be declined. The problem as I see it though, is that the article topic is a fabrication; This also explain why no WP:RS was ever found which supported the basic claim made in the article, i.e. the rality of "Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation". I think you understand why I'm not safisfied with the continued existence of this fabrication here on Wikipedia. What options do I have to get rid of this article? Filing another AFD is meaninless due to off-wiki canvassing and the presence of socks. Deletion review does not seem to apply as your deletion reasoning was valid (no consensus). Sincerely, --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be filing an SPI report about one of the editors involved in that article and AFD shortly. I don't know whether that will change anything but I'll post a link here when I've filed the report.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Frederico1234, I personally have no opinion about whether your assertion that there are no reliable sources describing this topic is correct or not. But as an administrator, I have to advise you that this question is what we call a "content issue", that is, a disagreement that needs to be resolved via editorial consensus (whether at AfD or in a merger discussion on the article talk page), and not a disagreement that can be resolved by fiat of an administrator or any administrative body. So, essentially, it is up to you to seek community consensus for your position that the article should not exist. If you cannot convince enough people of that, the article will continue to exist. See WP:DR for general advice relating to this. If such discussions are tainted by socking or canvassing, then that is something that admins can sanction people for - if you have evidence for it.  Sandstein   14:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding sockpuppetets in AFD discussions: Admins can sanction people for sockpuppeting, true, but that doesn't mean the article will go away. The AFD is only open for seven days and there's simply no time have SPIs processed in time. For example, in the AFD for Racism in the Palestinian territories the socks Luckymelon, RolesRoice and AMuseo (creator of the Islamization article) as well as Luckymelons' sockmaster Shuki all voted to keep the article. How are you supposed to reach a consensus in such an atmosphere? This is the reality in the I-P topic area.
 * Regarding canvassing: how are you supposed to stop it if the canvassing takes place off-wiki, | as was the case here? --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An article can be renominated for deletion if the discussion is shown to have been influenced by socks. Offwiki canvassing cannot be prevented, but it can be mitigated by the closing administrator, who may discount particularly weak opinions that do not address the policy-based issues raised in the discussion, but are cast in the manner of votes.   Sandstein   15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the SPI report, Sockpuppet investigations/Historicist.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)