User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/May

Valyrian language
Thank you for spotting all the bits I've been stupidly overlooking ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you for adding all the complicated-looking linguistic content, I wouldn't know where to begin :-)  Sandstein   19:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem; the constructed languages are one (well, three) of the many things I like about Game of Thrones, so I follow the blogs and articles about them. Were I to spend more time getting my head round the languages, I could probably expand the language samples better too, but that's not something I can do whilst watching TV at the same time ;o)
 * I'm not entirely convinced that the speculation I put into the article would fall foul of WP:NOR or WP:V, though, given David J. Peterson has effectively endorsed the speculation, which is why I added it; d'you not think that's verification enough, given the wording of my addition? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: Could you throw a Talkback link onto my Talk: page when you reply, please? I'm not very good at keeping on top of my watchlist ;o) Thanks!
 * Sure. I'm copying this to the article talk page and am replying there.  Sandstein   13:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good plan; you're right: it makes more sense to keep the conversation there, rather than here. I've replied there. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

SPI
There is an SPI case that I would like you to review. It concerns Evlekis, and considering the full of circumstances, you might be better suited to determine the necessity and duration of a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This was a unique situation, and your handling of the blocks just made sense. I appreciate your timely and thoughtful response there. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Stopped by to say the same thing - thanks for offering your perspective. Not that SPI clerks aren't capable enough, but there was a lot on the table there. WilliamH (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Keep up the good work at SPI - not having a great deal of antisock expertise, I've often had to refer people there, and I'm glad to see that it works.  Sandstein   19:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Copy of Gigablast article
Gigablast was a well-known alternative search engine back in the days. I think its a pity that we don't not have an article on it.

Looks like the article was deleted by you back in 2008 after a short afd. I beeliv them to be notably and there are reliable sources around Google Books search for 'gigablast', List of Gigablast in the News and.

I want to write an article about them. Can I have a copy of what was there before copied to userspace? I'm not a big fan of doing duplicate work, so if the afd was just about missing references I can add thus now. Runarb (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, userfied at User:Runarb/Gigablast.  Sandstein   21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will try to salvage some text from the first version and write the rest. Runarb (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nationalist editing issues
An anon has gotten active on a single article, being disruptive. I've caught him blatently misreprsenting a source. Perhaps the article needs partial protection form anons? I'll copy what I wrote on the article's talk page:

Here, pg. 230:. The original source stated ""In Czestochowa, on May 27, after an unknown assailant wounded one of their comrades, Haller's troops joined a furious crowd in a three hour rampage..." An anon editor changed the wording to "In Czestochowa, after one of their comrades was wounded by a Jewsih (sic) extrimist supporting the Bolshevik cause:  from the original "In Czestochowa, after one of their comrades was wounded, Haller's troops..." This is an obvious falsification of what was written in the original source, not to mention the usual excuse for antisemtic violence being the Jews' fault for being Communists. This falsification is the work of an anon editor with a single purpose (could be a blocked sockpuppet, who knows?), as seen by the edit history:. He started by removing referenced info, then adding info that wasn't in the sources or unreferenced claims, etc. Faustian (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's a bit too unstructured for me, you need at least to link to the article this is about. Please see WP:GRA and retry.  Sandstein   21:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry! Here is the article: .  The anon began by removing referenced information: .  Since then he has been changing what the referenced info is, as proven in the above example when he simply falsified what had been written in the referenced source. He has also been adding unreferenced "excuses" and such as seen here: . He also seems to be getting increasingly angry and rude on the talk page: .Faustian (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: and here he is again - adding info that is completely not in the source: . Here is another example of this anon blatantly claiming that a source states the opposite of what it actually states: .I'm not editing there now in order to avoid 3R restrictions. Faustian (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I've addressed the issue, see .  Sandstein   15:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you!Faustian (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been watching this dispute from the sidelines for days. Faustian is absolutely correct about the quote from the book by Prof Carole Fink titled Defending the Rights of Others. – The only problem is that, that actual incident was not given much attention there beyond a brief mention; meanwhile, there are other sources available online such as excerpts from the book by historian Arkadiusz Goclon from Wroclaw University titled Ojczyzna w niebezpieczeństwie (2000) apparently supporting the anon's claims at least partially. Needless to say, it is not my job to teach others how to properly argue their own case. Besides, I don't want to get involved in this dispute because the controversy surrounding the Częstochowa incident is troubling. All I want is to draw your attention to the fact that there was (and probably still is) historical uncertainty about what really happened. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 05:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That may well be the case, but that is a matter of content which (in my capacity as an administrator administering discretionary sanctions) I must not be concerned with.  Sandstein   06:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Elvekis
Looks like Elvekis is still at it with new IPs, , and. What do you recommend? -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 16:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what else you may do, reporting the IPs at SPI would help alert more people as to what behaviour and IP ranges to keep an eye out for. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the people at WP:SPI are the experts for this.  Sandstein   16:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandstein, the ongoing wikihounding/revert-stalking by Evlekis IP socks of Bobrayner's edits outside of Evlekis' Yugoslavia topic-ban is making me think an interaction ban on Evlekis interacting with Bobrayner would help with suppressing the wider disruption to the project that is now occurring. It would simplify things for rollbackers at least, and might have some deterrent effect. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be pointless. He's blocked and not supposed to edit at all. Just report IPs to SPI for blocking.   Sandstein   11:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, Dennis set me straight. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks!  Sandstein   19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Goodnessislam
Would you be interested in informing the "new" user:Goodnessislam of AA2? I changed his original research and cherry picking of information on Persecution of Muslims article, explained the reasoning on the talk page and was in turn reverted by Goodnessislam with the edit summary of, "vandalism by an armenian".. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, warning issued.  Sandstein   06:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you be interested in protecting the Persecution of Muslims article? After waiting a week for a response on the talk page, I reverted the original research and was quickly revert by an IP(sock of User:Goodnessislam??). User:Robofish, who posted on the talk page, reverted the IP and was again reverted by another IP. I believe these IPs are socks of User:Goodnessislam, whom I believe is NOT a new editor to the area of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey and is using IPs to editwar his original research into the article. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad, the IP also revert User:OP47, who also has posted on the talk page. Therefore, these IPs and Goodnessislam has reverted 3 different editors without any discussion on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, semi'd. Recommend asking SPI if they can do something, like a rangeblock, or confirm the socking suspicion.  Sandstein   23:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough again?
I noticed that you blocked to enforce a decision by the Arbitration committee. I also noticed that made exactly the same erroneous edit at Talk:Countable set as was previously made by Rich. Perhaps Chris is a sock puppet of Rich editing in violation of the ban. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would filing an SPI work in this case? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The edit summary seems to suggest that it's a general fix written into AWB. If that is truly the case, you could end up having to block quite a few more editors than just CG. Have you advised Chris or the team that looks after WT:AWB? --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 06:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on AWB. If you think that there is a realistic chance of sockpuppetry, you should file a WP:SPI report.  Sandstein   07:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To call me a sock puppet is terrible, even the allegation is insulting. It is a general fix put into AWB in accordance with General Fixes, I have been removing vandalism and sub heading talkpage chatter that has been flipped into sections and putting proper shell banners on pages with multiple banners and cleaning up. Rather then discuss this on my page and look at the answer, you insinuate I am Rich. I am offended by that, especially since you assume bad faith and do not even ask what it was for or about! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To put it more nicely, I don't like being accused of being a sockpuppet of a blocked user for a AWB General fix. I've explained and addressed the matter by placing the archive box on the talk page, which is the preferred form. The mere suggestion that you will have to block a bunch of AWB users for General Fixes shows that there is a misunderstanding with how and what AWB is. The talk here makes me sound like some vandal, when I constantly fix vandalized pages, help at DRN and perform routine fixes. If you do not understand what I am doing; ask me and don't assume the worst possible thing. I trust the archive box is fine as it is now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Around here these days all it takes is an accusation to get a user blocked so why go through the extra hassle of doing things right when they can simply just go straight here? But that seems to be how the system works these days, Unfortunately. Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE
D.Lazard commented at WP:AE after being trolled on his talk page by an open proxy sock of Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement
Hi there! :) You previously commented on the talk page for my Articles for Review proposal. I recently discovered that we have a project on Wikipedia called Today's articles for improvement, which actually covers quite a bit of what my proposal was intended to do. I have started a new discussion there to gauge whether the rest of my proposal (creating a process strictly concerned with finding sources for existing articles which don't yet meet the WP:GNG, potentially salvageable articles which have been deleted, articles which have been merged or just redirected due to notability concerns, failed Articles for Creation submissions, user space drafts, article incubator pages, or even articles that have yet to be started) could be made into something workable. Please have a look at that discussion, and add any input there you may have. :) BOZ (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ragnar Lodbrok picture
Please stop adding the picture of the death of Ragnar Lodbrok.

I Understand that this is an encyclopedia, but a new show that millions of people watch called "Vikings" is revolved around this man, and by having this picture here, it spoils the series for the viewers.

If a person is actually interested in this man enough to learn his biography and how he died, they will surely do this, but by having this picture here, it catches people off guard, and is the same as someone writing spoilers in the Youtube comment section.

People are curious when they watch a show, but they tend to realize how to avoid spoilers, by having this picture up, it is forcing it upon them and ruining a series.

Thank you 24.0.131.3 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)A


 * I have to butt in here and say...huh? You wish to remove a nearly 200-year-old image that depicts Ragnar's death from the Ragnar Lodbrok article, because you're worried that people watching the current tv series will be upset if they find out he's dead? Tarc (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious that he has died, it is supposedly a historical series, but the picture depicts king Ælla of Northumbria's murder of him. In the series, if you are not following it, it is currently revolved around the struggle between the two men, by having this picture shoved into the face of a curious series-watcher, it spoils the future episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.3 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, but that's really besides the point; the Wikipedia does not do spoiler alerts, an does not hide or remove content because some people may not have seen a show or movie yet. Everything from the Game of Thrones to reality tv shows are update pretty much minute-by-minute as plot points, winners, etc...happen.  You also cannot keep removing the content over and over once challenged, we have rules above endless reverts.  I'd advise that you restore the image yourself and leave this topic alone, otherwise I may have to request an admin such as Sandstein here block your account so we can restore the image uninterrupted by you. Tarc (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but if I go on the game of thrones article, I definitely know that the first thing I see will not be a picture and description of something that will spoil future episodes. This picture is not necessary for the time being considering a very popular historical TV series is revolving solely around it. Their are other historical pictures of Lodbrok that could be used, I do not see why you should use this certain one. 24.0.131.3 (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tarc, see WP:SPOILER for the explanation. What other images are there?  Sandstein   04:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand the situation of spoilers on Wikipedia, but I believe this case is in a class of its own. I can't say which picture can be used since I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedias image/copyright system, but I feel as though using one that doesn't involve ruining a viewers experience would be highly beneficial to the Vikings fan base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.3 (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, consensus is clearly against you here. Spoiler policy aside, Ragnar is primarily a legendary figure. That he's also the hero in a TV series is incidental, and we certainly won't make any changes to his article just because of that.  Sandstein   14:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Report of interaction ban breach
Hi there Sandstein,

Got a question for you. You know how you put me and Volunteer Marek under an interaction ban, which states that he is forbidden "from alleging that Russavia engaged in misconduct outside the English Wikipedia." (and myself likewise with him).

On 28 April 2013, VM posted this in which he stated:

"Whenever I read discussions such as these (and the one at Jimbo's talk page, and Commons) I always end up wondering "where in the world does Wikipedia manage to find the scumbags that manage to make these kinds of comments with a straight face???". The only logical explanation that I can come up with is that there's purposeful trolling going on because there's just no way that such a number of people can be so ethically damaged."

These comments were being made in direct relation to Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mardi Gras Flashing - Color.jpg which I closed for editors to discuss back on this project. The comments were made after that close by myself.

Given the inflammatory tone and nature of the comments, and the fact that the file under discussion there was something I was directly involved with in my Commons capacity, it leaves no doubt in ones mind that he is accusing myself of "purposeful trolling", and this is directly in breach of the interaction ban that you placed that specifically states:

"You are indefinitely banned from interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs), as described in Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban. For additional clarity, this interaction ban includes (but is not limited to) forbidding you from alleging that Russavia engaged in misconduct outside the English Wikipedia."

Can you please deal with this, as accusing myself of engaging in "purposeful trolling" on Commons is a breach of this interaction ban in both spirit and letter. I don't know if a block is justified or not, but I think at least an indefinite "Commons topic ban" precluding Volunteer Marek from all discussion relating to Commons in all namespaces (including ALL talk pages) is warranted here.

FYI, I ran this by a couple of other admins before making you aware of this, and they were of the belief that it is evident that Marek was talking about myself given the discussion, the nature and tone of the comments, but they suggested bringing it directly to you for enforcement after the expiry of my block; just as IP editors brought an alleged topic ban breach directly to you for enforcement. I don't like having to do this, but there you go. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it a violation of IBAN? VM neither mentions you nor links to any off wiki discussions? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reporting a suspected IBAN violation is an exception. And there is no topic ban vio that I can see in those diffs. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignore the proxy IP, which should be blocked. That proxy IP appears to be solely dedicated to harassing Russavia with frivolous complaints.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Russavia, why don't you try setting aside the personal agendas for a while and focus on normal editing activity? Since your most recent block expired you have done little but go after other editors. Even if those comments were some veiled remark about you, and that is not at all clear, they are hardly worthy of the potential drama.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is why I have brought it to Sandstein directly and suggested perhaps a Commons topic ban instead of a block; this will allow myself to be able to comment freely on Commons policies and the like, and I have a right to do this on this project given the allegations that are tossed at my home project on a daily basis. It may have been a veiled remark, but given history of antagonism it is clear who it was directed against, and Sandstein knows full well that this is not on; especially as he is the one who set the stricter interaction ban as he did.


 * If Volunteer Marek has issues relating to Commons, he is free to raise those issues directly on Commons. There is no need to be continually using this project as a battleground, and perhaps it may refocus VM to what is important on our projects, and allow myself to do likewise. There will be plenty of other people available to criticise Commons. That aside, I am now just going to wait for Sandstein to respond and discuss this with him. Russavia (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, your request to enforce the interaction ban against Volunteer Marek is not actionable. Their edit you refer to does not violate the topic ban because it does not make reference to you, either by username or in any other manner that would allow others to identify you as the subject of the statement. I agree with The Devil's Advocate that it would be best for you and all involved if you would distance yourself entirely from your past disputes with others, and focus on editing the encyclopedia again. You yourself have violated the interaction ban with respect to Volunteer Marek in your message of 17:59 above, because in that message you made reference to Volunteer Marek, and that message does not qualify under the exceptions listed at WP:BAN. In enforcement of your interaction ban, I am temporarily blocking you.  Sandstein  19:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it is covered under exceptions "Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason." Reporting a possible IBAN vio is not a blockable offense and you need to unblock Russavia right now. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Russavia already reported the alleged interaction ban violation above, at 14:45. The second message at 17:59 did not report anything new, but instead made allegations of misconduct against Volunteer Marek, which is exactly what the interaction ban is intended to prevent. It is exactly because of such situations – to avoid enforcement requests from turning into venues where interaction bans can be evaded and old feuds continued – that the ban policy provides that enforcement requests may be made "normally not more than once". The block is maintained.  Sandstein   19:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ...What? This is ridiculous - Russavia suggested a reasonable way to ameliorate the situation and you block him for it? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, because in making their suggestion (about whose merits I have no opinion) Russavia violated their interaction ban.  Sandstein   20:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, I'm not exactly Russavia's biggest fan, but even I think that's an entirely inappropriate block. Please reverse it, or at least ask for wider community input on the issue. --Conti|✉ 20:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Russavia is free to appeal the block according to the procedures linked to in the block message. That is the way to gather further input, if needed, about an AE block.  Sandstein   21:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you intentionally ignoring the possibility of this being discussed (and overturned) on WP:ANI? --Conti|✉ 13:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost everything is possible on Wikipedia, I've found.  Sandstein   14:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely an interaction ban bans interactions with a person? Now, there are two ways I can see to look at this: either that is an interaction, in which case it's one which reports a possible violation of the ban and so it is allowed; or it's not an interaction on the grounds that there needs to be two people for an interaction and there's only one here. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As outlined above, the infringing message of 17:59 did not report a possible violation of the ban. (The earlier message of 14:45 did report an alleged interaction ban violation, but I am not sanctioning Russavia for that.) You are also mistaken that "there needs to be two people for an interaction": interaction bans specifically prohibit one-sided interactions (such as one editor mentioning the other, as in this case); this is explained on the policy page at WP:IBAN.   Sandstein   21:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sandstein's analysis is correct. —  Scott  •  talk  09:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation
Here because the article has this section,and also here because quite a few Eastern European countries are members of EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.122.140 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the relation of the edits to Eastern Europe is too tenuous. Also I don't like to act on anonymous requests because that is a method of avoiding scrutiny for frivolous or vexatious requests, which this borders on. Please make future enforcement requests with your user account.   Sandstein   05:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Yozer1 adding "alleged" to Armenian genocide, et.al.
Judging from these edits,, would you warn User:Yozer1 of possible discretionary sanctions regarding Armenian, Azerbaijan and Turkish articles? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, these edits are a pretty big WP:NPOV problem, as they are based on the premise that there was no Armenian genocide - which I understand from our article is, at best, a minority position advanced only by the Turkish government and related parties. Warning issued.  Sandstein   13:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether it is a minority point of view is beside the point. All voices need to be represented if you are claiming a WP:NPOV policy. What do you say of Armenian Genocide denial then? Obviously, reliable sources of academics on the opposite end, and historical archives of an 80 Million people government that dispute the exaggerated claims of some authors and minority activists in the United States and elsewhere need to be considered. Please do your homework carefully before judging. Thank you for your efforts. Yozer1 (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem begins when the Armenian Genocide denial position is presented in Wikipedia's voice as the correct position, as you did here. That's contrary to WP:NPOV.  Sandstein   20:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

photo credits
I'm sorry I didn't contribute to the RfC: Requiring photo credits in footnotes for copyrighted images until now, and I am sorry to see it isn't going well.

I meant to contribute earlier, but got way layed, and just now saw it again. I'm particularly chagrined because I formulated an opinion before reading your arguments, and then when I saw your points, they were very similar, down to noting the discrete nature of photos makes it different than text.

I'm mulling over whether there are next steps. I think the distinction between text editors and photographers is worth pursuing.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, thanks, though I appreciate it's a rather difficult matter with many aspects to be taken into consideration. Some sort of mouseover solution might be best .. for text and images.  Sandstein   20:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello Sandstein: I'm contacting you since you commented on the Mathsci/D.Lazard AE. I regret to say I know very little of administrators outside WP:Math, and I'm rather ignorant of tools available that I could use to look up the following information for myself. As indicated in my comments there, I am curious to know how many people might be considered as "experts" actively involved in identifying it. I would appreciate any pointers to where I could learn more. Thanks! Rschwieb (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking me about.  Sandstein   20:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, okay: this. The question is "how many people participate in the task of identifying mole sockpuppets?" Rschwieb (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally the administrators and checkusers who process requests at WP:SPI.  Sandstein   21:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I will see what I can learn there, then. Thank you! Rschwieb (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Premature closing of MathSci's RfE against D.Lazard by Future Perfect at Sunrise?
I wish to notify you of a discussion that you were involved in. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

AE logs
Just a bookkeeping detail: Bulgaria-related sanctions, including the previous ones on Ceco, have typically been filed under WP:ARBMAC, not WP:ARBEE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks; moved.  Sandstein   15:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Malizengin
Could you inform User:Malizengin of the restrictions concerning Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkish articles? After checking the information Malizengin added to the Sasun Resistance (1894) article, I found this book, "Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Vol 1, by David Forsythe,;"A European investigative commission found that the Armenians were not guilty of anything but self-defense.", which is exactly opposite of User:Malizengin's assertion. I have posted the information on the talk page, but thought it prudent to have you make Malizengin aware of AA2. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Another edit, user:Malizengin changed "Events at Van" to "Siege of Van by Armenians". Which is ridiculous, since the Armenians were in the city of Van and under siege by Ottoman troops! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks like it needs a closer examination, please take it to WP:AE.  Sandstein   18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. If user:Malizengin has not been notified of the restrictions regarding AA2, what enforcement would I be seeking? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The warning you ask me to impose.  Sandstein   19:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Judging from User:Malizengin's edit history, he will just continue to edit war and disrupt Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

meat
Hi, I don't think that listing the main prohibited animal meats under Kosher rules (pork, crustaceans and mollusks) is too detailed. Without this info, the reader does not know what the kosher rules are. Some people print out the articles at public libraries. If someone prints out the meat article, they won't know what the kosher prohibitions are. We cannot assume that all Wikipedia users are reading online. I think it is not good to rely so heavily on links. I will try a one sentence version soon. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

רסטיניאק
You should probably warn him (and Nataev too) about discussing sock-puppetry in relation to and on the talk pages of articles of living persons. I mentioned this at ANI and the section was eventually rev-deleted. (See and ) I have to say I envy your composure in dealing with the ARBPIA area... 5.12.68.204 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)