User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/June

Unclear about a topic ban
Hi, I am confused about my topic ban on Bulgaria. I abstaimed from editing for abot two years, not because I was blocked for so much time I was just for three months, so I am began again before two days and I wonder which bans are cutrently still in force. Is the topic ban expired or still in force, enforced before two years? It is written "idefinetely" banned but at the same time I am able to edit topic pages on topic, it doesnt show me "view aource", does this mean that the block had expired? If no, I would like to appeal, I am interested in this topic. It's been two years already I promise I wont break 3rr, I deserve a second chance if not u can reblock me at any time. Thank you for the atention.--Ceco31 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the decision imposing the ban?  Sandstein   19:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ceco31#At_AE_again --Ceco31 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse ne for the wrong link this is the decision imposing the ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=556281728#Ceco31


 * The topic ban remains in effect indefinitely, it applies separately from the block. Your appeal, insofar as this is one, is declined: Your contributions indicate almost no substantial contributions since the topic ban in May 2013, so I can't tell whether and how you have changed your approach to editing. Your most recent contributions, though, indicate that you have not: As soon as you returned to Wikipedia, you started edit-warring on Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and Bartholomew I of Constantinople. You also violated your topic ban by editing Bulgarians, including with an edit that can be read as racist. For this, you are blocked for three more months.  Sandstein   09:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Need a second opinion
Dear Sandstein

In spite of my many years of editing at Wikipedia, I have never been directly involved in actions at any of the disciplinary or other noticeboards. I am now peripherally involved in a dispute over a conflict of interest action at WP:COIN. The editor involved contends vociferously that he has no paid connection with the subject of the article, but there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The problem is that this evidence involves "outting" the user, at least partially, something I and other editors are loath to do.

I posted the evidence, but immediately deleted it, because I was unsure if it was appropriate. Could you please take a look at this and tell me what you think?

Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Uysyn
Hello, Sandstein. Based on your appearant extensive knowledge of policy and previous participation in AfD's related to problematic User:Barefact, i was hoping you could take a look at Articles for deletion/Uysyn. Krakkos (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know nothing about this topic area and can't contribute anything useful.  Sandstein   13:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion please...
In April 2008 you closed Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list. Your closing decision was a merge. The merge target you chose was List of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Since the AFD it has emerged that the CIA also operated camps in Guantanamo, and the CIA captives, including Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri, and at least half a dozen other men, were held in Guantanamo, in 2003-2004 -- and their names were missing from the official list.

You made the closure. In your opinion under what conditions would you agree this new information justifies restoring the article to article space?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Considering the passage of time, and the availability of new information, I think that this should be settled by a new community discussion, such as a RFC on an appropriate article talk page. I myself don't have an opinion on this.  Sandstein   07:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

deletion reviews question

 * I'm seriously asking, not trolling: what's the procedure for deciding deletion reviews that hinge entirely on WP:RS? Do admins actually just count noses and make no attempt at all to establish the reliability of any sources? [I'm looking at New Mexican English, and.. I genuinely have never in many years (I used to be User:Ling.Nut) ever seen such a pile of thin-air nothingness in a Reference section. I deleted six references one by one after examining them one by one, then kinda gave up, since from here it looks like deleting the entire section in one edit would accomplish the same result.]. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 22:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources aren't normally an issue at WP:DRV. That forum reviews issues of deletion procedure, but not whether a deletion was correct on the merits (such as because of the lack of reliable sources.).  Sandstein   07:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if I may follow up, what forum is populated by editors who both understand and give a F*ck about WP:GNG and WP:RS? &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 03:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends. What specifically do you want to achieve? Deletion? Undeletion?  Sandstein   06:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say, because I genuinely WP:DGAF about the article per se, but OTOH it genuinely disturbs me that articles are written that so very flagrantly WP:DGAF about WP:GNG. I can certainly and absolutely forgive a new editor for writing such an article; I find it distasteful that experienced editors would go out of their way to defend one. So the article is one you closed as No Consensus for AfD: New Mexican English. I invested a little time cleaning up the really malformed references and cites, but when all that is done, the references are of three types: industrial-strength WP:OR of YouTube clips etc., links to sources that are reliable in and of themselves but do nothing to establish the notability of the topic, and links to sources that are of extremely dubious reliability (once again YouTube, travel guides, and so on). I even invested a little time looking for reliable sources, and pulled up absolutely nothing on either Google Scholar or Google Books (one possibly useful source). In a perfect Wikipedia world, where the editors cared only about WP:GNG and not local identity issues, this article would be deletd without much thought. In he real Wikipedia, in one of the two Wikipedias, I concede there is little hope for that. I am wondering if my assumption of hopelessness is indeed correct. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 06:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to discuss sources in the abstract, WP:RSN is the place to go, and if you think that there are not enough sources to support a specific article, that is discussed at WP:AFD.  Sandstein   06:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Specific, not abstract, but AfD I fear is a waste of time. So thank you for your time. Good luck in all you do. &bull; Arch&diams;Reader 06:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Leyend of korra streches
Mr. sandstein i know that me ereasing that content was tecnically not constructive, but i believe that what ereased is only misinformative streches of a theme that didn't developed, nor was it meant to be subversive, the 2 characters started a relationship, and that's all what it is, nothing more that that and nothing wrong with it, i have no prejudices towards the depiction of relationships of the same sex in any kind of media, and i support them, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.231.145.173 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you remove substantial amounts of content, you should leave an edit summary explaining why you did it. As to the merits, the content at issue is referenced to reliable sources, so you'd need a considerably better reason than "misinformative", whatever that may mean.  Sandstein   21:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Game of Thrones ratings
Hi, Sandstein! I noticed your revert on my edit on Template:Game of Thrones ratings, and I do agree with you on the colour contrasts upon thinking about it further. Is there a particular background colour you'd suggest that would allow contrast for all of the colours? We could change the Season 5 colour, but if we were to base it off of the poster, I'm not sure what colour we could pick to make it separate from Season 3 and 4's colours (medium grey and dark grey respectively). Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 06:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. I'm not sure myself. A grey background of rgb(0.7,0.7,0.7), see below, seems to work for legibility, but might look out of place layout-wise, and as to the poster's colors I'm not sure which to pick. Maybe ask others on Talk:Game of Thrones?  Sandstein   06:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just gonna drop in here.. I think we should keep it the way it is, because it is just easier to look at. The gray background makes it look a little weird, plus, the colors of the lines in the new chart sometimes look very alike. (for example Seasons 1,3 and 5). Greetings. --Rayukk (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A discussion existed both here and on the talk page of the Game of Thrones article, yet no contributing arguments were presented, hence my decision to go forward. I recommend that they stay as such while a discussion is on-going - if there were any major arguments opposing this change for solid reasons, they would have already been presented. When dealing with seasons of television series, colours are always dealt with according to their marketing material, no matter in what context the colour is used. The colours purple for the fourth season, and orange for the fifth season (as examples), both have no correlation between each other, and have just been "randomly picked". The main point of Wikipedia isn't to not use what's "weird", but to follow policy. If you would like to suggest a different background colour to support this, you're more than able to (and have been for over a week while these discussions have been present). I'm also not sure how blue, grey, and white look alike... Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  03:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Warning
Regarding this warning: it truly was unnecessary for you to place scary looking templates on my talk page rather than just bringing your concerns over my comments to my attention. At which point, I would have said: "Thank you for bringing this to my attention and reminding me of BLP policy; it was not my intention to violate policy, but I can see now that I did. It was a horrible choice on my part.." etc., etc. I then would have apologized profusely, hat in hand, offered to remove the comments myself, and so on. As it was, you chose to take the route too many in Wikipedia do these days: using impersonal templates to immediately threaten blocking, rather than assuming in good faith it was just a moment of weakness and further taking the time to realize, since the person you are templating has no history of such a policy violation, they just made a stupid choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's another possible approach, but I believe that in such circumstances immediate deletion and "scary" templates are also effective.  Sandstein   13:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

AE
Hi Sandstein, please see. Jaqeli 15:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Need a little help with a template
Hi, Sandstein - I'm confused about where appeal a week-long article ban. Are we supposed to use the template at AE? Thank you in advance. Atsme 📞📧 20:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the ban was an arbitration enforcement action, yes, but you can appeal (without the template) to the banning admin first,  Sandstein   04:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)