User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/May

Asteroid Redirects
When closing asteroid AfDs as redirects (like 1903 Adzhimushkaj), please carry over the categories and Default sort from the article, and include R to list entry. I also recommend that you add a useful comment I've seen being used in these redirects: for example, in 4718 Araki. Thanks.

Pinging too, who has been helping with these after the fact. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll leave this to the experts, but thanks for the info.  Sandstein   16:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The_Legend_of_Korra_(season_1)
Hey Sandstein so I saw you protected the legend of korra a little while ago. The guy is back. It might be a little to soon to protect again but I just wanted to let you know BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

E-mail
Private concern related, please take note of it soon, thanks. --Steverci (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you think that an arbitration sanction has been violated, please make a request with all required diffs at WP:AE.  Sandstein   04:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Maxim Stoyalov
No big deal since a new AfD is active but there was a previous AfD which would have been obvious if you looked at the talk page. Articles for deletion/Max Stoyalov was a bit short but did exist.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it did not reach a consensus result because an admin speedy deleted the article before any opinions could be offered. So for the purposes of WP:CSD there was no prior AfD.  Sandstein   22:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I see the point.  Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"Peter Licavoli" article
Greetings. I'm writing to you in your capacity as an administrator. If you read the stub Peter Licavoli you'll see that he was a US Made man. A few days ago, I removed a sentence or two which praised his work after he ostensibly left the Mafia, describing it as "peacock language." The article had not been edited in 8 months. My edit was quickly reverted. I removed the reversion. Then the same editor re-reverted, ordering me not to removed his edit and calling me a "prick." This set off alarm bells in my mind--his 'assumption of command' and vulgarity are characteristic Mafia-like behavior, and his attachment to the memory of Mr. Licavoli was plainly personal. I created a talk page for the editor's IP address, and asked him to assure me that he wasn't making a threat. This is the page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.1.202.115 You can see what follows at that page and the history page of Peter Licavoli. Similar edits have been made to the Licavoli article from 2 additional IP addresses--it's clearly the same editor at 'work,' using multiple addresses for edit-warring.

It may be somewhat overdramatic, but I feel slightly threatened because of this editors 'stance' towards me. Imagine how you'd feel (and think) if dealing with an enthusiastic partisan of a high-ranking Waffen SS Offizier. I didn't post this to WP:AN3 on account of this complication. Can you please help me with this, or suggest a way to proceed? Thank you for your attention. Tapered (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: Could you please auto-protect Peter Licavoli so that only registered editors can edit it. Thanks. Tapered (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the IP and semi-protected the article.  Sandstein   11:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! Tapered (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Tell us why you won't allow a non-vulgar, non-theatening edit to be posted? Do you have a personel vendetta for this person or are you just using your power of edit? Other than that you are blocking free speech just like communist counties. Please explain to us??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.233.237 (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm only going to say this once. You have no right to free speech on Wikipedia, see WP:FREESPEECH. This is a privately operated website and you are only allowed to edit it if you follow its rules. And that, you have comprehensively failed to do: you have engaged in edit wars, see WP:EW, you have personally attacked other editors, see WP:NPA, you have used Wikipedia articles to clumsily promote an issue and engage in editorializing, all without citing sources, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. And you are evading a block placed on your IP address, in violation of WP:EVADE. For this, your editing privileges have been removed. If you would like to have a chance at editing Wikipedia again, stop evading your block, read WP:GAB and proceed as directed there.   Sandstein   15:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate messages
Sandstein, please stop disrupting my talk page with inappropriate templates. You are accusing of edit warring and laughably threatening Arbitration when what editors have done (and you've only targeted me) is remove an addition of info that YOU agree with but is clearly under discussion and opposed by a majority of editors at the BLP noticeboard. has removed it, as did - and they have supported the addition. But you have not bothered them. If you keep disrupting my page with this, you'd be harassing. Your competence as an admin has already been questioned by another editor, plus the fact that most disagree with your view at the noticeboard; I ask and suggest you stop disrupting my page with nonsense threats. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not threatening you with anything. If you read WP:AC/DS, you will see that these alerts are intended to notify (without presumption of misconduct) users who are editing in certain topic areas, including WP:BLP articles, that special rules apply to these areas. This also covers edit-warring with respect to disputed content, such as the content about whose inclusion in Cate Blanchett we disagree. I'm looking forward to the conclusion of the discussion about this at WP:BLPN, but in the meantime I advise you to refrain from edit-warring. Regards,  Sandstein   11:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Given the templates and circumstances, one can interpret it as threats, and if done again, mere harassment. I've not edit warred; I, like other editors, only removed the controversial info on the BLP because it's under discussion (and also being largely opposed) at the BLP noticeboard. It's expected that other editors (mostly IPs) unaware of the discussions would be adding the info. The controversial info can't stay on the BLP while it's being considered ambiguous and against BLP policy or Undue. Whatever the consensus is at the noticeboard, that's what we would should abide by here. Cheers. Lapadite (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should abide by whatever consensus forms at the noticeboard, but that does not change that if you repeatedly remove (or others repeatedly add) the content at issue, this may constitute participation in an edit war, which may lead to sanctions as described in my messages.  Sandstein   11:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If others keep adding it would you suggest temporary page protection, or pending changes? Lapadite (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is that the fact that people keep adding the content is an indicator that our readership is interested in this topic, which informs the discussion about it, and therefore I would oppose any protection measure. Ultimately, we must abide by consensus, and if this is added by different people repeatedly, it should become apparent that consensus is in favor of its inclusion.  Sandstein   12:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that the whole "Cate Blanchett is a lesbian" thing has been shown to be a creation of journalistic sensationalism, I think you have some apologies to offer. As an administrator, isn't it more important for you to defend our cautious and conservative BLP policy than to argue that "our readship is interested" in splashy rumor mongering? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The statement was attributed to Blanchett in a (normally) reliable source, and I think the responsible thing to do, based on that information, was to reproduce this statement and attribute it to the source so that readers can decide for themselves what to make of it. That still is the responsible thing to do now, in my view, but now of course together with Blanchett's correction. As important as it is to write biographies conservatively, we are not in the business of second-guessing reliable sources because that would be original research. Let the actually involved people do that, and let's cover any new developments as they happen.  Sandstein   18:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Steven Universe: Attack the Light!
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)