User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/March

User behavior
Hi, I don't necessarily want to open an AE action, but I am getting sick and tired of being treated uncivilly and getting called names by Nishidani. If you look at User:Sir_Joseph/sandbox, I was working on an AE action, but if someone can tell Nishidani that he needs to cool his behavior, I'd be OK with that. There have been many times where he has used the edit summaries to attack, and he has also many times called those he disagreed with names. I know he violated 1RR but it's the behavior that upsets me more. thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, admins aren't the user conduct police. I recommend that you use the procedures described at WP:DR to resolve disagreements.  Sandstein   21:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but I don't understand how admins are not the user conduct police, they are exactly that. If I bring this case to AE, it's an open and shut case of violating DS and casting aspersions, which could theoretically result in a block. I don't necessarily want a block for him, just a warning issued. Isn't that better than doing the whole bureaucratic process? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want AE action, please make a request for it at WP:AE. This ensures we have all the evidence we need and an opportunity to respond.  Sandstein   06:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"BDs are not cartoons"
Do you have any idea what you're talking about when you say this? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And the point of this rhetorical question is?  Sandstein   10:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You really do have no clue what you're talking about. Neither comics nor BD (which are comics) are "cartoons".  Cartooning is a method of making comics; photography is another, as in fumetti.  A person who makes cartoons is a cartoonist.  A "comics writer" is a person who produces scripts for an artist or team of artists to illustrate in Marvel- and DC-style assembly-line comic books.  The terms rarely apply outside of that context.  It certainly doesn't apply to Florence Cestac.  Please revert and leave these things to those of us who know what we're talking about. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Please join it, and please also remember that you should comment about content, not contributors, or you may be made subject to sanctions.  Sandstein   10:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Couldn't resist a threat, could you? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And you can't resist continuing to comment about contributors rather than content?  Sandstein   11:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour is the problem, not content. You've ignored what I've told you and continued to revert me—the article's still at your "preferred version". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It might surprise you, but not every person who disagrees with you is, for this reason alone, behaving wrongly...  Sandstein   11:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It might surpise you, but not everyone who disagrees with me starts an edit war and threatens sanctions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a deleted page be reinstated
Hi,

The Red Tyger Church wikipedia page was deleted on February 2nd, 2017. I was written about it on January 18th, and I wrote back Rogermx but did not hear back, and am only just now getting back to this. I think the page was deleted due to not having enough sources to prove it is a legitimate article. I have more sources, which I noted in my email to Rogermx, but did not know how soon I needed to add that info in. Could you let me know if it is possible to reinstate a deleted page, so that I can apply my edits, after which the page could be reviewed again?

The message I sent to Rogermx:

"Hi, I think I can make changes to the Red Tyger Church article in order to help bring it into compliance with Wikipedia's band page standards as listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. How long do I have to make these corrections before the page is taken down?

For example, here's a listing of one of their albums which was produced by Alive records on Discogs: https://www.discogs.com/artist/1812594-Red-Tyger-Church

And here is a review of that album by Modern Fix: http://www.modernfix.com/reviews/cdtheredtygerchurch/

And another by News Review: https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/magic-realism-sacramentos-red-tyger/content?oid=1003641

Please let me know when I need to apply these updates and any others to the page on Wikipedia before it is taken down, so that it won't be taken down.

Best, Monica Diaz"

Please let me know what you decide. I would be very grateful if this page is reinstated so that I can improve it and make it more legitimate. At the very least, if it is not allowed to be reinstated, could I be provided with an export of the article, so that I can avoid losing the work as a whole? Thank you!

Keleosmaisie (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, based on these sources you can recreate The Red Tyger Church as a new article. You can then request the restoration of the previous versions at WP:UND if the article is not renominated for deletion.  Sandstein   06:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard
Your recent actions at Arbitration Enforcement are under discussion at Administrators' noticeboard. --RexxS (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

TRM
As much as I've been on the receiving end of his comments, I am not sure that this level of harsh punishment is the most constructive solution. Nergaal (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sanctions are not punitive, but preventative. They are intended to prevent the conduct that the Arbitration Committee prohibited from reoccurring. The block will do that.  Sandstein   22:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but 1 month seems unnecessary. Nergaal (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a different view. I have commented about this issue on the AE talk page and do not intend to comment about it further.  Sandstein   23:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * [edit confict] Oh I was going to leave a comment but I noticed you blocked his page from editing. Is that even allowed? Nergaal (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is allowed. See this clause of the Arbcom decision. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I will be so bold as to support the block. Seeing as only a few weeks earlier I had asked for this sanction for TRM's abuse, was denied and even threatened by a non-admin with a boomerang, I now feel vindicated, especially after TRM's subsequent snarky grave dancing at my Talk page banning me from his Talk page, though I was required to issue him a notification. At the point in time of TRM's post, I decided any further statement in my own defense was futile and possibly dangerous. Now TRM is blocked from the very page he banned me from, which I find ironic. The main point I want to make is this: it seems clear to me that emboldened by the lack of sanctions a few weeks ago, TRM decided he could go back to his openly abusive mannerisms. I'd like to suggest a topic ban from the WP:ITN area, since he has repeatedly shown he is unable to edit constructively there without conduct the community sooner or later has to sanction. Thanks again. Jus  da  fax   07:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax, I have no authority to impose a topic ban in this topic area. Such requests should be made to the Arbitration Committee or to the community.  Sandstein   17:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks. As you are aware, discussion is now taking place on multiple pages regarding a number of points raised by the TRM block, so I'm going to refrain from requesting a topic ban at this time. Jus  da  fax   17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Your enforcement action is under review
Your AE action has been formally appealed by. You may find the relevant discussion and make your required statement here. Thank you. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Khojaly Massacre recognition
Hallo, Sandstein. You have deleted article Khojaly Massacre recognition. Could you please restore the content of the article with sources in the article Khojaly Massacre? In "Commemoration" section. Regards, --Interfase (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not interested.  Sandstein   17:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you then restore its content in my personal page? --Interfase (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not undelete pages for userfication, but you can ask at WP:UND.  Sandstein   06:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What would it take?
I'm curious. You have said you're open to a "more convincing" request from TRM. I'm assuming in good faith that you sincerely mean that. Since you and some others doubt the effectiveness of what he proposed, would you be willing to work on a counter proposal? There must be a way forward here that would convince you to voluntarily unblock or reduce the length, and improve TRM's communication while not unnecessarily preventing him from doing good work. Would you be willing to help work on a better solution than just blocking him when he says something rude? The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, my approach is always to unblock editors as soon as I am convinced that the block is no longer needed. But I don't see myself as "working" on anything, as such. I'm an administrator, not a therapist or a social worker. It's up to The Rambling Man to convince me - and given their history of problems it won't be all that easy.  Sandstein   18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, looks like I'm making the first stab then. So much of the arguments here are over what constitute "insulting or belittling", as that is extremely vague and has been abused against TRM before. Perhaps we can make it more clear.


 * Looking over the diffs provided in the original request, it seems that they all seem to be examples of him making accusations about either the motives or competence of other editors. The notable exception is him accusing an admin of not following ADMINACCT, which is neither insulting nor belittling so I'm ignoring it. If he were to agree to voluntarily refrain from discussing the suspected motives or competence of other editors for a period of six months or so, would that help convince you and provide a better path forward for everybody involved here? The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The Wordsmith, I think it's cool and all that you try to help out another editor who needs it, but I'd really rather hear any proposals from The Rambling Man themselves - it is they who need to change their conduct, not you. Also, I'd prefer to have any such discussions after the current appeal discussion has closed, or else it will never close because the subject matter changes constantly.  Sandstein   18:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this covered under BANEX?


I opened a discussion on Talk:Jesus about inserting his names in various biblical languages to the lead of the article, and a user with whom I am IBANned responded. He had barely touched the page in nine months (only one of the last 1,000 edits was his, compared to 102 of 1,000 edits being mine), and his comment immediately followed one of mine; before his, 4/7 of the comments in the thread were mine.

It's not difficult to imagine he has the page watchlisted, but if that's the case he must have known that it was my question he was responding to.

I tried reporting a similar incident in the past and the thread got archived without a close, but ArbCom later recognized that several unsanctioned violations had taken place, without explicitly mentioning said incident. So I'm really not sure if this kind of thing is okay or not. If it is okay, I want to know; I've been not doing it for more than four years in relation to a different IBAN.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry - who is interaction-banned? You, the other editor, or both of you?  Sandstein   08:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. That's why I want to know if he's allowed do what he did: if I am subject to the same terms, I want to know those terms. I have been assuming that it was forbidden to reply to the other user's comments. If I thought this was an unambiguous violation, I would just ask you to block him. (Actually I'd post on ANI: given your previous involvement, I can see why you'd be reluctant to do so.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. It just occurred to me that you might be asking because you had forgotten your previous involvement, rather than simply forgetting the terms of the ban (with which you weren't involved). If so, I apologize for the inconvenience.
 * By "your previous involvement" I meant that you blocked him and then unblocked him following a statement by him that he had not fully understood the terms of BANEX. I can therefore see why you wouldn't want to block for something like this, if something like this is even considered a violation.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I actually don't remember anything about you two, but then I have a poor memory. Anyway, because the other editor did not respond to your comment directly, I think that this is at first glance not an interaction ban violation.  Sandstein   09:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh. That seems kinda counter-intuitive. I asked the question, there were no other comments that he could have been responding to, and he showed up to the page after not posting there for nine months. The only other explanation would be that he saw the title of the thread in the table of contents, and responded to that without reading any of the text of the thread, and that the timing was just a big coincidence.
 * I'm not going to test this and try to do the same thing to see if I don't get blocked, because it really doesn't seem all that borderline. It seems to defeat the purpose of a mutual IBAN when the party who is willing to test its limits is allowed do so.
 * Anyway, could you clarify that you are aware the other user responded to my question and still don't think it was a violation?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've already provided my assessment.  Sandstein   11:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, there's nothing borderline about this. Aside from his comment being a direct response to Hijiri's question (a clear-cut violation!) one of the primary reasons for the interaction ban came from JC persistently following Hijiri around.
 * By the way, isn't it time you reverted Florence Cestac? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on input by others about that one.  Sandstein   09:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You've gotten your input already. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Little Minx Deleted Article
Hello,

I have updated information for a recently deleted article. I am wondering if I provide this information to you or if I start a new article? Please let me know the best way to continue. The information I have is bipartisan and is a useful research tool for end users to obtain factual information. Thank you for your help. Rpsavory (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested, sorry.   Sandstein   22:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am. Restored to Draft:Little Minx. The article was deleted after a debate, but only two people bothered to show up and express an opinion, which is hardly what I'd call a "consensus". You need to get sources from books and magazines that show beyond all reasonable doubt that the production company is truly worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopedia, and will still be relevant in 25 years time. Further help can be found at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Restore deleted redirects to Eiko Shimamiya
Thank you for restoring Eiko Shimamiya. Can you please restore deleted redirects to that article as well, which were 島みやえい子, Yellow (Eiko Shimamiya Single), Shimamiya Eiko, 島宮えい子, Shimamiya, and Yellow (Eiko Shimamiya song)? Also undelete Talk:Yellow (Eiko Shimamiya song), and remove the G8 speedy deletion template from that talk page. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 01:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can well recreate these redirects yourself.  Sandstein   05:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Otokonoko
I'll grant you that the actual source only offers "daughter" as a translation of the kanji 娘, but in actuality this kanji can and is frequently also be translated as "girl". This is even borne out by Wiktionary. MarqFJA87 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Then maybe we should provide both translations?  Sandstein   13:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC) — I've added this now.   Sandstein   13:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate the source gives "male daughter" as a translation. Japanese kinship terms are very often used in non-kinship senses.  For example, ojisan ("uncle") is also the standard term to refer to any middle-aged man; ditto obasan ("aunt"); oneesan ("older sister"/"older girl"), etc.  Musume is also used this way, as in inaka musume ("country girl", not "country daughter").  In the context, musume should be translated only as "girl" and not "daughter". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but: sources?  Sandstein   18:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's unfortunate the source provides such an inept translation, though the context alone should make it clear the subject has nothing to do with family relations. Bring it up at WP:JAPAN and see how many other Japanese speakers than myself would accept such a shitty translation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't do original research. Presumably a Japanese dictionary exists that could be used to source the translation of this term?  Sandstein   08:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you just say "original research"?! Sandstein, "male daughter" is a mistranslation, full stop, and Kotaku is hardly an academic site to be trusted for its fact-checking.  I know we can't cite Wiktionary, but it does get it right, so you can be sure I'm not alone in pointing out this error.  Compare: "inaka musume" "country girl" vs "inaka musume" "country daughter" (0 hits). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

ARCA archived
Your clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  15:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

LKIAB edit
Hellos, I made an edit to the "Ladykiller in a Bind" article which you reverted. Assuming the restored sentence stays, I would like to make one edit to the sentence. However I don't want to get in an edit war or anything so I wanted to mention my edit first.

I would like to remove the word "nonconsensual" from the sentence "the player character had been made subject to nonconsensual sexual humiliation by a man". Having played the scene I disagree it describes a nonconsensual situation, and I do not believe the citation given supports the idea it was nonconsensual. (The word the trigger warning used before the scene was removed was "transactional".) The sentence stands alone fine without this word, and nothing is lost since the reception section contains more and better context on the consent issues with the scene (the discussion in the reception section is also superior because it makes it clear the claim is the RPS writer's judgement call, rather than being a factual statement made with wikipedia's authorial heft). If I removed the word, my edit justification would be that the citation does not support the claim. If I make this edit, is this ok with you, or would that lead to a revert as well? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awk~enwiki (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, I'll copy that to Talk:Ladykiller in a Bind and reply there.  Sandstein   18:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Not My Presidents Day AfD Stuff
There seems to be some issues over at Talk:Not My Presidents Day with the page creator wanting to overturn the AfD result. TheDracologist (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Not My Presidents Day
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Not My Presidents Day. 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. TheDracologist (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Sorry to drag you into the mess that is the Not My Presidents Day dispute. Here's a little something to brighten your day.

TheDracologist (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC) 

Nomination for deletion of Template:PRODNote
Template:PRODNote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 01:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Demagogue closure
Thanks for your closure. I was hoping for a definite decision, one way or the other, mainly on BLP and RECENTISM grounds. But your !vote tally of 2 to 1 against is helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Prod hint
Template:Prod hint has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother
But if you could stop by here when you get a chance. The user pretty clearly has a photo from 1902, but I've looked for 15 minutes and I honestly can't find what he's trying to point me to. I'm afraid a couple of comments in German are all that's going to resolve the issue. Timothy Joseph Wood 22:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. We got it. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for closure
User:Sandstein Please close Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #25, at my request. I initiated it. I'm accepting User:Cullen328's advice. Many thanks Tapered (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)