User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2024/March

AbdolReza Razmjoo
Hello, dear friend, I would be very grateful if you could revive the Razmjoo page againAbarz54 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Please give a reason and link to the page.  Sandstein   11:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, dear friend, you acted very hastily in removing Razmjo and you came to the conclusion with 1 dissenting opinion, while Razmjo composed more than 130 songs and has several symphony suites and film music in his artistic portfolio, I will of the new page with leave the linked reliable sources for you to check. Thank you for your kindness
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AbdolReza_Razmjoo Abarz54 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I cannot undelete the page Draft:AbdolReza Razmjoo because it has not been deleted.  Sandstein   06:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Tewdar
Hi! I'm a bit confused about what precipitated this block. My understanding is that blocks are only to be handed out when no other solution will do, so I am curious under what reason listed at WHYBLOCK you carried out this sanction, and why a less disruptive result could not have been achieved through other means, such as, for example, simply informing the user in question that their comment was unnecessarily flippant. Is there some history I am unaware of here? Best regards Licks-rocks (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've explained on the user's talk page why I believe that a prior warning would not have been useful in this case.  Sandstein   15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not satisfied with that answer. The banner on the talk page is about templated messages, which is a common thing to see on wikipedia. I don't see how that would have applied here, and I am also unconvinced that there is sufficient reason to go straight for a 48hr block on an experienced editor over a very mild off-hand comment about legacy admins. I see that a number of people on both pages where you announced this block share my confusion. I'm going to ask you to reverse that block. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The block has already been reviewed and confirmed by an independent reviewing admin. The blocked user remains free to ask for another review and to provide more convincing assurances that their conduct will not reoccur. I therefore decline to act.  Sandstein   16:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining your reasoning regarding the banner on the talk page again, given that this is, according to you, the main reason that this became a block? Do you agree or disagree with my assessment? Because if you agree, I don't see any reason to uphold the block on your part, which is why I'm asking you, and not the other editor. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that I have already appropriately explained my actions.  Sandstein   17:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite a few users seem to agree that you haven't. But I'm leaving it at that. See you around at WP:AN someday ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sandstein, I understand why you felt the block necessary based on your interpretation that this was an attack on the nom. of that AfD, but in view of the very clear evidence that this was no such thing, and merely a misunderstanding from a slightly unclear phrasing, could I ask that you lift the block? I don't know Tewdar's thoughts on this but my own are this: blocks leave a trail in the block log, and lifting the block would show a recognition that the block was over a misunderstanding/poor phrasing, and nothing more. Although short, simply allowing it to lapse without lifting it will leave no such trace. That can matter. Blocks also chase editors away. Sometimes those are bad editors, but a review of Tewdar's recent work would show he has recently created one of the most complete and carefully sourced articles on a matter of history that I can recall seeing. Losing an editor such as this over a misunderstood comment would be a grave loss to Wikipedia. Thus, if you could see your way to lifting this block, without having to take it through formal review, I think that would be a net benefit to the encylopaedia. Many thanks for your consideration. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As I wrote on their talk page, to be unblocked they need to recognize that they personally attacked another editor and credibly commit not to do it again. That's not a big hurdle. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which requires us to be polite and collegial to each other at all times, just as we would be at our workplace. If we fail to do that - that's what's driving away good editors.  Sandstein   16:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't agree with you that a personal attack even happened! That's the whole issue! --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. Thank you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tachyons in fiction (2nd nomination)
Perhaps you could clarify that consensus not to delete refers to the new, rewritten version? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Any reason my message has been ignored? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus, sorry, I overlooked your message. I think that this is apparent from the course of the discussion and needs no clarification.  Sandstein   09:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Name removal
It says here on Editing restrictions/Archive that If at any time a user listed here returns to active editing, their restriction should be removed from the archive and added back to the main list, Does this mean that I can remove myself from this list now? If not are people's names ever removed after a period of time? Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Davidgoodheart, sorry, I'm not familiar with this process.  Sandstein   09:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)