User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/December

TCM Herbs

Hi Sandstein, in Oct 2009 you closed and deleted some articles on Chinese medicinal herbs, and your closing comment was: "The result was delete. Consensus (taking into account also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage) identifies this collection of articles as unverifiable content forks and indiscriminate collections of information.". But there was no consensus as some folks said "Keep", including DGG, Peregrine Fisher, Draeco and Kokot.kokotisko. In addition, the reasons given in "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage)" were not "unverifiable content forks and indiscriminate collections of information". The deleted articles were initially listed for AfD, but the first result was "Keep". They were then relisted, and subsequently deleted. i was not aware of the relisting, and did not participate in the discussions. If relisting is possible after a decision is made, then can we relist the AfD for discussions now? Cottonball (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please provide links to the articles and AfDs at issue.  Sandstein  09:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, the article that was closed by you is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Herb_usage_2 and the link to the earlier deleted article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Herb_usage

Cottonball (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

prof. malinverni

Professor Malinverni has contacted me to cancel the link to his CV: http://www.dirittoestoria.it/3/Memorie/Organizzare-ordinamento/malinverni-cv.htm because it is not uptdated. Plse contact me if question: jacques.erard@unige.ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by JacquesE (talk • contribs) 12:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

John Stewart

I saw the minaret issue mentioned on the Daily Show yesterday and thought you might be interested to check out their take (I think it's probably available online somewhere?). It's certainly an interesting development on a number of levels, and I imagine it's rather embarassing to many. There are some dramatic demographic changes going on in Europe, but restricting architectural features seems to me to be a particularly awkward way to address concerns over assimilation, religion, and tradition. I think it's difficult for many Americans to even relate to that kind of restriction, but I suppose all the Commies :) over in Europe don't much like religion anyway, and probably sympathize to one extent or another with any kind of restriction that limits the practice of organized religion? Anyway, you're welcome to remove this message if it's unwelcome or if you're not interested. No offense will be taken. You usually just ignore my messages anyway. In the meantime I'm going to take a look and see what Wikipedia has on the issue. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't say that I am particularly interested in what an American comedian thinks of my country's politics. I imagine it's at the level of sophistication of Swiss comedians' views of American politics – that is, rather predictable. And the Swiss vote has nothing to do with Communism or hostility to religion as such, it's just an unfortunate expression of simple xenophobia.  Sandstein  04:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Constance Demby

This is Constance Demby ... and today - Bruce - my Wikipedia helper (whom I assumed understood the rules of Wiki) and I launched the new extended version of my music career on my Wiki page, and I was about to work on it tonite when I saw your messages. Bruce is now in shock just like I am, as he was unaware that you cant quote from your website, which I didnt realize either. If this was mentioned in the past, I've forgotten it as I'm overloaded with two careers and doing everything myself...

So first of all let me say I apologize for not understanding the rules, but let me also say, I was not aware that you can't quote from your own website, nor was my Wiki helper aware of that. Since I designed the website and wrote a lot of the material there, I dont quite understand why one cant quote their own writings? I've spent hours and hours rewriting and extending my bio and my life as an artist starting at 8 years old precisely for the Wiki page.

We have not purposely tried to get away with anything, we simply don't understand the rules. Please do not ban the site from being edited. Thank you for your patience, and I'll ask Bruce to continue the conversation with you.

Best Constance DembyConstancemary (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am copying this thread to your own talk page for ease of communication and will reply there.  Sandstein  05:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Any chance you could get rid of 78.147.71.104? He's been consistently making vadalism-esque edits to imageboard despite having been warned/reverted numerous times.

Thanks. Humpty29375 (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning. If the vandalism continues, please make a report to WP:AIV.  Sandstein  08:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Moar socks?

I think AE decision on Carl Hewitt covers these two IPs:

• Special:Contributions/76.254.235.105
• Special:Contributions/68.170.176.166

Someone also asked for semi-protection in that article. Thanks, Pcap ping 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CarlHewitt/Archive. Pcap ping 03:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Which AE decision, please?  Sandstein  06:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Post-case clarification. Pcap ping 13:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both IPs blocked. Protection can be requested at WP:RPP.  Sandstein  06:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking those. Semi-protection has been denied though, so blocking them individually seems the only way. After those two blocks, more WP:DUCK IPs have been "resurected" and joined the discussion:

• Special:Contributions/99.29.247.230

Pcap ping 01:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris McGrath (computer engineer)

Could you please userfy the now deleted Chris McGrath (computer engineer) to User:Ideabender/Chris McGrath (computer engineer)? The original author of the page seemed to be acting in Wikipedia's interests and believes that notability will be established with impending media coverage. Thank-you! Josh Parris 08:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have my personal doubts that notability will be established, but AGF. Josh Parris 01:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein

hi Sandstein... After talking with my associate last nite, I discovered things I wish I'd known about Wikipedia. Honestly, I was not aware of the errors I was making in presentation, and how an artists Wiki page should be properly presented. Sorry about that, I'm way overloaded and these are tasks that I should never be doing and from now on will be delegated to others.

Meanwhile, I went to this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constance_Demby&diff=prev&oldid=329772242 and will have my associate try to decipher what is and what isn't acceptable with the current version. Of course all the testimonials will be deleted, and it will eventually appear as 'just the facts m'am'! Thanks for your help, much appreciated. Constance DembyConstancemary (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement against Alastair Haines

Ciao, Sandstein. I understand you are not contributing at Arbitration Enforcement for the time being, but one of your past decisions there has come into question on an active enforcement request. You may wish to comment (here or there, as you please). Regards,  Skomorokh  06:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I've commented there.  Sandstein  07:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift response, much appreciated! Regards,  Skomorokh  07:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification AND amendment: Alastair Haines. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for providing the links I missed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Directory of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu

Sandstein, I was disappointed that this article in its present form was deleted by you according to AfD guidelines, however all is not lost. Some AfD reviewers had suggested merging the content with other articles and I wish to proceed with that. Please tell me how to recover the article content. Thanks. Marcus334 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A link, please.  Sandstein  22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Link is dead since deletion. Please tell me how to recover the deleted article content, or restore the article content and move it to User:Marcus334/Lists of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu. I will modify and merge from there. Please reply to my talk page. Thanks. Marcus334 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at the top of this page and provide a wikilink to the AfD or the article.  Sandstein  23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directory of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu Marcus334 (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein, I only recently started closing AfDs, to which I was inspired because I was impressed by the thorough analysis you wrote in one of your AfD decisions. I came here with the intention to learn from you and ask you about another decision (AfD/Poweresim, but that can wait). As I am interested in environmentalism, I took a look at the deleted article, and noticed that there was a lot of good work in it; more than in 90% of all deleted articles. In the AfD discussion, there were indeed several merge targets mentioned, so the above seems a very reasonable request to me. If you don't have the time, would you mind if I userfied the article for this purpose? Marcus334 (talk · contribs) appears to be a good and reliable editor with a range of contributions far beyond the deleted article,[1] so I trust that he will use the material well. — Sebastian 07:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No objections. Best regards,  Sandstein  12:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Done - glad to help! — Sebastian 15:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice this thread before I posted the section below. I have started a discussion at Talk:Environment of India#List of environmental organizations. As far as I can tell, there was only one editor in the AfD discussion who suggested a merge. The consensus was that the combined content and format was not appropriate for Wikipedia, and crossed the line of WP:NOTDIR. Singularity42 (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but that does not rule out a merger in a reduced NOTDIR-compliant form, if there is consensus for it on the talk page.  Sandstein  12:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lolene

Hey Sandstein, the article Lolene was deleted per discussion in the past, and you WP:SALTed that spot. A user has created a new article at User:Lolene, and the artist is now notable due to having a #5 single on the Billboard Dance/Club chart (link). Would you move that page to the mainspace when you get a chance? Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, derived notability of this sort is always subject to discussion. The user in question should open a discussion at WP:DRV to see whether the community agrees.  Sandstein  07:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "derived notability"; the artist seems clearly notable per WP:BAND #2: "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." -M.Nelson (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and in such cases, according to that guideline, a musician may be notable. Given the previous AfD, a discussion is required whether she is.  Sandstein  16:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I made a posting at deletion review, located here. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow up from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directory of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu

Hi Sandstein! As the deleting admin from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directory of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu, I wanted to bring your attention to the following. The author of the deleted article recently added the deleted article's content to Environment of India: [2]. He also recreated Lists of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu as a redirect to the new section.

I have reverted the content addition and started a discussion at Talk:Environment of India#List of environmental organizations.

I don't think there are any more steps to be taken at this time, but I thought I should bring it to your attention. Singularity42 (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein,

Hello! I noticed that you deleted the article "list of films featuring pugs". Would you be able to give me a copy of the deleted article so I can print it off for my wife. If you can put it in my userspace that would be great. Maybe one day the world will be ready for a list of films featuring pugs, but in the meantime, me and my wife would love to track down them all and see if we can spot the little devils! Apparenly there is a pug in King Kong!. All the best, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but properly userfying an article involves some work which I will not undertake for an article that has no reasonable chance to be made suitable for inclusion. There are other admins who might, though. Please use WP:UND.  Sandstein  18:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's ok Sandy - I've managed to make a location! User:Hands of gorse, heart of steel/the pug place sounds like the best bet. If you just pop the pug movie list over the top, I'd be most gratified. A man's got to keep his pug-crazed wife happy, after all! Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Swiss Alpine Museum

On December 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Swiss Alpine Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wiki rules! Thanks Victuallers (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Age of majority" question on RfAs

Hi. I've noted that you have begun asking RfA candidates whether they have attained the age of majority in their jurisdictions. As you are probably aware, there have been extensive discussions in the past concerning the helpfulness and appropriateness of this type of question. I'd be interested in know what type of responses you are looking for and what you feel is the relevance of the question. (If you have discussed this in the past, please feel free to just point me in that direction.) Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember at least some of these discussions, but not when and where they took place. I ask this question because I believe (as I wrote in these discussions) that most minors are unsuited to adminship because of the possible real-world impact of their actions (on themselves, the Foundation or others), and because a small proportion of possible administrative actions requires a level of maturity and judgment not generally associated with minors. I normally oppose candidates who identify as minors or decline to answer the question, unless they somehow demonstrate exceptional maturity (such as verifiably and successfully holding a position of adult-level responsibility in real life).  Sandstein  18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:TheChiliReano

Hi! I had originally requested AIV on this user due to his/her copy-and-pasting into Glenn Allison. The "in-your-own-words" text that the user provided in response to your unblock decline was copy-and-pasted from a forum posting here [3]. I just noticed, however, that there is no copyright claim on that forum (not on the topic page, not on the home page). Could that be presumed to be public domain, or do we air on the side of assuming any published work is copyrighted unless declared otherwise? Thanks, I'm just starting to get into copyright issues. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 20:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The latter, as all works are copyrighted upon creation by law, unless and until copyright is expressly waived.  Sandstein  20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Ennomos

Oops! Thanks for fixing that. :)   JJ (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

University of Atlanta

Well you said if we need help just ask! I am looking for some outside input of the University of Atlanta page. I realy think the article on the University of Atlanta needs to be split up into two paages one for barrington and one for U of A but I would like some input, I saw you on misto12 talkpage and thought I would run it by you. Some of us are trying to do some edits on the page and we seem to get blocked for it, even when we come into the talk page with facts. The owner of University of Atlanta owns four other schools as well as the University of Atlanta,, he owned three before opening U of A and buying Barringtion, my point or idea is that we are not listing the other schools he owns on the page just the one bad one he bought( was bad when he bought it). Sorry if this makes no sense its very late! lol --Super (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I can't help you here, I'm sorry. All I can advise you is to try and seek consensus on the article talk page.  Sandstein  07:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

GEO

Spoken politely: I'm surprised by your closure of the GEO AFD as no consensus. I would have clearly thought that WP:CRYSTAL was, in this case, crystal clear and the argument by SPAs that the article should exist since the organization should exist is irrelevant to an encyclopedia. BTW - I happen to agree that the organization should be created, but I can't see how the article should survive. I'm also confused by some of the closing rationale:

"there is insufficient consensus to determine that coverage of this proposal is insufficient to make it notable"

• This makes it sound like WP's policy is notable until proven not-notable. I think the reverse is true - notability must be proven, not dis-proven.

"Perhaps a renomination is in order some time after the Copenhagen conference."

• This again feels like WP:CRYSTAL... e.g. some stuff is currently happening which may (or may not) lead to this organization ever existing which may make it appropriate to have an article.

I just don't see how we can represent a NPOV if we endorse the creation of articles which are thinly veiled attempts to soapbox for the creation of something. I am making these points respectfully, not as an attack, and I do appreciate your closing work. Let me know if I've missed the point completely. Thanks.  7  07:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Environment Organisation? Even if you are right that the subject is not notable, and you probably are, you still need to convince enough editors of that to arrive at a consensus for deletion. Because articles are kept if no consensus to delete is found, in a sense the rule is indeed "notable until proven not-notable".  Sandstein  07:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I agree that a no-consensus AFD defaults to keeping the article, but I guess where I am having trouble is that it looks to me like there was consensus. The delete comments had sound reasoning, and many keep comments largely relied on the belief that the world needs an organization like this. But I understand your viewpoint, and I guess we'll have to wait and see. In the meantime I've tried to cut some of the non-NPOV comments (but it's difficult as it seems to me like the whole thing should be a 1 or 2 line stub with the facts only). Regards,  7  08:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Coccinella

I'm a little mystified by the deletion of Coccinella. Whilst not a terribly popular Jabber Client, I think its safe to say that it's exceedingly notable within the XMPP community as one of the first open IM clients to provide VOIP, Whiteboarding, etc in a single application. I note that it is no longer under serious development - as I understand it, the primary author died in 2008 - however it remains one of the oldest Jabber clients in existence, and to describe it as not being notable is somewhat unfortunate.

Can I suggest a quick check with the XMPP community? I'm sure several of us would agree it's highly notable. Yours, Dave Cridland (XMPP Council, XSF Member). 217.155.137.60 (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I assume you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coccinella (software). Please understand that "notability" is a term of art on Wikipeda and does not mean what you may think it means; it essentially means "not covered by enough reliable sources for us to be able to write a verifiable and neutral article about". Please see WP:N for more details.  Sandstein  19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OTRS question

Quick question about this diff at Kim Bingham, because I'm not sure I can see what the grounds for complaint would be: is there a genuine BLP issue that needs to be reviewed here? Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The issue was that the bot prevented the addition of the Myspace link, which is actually relevant here (I think) because it's the subject's official Myspace page.  Sandstein  21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeddah Airport

Hi just receive your comments for jiddah airport . It is based on facts all facts one thing which i can request you to personally ask any one of your friend who has closely traveled to this city .The biggest problem is hiding the facts .A recent example is the flood in jeddah and actual number of victims in this flood .How ever the local authorities are saying just 200 died but you can check the newspapers and i recommend to personally talk to someone who has spent the time there .Any way thanks for the comments what my intention was let the people know the truth and be fair in life . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaciport (talk • contribs) 09:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please link to the article or page that this is about. I do not recall making any edits concerning Jeddah Airport.  Sandstein  14:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Coccinella (software)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Coccinella (software). 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. Tim Song (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Essay"?

In this edit, although the article quite obviously needed lots of work to bring it into line with Wikipedia's standards and with common sense, the "essay-like" tag seems inexplicable. I have come to suspect that there may be some people to whom any writing on mathematics seems like a "personal reflection or essay". I don't understand how that could happen, but I don't know how else to explain what I keep seeing. Can you explain what you had in mind? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was over a year ago, so I don't recall what I had in mind back then. Probably something along the lines of "that looks like original research". Feel free to remove the "essay" tag if it bugs you.  Sandstein  20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Certainly the article was conspicuously deficient at that time. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Stephanie ackles

I blocked this user in response to [4]. I don't have OTRS access, but if the e-mail leads you to believe I got this wrong, you have my permission to unblock. I defer to the admin who is in possession of more information than I am.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The block was certainly understandable given the onwiki conduct.  Sandstein  21:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of Romania – Sri Lanka relations

The deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania – Sri Lanka relations did not last seven days. Please restore this page and reopen discussion. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I seem to have been confused about today's date.  Sandstein  22:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

many angry e-mails arriving at info@wikimedia.org

In regards to this: [5]

It might also help if you included text in your reply that the independent Arbitration Committee has recently removed the administrative rights of William M. Connolley as he "misused his administrator tools by acting while involved" as evidence of the mentioned solid procedures in place to review contested actions. Uncle uncle uncle 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Or walked the street with a sign saying "punch me"? In case you haven't done PR training, that is problematic in two ways, anyone looking at the circumstances would hardly be impressed by how Arbcom operates and also it adds credence to the ridiculous claims made. --BozMo talk 08:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.  Sandstein  06:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of record

You are always welcome to undo any of my my admin actions including protection if you disagree with them. Telling me and giving me the chance to was fine but if I had gone offline unprotecting would have been fine too. --BozMo talk 08:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I generally try to avoid to unilaterally undo other admins' actions whenever possible, as I find that rude, and moreover since I am also involved in the content dispute I may not use my admin tools in relation to it anyway.  Sandstein  08:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. But for me you would be welcome--BozMo talk 09:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu

I can't for the life of me recall the exact circumstances in which the user was blocked for three years ago. I have no opinion on the potential unblocking. A lot can change in three years, so I'd tend to go with assuming good faith. Unfortunately I don't have the time to deal with it myself. Cowman109^Talk 03:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN

Hi Sandstein

I have mostly undone an edit of yours to WP:POLITICIAN. Details at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:POLITICIAN_unintended_consequences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'll take a look at it later.  Sandstein  16:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please do not leave spurious and stale warnings on established editors web pages. It's rude, and unacceptable. I note that even in the diff you provided, I was commenting on Coren's behavior. To quote: "...you're behaving like a pompous, schoolmarm-y, jackass right now", which he was. If you block anyone for this kind of post, I'll personally start a recall petition to see your tools removed. If you leave any more warnings for stale posts like this one, I'll open a thread at the administrator's noticeboard about your behavior. Your trigger-finger on blocking is far too itchy as it is, and these type of strange "warnings" are a symptom of that, and are wholly inappropriate. Don't do it again. UA 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• A question for you, kind sir: were you contacted by Coren, or anyone else, about this edit? If not, how did you "stumble across" my heinous crime of insulting an arbitrator's behavior? A reminder, you are not under oath here, so feel free to lie if it's politically expedient. UA 15:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming receipt of my warning, which I take seriously, even if you do not. I was not contacted by anyone about it. I just happened to read your policy proposal (in which I am not very interested either way) and the discussion.  Sandstein  16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming receipt of my warning. Your block threats aren't acceptable, and warnings about stale discussion comments even less so. I'm very serious about seeing your tools removed if you continue on your current trigger-happy path. Blocks aren't punishment, and threats of them aren't to be bandied about lightly. I do hope you heed my warning and quit acting in such a way. I also find that it strains credulity that you just happened to be reading a discussion about a policy proposal that you're "not very interested in either way." But, as I said, you're not under oath here, so whatever. UA 16:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention to change my approach to the enforcement of our user conduct policies. I am also not impressed by your intention to "see my tools removed", but you are of course welcome to try and see what happens. Just don't say I didn't warn you.  Sandstein  17:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if you take another look at "our user conduct policies", you'll see that I violated none of them with the post you "warned" me about. Additionally, you'd be well-advised to take a less-flip attitude toward your threats, hair-trigger blocks, and that type of thing. The ArbCom has shown a lot more willingness to remove tools from abusive administrators in the last 6 months or so. I'd encourage you also to take another look at WP:BLOCK, as it's pretty clear that you would have been well outside of that if you were to have blocked me for my comments to Coren. I get that you think you're some kind of "sheriff" for the user conduct rules. You're not. You're a custodian -- a maintenance man, if you will. It's not your charge to block, and threaten to block, users in good standing, for stale comments that didn't violate any policy even when they weren't stale. UA 17:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Re : Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
• User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
• User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
• The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:

• User:Biruitorul, User:Dc76, User:Martintg, User:Miacek, User:Radeksz, User:Vecrumba, User:Tymek

• User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
• User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
• The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
• All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this

Dear friend, I saw your name in my talk page about my autoblocking that has happend and then cancelled !!! immediately. I couldnt understand what is your relation with that, but if you had any relation I should mention sth to u. First, I have Wikipedia account and I was logged in when I saw I was blocked!. Second, You need additional info before unblocking but dont you need additional info before blocking? which was by mistake? Someone or sth.(?) called Dominic had blocked me while my IP address was totally different than IP address which Dominic had written there (69. bla bla...) And one more interesting thing, Wikipedia can block someone by mistake untill March 2014! Bravo, Fantastic blocking system! I had heared about massive leaving of editors of Wikipedia on Aljazeera ch, now I can understand why is that. Regards,

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Holiday musical noise

Hi, happy holidays :-) ... ChildofMidnight told me you are a native German speaker (and I see userbox here). Hope you'll excuse a random holiday noise question:

I'm curious what a native German speaker thinks of the song (words/rhyme) by Christina Stürmer who had the great idea to mix American Wild West with German yielding perfection (to my German-free ears): Augenblick am Tag[6]. Of course, she might be singing Austrian (I think there's a bit of difference, yes? ^;^). If you'd prefer not to get into German verse criticism, please feel free to ignore. In any case, happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, she is singing in standard German, and the text appears to complain about the monotony and regularity of life ("Und täglich grüsst das Murmeltier"; "the marmot greets us every day"), but takes solace in the capacity of song to "take us back for a moment each day" to the past. It's actually a more interesting text than that of most pop/country songs I know, but then I have very little knowledge of or interest in pop music anyway. Happy holidays to you too,  Sandstein  06:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a moment to listen and comment. (And much appreciate clarification that it is standard German.) Best wishes for wonderful year in 2010. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons question.

Hello,

I was just wondering. Could I move this logo to commons using the rationale "This image, or text depicted in it, only consists of simple geometric shapes and text. They do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore public domain."? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 22:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think not. The logo is hand-drawn, and hence more original than simpe geometric shapes or standard print letters.  Sandstein  06:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't think so. Thanks, Happy holidays and a happy new year to you!--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 14:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarity

I try not to bug you and your particular expertise more often than once a year, and I don't think I've bugged you this year yet. So, if you feel so inclined, your input at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_December_20#Democracy_question would be appreciated, particularly with regards to frivolousness ad constitutionality. Given the outcome and substance of our last vote (which I missed, alas), some light would help and make the desks look good. :- ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've supplemented your response. Do feel free to draw my attention to matters such as this; I always appreciate it to be able to help foreigners understand our idiosyncratic little country a bit better.  Sandstein  05:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Guete Rutsch!

... foreigners and confused citizens like myself, excellent! As a former GSoA member, politicized in the 1980s, I take nostalgic umbrage at your second example of "overly radical initiatives", of course, and we ignored being "resoundingly voted down", celebrated over one million yes votes, and considered moving to Geneva or Jura. But that was way back when, and I resisted the urge to launch a debate at the desks ;-). Thanks for your input, schöni Fäschttäg und en guete Rutsch! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yes, well, I am an army officer and life-long FDP voter, so you can probably guess why that first came to mind as the example of a frivolous initiative :-) Merry holidays and a happy new year to you too!  Sandstein  11:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sandstein. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Side grip

On December 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Side grip, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)