User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/May

Policy question

Hi Sandstein,

Few days ago an editor made me to understand they do not feel comfortable working with me on an article because of my ban.

May I please remove ban notifications from my talk page?

Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure; editors may remove whatever they want to from their talk page except for declined unblock requests while they are blocked.  Sandstein  13:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I should have linked you to the applied policy in my initial question.I asked because here it says:

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user - they are part of the wider community's processes or exist to prevent gaming of the system:

Declined unblock requests, ban and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect)". (Highlighted by me)

That's why I decided I need a special permission from the banning administrator to remove the notifications. If after reading the policy, you will not allow me to remove the notifications, I sure will understand. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for the pointer. As far as I am concerned, you may do as you please with your talk page, but I do not think that I have any authority to give or deny permission in this respect (the guideline, for instance, does not provide for such authority).  Sandstein  17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi since deleted

Sir, I have seen your closing comments and also the suggestion that the captioned article of mine can be userfied.I want to save the article to work on it to meet the required criteria and standards. Therefore, I am to request you to userfy the subject article.As a new -comer I was not aware of so many essential things of which now I have a fair idea.I intend to rework on the article for it to be placed at the proper place/s.Thanks.Best Regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi.  Sandstein  12:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir,I am as yet in the process of resetting this article.Can I seek a clarification ? The book titled Zia Fatehabadi Shakhs Aur Shair ,meaning Zia Fatehabadi Person and Poet, written by Malik Ram published by Ilmi Majlis Delhi in 1977, by a reputed literary organisation, and referred to by me is recorded on http://books.google.com/books?q=zia+ fatehabadi+shakhs+aur+shair&btnG=search+books with regard to its 1983 editon,does this information help me in my efforts? I say so because this book contains all information I have included in my article.Also, how am I to refer or cite books which are not on the NET but are important.Please guide.This is my first article and I do not want to leave frustrated.Best Regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello - yes, you may cite published books that are not online if they are reliable sources as defined in WP:RS. See generally WP:CITE and the template {{cite book}}.  Sandstein  06:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance

Hi, you may recall you recently evaluated an ANI I filed. After your decision and closing the case, we had some brief discussion on the case page in which you advised about WP:AE. That was helpful to all users, but that dialogue appears to have vanished from the ANI page. Also, links to the ANI from related Talk pages seem not to work. Is there some kind of setting that needs to be fixed ? Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember. Have you searched in the WP:ANI archives? (See the box at the top right of the ANI page.)  Sandstein  08:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your suggestion to use the search function succeeded as a workaround. I have now found the fresh link here [1]. May I suggest that you update the links you have used in your enforcement warning on the editor`s Talk page to include the new link, so that the important information about WP:AE is included? This will stop people wasting their time going through the wrong channels, such as another ANI, were action to ever be necessary again in the future. Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Which warning do you refer to?  Sandstein  09:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Am referring to the warning you placed here: [2] I am suggesting you update the link to the ANI with this [3] so that readers understand WP:AE should be the next port of call. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for that.  Sandstein  10:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. FYI I`ve updated my own link to the ANI here: [4] Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Berne !

Please in English the spelling is Berne and not Bern. Same thing to Morat, and not Murten. I do not understand why you revert this correction. What is more the entrance should be Berne and not Bern which is the German spelling not the English one.

Hello! Sorry, but this has already been the subject of discussion, and we have decided to use the spelling variant "Bern" as the more commonly used one in English. Please read Talk:Bern#Requested move, June 2009. You should not change the spelling without first getting consensus for it in a further discussion.  Sandstein  15:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with you on that. Bern is perhaps a new spelling in English; it is not the traditional one. Same thing for Morat.

Of course you can disagree, but our rules say that we use the most commonly used spelling, even if it is not the "traditional" one. Since we have already determined, in a discussion, that "Bern" is the variant we want to use, you will first need to find consensus for a change to "Berne" before you should make this change. See WP:CONSENSUS for more information.  Sandstein  16:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hello Sandstein, I'm a bit insecure. Would it be edit-warring and would it be a reason to block me, if I, according to the Gdansk vote, would try to replace a current Polish name of a town with a German name in the first place, in cases, when this was actual the name, which the town formerly used itself and the article is a biography of a man with a German background, who formerly lived in this town and a counterpart would revert me again and again? --Henrig (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the situation. But whether an edit is edit-warring has nothing to do with its content (such as whether it is justified according to a guideline) and everything to do with the circumstances under which it is made.  Sandstein  19:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Although it has nothing to do with myself, I'd supposed, the content, including guidlines should be quite important. (And an insult would also be a content.) Perhaps you see this basically simlarly. Thank you. --Henrig (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, quality and content of a user's contributions should be essential. There are also users, who only permanently destroy according to a certain POV. A user with contributions on a high standard should not allow them to provoke him. But both should not be lumped together. My general opinion. --Henrig (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As for Matthead - this is the case, I have in mind - I'd suggest, he promises, not to revert postings of another user in an article more than once a week. --Henrig (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin page entry

Hello Sandstein,

Please forgive any intrusion of your time on this. I've been digging around WP the last few hours trying to find the proper avenue to request Admin assistance on an edit dispute. I was going to use the "deletion review" page but I get the sense it only applies to entire articles rather than individual entries to a page. I believe you've dealt with the Sarah Palin article in the past and I would appreciate any advice and guidance you could give me.

The dispute involves the "Public Image" section of the page. Diff: [5]

The entry had been originally posted months ago. It was deleted by some editors and modifications were made as per comments. After solid, in depth arguments were made on the discussion board, the entry eventually remained unchallenged for over a month- until just this past week when another editor decided to delete it once again & begin the debate anew.

The entry is factual, referenced & directly relevant to the section of the article. I believe those arguing for it's removal do so out of political bias and am looking for an independent review of the situation by an administrator. Could you please help point me in the right direction?

Thank you for your time. LMRusso (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, admins have no special authority in issues of content. The policy about how to resolve such disagreements is described at WP:DR. If you would like a review of the matter by someone else, you could for instance use WP:3O. I, myself, feel that I am not qualified to do so. Regards,  Sandstein  05:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll follow up and keep my fingers crossed :). Thanks again LMRusso (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Iura novit curia

Hello! Your submission of Iura novit curia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

I've checked on mine DYK, and saw the question for you sitting there since yesterday, so I decided to notify you in case you have not seen in. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for warning Proxima Centauri (talk · contribs), following the WP:AE report. Hope you are doing well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Query

Do you think a log of the warning should be left at WP:ARBSCI under log of blocks and bans? -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought about it, but it's not a block or ban. It's easily findable in the user talk history if needed.  Sandstein  19:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Raising issues of vandalism

Does my topic ban include reverting vandalism as here (repeated redirect of an article by, in this case, an anon German IP). If reverting vandalism is not permitted, what are my options to raise such issues to be addressed? Thanks in advance.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting obvious vandalism, as here, is normally exempt. But if an admin considers that what you reverted was not obvious vandalism, you may be sanctioned. So, to be safe, report it to the appropriate noticeboard instead.  Sandstein  20:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

One source

You recently reverted an edit I had done on the following article Berner Honiglebkuchen. The edit stated that only one source was referenced for the article. There in fact is only one listed under References. If it is your intention to assert the items under the Further reading sub heading are references, They are not, unless they are listed as References. I am glad you reacted quickly to my edit. It is a good sign that you will do what is necessary to improve the article. If I can help at all I would be happy to.My76Strat (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, yes, in that sense, there is only one source used to write the article, but how is this a problem, as long as the source is reliable and comprehensive? WP:V does not require multiple sources.  Sandstein  21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I misunderstood the template and meant no harm in posting it. I was not disputing any of the articles content nor suggesting that it was not verifiable. I was under the misunderstanding that an article required two or more references. Seems like you may be in a better position to help me than the other way around. I apologize if my actions troubled you.My76Strat (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The graph and all that stuff

I'm a bit puzzled by your comments on FG's talk page. To make things a bit more extreme: suppose we have a graph, or some text, that is inarguably not valid (not PD, or something). Surely that provides a valid reason for not linking to it, and removing links to it. It also provides a reason to delete it, but the image is on commons and the wheels grind slowly. You're not arguing that the links stay in, even though inarguably wrong, are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We do speedy delete inarguably problematic stuff, such as clear copyvios. We do not speedy delete potentially problematic stuff, though, including files (such as the one at issue) with questionable PD claims or files which may be wrong on a content level. There are discussion-based processes to resolve such issues. And something not worth speedy deleting is also not worth edit-warring about.  Sandstein  22:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban question

Hi Sandstein, I wrote a small article, for which I used one source that you might consider the ban violation. The information I added from the source to the article has nothing to do with the topic of my ban, but the site itself probably does. The article is still sitting in my user space. Am I allowed to move it to the main space as it is now, and ask somebody to help me with improving the prose and fixing my English, or I have to remove the source and the info from that source before I do? I am not even sure, if my topic ban applies to my user space also. If it does, may I please ask you, if it is possible of course, not to block me for adding that source. I will revert myself, if you are to tell me that my topic ban does apply to my own user space. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The topic ban applies to all namespaces. If you are not sure whether some content relates to the topic of your ban, it is safer to assume that it does and not to continue editing it.  Sandstein  06:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD Criticism of Judaism

I agree that there was no consensus to delete, but I see less than a 2:1 ratio between those who wanted outright deletion or stubbification and those who wanted the outright keep. Where did you get 3:1 to keep, or are we counting rewrites/stubbify/merges differently? -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here: 27 to 11 and 1 merge, according to the script's rough count.  Sandstein  17:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The script is flawed. I probably contributed more than anyone to that discussion, where is my opinion? This is why I really do not like the use of those kinds of scripts. The closer needs to read every opinion, weigh them according to merit and in light of wikipedia policy and guideline, and then render a decision. What is worse, is that you did not close it as "no consensus" but as keep, which implies that there was consensus to keep the article and re-submitting it would be disruptive. I believe that is the wrong conclusion. Would you be offended if I opened up a DRV? -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I did read every opinion, and in my opinion the discussion resulted in a consensus to keep: both sides used broadly valid, but not compelling, arguments, and therefore the large "keep" majority determined consensus. I'm not offended if you request a deletion review, but I predict that it will not be successful.  Sandstein  21:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

I have initated an appeal against the over zealous penalty of a 3 month restriction for the Balkans when I have hardly edited in the Balkans over the last three months. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Iura novit curia

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarifications

Dear Sandstein,

Regarding your ruling I have several things I'd like you to clarify. Can you please do it?

1) What does a sanction to comply with rules mean?

2) What does a period for it (1 year or month) mean if it's a rule?

3) What are the bases you called/considered those sanctions reasonable?

4) You have been telling I use misleading edit summaries, but have you seen them? What Stifle was telling in his ruling referred to Hittit's summaries, NOT mine!

5) As I showed, my ban was for only the #7 point evidence in Hittit's case. What is misleading in the manner that evidence was brought to the attention, if there was anything?

Thank you! Aregakn (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Which ruling do you refer to?  Sandstein  20:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There was only 1 ruling made on AE by Stifle that concerns me: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit. Please also pay attention to this: [6]. This is one of the things I noted above. I see you have not really went deep into the case... Please do so. What I have written is really the information I wanted to be considered. All of it. And then, if you don't change your mind, pls answer the above questions. Aregakn (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You refer to "your ruling". I have not made any "ruling" regarding you. I do not understand your questions.  Sandstein  22:26, 14 May 2010 (

Your ruling is in regard of the appeal (decline). Regarding thedecline I have the above questions. Aregakn (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I now see, that you did not write it in the result. I see, that you made a voting out of it. I see. forget the above. Aregakn (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your WP:AE actions, regarding Sciologos (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi

Sir, I am to invite you to re-see my artice Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi which is now on my User Page and let me know whether the same, in its present form, meets all essentials. I pray I am not asking you to do something out of turn.Best Regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi, previously Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's good to see it has more references now, but they are mostly still inaccessible and/or not presented in the manner recommended by WP:CITE. References should be inline and formatted using the templates {{cite book}} or similar. I can't tell whether that's enough in terms of references, because I am unfamiliar with the subject. if you wish to restore the article to mainspace, you should first ask for community consensus at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I do not know how to handle the templates etc; I need some one's assistance.In my opinion the refs. support the article. the books I have cited are not on the Net.Pl.help me.Tarun marwaha (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You can find information about how to cite sources at Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you have any questions after reading that, I recommend asking at WP:Helpdesk.  Sandstein  17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir, If I were to give each of the 16 citations inline then there will be repetition and the article too long for comfort.I have not been able to grasp the mechanism for citation.Tarun marwaha (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Please confirm receipt of this appeal. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hey there Sand. I don't want to detract you from more important matters but I just need to ask your opinion on something: do the most recent edits by the following contributor on talk pages of other editors count as a violation of canvassing [7]? If so, this wouldn't be the first time this editor has done this, as you can see on his talk page the couple of times he's been warned about doing so and I want to know what exactly would you recommend. Is this something that should be filed at AN/I or ArbCom? Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it would require a considerable time to evaluate whether these contributions violate WP:CANVASS. If you believe they do, the best thing to do is to leave a note at the merge discussion, like: "Closing editor, please take into account that User:X has notified the following users about this discussion: A, B, C, D, E..."  Sandstein  21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. But does canvassing then result in a disqualification of those votes since they are only being posted on the talk pages of editors thought to be sympathetic to that single editor's views? Also to clarify: this is not an official vote but simply a discussion on the talk page and I doubt that there are any roving senior editors or administrators who might chance upon to look at it. Barring that, if you do have time or if you can refer this to another administrator to evaluate, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Cheers,--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Administator-only discussion sections at WP:GS/CC/RE

Hi there Sandstein. As you are an active administrator at Arbitration Enforcement, I would appreciate it greatly if you could comment at Wikipedia:GS/CC/RE#Lar.2C_NuclearWarfare.2C_The_Wordsmith.2C_Polargeo. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Am I allowed to comment here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are under an Eastern Europe topic ban, then I guess not.  Sandstein  20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on your logic? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The matter concerns a topic ban from Eastern Europe-related topics; accordingly, it is part of "any process discussion about [articles related to Eastern Europe], widely construed", which you are banned from. The purpose of a topic ban is to disengage you from areas where your editing has been problematic. Your comment on that request would do the opposite.  Sandstein  05:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee ArbCom

Hello Sandstein. Since you declined one of User:Keegscee's request for unblock, I'm listing you as an involved party an ArbCom request seeking an official ArbCom ban for that user. Your input is desired. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.
• Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs), Ellol (talk · contribs), and YMB29 (talk · contribs) are banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, they may each apply to have their ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
• Biophys (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophy may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
• Consecutive to that topic ban, Biophys is restricted to 1 revert per week per article in the topic area for 1 year.
• Russavia and Vlad federov are admonished for posting personal information of other editors.
• Editors wishing to edit in the areas dealt with in this case are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Request to Userfy

Hi Sandstein - Could you Userfy the Nevermen article for me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nevermen Thanks Lexoleum (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but why?  Sandstein  12:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Zandieh

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Zandieh, the vote was 6 to 3 which normally is a Keep. One vote came after this AfD should have been closed too and its vote was basically invalid because the article has reliable sources. Could you look into this? If you decide not to change it, what is the next step in getting this appealed? This should have been a Speedy Keep as the article met WP:ANYBIO as per Criteria #1 - the subject won a notable award in the form of the Fulbright Program scholarship. In addition, while the anon IP has voted in AfDs, it cited no policy and parroted exactly the nominator's week sub-argument that the scholarship was only given to 6,000 students which is not a valid debate item re ANYBIO. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The decision was "keep" - the article was not deleted - so there is, in my opinion, nothing that could be changed or appealed about the decision. The reason for which it was kept - lack of consensus to delete - is not subject to appeal and has no procedural significance. If you disagree, please see WP:DRV.  Sandstein  12:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-consensus is not the same as a direct Keep. Anyone seeing a Non-Consenus label is inclined to revisit the AfD. Granted, any AfD can be revisited but incorrectly applied AfDs should not be that basis. That label is in error. I will visit the link you suggested. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Per that policy page, I will see if you wish to change your opinion before I post there. That way, I can state clearly I have followed the necessary steps in getting this resolved with you before asking for review. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I see no reason for changing my closure to a "keep", since that change would have no practical effect.  Sandstein  20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

More of the same...

On this -- do I go back to AN/I to get it dealt with? Perhaps you now count as "involved" and can't address it yourself... thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the context? Any applicable previous decisions? I don't recall.  Sandstein  20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies -- context here, you blocked him for exactly the kind of behavior he is now bringing to the Rekers page again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, blocked for 48 h this time.  Sandstein  20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your deletion of a user's comments, and have restored that deletion now because somebody else explained the context. It would be helpful if you gave some rationale when doing things like this - because without knowing you are an admin, that you have blocked the user, and why the comments were deleted, it looks the same as vandalism of a users comments on a talk page. Thanks. Mish (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your e-mail address

Hi Sandstein. I have been sent an e-mail that relates to an administrative action you recently undertook. Could you send me an e-mail so as to provide me with your address (to allow me to forward the message to you)? I'll start a thread relating to the message on your talk page shortly, for transparency's sake—though I'm not sure the claims have any merit. But it's probably best if you take a look at it before I do that. It's nothing serious, I don't think; just a claim by an account blocked by you for sockpuppetry (on clear evidence) that he has been wronged. Thanks, AGK 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; new message sent your way. AGK 22:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg

Hi, I left a comment on it, but apparently too late it was archived. While the report for the most was needless, I think Brandmeister behavior leaves a lot to be desired. Ionidasz (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Then that can be made subject to a separate and better-explained request. As made, the request was not actionable.  Sandstein  06:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave that to other editors, will take a brake from this area of Wikipedia. Ionidasz (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Brandmeister, again, see here. Ionidasz (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi

Sir, today I have made the needed request for the review of deletion of my captioned article.Tarun marwaha (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

scope of topic ban

Your topic ban specifically covers articles in the A/I topic area. May I work within my userspace on such topics or not? nableezy - 05:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I suppose, draft articles in your user space are still articles even though they are not in the main namespace. However, I do not have a problem with it as long as the draft articles do not generate any dispute.  Sandstein  05:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Change of article title for James Norman, MD

Hello! You were the closing administrator for the article James Norman, MD. The consensus was keep. There was also some debate in that AfD discussion about changing the name of the article - since Wikipedia does not usually use professional titles like "MD", "PhD", or "Doctor" in article titles.

Several of us have continued that discussion at Talk:James Norman, MD and we seem to have reached consensus about how to change things. However, some of the changes may require administrator tools. Would you be willing to look at that page, and if you agree with the changes, would you go ahead and carry them out?

Thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, done.  Sandstein  22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Recent AE Request

Although in the past I have usually ignored these almost juvenile attempts to find ways to censure me, and prevent me from stating my frank opinion concerning many things, I believe it will be in everyone's interest that I respond at this case. I'm asking for your consideration for a brief amount of time to formulate a proper response. A family graduation and the current holiday has not given me a chance to get to it yet. A day or two is all that I will need. Thank you. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are free when and whether to respond, but administrators are also free to take a decision about the request at any time once you've had a reasonable time in which you could have responded, so it's really up to you.  Sandstein  19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE

Sandstein, I see you have responded to the AE thread. You seem not to have noted my comments however, or my conversation with AGK ... this thread should be closed as the opener is banned by ArbCom motion from launching such processes. This is a quite a straightforward matter I think. There is no amendment allowing for this. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, as far as I know topic bans do not include necessary dispute resolution, as in this case, since this concerns the conduct of Dr. Dan with respect to Piotrus.  Sandstein  21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you should reread the wording, Sandstein. I quoted it and emboldened the important words. Here it is again : "Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year." That's really straightforward. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I do know how to read. But you are free to make a separate AE request about this and to convince another administrator otherwise.  Sandstein  21:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it ... why is this supposed to be complicated? There's an open AE thread launched by a user banned from launching such threads. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are explicit and implicit exceptions. Explicitly, it is a stretch to construe an AE complaint as a process discussion about EE articles. Implicitly, it is recognized that topic-banned editors need to remain able to defend themselves, especially through dedicated community fora, when attacked by others - within reason.  Sandstein  21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise with your point about needing to be able to defend oneself (though I don't think frivolous litigation should count), but an AE complaint stemming from an EE topic dispute is definitely an EE process ... widely construed. As eloquently as you make your case, I really don't see the scope for argument given the broad wording. As I, AGK and others clearly got the same impression from the wording, you may want to get ArbCom to change the wording [or something] ... action on this thread that ignores this ruling is infringing on this ruling. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why?

You said: "as far as I know topic bans do not include necessary dispute resolution". Then why did you block me for 48 hours for so called "topic ban violation", when I made the constructive comment about Wikipedia policy only on AE thread that was about my dispute with other user concerning his user page?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Links, please.  Sandstein  21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

[8]]--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The appeal at issue there did not constitute an attack against you or otherwise concern your conduct; accordingly, your commenting on it did not constitute necessary dispute resolution.  Sandstein  21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. At that time I was reported by the user's friends on civility alert noticeboard concerning my comments about the user page of the user, and the images that were used on it. Success of rejection of his appeal was concerning me directly. Rejection of his appeal meant that other editors recognized that my comments about the user page had some merits. In any case the comment you blocked me for had absolutely nothing to do with my ban. It possibly could not have created any new dispute because I just quoted and linked to Wikipedia policy. The block was extremely unfair and unjustified, but of course what else could I have expected? After all my topic ban has been extremely unfair and unjustified also. As it clearly states in the policy: "Note that topic bans are meant to be preventative and not punitive. That is to say that users subject to topic bans are not being punished for bad behavior but instead the removal of the user from that topic area where they repeatedly violate policy" (highlighted by me). I have never repeatedly violated policy in the topic of my ban, I hardly edited there at all, and you have never provided any difference of me violating any policy on that particular topic. You told me once that topic bans suppose to release stress level. I guess the do, if they are fair to begin with, and if their enforcement is fair too, otherwise they do not. Okay having said all of that I am not asking you to respond. First-of-all I believe that I have already overused the limit of your patience with me ( you never have had a patience with me. I wish I knew why, but whatever...), and second-of-all you have enough on your plate without me. I guess now you will delete my message, as you did with so many others of mine... Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

AE filing

Hi, I've made an AE filing which mentions you in passing, here: [9] Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

New Editor Seeking Some Sort of Clarity

First thing I want to state is I come to Wikipedia as a new editor in earnest and with every intention of creating articles that are well-constructed, factual and of use to others.

I began by creating an article about someone from my hometown, Rockford, Illinois. Jesus Correa. He is someone who has run for mayor as a Green Party Candidate and a noted artist. He has been covered in local and regional media and has appeared on NPR.

Article is challened once, survives A7. I improve it. Then I find another A7 tag posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheRealFennShysa

Then an article created about me Thomas L. Vaultonburg is tagged for deletion. Then another article I was working on The Leaders of Something Horrible is deleted, all seemingly within a few minutes.

What the hell? I don't know this person. So, I went to their Wiki page and they apparently have an extensive history of making improper edits and causing turbulence.

I want to complain. And I want my damn page on Jesus Correa restored, the page about me Thomas L. Vaultonburg to be restored without the deletion threat, and for this user to be investigated.

Is there a process for doing so.

I go back and now I see some of the edits have disappeared and some of the names I saw only a few days ago are missing from the history logs of those pages, but it was this user, and another one who's delete tags appeared suspiciously close to when this one's did that torpedoed my work.

I'm a creative person, and I work in the hospitality industry. I like to create things and make sure people have a good time. Civility and courtesy are part of this. This person has shown neither and I am offended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_L._Vaultonburg

Am I just being a whiner or is capricious, reckless editing such as this person has demonstrated on what appears to be numerous occasions Wikipedia policy?

I do thank you for listening while the Blackhawks game is on!!! Tvaulto (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry to hear that your Wikipedia debut has been less than ideal. However, please understand that Wikipedia page which do not meet the community-set inclusion standards (such as WP:N) can be deleted at any time. It happens very often and should not be taken personally. If you disagree with the deletion of a page, the place to request a community review of the deletion is WP:DRV. If the community agrees that the deletion happened for good reasons, you need to accept this and move on. Regards,  Sandstein  06:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

There is in fact compelling evidence that Nihil novi is a sockpuppet account. Imho the best way to proceed in Dan's AE is to await the respective SPI's closure, calling a sockpuppet a sockpuppet should not lead to sanctions. Thank you for improving my Lutici article btw, much appreciated. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is compelling evidence, it must be produced at the same time as the accusation, and must also result in an immediate WP:SPI filing or a link thereto. I have not yet seen a link to such a SPI. This is not the sort of accusation one throws around carelessly.  Sandstein  08:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of this ? M.K. (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just what I thought (and wrote at AE), so when Dan's statement did not address that, I thought he might be regarding it as too obvious to make a comment, and eventually it was easy to find at SPI. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed you blocked Dr. Dan at AE page and emphasized civility issues. I believe User:Nihil novi behavior against Dr. Dan is unacceptable too:
  • He accused Dr Dan of intimidation even criminal offense of blackmailing without any evidence [10]
  • insulted him "demagog" [11],
  • "bore" and "boor" [12]
  • and made offensive comments regarding Dr Dan education as well [13].M.K. (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe this warrants sanctions, please make a WP:AE request. This ensures a transparent procedure.  Sandstein  21:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, could you further advise which exactly arbitration case I should link in enforcement request? M.K. (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Phil Leotardo merging characters to List of The Sopranos Characters

I have attempted to merge the secondary characters (those listed in the AfD)[14] into the List of The Sopranos Characters [15]. Any #REDIRECTs apparently have to be done by an admin and you had closed the Afd. The listed secondary characters were:
Artie Bucco
Benny Fazio
Bobby Baccalieri
Butch DeConcini
Carlo Gervasi
Charmaine Bucco
Eugene Pontecorvo
Furio Giunta
Johnny Sack
Little Carmine
Little Paulie Germani
Patsy Parisi
Phil Leotardo
Ralph Cifaretto
Rosalie Aprile
Vito Spatafore.
Please let me know if I should do anything further. Eudemis (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If the merger has been completed, any user is technically able to make a redirect. I do not see why this should require an administrator.  Sandstein  08:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Why:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

       * Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.
       * You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail.
       * Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
       * If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you.  

Eudemis (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What you need to do is to replace the content of the merged articles with the text "#REDIRECT [[List of The Sopranos Characters]]". Is that what you tried to do?  Sandstein  19:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It would have helped had I redirected it to the topic (and not the wiki page address itself). Done. Eudemis (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a spelling error in the link; I've correct the list above to point them at List of The Sopranos characters. (I'm not sure I agree that all of them should be redirected, but that would be another discussion that apparently others have already had.)  Frank  |  talk  22:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines

Hello Sandstein, what is the value of a guideline like the 'Gdansk/Danzig' vote, when it is permanently openly condemned by other users like Nihil novi, for instance, yesterday here? Is there no value or is this a reason for a warning by an admin? --Henrig (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrators have no authority over issues of content, such as how to refer to cities in articles.  Sandstein  08:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If I get you right, this means, that a guideline is worthless and any user is allowed to condemn it at will. Do you mean this? --Henrig (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean that administrators are not authorized to decide on their own how this guideline should be applied in this instance. This is a matter to be resolved through the dispute resolution process.  Sandstein  19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)