Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Kitten

62.194.6.92 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I beg your pardon, Sandstein...

As you appear to be perceiving this as troublesome, please indicate if you don't mind it much exactly what was wrong with this: [1]. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, vandalism? No way Putinjugend can in good faith be construed as an attack page as defined in WP:CSD#G10. It even says outright that the term is a a pejorative neologism and a slur.  Sandstein  18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fucking lunatic" was deleted for similar reasons, despite similar protests from editors. That was a pejorative term used in a political context, too. The only difference then is BLP–that's important, of course, though I did not see that as much of an issue when I tagged the Putinjugend entry. I'm not sure why you think I was not acting in good faith there–I formally joined in April and am not an expert in picking out nuances exactly. Hence I let my instincts and sense of analogy direct me at certain points. I'm not sure Putinjugend is just a good faith sort of thing–do we really need a separate article for the one paragraph that can be placed in Nashi? PasswordUsername (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly something worth discussing (I have no real opinion on the subject), but the way to go about it is not to replace the article with a speedy deletion tag. Tags go at the top of the article. And Putinjugend does not attack anybody. It does not allege that the "Nashi" are a kind of Hitlerjugend (that would be a deletable attack page). It reports that "Putinjugend" is a slur used against the "Nashi", which is not the same thing at all.  Sandstein  18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fucking lunatic" did not allege that the person referenced was a fucking lunatic, only that he was controversially discussed as such. So the analogy seemed apt. Yet pages like Macacawitz and Bongo from Congo had their db-attack nominations rejected outright. I'm still digressing here, but I'd seen the G10 criterion applied thrice in my life here, and the first time was in a fashion similar to that in which I applied it to Putinjugend. What is "designed" to threaten or disparage someone seems like an ambiguity–a matter of interpretation as I looked at it, given the manner in which the db-attack template had been used.

Thanks for the explanation. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, sorry for assuming bad faith. With respect to your complaint at AN, such reports should be made directly at WP:AE in proper form, where they will see faster action and less drama. You should also not make sweeping generalizations ("everything X does is an outrage") or emotional claims. That is not actionable. What helps are well-selected diffs documenting specific misconduct.  Sandstein  18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I'm still new in a very relative sort of way, really, but I certainly do try to stick to policies. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Claudia MEyer (erased page by you)

Hello,

Would you please clarify why you would erase someone based on the fact that this person is not registered in in SIKART Please know that someone who is not registered in in SIKART as " A vaguely Notable visual artist" Can have very good reasons to NOT BE LISTED THERE... I find your comment and behavior unacceptable. Please search a bit deeper before erasing. There is such a thing as The World Wide web and galleries websites.

Please read below. Mr Meyer, Agent and Partner

Your quote:

Delete. She is not included in SIKART, a database that includes all even vaguely notable Swiss visual artists. Also, the article is unsourced, causing her to fail WP:BIO. Sandstein 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Meyer (erased page by you)

My Email to Farictramp

Hello, Would you please let me know what makes you eligible to erase the Claudia Meyer page. Mrs Meyer is a Swiss contemporary exhibiting in numeral art galleries in Europe the USA and France. There was numerous website referenced on her wikepedia page which justified and attested of her existence. All you had to do is visit and contact the art galleries websites if you wanted to verified the accurency of the posted informations. Furthermore. A google search would have help you even more. Who are you? Can you please clarify. I am Mrs Meyer agent and partner in life you can contact me avia the official website or visit the Artist website at www.claudiameyer.com DO NOT erase her page again or I will contact Wikipedia for a formal complain.

Thank You Mr Meyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.225.121.145 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) While I do have the authority to delete pages that don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines (see WP:ADMIN), I did not erase the Claudia Meyer page nor did I make a single edit to the page. That page was deleted by Spartaz as the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Meyer. I did not express any opinion in that discussion -- I simply listed it on two lists that track deletion discussions for those who are interested in following them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meto59 (talk • contribs)

I would appreciate hearing from you in regard to the page you wrongly erased. Please refer to previous post above for more information.

Thank You

Mr. Meyer Artist Agent and Partner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meto59 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the page at issue as directed in the box at the top of this page.  Sandstein  04:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

mIRCStats userification

You may as well just move the mIRCStats article to my userspace for now then, I'm sure we'll be able to do more with it later. There was actually much more going on with the nomination of this article for AfD than what was apparent in the AfD itself. I did not feel I should bring it up there as I was trying to limit my contact with User:Theserialcomma. I was discussing this with User:A Nobody while trying to get a referral for an admin who could work on this and you can find a summary with links to most everything on A Nobody's talk page here. Tothwolf (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, at User:Tothwolf/MIRCStats.  Sandstein  11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul Pantone

Hello Sandstein,

I see on the page [[2]] that you have deleted the Paul Pantone's page. I would like to know the reasons why the article was deleted and if it was possible to access to the deleted version of the article. Also, if the old version is not suitable for wikipedia's standards, I would like to translate the French version of Paul Pantone's page. This would be a good start.

Thank you for your consideration,

Samsagas01 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Paul Pantone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted as a result of the community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Pantone. Deleted articles are not publicly viewable, but I can restore the text if needed. You are free to write an article about him, but it may be speedily deleted if it does not demonstrate notability (see WP:BIO) better than the original article did. The article must also strictly conform to WP:BLP.  Sandstein  15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement reports

You said: "It is preferable to examine and if need be sanction each user's alleged misconduct individually based on clear reports." I reported Digwuren to WP:AN for similar violations of WP:DIGWUREN sactions, but the resulting discussion got completely derailed and nothing was done.[3] I had a clear feeling that the evidence was not really looked at because WP:AN was the wrong venue. Do you think it would be a good idea to post a more clear report of the same issue to WP:AE? Offliner (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not looked at the issue itself but in general, yes. What's really important is the clarity and brevity of reports: no generalized accusations and opinions, just the diffs and an explanation how they violate relevant norms.  Sandstein  15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. 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. William S. Saturn (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alemannisch

Ho, hab grad uf diner Commons-sit gsän das dr Alemannisch schwätzsch, drum schäni Griß us Lohr im Badische.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Danke u häb's o guet!  Sandstein  04:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification archived

Hello, Sandstein. A recent request for clarification which you were a part of, "Prem Rawat 2", has been archived and can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2. If you still have questions about this case, please feel free to post another clarification request, contact a Clerk, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Hi Sandstein, I have provided the diffs you requested [4], thanks - Fedayee (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please have a look at report on Brandmeister again. [5] According to the remedy requirements, a user must be officially warned before he could be placed on editing restriction, however there's no evidence that Brandmeister had any prior warnings. Plus, he most probably was reverting a banned user, which does not count as rv, as per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. Regards, Grandmaster 13:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I will reply there.  Sandstein  13:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer controversy

My apologies, just saw AFDs had been changed to seven days ... this is what happens when you work nights and try to have another life outside of Wikipedia. Blueboy96 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg 2009 page

Hi, regarding the Bilderberg 2009 page, there were the same number of opinions for both side. You deleted the page without merging it to the main article, which was the proposal. I would ask politely for it to be reversed, as there were no discussion of the subject, only empty statements, which were all replied.

"The result was delete. By direct order of the Supreme Grand Illuminatus himself, I am disregarding the unfortunately too insightful opinion of Tris2000" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.204.236 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the AfD.  Sandstein  18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

HereEchofloripa (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is an invalid link.  Sandstein  18:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What was there to merge? So far as I can see, virtually everything in that article has been in the main article at some point even if it isn't there now, except perhaps for the list of those who were supposed to attend, and that isn't sourced anyway. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD closures reflect the consensus of the discussion. Merging was not even mentioned in the discussion, so the AfD cannot be closed with a "merge" result. Also, I agree with Dougweller.  Sandstein  19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1) There was a lot of well-sourced information to merge. WHich took a lot of time to research and put together. 2) The list of people who attended, which was sourced from different reliable sources, is of extreme importance. 3) "consensus of the discussion"? I answered all his assumed reasons for deletion, have you seen any reply? There were no consensus, there was indeed other people that thought the article shouldn't be deleted. 4) About merging/deleting, In the page "A suggestion for a merge has been rejected on the talk page.". First, I wrote to keep the page, not that I prefered deleted than merged. 4) You agreeing with him doesn't mean there were any consensus. I tried to engage a discussion. to which there was no reply, I don'think there was a discussion or a consensus.Echofloripa (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by this. If you want to contest the deletion, you can do so on WP:DRV, but an appeal such as the above will very likely be unsuccessful.  Sandstein  22:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How long time do I have to appeal? And thanks for help. Echofloripa (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no time limit.  Sandstein  21:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

HELP!

Hi, Sandstein! May I ask you to help me? There is a user User:Jasepl who is constantly accused of vandalism (look at his page). At the moment, he is trying to edit in a very strange way Aeroflot – Russian Airlines destinations article, deleting everything he considers useless: regions to where Aeroflot flies, capitals of countries to where Aeroflot flied and some other "improvements". So I do ask you to interfere in order to find a consensus. Thank you. --Dimitree 10:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Can you provide relevant diffs, please?  Sandstein  10:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not so keen in wiki terminology and I do'n know what diff means. But if u have a look at that page (history), u will definitely find out what is going on. If u remember, ths article Aeroflot – Russian Airlines destinations was born in a real struggle and now it is being changing in a very strange way. No arguments are taken into consideration by User:Jasepl, only his own opinion matters. So that is all I can tell u... --Dimitree 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Sorry, this is explained at WP:DIFF. But it appears that you don't agree with somebody else's edits. In that case, I advise you to follow the advice given at WP:DR. Administrators, such as I, have no special authority to decide who is right and who is wrong if two editors disagree about how an article should look like.  Sandstein  21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on political straw polls

Hi Sandstein, I apologize for not notifying you sooner as a deleting admin on this discussion:

The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 21 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maria Conchita Alonso's Wikipedia page

I have been trying to correct some of the information and update this page for Maria Conchita Alonso. Each time I make the changes it is deleted and changed back. Is there a way that you can make these changes for me?

All information is varifiable by this artist!

The link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Conchita_Alonso

Attached are some of the changes:

<removed>

Dabdesign (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I won't. You should not edit pages that you have a personal interest in, see WP:COI. Moreover, "verifiable" in Wikipedia terms means "verifiable in reliable sources", not "verifiable by the subject", see WP:V. If you continue to make such edits, you are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Instead, you should limit your edits to what is verifiable from reliable sources.  Sandstein  05:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Maria Conchita Alonso

Can you please verify that Maria Conchita said: and those who vote and support him as "terrorists". If you can't, could you please omit it from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Conchita_Alonso

The implications of a statement such as this leaves one valurable to attack. There is no place this statement can be verified by me.

Thank you,

Dabdesign (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The source given is Geraghty, James. "After Watching Her Speak, Giuliani Was an Afterthought", National Review Online. May 1, 2007., presumably here. If you believe the quote does not accurately reflect that source, you may of course modify it to make it conform more closely to the source.  Sandstein  18:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say Hi

I noticed that you had comment on the article Yang Jia additional source. You may have notice that I do put quite a lot of this additional source on China related articles, the main reasons being that there are not enough English-based-source available, and it would take up too much time to do all the Chinese-English translation, so I decided to use Google translation quite a bit. I know the machine translation has it's limit, but something is better than nothing. You are welcome to comment on my talk page. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 05:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have mail on Talk:Yang Jia Arilang ^talk 07:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaming

About Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Requests for enforcement, complain on me, Gragg. I badly know English, and mostly edit Russian Wikipedia. I do not know where discuss rename the article in enwiki.

As far as I know, articles about the geographical object in Nagorno-Karabakh should be named, as they named in 1988, until war. I watched several of these articles (in ruWiki) and saw that the name of the some English articles do not satisfy this rule. So, I have to rename them. But my change was removed Baku66, аnd other members warned him for breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: [6].

Please do not deprive me the possibility to rename the article. I am ready to discuss the names of those articles. Gragg (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please make this comment at [7], where other administrators can read it too?  Sandstein  13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren

After our recent conversation, I decided to file the report about Digwuren. I realize that it may be seen as disruptive to file 2 reports on the same day in addition to being the subject of another one. But I only want the diffs looked at. I think the evidence of edit warring is clear in both cases, but if you think if the diffs need more explanation (i.e. why they are reverts), please let me know. Offliner (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I responded about my edits and replied to Colchicum here. I am not sure if anyone ever filed two retaliatory claims to ArbCom in the same day. You can only imagine what kind of "collaborative spirit" exists in this sector of WP. To be honest, that might be a relief to be restricted and do not feel responsible for anything. It is enough to compare these versions of article about Litvinenko to see what is going on. Such as Russian propaganda, and it will be inevitably promoted in wikipedia (the Baltic users only care about Baltic subjects, which is natural). At least I did what I could with Russian subjects within my limited time.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not have time to examine these cases now, but may have in the evening, unlass another administrator has already addressed them.  Sandstein  05:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why en what?

Why the hell did you delete important information about the Bilderberg group? Are you a special agent for interpol, cia, mossad or another organisation for the world dominators? And what was the tekst you removed? We still have freedom of speech so until this has not been restricted, all information should be out there, also and especially on wikipedia because its from the people for the people. The new world order will never succeed!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by techrick 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what activity of mine you refer to and provide a link to the page at issue?  Sandstein  05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi,

I'm writing to ask for your advice.

It seems Biophys has filed an AE request on Offliner, citing numerous complaints. Perhaps foolishly, I added one more diff of my encounters with Offliner. It seems that this has prodded Offliner further, and he has responded by not only filing a countersuit against Biophys, but one against me as well. There's a lot of diffs, so I won't discuss all of them (more of this below), but for context -- and as an example --, I'll discuss one of them.

The first diff mentioned by Offliner, [8], is an article talk edit of mine, explaining that Risto Teinonen can't be considered a reliable source for Estonian Defence Police. Teinonen is a notorious neo-Nazi in Estonia whose blog post -- needless to say, rather critical of police -- had been used as a source in Wikipedia by somebody. I expressed my frustration at this appearance of neo-Nazi ideas in the edit summary ("I was born so many years after the WWII, and *still* there are Nazis around. Sigh."), and I expressed my surprise that anybody who isn't a neo-Nazi might fall for thee ideas in the post body ("For a taste of Teinonen's opinions, the first article about him on Google is an interview headlined "Teinonen: National Socialism had many good sides". He's notorious, not notable. I find it hard to believe that anybody but another neo-Nazi would seriously consider adding Teinonen's opinion about police onto Wikipedia would be a good idea.") Offliner describes the post as "Implying that other editors are neo-nazis:", which quite clearly is not what I had in mind. I suppose I might have been a bit ambiguous -- not being a native English speaker, I do stumble occasionally -- but given that this diff has been brought by Offliner to the administrator's noticeboard before, and the consensus has not found any personal attack in it, I doubt this is what happened here. For what it's worth, a consensus ultimately developed agreeing that this is not an appropriate source.t

That was the first diff. I spent about 1500 words, and about 30 minutes, on discussing it, and I trust you'll find it's not AE material. Offliner has listed 39 diffs; at a glance, they're all similar, so it seems prudent to assume they'll take roughly the same level of time. I really am not sure spending 19 hours on a 58500-word thorough rebuttal is an appropriate use of my time, or the time of the poor administrator who would need to read through it all. For comparison, the article word count states that a typical mystery novel is around 60 000 words. I am technically quite capable of doing it -- you might want to take a look at this RFC/U I filed about two years ago, when I was two years younger and two years battlier -- but it doesn't seem productive. If I had that sort of time, I'd rather be writing an article or two on computational linguistics, on medieval castles Germans built in Estonia or perhaps work out a way to cover the diplomacy surrounding Winter War in an encyclopædic manner.

Please advice: is this ordeal needed? Do I need to write a mystery novel to defend myself against recurring complaints based on deliberate misinterpretation? Alternatively, would it be viable to not respond at all, and hope that the handling administrator will understand the problems with the diffs as well on his (or her) own? Admittedly, there are a lot of them; I guess it's tempting to think that among 39 diffs, at least one or two *must* be actionable.

Or perhaps, as a middle road between the extremes, I should concentrate on some of the 39 diffs? If so, which ones?

Two years ago, I was once drawn into an arbcom battle, and I dedicated a lot of effort trying to -- ultimately, futily -- defend myself. I guess that's enough for a lifetime; if at all possible, I'd rather not enter another wikibattle. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 10:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)