User talk: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

Note on Wikicommons

Dear Sandstein,

I hope you have some time to check the message I sent you several days ago on your Wikicommons account on 3 recently discovered uploads by you. One image in the 'images not found' category looks important. The time is approaching where this entire category will have to be closed and the images here probably deleted sadly. Admin captain tucker on Commons has contacted all the flickrowners whose photos lie here and no one bothered to respond for this image which you uploaded. I hope you can pass them all. While I am a trusted user on Commons now, it would look better if you passed them since you are still active on Commons. Thank You for your time, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the notification.  Sandstein  06:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for marking them. It is sad that so many people license images freely and later change the license or delete them when they see them naturally used on web sites. It sounds so 'illogical'...as Mr. Spock would say of us humans. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

As long as my topic restriction mentions "from all pages", just wonder whether it is possible to create new ones or stubs. I've also checked WP:RESTRICT and from what I understood it assumes the already existing pages. Brand[t] 15:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit creating a page is also an edit to that page, so you are also restricted from creating pages that you are restricted from editing.  Sandstein  15:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement of Falun Gong arbitration case

Hi, I've already amended the request following your comment. Kindly confirm whether this is what you were looking for, or if something is still amiss.

Regards, Ohconfucius (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. I saw your recent comment over at WP:AE, indicating that Arbcom itself might be the only group authorized to do any article review that is needed. Surely this is reading the FG decision too narrowly? They announced an article probation, which normally provides that Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Your comment makes sense only if you think that Arbcom intended to impose a weaker-than-usual form of article probation. Also, Olaf Stephanos was sanctioned recently at AE, and the grounds for his action seem like they would also apply to Dilip rajeev. I say this without having reviewed the rajeev evidence, just being concerned that you could be underestimating the discretion that Arbcom intended to give to uninvolved admins on this matter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll reply on WP:AE.  Sandstein  16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern

Sandstein, I wanted to thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia and sincerely apologize for my canvassing in response to your proposal to delete the article for Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern. I had only meant to contact stakeholders who had previously contributed to Hohenzollern-related articles. Instead of making those messages neutral, I knowingly crossed the line and suggested to the users how they should vote. After the dust settles, I hope another discussion will reach a final consensus. Thanks again for your dedication. --Caponer (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and of course I take no offense.  Sandstein  05:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Blue cake

On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blue cake, 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.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Kühntopf

Hallo Sandstein. Wie ich sehe, hast du meinen Artikel über M. K. ratzfatz gelöscht. Schade, aber so ist es nunmal. Damit meine Arbeit nicht ganz umsonst war und ich vielleicht später erneut einen Anlauf starten kann: Wo finde ich den Artikel jetzt, ich würde ihn gerne kopieren und aufbewahren. Danke für deine Mühe. -- Schweizerfreund (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe Michael Kühntopf unter User:Schweizerfreund/Michael Kühntopf wiederhergestellt. Du kannst den Artikel gerne wieder in den Hauptnamensraum verschieben, sobald er die Relevanz des Themas gemäss WP:BIO behauptet und damit nicht mehr nach WP:CSD#A7 schnellöschbar ist. Gruss,  Sandstein  05:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sehr freundlich von dir. Besten Dank. Woran mangelt es insbesondere bei der Relevanz? -- Schweizerfreund (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nach WP:CSD#A7 werden Artikel über Personen schnellgelöscht, wenn sie nicht angeben, weshalb der Betreffende wichtig oder bedeutend ist. Der vorliegende Artikel enthält keine Aussage über die wissenschaftliche oder anderweitige Bedeutung dieses Philologen. Für die Relevanzkriterien siehe WP:PROF.  Sandstein  13:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Na, das ist ja eine Wissenschaft für sich, das muss ich mal in Ruhe studieren und überprüfen, ob der Artikel dann noch berechtigt ist. Einstweilen danke! -- Schweizerfreund (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I was hoping someone would do this before long. I don't think FT2 is still an arbitrator, though. Nathan ^T 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Premature closure of AE request?

Hi Sandstein,

re the request concerning Jayjg: Though I agree that a few editors crossed the line and contributed little else than unhelpful ad hominems, I don't think it benefitted the discussion to close it after just five hours — there were many unanswered questions and far from a consensus to close it (with for instance uninvolved admin Gatoclass saying "I think [Jayjg's] edits are clearly within the area of the conflict").

Some of the questions that could have been answered:

1. What exactly is the scope of Jayjg's topic ban? If the question of a particular newspaper's pro-Israel/anti-Arab bias is not Arab-Israeli conflict-related, what is?

2. Since Jayjg's edits apparently weren't considered violations by a few editors at the time you closed the discussion, is it now OK for him and other similarly topic-banned editors to discuss (and edit) the same topics, namely Ahmadinejad, anti-Semitism, pro-Israel bias in media, the Qu'ran and different modern interpretations of what it says about Jews?

3. How do other topic-banned editors determine which topics are outside the scope of the ban? Can they safely assume that anything Jayjg edits in the future will be considered non-actionable, or will it have to be determined through repeated AE requests, like this time?

4. Was it correct to warn User:Nickhh for discussing inclusion of citations that accuse a particular newspaper of anti-Israel bias? If so, why did Jayjg get off scot-free for removing citations that accuse another newspaper of pro-Israel bias? Anything that gives rise to suspicions that WP admins employ double standards is detrimental to the project.

MeteorMaker (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)