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

I am sorry, but you are mistaken

What you see are uploads that have been uploaded by the owners and in must cases are old and hace not yet been changed. This is why Commons has the catagory. It simply shows what exists. There are also mistakes made from flicker uploads. That may or may not be innocent but is still not to the policy of Wikimdedia Commons- which states; The two accepted Creative Commons licenses at Wikimedia Commons are "Attribution" (

) and "Attribution share alike" (

) in every published version. See Commons fist steps.

The Policy of Wikipedia is to not use any image of questionable license or fair use if an available free image is available. There are, but no one likes those. The two imgaes in question and one that you have linked to the article were not uploaded by the copyright holders and are in dletion debate.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand at all what you are saying. What is the problem? That you believe CC-BY-2.0 is an invalid license for Wikipedia, or that the images were not released as such by the copyright holder?  Sandstein  18:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Counter

FYI, the edit counter you listed on your user page is broken/stale. The link should be http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Sandstein&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia. I didn't want to be too bold and update your userpage for you, so sorry to leave some of the work to you! Good luck! Jess ^talk _cs 22:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards,  Sandstein  18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ta

just 1/anothe ex:"I have diagnosed Sven with w:Münchausen syndrome and I find indef-block justified.--Vahagn Petrosyan 11:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[1][de meta-guysresignd-unde presurfromEPet.al?[dey'dme blokd asSven70 on wp jan2009 metryin2makmycase:(

• admits'imslf:"Because typing is hard! Duh. :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 23:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC) [2]
• Thank you for your input, but we currently have 101 admins here. We are capable of resolving the issue without interference from outside. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC) [3]
• " Add to this occasional drama queen outbursts in Beer Parlour like this.

   Please, take up another hobby. Origami, for example. --Vahagn Petrosyan 20:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• [4]as aside[jew-rant];or":#No Gypsies

 	+ 	

1. No Puerto Ricans"[5]>en.wt,nice place uh?

---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is incomprehensible. If you mean to complain about something that happened on Wiktionary, I can't do anything about what happens on that sire, as I'm not an admin (or user) there. Sorry.  Sandstein  18:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A note

It would be kind of you, when, even if not giving a fig to what I say (I think at all), closing my appeal, you'd have warned me on my talk-page. Note this please, as an admin, because I see I am not the only one having this kind of impression of your behavior towards other editors. Regards Aregakn (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Warn you about what?  Sandstein  18:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The "outcome" of it. Aregakn (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The lack of success of your appeal does not require a warning, since it does not require you to change your conduct.  Sandstein  21:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Tha lack of attention to the case does not require a closure but a notice on the admin boards. And this was a note of your approach to editors in general and not a warning. If you're not interested in how the editors might see you due to your conduct, well, "c'est la vie". Aregakn (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket

You may want to check this user's talk page. Since your block has gone up, they have made repeated implications, and now outright statements, that they have no intentions of ceasing or amending this behavior. If that is the case, I think a permanent block may honestly be called for. Just read over the comments and see what you think, make your call. I defer to you as the blocking admin. - Vianello (Talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify my point a little: If this behavior is unacceptable and warrants a block, then if it is going to continue in perpetuity, indefinite blocking makes more preventative sense than repeated re-blocking for re-occurring altercations. I don't mean to sound condescending, I'm just trying to make my reasoning clear, because I am not always good at that. Attempts to explain this problem to the user were met with a "not interested" and a questionably useful removal of the comment. - Vianello (Talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I've kind of been chatting with User:Hell in a Bucket, and I just want to, for what is worth, agree with Vianello. I tried to explain to him why he was banned, since he seems to think it is some plot of User:BlackCab, and his responses were kind of telling. I pointed out that his actions were obviously a complete violation of WP:PROFANE and WP:CIVILITY, but he doesn't believe it. This may be just my personal psychoanalysis, but he is simply refusing to accept responsibility for his actions. I explain to him that he was banned solely for his own actions here[6] and here[7] and User:Hell in a Bucket here[8] and here[9] immediately tries to shift the discussion onto the actions of User:BlackCab and their editing dispute, which is irrelevant to his block. I finally asked him, flat out, if he understood that his block had been given independantly of BlackCab's editing[10], and his response is again to shift the blame onto BlackCab.[11] Regards, --Pstanton (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read the talk page, and do not believe any action is necessary unless the problem reoccurs after the block's expiration.  Sandstein  07:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I agree with your prudent course of action. This editor has also contributed very substantially to the encyclopedia. We should indef when only absolutely necessary and when we are certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the user is irredeemable and a net loss to the project. These points have not been adequately addressed at present. This would invite unnecessary drama. Thank you Sandstein. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time just recently I've seen arguments made that free exemptions to the rules should be a reward for contribution. I cannot help but find this somewhat disturbing. But that aside, I don't think Sandstein's call is off-base. While I am confident it will re-occur, considering the user has essentially promised it will, who knows? The possibility does exist I'm dead wrong and this will never happen again. So, a wait-and-see does seem fair enough to me. Thanks for listening, as well as to the outside commentators for their opinions whether I agree with the entirety of them or not. Further debate/opinion may crop up here, but to avoid spamming Sandstein's talk overmuch I'm going to bow out of further commentary on my part at this point. - Vianello (Talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Vianello for your nice comments and I also thank you for agreeing to disagree in a very fair fashion. I also echo your feelings about spamming Sandstein's page, so I am in a hurry to also exit from here. I am not familiar with the present case but as regards your comments about rewarding bad behaviour for contributions, rest assured that I share your concern on the matter. But I do not think that in this case the violations were egregious enough to justify an indef. Anyway, mindful always of spamming I will exit on that point thanking Sandstein for his hospitality on the way out. Take care all. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@Vianello, I can see how much you agree with sandstein based on your posts above, I do however understand you are also a admin so I do appreciate not being block happy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Uneven rules (or application thereof)

I found it interesting, given your statements as to transparency, that since then a sysop who lifted a block early did so on the basis of private emails that followed public communications. When I asked him to make public the email content, redacting anything private or sensitive, he refused, saying there was no requirement that he do so, and he was not so inclined, and if I disagreed I could bring him up to a noticeboard. I found that not only oddly rude, but also way different than the approach you suggest is necessary for transparency. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be something that needs to be discussed with the other admin, not me, I'm afraid.  Sandstein  05:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

What am i to do if an editor removes a POV tag from an article without waiting for discussion? And then posts this when i ask him to self revert? Some reading material countering denialism POV tags are not to be removed until a consensus is reached right? mark nutley (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, so the normal WP:DR rules apply, only more so because the article is on probation. I recommend that you focus on discussing the contested statements themselves, and the sources that do (or do not) support them, rather than on tags, which are frankly not very helpful.  Sandstein  13:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

AA2

Hi!
As an admin, you're sometimes active on AA2 enforcement cases; in this regard, I think you should be aware of this.
Personnaly, as an admin on WP:fr, I think it's very interesting.
Regards,
Sardur (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think it's relevant to this project unless there has been coordinated editing on en.wp. In that case, a request for arbitration or arbitration enforcement should be made on en.wp.  Sandstein  08:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User page Tarun Marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi

Sir,I have sought deletion review of my captioned article on 26.05.2010.==Deletion review for Page name Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Page name Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi. 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. Tarun marwaha (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't. I can't find any entry on WP:DRV concerning that subject.  Sandstein  08:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please remove offensive image from the user page

In accordance with those policies:

• According to WP:UPNO "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space "

According to WP:NOTSOAPBOX "... Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1... propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise....

2.Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. "

• According to WP:UPNO "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project."

  According to WP:UPNO "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor."

may I please ask to remove anti-Semitic cartoon from User:Achird?

I understand that maybe I violated my topic ban with the above request. I hope you will understand, and forgive me this violation, if I did. Please note that I could have asked some friends to do it for me, but I thought it will be topic ban evading, and dishonest. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)