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

See how good I am, it is about the time to lift my topic ban :)

Hi Sandstein, here's my real life story that proves how fully I comply with my topic ban. Maybe after reading my story, you will find it possible to lift my ban now, a month before it expires:)
Few days ago my husband and me were on United flight 59 flying to Kona. The pilot offered passengers a problem to solve. We were given the time we took off, the distance we need to fly to get to Kona, the speed of the plane and the speed and direction of the wind. We should have calculated the time we would reach half way. Flight attendants collected our solutions, and in half an hour the pilot declared the winner on the radio. The winner was me. I was off only 15 seconds. Everybody turned toward me, smiled and waved at me. I was so proud of myself. After all there were 200+ passengers on that plane, and I won. I was making fun of my husband, who was off 30 minutes because he never bothered actually to make the calculations, and just came up with a first number that came to his mind. Then flight attendant brought me my prize - CD with Hawaiian songs, and it was the time my husband was making fun of me. He told me: "You may not have this CD, you should give it to me." "Why?" I asked, and he explained to me: "Look at the name of the singer. His name is Israel. You are under broadly construed topic ban on everything connected to Israel." I looked at CD and saw the name written there: Israel Kamakawiwo'ole. Without any arguing I handed my CD to my husband complying with my topic ban :).
Sorry for the long story. So, would you lift my topic ban? Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, because this story does not relate to your on-wiki conduct, which is the reason for your topic ban. What you do offwiki is not covered by or relevant to, the ban. You are also not banned from Israel (the country or the name), only from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Sandstein  18:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was good on-wiki too, wasn't I? :) Anyway... Warm regards--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, like adding to Karl Marx's article that Marx is the link between Luther and Hitler.Abisharan (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varhaug Idrettslag

Hi, I should be grateful if you would take a second look at this close, please? I guess that there is little practical difference between 'no consensus' and 'keep' but I think that this should have been closed as the latter. The nomination was a procedural one and there was just one delete !voter. He made his comment early in the piece, when the page looked like this, and before the page had been developed to show norability and before sources were added. Consequently, his statement ""Sources found" - I don't see any in the article." is clearly in error. Against this there were four editors who argued that notability had been established. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right; amended.  Sandstein  19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

topic ban

I would like to request that the topic ban be amended to allow for reverts of unambiguous cases of vandalism. For instance, the page of Mahmoud Abbas has had the name vandalized today and had yet to be corrected after more than 10 hours from the initial edit. I would restrict myself to only unambiguous cases. nableezy - 18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC) (somebody watching your talk page has since reverted the vandalism, all the same I dont see my request as unreasonable, unless of course you would like me to report each case of vandalism I see here and wait for somebody to remove it) nableezy - 18:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the thread resulting in the topic ban.  Sandstein  19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, here. You, in placing the topic ban, wrote that Reverts of vandalism and BLP violations are not excluded from this ban. Truthfully, I was tempted to just ignore the vandalism bit because I thought it would be funny if somebody blocked me for reverting vandalism, but I thought it might be wise to do this the proper way. nableezy - 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is an absolute absurd not to let editors, who are topic banned to remove clear vandalism. Do vandals have more rights than we do, or it is just another humiliation to add to topic bans?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, thanks for the link. The request to amend the topic ban is declined because it is often contentious what should and should not be considered vandalism, reports to WP:AIV are often dealt with in a matter of minutes, and your topic ban will expire in 15 days anyway.  Sandstein  20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, though if you restricted it to "unambiguous" cases of vandalism, as the diffs linked above were, I dont think that would be contentious. But that is fine. Cheers. nableezy - 20:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Then is an edit like this also a topic ban violation? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole of that article is not within the A/I conflict, there is a section that is. I did not touch the section that is. nableezy - 20:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, if you continue to insert yourself into discussions concerning I/P conflict-related sanctions which do not concern you, I will consider this a violation of your own topic ban and sanction you accordingly. This is your only warning. Now would be a good time for you to quit this discussion.  Sandstein  20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)