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

Himmlers Hirn heisst Heydrich

Hello Sandstein. I just bought the Czech translation - it's a hit in my country. I admit, I'm a bit scared after reading Les Bienveillantes (Goncourt, 2006) :) Thanks for this contribution. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read and appreciated both novels, but have found HHhH much more accessible. To my surprise, Binet's acerbic humor works really well, considering the subject of the book.  Sandstein  15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Joy Masoff

Can you speedy close that? While it was a good-faith nom, I already put a link to a NYTimes review on the talk page in an attempt to head this off. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably enough. I've closed the nom.  Sandstein  16:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Need advice

Hello. What should I do to resolve the dispute if the other party doesn't agree to start a mediation process. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can provide much advice that's not already in WP:DR. Do you refer to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dadivank Monastery? You can't force others to agree to mediation, and they are not required to. It appears that there is already a third opinion at Talk:Dadivank Monastery. Unless you can persuade other editors (perhaps at WP:ECN or WP:CNB?) to reevaluate the issue and arrive at a consensus position distinct from that opinion, I recommend that you abide by that opinion.  Sandstein  18:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Does the information in an Info box need a source?
In the Battle of Szigetvar article, the info-box has for the result;"Ottoman pyrrhic victory" with a Note 1 for a "source"/explanation.
The Note 1 consists of:"Although the Turks won the battle, the outcome can be seen as a "pyrrhic victory", because of a heavy Turkish casualties and the death of Sultan Suleiman. Moreover, the battle delayed the Ottoman push for Vienna that year and suspended the Ottoman expansion in Europe." Is this WP:RS? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not a source, that's part of the article even though it is in a footnote. As such, it needs a reliable source if it is contested. Without a source it sounds like original research to me ("can be seen").  Sandstein  18:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. I'll tag it with a citation and post on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Joy Masoff

Thank you for help and interest today in the article. Racepacket (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

HupHollandHup

Hi, Sandstein, could you do me a favour and give this guy the ARBPIA sanctions warning?

He's also an obvious reincarnation... he shows up in July and in days was making very sophisticated edits with no mistakes and in weeks was voting in AFD and editing obscure project pages and just now he templated me. I don't keep track of banned accounts so I wouldn't know where to begin with a sockpuppet investigation, though. Any ideas? Factomancer (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What, do you think, justifies a warning?  Sandstein  15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Today HupHollandHup was edit-warring on Operation Damocles. In the past, HHH has edit-warred on other articles related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't you just go to do it yourself? Scared? LibiBamizrach (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Today, I twice added sourced material that was removed without explanation. In the past, Malik Shabaz has edit-warred and violated BLP [1] on other articles related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict [2]. If you feel a warning is appropriate, I accept that - please make sure Shabaz receives one as well. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The revision history of Operation Damocles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a disgrace to almost everybody, as usual. But if there has been edit warring by HupHollandHup, this request does not contain the necessary evidence (as would be needed at WP:AN3) for me to find so. HupHollandHup's allegations against Malik Shabazz are likewise not supported by any diffs and are not actionable. Please see WP:DR for how to proceed in case of disagreements.

People, my talk page is not a dispute resolution forum and I am not currently active in arbitration enforcement. If there has been misconduct by HupHollandHup, please bring it up in the appropriate community forum (AN3, AE etc.) in the appropriate form with the appropriate evidence and request the appropriate admin action (warning, block, ban, whatever). Thanks,  Sandstein  19:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

For the future, how do you suggest editors request a the notification template? It is only valid if left by an admin so an admin is needed. It also is not an indication of any wrongdoing so making the request at ANI seems a little over the top. I asked this at the template's talk page sometime ago but never received a response. AN maybe? Even though you are not currently active in AE, you are familiar with it so any input (not specific to any editor) would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the remedy does not require that the notification be made by an administrator or even an uninvolved editor. If you prefer somebody else to make it, though, I recommend that you ask for it in the same forum in which you bring up the misconduct that gives rise to it, e.g., WP:AN3 in the case of edit warring.  Sandstein  06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, what part of the history is disgraceful? The part where I painstakingly wrote a well-sourced neutral article with 10k chars or the part after 3 measly reverts I decline to prolong the edit war and instead went to the effort of civilly and honestly discussing the substance of the disputes on the talk page? And I wonder why I don't feel appreciated on this site... Factomancer (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The mere fact that this is another ideological edit war among the very same editors that have been edit-warring with each other for what must be years now is disgraceful.  Sandstein  06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AN post

Please explain I don't understand why you closed this without a consensus; it seems like everyone who participated was willing to lift sanctions. I'm lost and frustrated here--can you please explain this further on my talk? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Forget it I see your box at that post is pretty extensive--you thought that more persons would have to be involved or more positively inclined to lift the sanctions. I guess I'll go back to ArbCom at some point. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate you posting to my talk again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edits?

Hi Sandstein. I have a question regarding the inclusion of certain material on the 2010 Medicaid Fraud article. Given the media attention it has received in the States lately, I'm assuming that you have heard about it. According to the federal government, the fraud was allegedly perpetrated by an Armenian organized crime group (half of whom, however, are non-Armenians, according to the FBI). However, a few editors, including its creator, have been aggressively trying to include cases in which Armenians from the United States have been involved in such acts in the past (see, e.g., here). Now, is this just the cynic in me or is this simply an abhorrent thing to do, to try to connect an ethnic group to a certain crime and give the impression that this is something which people from this ethnic group have a history of committing such crimes? Isn't this similar to adding cases in which Jews were involved in Ponzi schemes in the Bernie Madoff article? I plan on taking this to the article's talk page and would have done so had I not noticed that it has been added and removed numerous times now and am thus notifying you for your assistance. (e.g., here and here). Thanks. Regards.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)