User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 61: Line 61:


:::It is immaterial whether or not Nableezy says that he believed that he did not violate the ban. Based on its plain language, he ought to have known that he did. Since nobody linked to these previous AE requests that you mention during the whole long time the request was open, I could not (and still cannot) take them into account. In any case, [[double jeopardy]] is a legal concept inapplicable to arbitration enforcement, which is not a legal proceeding. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
:::It is immaterial whether or not Nableezy says that he believed that he did not violate the ban. Based on its plain language, he ought to have known that he did. Since nobody linked to these previous AE requests that you mention during the whole long time the request was open, I could not (and still cannot) take them into account. In any case, [[double jeopardy]] is a legal concept inapplicable to arbitration enforcement, which is not a legal proceeding. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, if you want a diff for AGK saying that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAGK&action=historysubmit&diff=329783362&oldid=329643464 here you go]. Also, if you want to see the AE thread where my actions at the AfD were addressed, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#nableezy|here you go]]. This topic ban is wholly without basis and I hope you reverse your decision. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)</font></small>

Revision as of 21:29, 1 January 2010

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.
  • 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


Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday musical noise

Hi, happy holidays :-) ... ChildofMidnight told me you are a native German speaker (and I see userbox here). Hope you'll excuse a random holiday noise question:

I'm curious what a native German speaker thinks of the song (words/rhyme) by Christina Stürmer who had the great idea to mix American Wild West with German yielding perfection (to my German-free ears): Augenblick am Tag[1]. Of course, she might be singing Austrian (I think there's a bit of difference, yes? ^;^). If you'd prefer not to get into German verse criticism, please feel free to ignore. In any case, happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she is singing in standard German, and the text appears to complain about the monotony and regularity of life ("Und täglich grüsst das Murmeltier"; "the marmot greets us every day"), but takes solace in the capacity of song to "take us back for a moment each day" to the past. It's actually a more interesting text than that of most pop/country songs I know, but then I have very little knowledge of or interest in pop music anyway. Happy holidays to you too,  Sandstein  06:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking a moment to listen and comment. (And much appreciate clarification that it is standard German.) Best wishes for wonderful year in 2010. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons question.

Hello,

I was just wondering. Could I move this logo to commons using the rationale "This image, or text depicted in it, only consists of simple geometric shapes and text. They do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore public domain."? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 22:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. The logo is hand-drawn, and hence more original than simpe geometric shapes or standard print letters.  Sandstein  06:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think so. Thanks, Happy holidays and a happy new year to you!--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 14:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarity

I try not to bug you and your particular expertise more often than once a year, and I don't think I've bugged you this year yet. So, if you feel so inclined, your input at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_December_20#Democracy_question would be appreciated, particularly with regards to frivolousness ad constitutionality. Given the outcome and substance of our last vote (which I missed, alas), some light would help and make the desks look good. :- ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've supplemented your response. Do feel free to draw my attention to matters such as this; I always appreciate it to be able to help foreigners understand our idiosyncratic little country a bit better.  Sandstein  05:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guete Rutsch!
... foreigners and confused citizens like myself, excellent! As a former GSoA member, politicized in the 1980s, I take nostalgic umbrage at your second example of "overly radical initiatives", of course, and we ignored being "resoundingly voted down", celebrated over one million yes votes, and considered moving to Geneva or Jura. But that was way back when, and I resisted the urge to launch a debate at the desks ;-). Thanks for your input, schöni Fäschttäg und en guete Rutsch! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yes, well, I am an army officer and life-long FDP voter, so you can probably guess why that first came to mind as the example of a frivolous initiative :-) Merry holidays and a happy new year to you too!  Sandstein  11:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sandstein. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Side grip

Updated DYK query On December 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Side grip, 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going

Good timely add of a pic of the shoe! Nice going. Happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To you as well!  Sandstein  13:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a way to start the New Year!

Dear Sandstein,

First of all, happy New Year. I hope its a good one for you. The reason I am writing though is because I'm rather shocked at your reimposition of a two month topic ban on Nableezy on this, the first day of the new year, just a couple of days after his last topic ban ended. I don't think his edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD (over a month ago) deserve to be held against him now. And as you said yourself in your closing of the other complaint against him, there was nothing actionable in that complaint. Therefore, your decision comes off as rather punitive. Would you care to revisit? Or should I file a request for review somewhere? Can you direct me to where that can be done? Thank you. Tiamuttalk 19:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and happy new year to you too. I do think Nableezy's repeated violation of the topic ban, even though it happened about a month ago, requires a restart of the ban, because he violated the topic ban in exactly the confrontative manner the ban was intended to prevent, i.e., by editwarring to reinsert the AfD comments of other banned editors (which also violated the policy prohibiting editing on behalf of banned users). Although the sanction was imposed relatively late (I was away from AE until today), the enforcement request was made in a timely manner. My closing of another complaint as not actionable has no bearing on the closure of the unrelated complaint at issue here. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider the sanction; it may be appealed as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  20:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the New Year's wishes. I must disagree, however, with your assessment, which I believe fails to assume good faith. To Nableezy, the Jonathan Cook article was not clearly covered by the topic ban, which is the reason he was restoring those other editors' comments. Furthermore, his edits to restore the comments removed were in line the guidelines outlined at WP:TALK (i.e. that editors should generally avoid removing or altering the comments of other editors) and came one day before the end of his the expiration of his talk page ban. Two separate requests were opened, prior to the AE request that you closed, suggesting that his actions be reviewed. They were, and no action was taken by the admins who commented on those other requests. The idea that a third request could be filed on the same issue and one month later be closed with a renewal of his topic ban seem patently unfair (triple jeopardy?), and I said above, punitive.
It is very disheartening actually, and not the way I would liked to welcome the new year myself. But you are free to your opinion and free not to respond further. I will take it up where you suggested when I calm down a bit. Tiamuttalk 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is immaterial whether or not Nableezy says that he believed that he did not violate the ban. Based on its plain language, he ought to have known that he did. Since nobody linked to these previous AE requests that you mention during the whole long time the request was open, I could not (and still cannot) take them into account. In any case, double jeopardy is a legal concept inapplicable to arbitration enforcement, which is not a legal proceeding.  Sandstein  21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, if you want a diff for AGK saying that here you go. Also, if you want to see the AE thread where my actions at the AfD were addressed, here you go. This topic ban is wholly without basis and I hope you reverse your decision. nableezy - 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]