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

Binksternet

I noticed your self-revert at User talk:Binksternet. As I wrote at the end of the section WP:AN/I#Excessive_block_on_user:Binksternet, I encouraged other admins to avoid the WP:TLDR temptation and read the whole thing. I could unblock him or reduce his block length, but I have abstained. Otherwise I'd reduce the length to 3 weeks. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg

Hey. Just a heads-up, I'll probably be filing a deletion discussion about this image in the next few days. While I disagree with having a separate article on the guy (though I see the other side's argument given the other cruft that exists around here), I really disagree with the idea that this person is iconic/historic/notable enough to warrant a break in the non-free image use policies. Don't get me wrong, I think the entire policy regarding images of living people is asinine, but if it's going to apply to nearly any biography of a living person, this person shouldn't be an exception. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not a fan of using mugshots for people not (yet) convicted of a crime, so be aware that BLP will be brought up in such a discussion. It can wait on MZMcBride's nomination, though. In the meantime, you have my compliments on a very well-stated fair-use rationale. Far too many editors, even especially those who know the policy, just write "low resolution" and leave it at that. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, MZMcBride. How do you believe the image violates the non-free image use policies?  Sandstein  06:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, do you mean WP:MUG, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light"? This does not apply here, as the mug shot is very much in context with respect to the subject. The crime he's been charged with is the basis for his notability.  Sandstein  06:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:MUG is the basic idea. My personal belief is that it doesn't go quite far enough, but in particular that using an arrest mugshot for someone not yet convicted of the charges they were arrested for tends to present them as if they were a criminal, guilty of the crime they were arrested for; this is problematic. Now, in this case, reports say that Loughner was apprehended at the scene of the shooting by individuals who had just witnessed it, and that materials found in his home indicate that he planned to go shoot at Giffords, so it is quite likely that he will be convicted of the shooting. He has not been convicted yet, and so my aversion to using a mugshot as the primary image for any individual still stands. Of course, this image is widely available from news sources, the other two available images of Loughner are also non-free, and one of them, the yearbook photo, is just as unsuitable - so I'm not going to insist that we must speedy delete it the day before yesterday and set the wiki servers on fire just to be safe. I will, however, support deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a blanket ban on non-free images being used in articles of living people (at least for images of the subjects). When J. D. Salinger was still alive, a very limited exception was made due to him being a noted recluse. That's the only exception I know of off-hand.

While it's a creative argument you put forward, I don't believe it's accepted. Would the same argument apply to people in Category:Missing people? What about other prisoners or people in custody? I don't think there's any precedent or basis for the idea that there should be exception for someone who's currently in custody.

I think a better use of everyone's time would be to get the Arizona whatever agency to just release the photo into the public domain (or find an alternative image that can be released into the public domain), but the current one doesn't seem acceptable under Wikipedia's current policies and practices.

In any case, I've been "beaten" to the file deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 13#File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually we don't "have a blanket ban on non-free images being used in articles of living people". WP:NFC#UUI, only a guideline, disallows "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Almost always is not always. And a new photo would not serve to illustrate Loughner as he looked at the time of the shooting. Now I like copyright as much as the next lawyer, but I strongly dislike the essentially religious devotion some lavish on the NFCC policy. These are issues that require case-by-case discussion with a view to what our readers expect of us.  Sandstein  19:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Lanternix

Hi, you recently blocked Lanternix for one month. I thought that this sockpuppetry case may be of interest to you. Planuu (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm no checkuser, and this may need one.  Sandstein  21:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I proposed an article for deletion and am having my contributions attacked without having my reasoning addressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markvs88#My_deletion_tag_was_not_.22spurious.22 If others agree it shouldn't be deleted, ok, but I don't see why I deserve to be attacked and to have someone cast aspersions on my contributions. I asked user brewcrewer about it but couldn't get him to say anything, so I'm coming to you. 74.108.180.175 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

also, in case it's confusing, my IP address changes several times a day but stays within the same range, so it's recognizable. Unlike what I was accused of by user Markvs88, this is not deliberate and quite accidental. If I could make it static, I would. 74.108.180.175 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can remove WP:PROD tags. If you want a deletion discussion, see WP:AFD. I don't see anything actionable in that talk page thread.  Sandstein  21:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

I don't know why he's degrading my contributions. I don't think I did anything wrong. 74.108.180.175 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there someone I could talk to about this? 74.101.71.101 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My advice is to accept that you two disagree and let it go. People do have the right to criticize one another's contributions. What you should not do is cast aspersions on others by claiming that they are "degrading my contributions" or "called me a stalker, claimed I'm paranoid, lied about my contributions" ([1]) without at the same time providing a WP:DIFF to support your contention, like I am doing here. If you continue to do so, it is you who may be blocked from editing for harrassment. With respect to your second question, please see the advice at WP:DR.  Sandstein  06:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He did call me a stalker and claimed I'm paranoid. It's right there on his talk! 74.108.174.233 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If you continue to accuse others of misconduct without at the same time providing a diff as proof of your accusation, you may be blocked from editing.  Sandstein  19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here, I'll give you some diffs. claims I'm a "stalker", trying to "pick a fight", and "goad him", when I did nothing of the sort. claims I'm paranoid for editing from an IP. Tells me that my PROD, which included reasoning for its deletion, was "spurious" and a "bastard effort". If you require any other diffs, please let me know. Thanks, 74.108.174.233 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's not good. Nonetheless I believe that it would be best for both of you to disengage from one another. I do not think that anybody or anything is helped by perpetuating this dispute about a triviality.  Sandstein  11:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical question

Hi Sandstein, when one hits a "new section" button at your talk page, one sees this message: "Please do not ask me to take arbitration enforcement action on this talk page. Such requests will not be answered. For reasons of transparency and ease of processing, such requests should only be made at WP:AE." and so on

I'd like to add a message for my own talk page that will be displayed, when one hits a "new section" button. Could you please explain to me how to do this? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - its an edit notice template - see how it was created here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Start User talk:Mbz1/Editnotice. Whatever you put there will appear above the edit box on your Talk page.

As an alternative, click on the "Page notice" link in the top right corner of the screen above the edit box on your Talk page. It will take you to User talk:Mbz1/Editnotice. Clicking it on another editor's page takes you to their Editnotice, which allows you to see how they coded their notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

create yourself the page User talk:User talk:Mbz1/Editnotice by adding this {{editnotice | header = | headerstyle = | text = '''add your desired text here''' | textstyle=background: #ffe; | image = }} and your message to it . Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Who knew?"

Sandstein, you owe me a new keyboard. "So the concept of 'photograph' is novel to some people. Who knew?" made me chortle so hard I spewed my drink all over it.

Is there a suitably snarky term in the Wiki lexicon for overdoing links in the manner you decried? I'm a relatively new editor. Yaush (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Yes, it's called WP:OVERLINKing, and people like to make fun about it.  Sandstein  20:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your "di-disputed fair use rationale" template. Your concern does not address that the photo showing him as he appeared at the time of the shooting is not replaceable. This will need community discussion to resolve. I suggest that it occur at the thread you started, Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Image. If you believe the image is irremediably inappropriate, you should start a deletion discussion.  Sandstein  21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Files listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 13 if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

New eyes

Hi Sandstein. I'd appreciate a set of new eyes on this issue if you had a spare moment. Since late December User:Shakehandsman has been soapboxing on talk:feminism about how feminism the subject discriminates against men. Today, Jan 14 2011, at 02:00 UTC he made this edit. Please note the characterization of two living male academics (both named) as "extremists" and "misandrists" (sexist against men). This is a BLP issue, as it is a controversial, unsourced opinion about two living people (both of whom have articles btw) that is both potentially harmful to this site and to the people named. I have given Shakehandsman the opportunity to show good faith and redact it himself by midnight tonight (UTC). If that doesn't happen I will 'snip' the offending bits myself. On investigation this is not an isolated incident ‘’vis-a-vis’’ of the talk space - evidence below. As I have been ignored wrt policy by this user and as I am involved at Feminism, as I said I'm looking for a new set of sysop eyes to police the above issue as all the admins who watch talk:feminism are, in general terms, involved in the topic and/or being ignored. I'm beginning to feel there may be a WP:COI issue here. It's worth noting that Shakehandsman is not alone in soapboxing: see here.

Diffs

Note: Diffs go back no earlier than September 2010 BLP concerns In December 2010 Shakehandsman ran into difficult wrt BLP at Julian Assange where he argued for the inclusion of material that had BLP issues:[2]. But contended that ; “’’ If Assange blames radical feminism for the rape allegations then this needs to be quoted. It's a direct quote in an interview to a highly notable publication. Also it's a view shared by many others and supported by evidence and contradicts any suggestion that it's just the right who are attacking him’’”.[3] No source for this was found and no further arguments for its inclusion were made since Dec 28 2010 Soapboxing WP:TPG and WP:SOAP On Talk: Feminism [4][5][6][7] On Talk:Paternity fraud [8] Opening a move request at Talk:Women's shelter based on the opinion that the article title discriminates against men see this convo

--Cailil ^talk 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is problematic. [9] adds sources but does not help, as [10] is a blog and does not name the person at issue, Flood. And [11] reads "have been too quick to stereotype", not "admits he's falsely labelled". - The other edits do come across as unpleasantly soapboxish, but not as immediately actionable. I am removing the BLP problem and warning the user.  Sandstein  19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this is ridiculous, the Kimmel comment is so uncontroversial that it's part of his Wikipedia article that's why I didn' source it. Ok I should maybe have added a Wikilink, but that's hardly a problem for me to describe someone as a misandrist when their own Wikipedia article clearly say so and highly inappropriate for people to single me out for repeating a Wikipedia article. And how the hell is the Julian Assange edit at all controversial? Plenty agreed with it's inclusion, the case for not having it was pretty borderline and Sweden isn't a person last time I checked anyway.

If Cailil was so concerned about any content he could have left me a message on my talkpage immediately, but instead he hid his concerns in a huge section of text in the feminism take page - an article not even on my watch list and that I generally don't even look at within the 12 hour time frame given. He then gives me a 12 hours deadline to find this, only messaging me 5 hours later once he's involved others. That's terrible behaviour, if it's a 12 hour deadline he should be messaging me immediately, not making it a 7 hour deadline. Also Cailil can you please clarify your allegations regarding COI are they concerning your editing or directed at others? If it is the later please name names and gibe specific evidence. Many thanks (I'll be generous and give you a full 24 hours to do this, the clock won't start until I do the decent thing and inform you personally on your talk page). Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also please note that other accusations aren't being put into context. For example the issue with the feminism article is that editors such as Cailil want to include text about how feminism liberates men in the lead. All people such as myself have done is explain that any misandry within the feminist movement is at least equal to any attempts at achieving men's liberation. Therefore people are simply trying to ensure balance whereas Calali is opposed to this. Also I've just gone through some more of Calili's so called concerns, I mean what's wrong in seeking a gender neutral and all inclusive term for an article about domestic violence shelters? Only one person was opposed to my suggestion and even then it was quite nuanced opposition. Admittedly it's a fine line between explaining a point and soapboxing so I can understand any confusion, but I don't see any real crossing of this.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't really speak to the content issues, only to the BLP problem. If you speak ill of living people, you must be careful to support everything you say with reliable sources that match what you say exactly. You did not do so in this instance; please don't do it again.  Sandstein  11:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Blankenship

Greetings. In 2008 you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Blankenship and deleted the article Bill Blankenship per the consensus at the time that Blankenship, then an assistant coach for Tulsa Golden Hurricane football, was not notable. Today he is being announced as the new head coach at Tulsa.[12] Could you please userfy the deleted article for me so that I can update it with the new information and then bring it back to article space? Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up note: another editor has already started a new article about him; it might still be worth a look at the deleted article to see if it cites any useful sources or additional information. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've undeleted the history. If the person is still non-notable the page would need a new deletion discussion anyway.  Sandstein  20:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I was able to get some usefully formatted material from the old infobox. Most appreciated.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Sock

Hey,

I'm messaging a few admins to see if I can get someone to look at this persistent sock issue. Think you could help? NickCT (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That probably needs a checkuser, sorry.  Sandstein  20:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

K. Well the issue is that an editor in Toronto is IP hoping through an extraordinarily large number of IPs. Rangeblocks risk collateral damage. I don't know what the appropriate defense here is meant to be, beside some admin aggressively blocking IPs. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Que?

[13] is part of the results discussion. Why do you (re-)move it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I moved it back. I did not imagine that a person who endorsed inflammatory rhetoric was an administrator, but you are in fact one.  Sandstein  08:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries (well, in that regard ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In defence of Stephan, I doubt he was defending my "inflammatory rhetoric", but rather the accuracy of my description as a bystander who viewed the situation and then served as a witness, telling a side of the story that wasn't being taken into account, leading to an unjust judgment. I have also responded on my talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note my polite request that you redact your personal and grossly incorrect attack on me. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So have I.  Sandstein  11:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hanging judge passing out jaywalking tickets to people fleeing a burning building

[14]

jps (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)