User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:55, 19 July 2009

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

Kitten

62.194.6.92 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Im not affiliated with mr. Salisbury

Hi,

You had asked if Im affiliated with Brett Salisbury. NO, I bought his book and read his story. He has changed my life and my families by the diet he recommends. Every source I gave was seperate from his own. Not sure what you need to prove he is the real deal. You can hear live radio interviews, read book reviews, and read his bio from sources not related to his website. Does he need to make the NY Times bestseller list to convince wikipedia he is noteworthy?

He is changing lives, thats all I know... Thank you Mr.Dunbar 2129 Rickler Ave Seattle Washington Certified Dietician

blocking

Explain how that wasn't a flagrant COI, and I completely agree with Giano's comment that you are arrogant and unsuited as an admin. I was very mildly uncivil, and it seems to me you were watching closely for any mistakes I made. There's *no* way you would have done that if I agreed with you on the RfC, is there? User:Pzrmd 08:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't call my decorations "junk." My comments were no more uncivil than that. Pzrmd 08:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How what wasn't a flagrant COI? Sandstein 08:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking me. Pzrmd 08:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Which interests do you believe conflicted in that case? Sandstein 08:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation in Docu's RfC where you have endorsed like every summary opposite of my view, and you know how heavily I have participated in that. Pzrmd 08:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of your participation or indeed of any of your edits prior to the incivility for which I blocked you. Even if I were, this would not constitute a conflict of interests. Just because I disagree with you on some point of policy does not prevent me from enforcing our (other) policies with respect to you. Sandstein 09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have both participated a lot in that RfC, and have strong opinions either way. It was a completely weird reason to block. I called you arrogant above, and that is worse than what I said at the RfC. Did you read my statement there? then you know how strong my opinion is. You endorsed like every view opposite of me and made your comments. I am convinced that if I were on your side you would not block me. Power-hunger…. Pzrmd (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not read your statement, and your conviction is wrong. As to for your attacks on me, would you like to be blocked for these too? I don't normally sanction editors for disruption aimed at me personally, but I can make an exception for you if you ask nicely. Sandstein 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did the same thing to my talkpage only you didn't revert it. Pzrmd (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, did you read SchmuckyTheCat's, Juliancolton's, Xymmax's, and/or Wangi's statement? Pzrmd (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; possibly I did. By know I don't even remember what the discussion was about. Sandstein 05:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard for me to believe you happened to skip my statement and supported a lot of other statements surrounding mine. Pzrmd (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you now concede that your block was wrong? Pzrmd (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I said, me disagreeing with you on a matter of Wikipedia governance (a disagreement that I was not even aware of) does not constitute a conflict of interest that would have prohibited me from taking administrative action against you. Sandstein 08:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously knew my position by reading what I said that made you block me. It was a stupid thing to do and I'm sure you satisfied your power-hunger. We have both participated heavily in that, and the fact that you saw that insignificant skirmish shows how closely you were watching the RfC. I guess being prepared for an edit war is actually worse than being one? And vandalizing my talkpage: don't ever comment on my talkpage again. Blocks are preventative, not punitive; maybe you should have threatened me about a block instead (still quite idiotic). Why was that not a better thing to do? huh?Pzrmd (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't answer to queries made in this tone. Sandstein 12:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since blocks are preventative and not punitive why was it better to immediately block me rather than threaten to (for still, a very stupid reason). Pzrmd (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent you from making more personal attacks and from edit-warring as announced here. This is quite enough now; I'll not answer any more questions about your block. Get over it and make productive edits, please. Sandstein 21:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why wasn't a threat better than a outright block. Roux said he would stop. I said I *would* be ready for an edit war if he didn't. So I guess that's worse than actually being in one? So what the hell were you preventing when you blocked me? ~~~~ 21:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Pzrmd, just let it drop. The block was fine. Sandstein did not have a conflict of interest, your behaviour on that page was becoming increasingly disruptive, as you well know, and threatening to edit war is never a good idea if you don't want your ability to edit restricted. This discussion is going nowhere. The block has expired. Move on. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. The block was unjustified, it didn't prevent anything since the skirmish was already over, and it satisfied Sandstein's power-hunger. And the same goes to you. Pzrmd (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not at all being disruptive on my own. It is you who decide to make me disruptive. Pzrmd (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This all happened eight days ago. Get over it. Also, Sandstein has made it clear s/he is no longer interested in discussing the matter with you. Your continuing to harass them isn't going to accomplish anything. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're only escalating this right when it ended. Sandstein would have stopped so I would have no other reply. (your block was idiotic too, btw) Pzrmd (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How far goes Original Research?

Hi Sandstein,

I have some problems in War of the Pacific and hope to get some advice from you.

I try to make it short. There is a Treaty, officially titled "defensive treaty" and are a lot of references saying the treaty is defensive. But there are (far few) references that say, it was a menace for Chile.

In my opinion, a treaty, like a knife, is not intrinsically good or bad, defensive or offensive. That are properties given by the observer and stakeholder of the situation and that has to be said explicit to the reader.

My opinion is that Wikipedia can not state "the treaty was defensive" but "the treaty was interpreted as defensive by XX and YY and offensive or as a threath by ZZ".

What do you think about? Is that the first discussion in Wikipedia about the issue?

I hope you have time to answer this question before I throw my PC through the window.

Im voraus vielen Dank, --Keysanger (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I can't help you with the specific question because I know nothing about the historic period at issue. In general, per WP:NOR, we must reflect the preponderance of academic opinion. But significant minority views should be given due weight per WP:DUE. You may want to gather opinions on WP:POVN or through WP:3O about this. Sandstein 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skäpperöd

Dear Sandstein, Skäpperöd probably shouldn't have gone to WP:AE, but he is a good-faith editor. Please don't take any action against him. AdjustShift (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I'm not about to sanction him, just to warn him as described in the AE thread. Sandstein 20:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Skäpperöd has done some nice work; if he faces any trouble I'm willing to help him. AdjustShift (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead

I know that there's been a lot of drama and AE reports of questionable quality lately, so I hate to bring up more stuff (which is why I'm bringing it up on talk rather than filing a report), but I think this comment by Matthead [1] is extremely offensive. Starting with the "If the Nazis were so bad..." (obviously implying that they weren't bad - because they didn't destroy ALL Polish cities) to the implication that Poles got what they deserved from the Nazis since they supposedly have been plotting against Germany for 600 years... my first instinct was to remove the whole comment from talk. At the very least it's extremely incivil and intended to create a battleground and to provoke Polish editors (I admit it worked somewhat). At worst ... well, I'll hold my words here.radek (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My relatives perished in the Holocaust in Poland....I find Masthead’s comment extremely offensive, I could not believe my eyes when I was reading it!!....--Jacurek (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Matthead to comment. (Briefly, politely and to the point, please; I'm not interested in discussing the relevant history, just the user conduct on the talk page at issue.) Sandstein 06:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, on what am I suppose to comment, without discussing the relevant history? (Thus, I do not back up my statements here) My vote was cast in the subsection "RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw" of Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. This article should cover the expulsion of Germans, yet some users want to give undue weight to said Nazi atrocities in Warsaw, without being able to source that these were a, or the, reason for the expulsions. The talk section "Nazi-occupied Warsaw" is a 100kByte battleground, and I have contributed very few edits to it. The Rfc subsection is similar. Now Radek is once again attacking me, this time by claiming that I was "implying that [the Nazis] weren't bad". All I have done is pointing out, in the form of a rhetoric question, that prominent buildings in other cities were not destroyed by the Nazis, but the city in which German troops were attacked was partially razed afterwards. Just stating the obvious. Radek's claim violates Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons ... harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans". -- Matthead Discuß 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...not even a small attempt of an apology for your unfortunate comment? Not even when you are now aware that your lack of understanding and bad judgment has offended other users?--Jacurek (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look again what Matthead wrote: If the Nazis were so bad, why did they destroy the relatively young Warsaw after the Uprising of 1944, but not other, much older cities and buildings with cultural importance to Poles? Why are Wawel Castle and the cathedrals in Posen and Gnesen still standing, after 6 years of German occupation? First as others noted the wording "if the Nazis were so bad" is very, to put it mildly, unfortunate, even for a rethorical question. Secondly "the relatively young Warsaw" is a bit stupid, at the time when the Nazis started their bandit destruction, Warsaw was the capital of Poland for 348 years and not to mention it was a notable city in the 14th century already. Third he should look at the map of the occupied Poland, unlike Warsaw, Poznań and Gniezno were incorporated directly into the Third Reich, even the Nazi weren't so completely retard to start to devastate what they considered their own country. Should that really be used for rethorical "if the Nazis were so bad why.." type of questions? Me thinks not. Finally the city wasn't "partially destroyed" as he claims here, it was nearly completely devastated (around 90%) by the Nazis under orders of Hitler and Himmler.[2]. I don't know if Matthead writes his comments to provoke or in good faith due to ignorance, but what he writes comes out as offensive and i'd suggest he avoids doing it in the future. Loosmark (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if anyone cares, here's my opinion. I (being neither of Polish or German birth or ancestry) am disgusted by that whole article talk page, which is largely a battleground over the merits of various historical grievances and atrocities. In view of that, I tend to take a very dim view of anybody who engages in such battleground-like behaviour. Matthead, your comment about "if the Nazis were so bad" was ill-phrased at best; you should understand that it can cause offence and apologize for it. Jacurek, Loosmark and Radeksz, you contribute to the battleground atmosphere by loudly taking offence at trivia of this sort instead of assuming good faith and carrying on with the substantial discussion. By this conduct, all of you are causing that discussion to generate more heat than light. And now I would like not to hear anything more about this incident; thanks. Sandstein 06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite talk page protection

I remember you saying somewhere that talk pages should never be fully protected, even if the editor has retired, unless Right to Vanish has been invoked. Could you take a look at this talk page? Shubinator (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Sandstein 06:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete astrotheology? afraid of the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.44.15 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why has Astrotheology been deleted???

I want to know the exact reason behind this, it has been deleted 4 times, why is this being censored, why can know one read the page, this is completely not right and acceptable? What is the explanation, and it better be a good one, and if the church can have its own page, hundreds of other scientific fields has a page, why does this not? This is completely unacceptable and needs to be put back on immediately.

Your angry reader who is offended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.177.50 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a link, please. Sandstein 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User block on User:SOPHIAN

You may also be interested as an admin who has been involved in SOPHIAN controversies: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=302387535&oldid=302377030 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Since the ArbCom decision encouraged mediation [3] I would like to participate in this [4].Momento (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and why are you telling me this? Sandstein 05:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You habve posted this block to an archived and collapsed section. Please re-post properly. Some people will want to comment, and some may even deel you are pur heightening drama for the sake of it. Giano (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's OK, I have unarchived it for you [5]. Giano (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, that's strange. I began my edit at a time when the section was not yet collapsed, and my edit did not cause an edit conflict even though the section had been collapsed in the interim. Sandstein 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These things cannot be explained by the powers of this world. Giano (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Hi Sandstein and thanks for your note. I'm happy that you were not upset by my actions. My goal was to de-escalate a matter that was producing unnecessary bad blood on ANI. I'm pleased that the situation appears to have been quelled. Kindest regards -- Samir 06:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in retrospect I should definitely have let you know. I usually am more courteous than that if reversing the actions of colleagues. Take care -- Samir 06:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello administrator

I need help, I have uploaded an image for a project, I have not started the article yet, but will soon. Now my question is, is this image ok to use? or is it copyright infringement? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eight_Gate_Damascus.PNG --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be okay fair use per WP:NFCC, or will be as soon as there is an article. It is better to first write the article and then upload the image, as it may now be speedy deleted before the article is written. Sandstein 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will start the article today or tomorrow.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AA user sorting

Good call with separation of warned users from the rest but there is one major problem remaining. May I suggest you go further and separate those who were party to AA1 but who are not currently under restrictions? This will help avoid mistakes and provide more clarity for admins who are not very well familiar with the case. See:[6] Essentially this will be a list of users who can be placed under restrictions without a warning since they already have been under restrictions previously.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. Why can editors party to AA1 be placed under restrictions without a warning? Sandstein 21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a warning is still necesarry since expiration of the sanctions reverts a user to a pre-sanction state but the "List of users placed under supervision" still might be unclear for those who don't know each users history or are unaware that sanctions from the 1st case have expired long ago.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you propose. Sandstein 22:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the users under "List of users placed under supervision" are not under any sanctions currently. Separate those whose sanctions have expired from the main list.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who would that be? And what practical relevance would that have? Sandstein 22:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --Vassyana (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 147: / Line 147: @@
 ::::Some of the users under "List of users placed under supervision" are not under any sanctions currently. Separate those whose sanctions have expired from the main list.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 22:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 :::::Who would that be? And what practical relevance would that have? <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> 22:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+== Courtesy note ==
+This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by {{user|Ice Cold Beer}} has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review]]. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --[[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)