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

Obama's family

You were nominally the creator of this and so may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family of Barack Obama (2nd nomination). Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but you should tell Justmeherenow. He wrote the article, I just made a redirect.  Sandstein  08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• I did already. Twinkle stalled when it came to doing the notifications so I notified you both manually. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK to log this?

Hi Sandstein. You warned an editor here, in April of 2010. I don't see any mention of the warning in WP:ARBPIA. Do you mind if I make an entry in the log for this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, go ahead.  Sandstein  05:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron - you turned down an unblock request fo this guy before and told him (on December 7th) to stay away from Wikipedia for 6 months. He came back last month and was blocked after SPI investigation now he is back with same IP and yet another account. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What would you like me to do?  Sandstein  10:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for copyedit help

I'm writing an article that is fairly technical and covers a lot of ground (major article for its field). The basic text is about 2/3 done, with formal cites and outstanding fact-checks to come. Without going into the technicality of the subject, I would really appreciate it if you could review it for style and flow, and make any improvements you see fit. While I may or may not agree on them all, I like your copy-editing approach (seen it before!) and it's likely most or all improvements you find would in fact be good ones. Especially, I suspect I have redundant or duplicate text laying around in it too.

Draft article link

Thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but I currently don't have the time to review and copyedit a text of this length and technical complexity. Regards,  Sandstein  10:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Arrangement of interwikis

Hi. Regarding your reply here: I don't quite understand your rationale for so replying. It is true that while participating as an editor in the project, I have often neglected, forgotten, misread or misunderstood some Wikipedia policies, and this has resulted in some rather embarrassing and painful situations at times, and even now I don't exactly know what "find consensus" should mean and how it should be achieved, but in this case I do feel that my request was obvious and uncontroversial because: (1) of common sense - if all interwikis follow a pattern and this one does not fit into it, then it has likely been misplaced by oversight; (2) my request matches what the instructions say at the second paragraph of this section, which has, I believe, been written there after a consensus; (3) that's how interwikis are generally arranged throughout all articles - choose a random article, preferably an article on a better known topic which will have a greater number of interwikis, and you'll see that ivrit is indeed sorted under "I" and not under "H". If you still disagree with this, please be kind to explain me how I should proceed in order to "find consensus" that will support making the edit. --Theurgist (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, protected pages are only edited if there is consensus for the edit or the edit is uncontroversial. In this case, at least one person disagreed with the edit, so it is not uncontroversial. Consequently, you need to establish consensus for your proposal before requesting that it be implemented. See WP:Consensus#Consensus-building for how to do so.  Sandstein  10:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lara Logan

Hi Sandstein, as you've already taken admin action in relation to this, I'm wondering if you could address some of the talk-page comments that are appearing. Logan is a journalist who experienced a serious sexual assault in February. Examples of the comments in question are that she's hot, [1] that her career advanced because she's attractive, [2] a chuckle about the expression "digital rape," [3] and describing what happened to her as "manhandling." [4] I've asked that it stop, [5] but it has continued.

Would you be willing to ask people to put an end to these remarks? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply there.  Sandstein  05:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, do you mind if I move your post to a new section so that it's more prominent? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this would be appropriate as a matter of talk page structure, as it relates to the section "Comments" which you started.  Sandstein  06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, I'll leave it where it is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Shoot, what's a guy gotta do? I already said I'd quit talking about Logan's appearance after being kindly asked to do so. Which, BTW, which was entirely removed from the boring-to-me-rape discussion. The only virtue of Logan's I care about is her degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)

Lets not repeat the same mistake again.

Sandstein, the last time JJG was topic banned, admin told him it could be lifted prematurely "if good work in other areas can be demonstrated, you are welcome to appeal again in two months' time.". After it was lifted prematurely, he made all those edits that violated npov and misrepresented sources.

So this time, admins shouldn't repeat the same mistake and lift it in advance regardless of his work in other fields, as it doesn't mean anything as evident from the same previous situation.

If you would like to reply to this you can do it here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sandstein. You have new messages at Jiujitsuguy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for clarification

Hi Sandstein, I would like to ask you about appeals rules that are applicable to the editors that were sanctioned at AE. I know that Arbcom has the right to specify in how many months after being sanctioned an editor might appeal the sanctions. Do AE administrator have similar rights? My second question is: are these number of months that should pass before the right to appeal is applicable to any duration of the sanctions or only to indefinite ones? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)