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

conrad resentencing

hello,

I understand the provisions, but as this is a pivotal development in the ongoing saga I thought it appropriate to include. I expect people or myself can add sources over the next few days. Though I indeed composed it in sync with developments it is meant as a relevant recap of the events and I feel it is an appropriate addition and a worthy section. If you believe I am still in error I would much rather appreciate being directed to where I may post this sort of material rather than only to have it removed and my work discarded.

It was not meant as 'news' and was not unsourced, but after 4 hrs following and composing I did not have the energy to cite and whatnot right away, there is no inaccurate information in my post that I am aware of and I appreciate your attention to the article.

I feel this is on par with the section on fraud conviction and supreme court review.

I also feel this was only flagged as notnews because of the recent nature, but the article would read the same in a few weeks in my opinion, thus taking it away from being 'breaking news' and perhaps satisfying that portion of your concern. :)

• • I have removed timestamps and relocated the section within the article, hopefully this helps :) 19:01 local time. cheers.

best regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennizenx (talk • contribs) 22:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This concerns Conrad Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks for your improvements, but the section Conrad Black#Re-sentencing is still not up to the standards of a biographical article required by our policy about biographies of living persons. Particularly, it contains no inline citations, which are absolutely indispensable for coverage of somebody's criminal conviction. For this reason, one should only edit such articles if one can do so at the required high standards of quality. I have reduced the content to a scope that I can myself cite and source. Feel free to expand it, but please be aware that we take the WP:BLP policy very seriously, and if you reintroduce questionable material without inline citations, it may be removed and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Regards,  Sandstein  07:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Duly noted. I meant no offence, still learning the ropes. best regards :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennizenx (talk • contribs) 08:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • • No problem at all, we were all new once. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.  Sandstein  18:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• thanks a bunch , i'll keep that in mind. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennizenx (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom

Yes. We should have had you on there in my opinion; you would have kept things tighter. I voted for you, of course. --John (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.  Sandstein  06:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Error in diff

Hello. In your evidence in the MickMacNee case the "Discussion with Kirill Lokshin" oldid link does not link to the actual revision you intend to refer to. The section id (#Concerning_the_MMN_arbitration_case) should be placed after the oldid revision part (at the end of the link), not inside the page title. Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 21:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP v. naming complainants in rape cases

Hi Sandstein!

I saw in a discussion of earlier "outings" of one of the complainants/victims, you cited the Jerusalem Post as a reliable source for naming a victim. I read the article and it does not source that woman as a complainant/victim. It sources that woman's social-media for her recent activities. I agree that the JP would be a reliable source for her recent activities but not about her being a victim.

There is a discussion now on WP:BLPN about this issue.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Shouwang Church

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

psyBNC

Hi Sandstein, I've had a look at the psyBNC article in my user area and can't really understand why it is still there, so I have decided to get in touch with you. I am contacting you because you are the "administrator who deleted the page". As far as I am aware the issues raised have been addressed and the article is now ready to be moved. Is it time to raise another DRV? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello. Chesdovi, identified as a pro-west, pro-Israel editor was recently topic banned from I-A for a lengthy period. Other editors with similar views such as Wikifan12345, AgadaUrbanit, Mbz1, Shuki, Gilabrand and Shrike as well myself (as you well know) have been subjected to similar bans. Incidentally, some of those editors were banned as a result of the efforts of Passionless, a notorious sock puppeteer. Regardless, A serious imbalance has now been created in the in this topic area leaving elements with radical pro-Syrian, Pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iranian viewpoints, dominating. Even if you lifted my ban now, I am too busy with RL to edit productively. I therefore have just one request. Please monitor the topic area carefully and take a proactive approach to editors seeking to gain some advantage by lack of countervailing views resulting from several bans affecting almost exclusively editors identified with the Western camp. Thank you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)