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

fan mail

You don't seem to get a lot of that, it seems. Fan mail, that is.  :-)   Appreciate you taking on the hard job of working AE, and all that such entails. Came over here to apologize for my 1800 words in the BarleyBannocks case, and my grumbling later about your revert. On further reflection, you are correct to have done it as you did it.

  I am also tangentially connected to the saga of 63 and 14, who were not actually edit-warring during November over MOS guidelines at all, but were really just carrying their low-grade conflict of October concerning Categories, over into other areas of the encyclopedia. They both just have a couple hundred edits, so I wish you had of left them a more-personalized note rather than a template, but they both kept on editing afterwards, so there was not actually any WP:BITE in practice. Annoyingly, once again you were proven correct, and I was proven wrong.  :-)   Anyhoo, thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

S. John Ross

Hi Sandstein,

I have a good source for S. John Ross (writer), which you deleted after closing the AFD. Do you have any objections to userfication so that I can do some work on it? BOZ (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No, go ahead.  Sandstein  16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing the case

You just closed the case before I was even informed of the actual charge.[1] The original charge by TRPoD being rejected almost immediately and so that can't be it. What is it I am supposed to have done? How do I defend myself when there is no clear or specific charge? Barleybannocks (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see the results section of the AE thread, where the grounds for the sanction were discussed for about three days at considerable length. In addition, the sanction concerning you had already been imposed a day before I closed the thread, so the closure didn't put you at any disadvantage. If you want to appeal the sanction, you have received instructions about how to do so.  Sandstein  17:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but you see, almost nobody could work out what they were. Perhaps a straightforward statement would be in order. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have further questions pertaining to your sanction, you need to ask the admin who sanctioned you. That's not me.  Sandstein  17:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Why, don't you even know the charge? Barleybannocks (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The admin who banned me is refusing to tell me what it was for. Can you tell me? Barleybannocks (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see above.  Sandstein  21:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

RedPenOfDoom

Hello, I noticed you recently made a sanction against this user for another topic. I was recently editing an article (David Acorah - not that it's particularly relevant) however I noticed within a few seconds of my changes that they were reverted, with nothing more than a statement by the user that they were 'reverting changes by <me>' almost botlike in appearance. On reviewing my edits I realized their revert was nonsensical, so I reverted that and then waited to see if it was a rogue bot. Nothing happened. So I went and took a look at the user in question. Their talk page shows that they're ... well, for lack of a more polite description, batshit mental? They are reverting thinks in a blanket fashion for no reason all over the place, and have dozens of users complaining on their talk page.

Perhaps as an administrator you could intervene or look into this persons behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason to their actions besides being a pain in the arse. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a sanction, a warning, and I'm warning you as well for making personal attacks on them here, which are not allowed. If you think admin action is needed, I'd need to see diffs.  Sandstein  21:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I too have some issues with this administrator. I created a page for Divya Gopalan, a key figure with Al Jazeera English. I don't know how 'Notability' is assessed, but there are many entries for people on this channel, and this lady a) anchors and read news b) hosts more than one studio show c) reports from the field, from more than one country, including some ie. Tajikistan, for which she is the Subject-Matter Expert (SME). I have not noticed this channel being eclipsed on Tajik coverage by, say, BBC World, so if you are English or German and want info on Taj., then AJE seems as good a source as any, and she is the go-to for that.

In addition, her employers state she had an Emmy nomination, and gave detail. This reference is given on the links on the article. RPOD removed the ref., saying no source given. He then slapped a 'lacks notability' tag. I restored Emmy nomination (nomination, mind: she didn't win!) with hint that even a short-list nomination is pretty good and pointing out ref is sourced. RPOD reverted this, quoting 'Burden'. Al Jazeera is a globally recognized brand, Red Pen of Doom is not. As credible source is given, suggest the administrator must now give Burden of proof that AJE are lying, as that appears to be the implication.

Likewise, either delete all AJE articles as 'channel too obscure' or delete 'lack of notability' tag, or at least justify comment, in relation to her colleagues for whom there are entries.

RPOD creates no content, and edits about every 2 mins. for c.12 hrs. every day, which indicates a truly phenomenal endurance, but hardly a reflective approach to the subject. He normally explains each action and so I would not describe him as a vandal (Am no longer surprised by the number of administrators who are now blocked), or consciously malicious, though I sympathize with the sentiment - rather than the words - above.

No objections to being edited, others have edited the article and am inclined to agree with their alteration: after all, WP is theoretically a community and collaborative.

Protozoon (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Without links and diffs of the edits you deem problematic I can do nothing. See WP:GRA. Also, in general, if you disagree with others, you should proceed per WP:DR. Individual administrators such as I can take action only in rare cases of clear and egregious misconduct.  Sandstein  06:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - to you as well!  Sandstein  09:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Feathercoin

why did you delete the article Feathercoin when the votes were some 11-6 to keep not delete? Just curious. 174.58.148.241 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not votes. Administrators assess consensus based on strength of argument, not only by counting opinions, especially in cases where opinions might have been solicited outside Wikipedia.  Sandstein  09:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tritonia khaleesi

Thanks for your nice new article on a nudibranch! WP:WikiProject Gastropods very much appreciates your contribution! Invertzoo (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

ARBPSEUDO

I haven't been able to find any discussion of why morphic resonance is listed as pseudoscience. I see it listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it on the talk pages. I'd just like to understand how this decision was arrived at. It's certainly not justified by the bulk of reliable sources. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)