User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2011/June

Question

The WP:WQA thread seems to have been resolved by now.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am writing this to you because you were the admin the blocked me about 3 weeks ago for being uncivil. Can you take a look at the discussion I am involved in here and tell me why it is that this user can get away with being over POINTy, violating 3RR, starting mutiple edit wars, ignoring Wikipedia policy, and calling other editors various names while leveling various accusations and deflecting blame while Mindbunny got blocked for calling Robert Mugabe what he called him on his talk page? I took my block to heart and have tried to reset myself to what I know to be right, but I am really curious how it's possible that this editor can "get away" with this type of behavior, while others cannot. Thanks. Erikeltic (Talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC) FYI - a neutral third party user:Gerardw has proposed a solution which I [1] accepted promptly and unconditionally, whereas user:Erikeltic "accepted" with a huge list of pre-conditions. Since Erik rejected Gerard's proposal, I have since attempted to bridge with my own proposal but which Erik has refused to even respond to. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. I'm not sure what Erik hopes to accomplish here, as he himself has stated that his own past behaviour is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC) It's a private question Jake, not an invitation for you to continue wikihounding me by snooping through my edits. Erikeltic (Talk) 23:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that talk pages were meant to be private. As you know, in Wikipedia a user's contribution history is open to all - if you don't like that, then please have your private chat via email, although I believe that in itself raises a whole can of worms given past Wiki-scandals over the inappropriate use of the email system. For what it's worth, I'm simply protecting myself from an end-run. And your comment about snooping is more than disingenuous, given that I've caught you snooping through mine. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Deflecting yet again, I see. I didn't notify you. I didn't include you. I didn't ask for help. I asked for some guidance. There is nothing wrong with that. Your contribution is not only unnecessary but further evidence of your complete lack of civility and understanding of Wikipedia. You can continue this last word (remember that?) nonsense round the Moons of Nibia, and round the Antares Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames but all you're doing is diging yourself a deeper hole. Erikeltic (Talk) 00:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry Sandstein. I was hoping for some guidance, not trying to drag you into anything. Jake's interpretation of events are dubious, per not only the history behind his editing, but the accounts of the other editors involved. Again, I apologize that he's decided to follow me over here. Erikeltic (Talk) 23:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Eden Gardens

Hi Sandstein, you had blocked me edit warring on the article Eden Gardens. As I have made it amply clear in my talk page also, that I did not intend to request for a review of the same and at the same time have decide to disengage myself from this project post your action, so you need not treat this as an explanation seeking exercise or something similar. However, after being associated with the project for 4 years and with more than 7000+ good faith edits to my credit, I believe that just as a courtesy sake, if for nothing else, you could tell me the logic behind your action. I had suddenly dropped in to the article and saw a lot of discrepancies in the seating capacity figures, both present as well as historical; wrong information on the owners of the arena and in general some bad grammatical errors plus dubious claims all through out the article. I replaced those with valid RS and had explained my edits using the edit summary. Now, this guys barges in, undoes all the edits wholesomely and give weird justifications making it amply clear that he does not have any idea about the wiki principles. I tried dispute resolution through article talk page, my talk page and also requested page protection, which was declined. Then I tool it to AN/EW. If you would have watched carefully, I did not revert the article after my 2nd reversion and subsequent copy edits were reverted by the other user. I had also sent an e-mail to you with all the diffs, but you chose not to respond. As a ready reckoner, I am pasting the content below -

Start Mail Body

Hi Sandstein,

This morning (as per Indian Standard Time) I was surprised to see the block message on my talk page and that too for edit warring on Eden Gardens. I believe that you have acted in good faith, but I just wanted to bring a few points to your notice:

1. My first edit (which cannot be termed as a revert, btw) in a while to the article was on01:52, 28 May 2011. I had no idea who had inserted the information, but evidently there were a lot of misleading/wrong information regarding seating capacities, owner etc. in the article, which I had corrected. The difference along with the edit summary can be seen from the link provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Gardens&action=historysubmit&diff=431233833&oldid=431229920

2. This was reverted by User:Iamgymman123 (his 1st revert) on 09:35, 28 May 2011. His edits were supported by stale and outdated pages from cricinfo.com andcricket.yahoo.com. The third source used was not an RS at all. He also removed a {{who}} tag in the process and changed the owner from Indian Army to Cricket Association of Bengal. The diff is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Gardens&action=historysubmit&diff=431285912&oldid=431233833

3. My 1st revert was done on 12:13, 28 May 2011. In addition to the citation from The Telegraph, kolkata, I had also given another citation for the official iplT20.com site link in my edit summary on the current capacity and restored the {{who}} tag on a weasel sentence. The difference can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Gardens&action=historysubmit&diff=431306527&oldid=431299403

4. This was again reverted by the other user on 13:49, 28 May 2011, which was his 2nd revert. The diff can be see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Gardens&action=historysubmit&diff=431306527&oldid=431299403

5. My 2nd revert was on 15:28, 30 May 2011 and here I did a mistake of clicking on the Rollback vandal button instead of Rollback. But once it was hit, there was nothing that I could do. I also did a bit of copy editing and corrected some discrepancies in the historical figures also. I also added a source from Times of India on the owner of the Eden Garden's premises to clarify any doubts in other editor's mind. the diff is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Gardens&action=historysubmit&diff=431626855&oldid=431602270

6. This edit of mine was again reverted by the other editor on 18:20, 30 May 2011, his3rd revert. This edit removed valid sources on Stadium Capacity, Owner, a {{who}} tag, removed some of the wiki links and undid the copy edits which I had done to the article. The diff can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Gardens&action=historysubmit&diff=431644457&oldid=431626855

After this revert, I have neither reverted the edits, nor edited the article in question.

I tried engaging the user in Talk page of the concerned article, Eden Gardens, which can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eden_Gardens#Seating_Capacity. From his responses, it is amply clear that he does not understand the policies and is not even ready to learn.

Our interactions in my talk page can be seen here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shovon76#Eden_Garden.27s_Capacity.

I had also requested the page to be fully protected for the time being, till a consensus can be reached at the talk page of the article. Refer to this difference in Wikipedia requests for page protections: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=431634108

Lastly, I had reported the user at the WP AN/EW, which can be seen here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=431651434

I would like to believe that you had taken all this in to account while blocking me.

Unfortunately, I think Wikipedia is gradually becoming a place not suitable any more for reasonable & qualified people.

Auf Wiedersehen!

Mail Body End

Please note that I am not demanding any explanation or apology from your side, but would be grateful if you could come out with your version of the event. At least, as a retiring editor, I hope I am entitled to this little farewell gift! :)

Thanks. Shovon (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You made four reverts in short sequence, each time undoing the higher capacity added by the other editor: [2], [3], [4], [5]. This is edit-warring. It does not matter whose sources are better or who interacted with whom, as edit-warring is prohibited without regard to such factors.  Sandstein  05:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! Guess there is no point arguing with you guys here. Wikipedia has become a hegemony of the Admins. Even if you want to take an admin through the de-sysoping process, all other brothers in arms will jump in to protect their brethren. A typical example of the pack behaviour.

Let the accuracy go for a toss, who cares! Let the articles be full of grammatical errors and misspellings, who cares. Only important thing is that the Admins can do no wrong. So, Hail the Admins.

Won't waste my time any further in this project. Goodbye and good luck. Shovon (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Taking a few moments to read basic policy ... such as WP:EW, WP:BRD and apparently WP:SPIDERMAN is never a waste of time, and will make you a better (and less dramatic) editor. The actions clearly have no basis in "admins being all powerful", it's the most basic of WP:EW policies. This isn't rocket science, it's a community. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible violation of ARBKOS restriction

Hi, Sandstein. It was pointed out on Talk:List of sovereign states that Alinor (talk · contribs) has been blocking consensus on a list at least in part because of the way it portrays Kosovo. Would this be in violation of the sanction you imposed here? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. The ban applies only to editing articles, and the edit you cite is to a talk page. This article edit may violate the ban, if it relates to Kosovo, which I haven't checked.  Sandstein  05:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the problem being discussed is about article edits. Here is more background on the dispute:

1. A dispute about the sorting criteria for the page ends up in an informal mediation stage. See [6]. 2. The mediator closes the mediation as unresolved, since two users (Alinor among them) refuse to compromise. However, he states [7] "I suggest that a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2 has developed here for it to be implemented directly over any objections. Those who might still object are (obviously) within their rights to challenge that action, but I strongly recommend that any such challenge not involve further debate between these participants, but be turned over to third parties via RfC, 3rd Opinion, formal mediation, or arbitration." Indeed, before and after the mediation closes, thirteen users accept this version of the page [8] (too many diffs to hunt down at this moment, but I can indeed quote every one of them if needed). Note this sandbox was created and proposed on 21 May. Consensus is only reaffirmed when this version is proposed, while the two users on the minority side (Alinor among them), refuse to accept it. 3. Time is given for the sandbox to be reviewed and objections raised. Since no more users object about it, it is incorporated into the main article space on 29 May. It should be noted that the two opposers made no alternative proposals during this period, despite being repeatedly prompted to do so (they continued to cling to their positions made during the mediation, failing to compromise with the consensus adopted by the other users). 4. One of the two opposers begins to edit war over the consensus version with several other users, intending to restore the previous version [9], [10], [11], [12]. An uninvolved administrator intervenes and determines this version [13] is the consensus version. 5. After the administrator has made his call, Alinor continues the edit war [14], claiming no consensus exists. On the talk page and on the mediation, he has stated repeatedly that his reasons for opposing the consensus have to do with how "RoK" (Republic of Kosovo) is portrayed. Two examples: [15], [16]. Conclusion: the point being raised is: is a user who is banned from the Kosovo topics allowed to edit war in other pages over Wikipedia's portrayal of Kosovo? This seems to me like a pattern of behaviour (remember the topic ban was for edit warring). Just calling it to your attention. Thanks. Ladril (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not active in arbitration enforcement at this time. If you think something warrants arbitration enforcement action, please use WP:AE.  Sandstein  21:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Primarily"

If it secures your support, I'll strike the word "primarily" from the proposal entirely on my own initiative. I cannot go further than this as the ratification process is too far down the line and there is the possibility that my strikethrough may be reverted. However, it would be foolish, on WP:BEANS grounds, to leave in something which could - based on your persuasive rationale - be gamed by future rogue arbs :) What do you say? Will you move to support?  Roger Davies ^talk 08:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if "primarily" is struck my concern is addressed and I can support the policy. This would not rule out decisions about disputes rooted in content disagreements (Israel-Palestine, etc), since these typically result in conduct problems (edit-warring, incivility etc) and so warrant ArbCom intervention.  Sandstein  09:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Having thought further about this, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to make an arbitrary copy-edit at this late stage as I don't "own" the proposed update. However, jocularity about rogue arbs aside, I really don't think there's a ticking bomb issue here. The community has never been keen on implicit interpretations and rightly would see any attempt to govern relaying on the scope sentence as a power grab by stealth. Having re-read the existing policy, I think we are better off with the update but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, based on this proposed policy, any attempt to govern Wikipedia would not be a power grab by stealth, but a legitimate exercise of authority clearly delegated by explicit policy, and any who disobey it are liable to be AE-blocked. That's why I'm opposing it. We tend to say that policies are descriptive, but this one is clearly prescriptive, and it means what it says, not what we might want it to say.  Sandstein  06:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see that happening myself. First, it requires a majority of the committee to do something barking mad; second, it requires barking-mad collusion in that decision by administrators, who are not noted for their sheep-like complaisance and who are not compelled to enforce anything; third, it requires other administrators not to undo the barking mad actions of compliant administrators; fourth, it requires Jimbo not to intervene. In short, it would provoke a constitutional crisis. Wikipedia really isn't as linear as you seem to think.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Sandstein, I mentioned you here. Although I am explaining why your comment on AE request concerning me was not exactly fair, I did not make this post to complain about you at all. I am sorry about this post, but I had to make it to to defend another admin's action on my block log.I would like to ask you, if it is possible, do not comment on the thread I linked to, not because of me, but because of the person this talk page belongs to. I and at least one more person believe he deserves a break. If you really feel you need to act over this post, may I please ask you to warn and/or block me instead of commenting on the thread itself. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of unblock

I allowed myself to unblock your fellow admin Maedin. I did this as a matter of urgency as I believe admins should not be getting in each other's way where this is not absolutely necessary. I also saw no need for wrist-slapping as the admin had used a vaguely appropriate channel for raising the issue of their own accord. I do, however, commend you for looking into the issue - just please use greater care in future when deciding whether any emergency buttons need pressing. Thank you and regards. Samsara (FA • FP) 21:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to see we have a set of double standards here. And a set of rules (3RR) that are enforced before they are even broken. JFitch (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, Sandstein! You say that Maedin should have talked or used the dispute resolution process. Maedin wanted to talk. She may have chosen the wrong venue at ANI, but she effectively asked for a third opinion instead of reverting a second (!) time! Yet your first reaction to any dispute you happen upon always seems to be to block, and never to talk first (at least in my selective perception). Your blocks of established, constructive, and motivated editors are far more damaging to this encyclopedia than a half hour of edit warring could ever be, if it were to happen. Please go do something else and stop handling ANI! Amalthea 10:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the block was too hasty and said so on the blocked user's page; I was about to unblock them but Samsara was faster. Nonetheless, Maedin did edit war, reverting the other user twice on each article and then (wrongly) requesting admin intervention intervention at ANI. As an admin, she should have been more familiar with the content dispute resolution process (which does not include ANI) and should have known better than to revert a trivial change twice. Your perception seems to be selective indeed.  Sandstein  12:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You missed my main point, so I'll repeat it:
Your blocks of established, constructive, and motivated editors are far more damaging to this encyclopedia than a half hour of edit warring could ever be.
The vast majority of editors want to help, and edit here in good faith. If they do something wrong and it is explained to them, they will generally desist. If you block them without a discussion, they are annoyed and may leave. Your hard-handed blocks do more damage to this encyclopedia than they prevent. Amalthea 13:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So very true. Assume good faith is missed by this user evidently. JFitch (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this particular block was not necessary, but in general, I am in favor of applying the same rules to all editors alike, whether established or not, or administrators or not. Otherwise, I will be accused of cabalism and favoritism before long. One can't please all the people all the time. I do try not to block editors who have not been warned or should clearly know better. And if people do leave Wikipedia because of a block, it is their decision and responsibility, not mine.  Sandstein  13:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears I can't make myself clear: I don't ask that you only block unexperienced editors. Blocking an experienced editor can be particularly damaging, but blocking any good-faithed editor without prior attempts at discussion is never the most constructive solution.
A block is still is only intended to prevent damage or disruption. A discussion is to be preferred if it is likely to have the same effect (which is always the case if you assume good faith with an editor and it isn't a deliberate repeat offense): It has the same short-term effect, and in the long term you may have educated an editor without alienating him. To quote written policy: "Administrators should generally ensure that users who are acting in good faith [...] are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking". That mandates discussion.
Amalthea 14:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the "reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior", which I agree should normally be provided, usually occurs by way of talk page warnings, and not necessarily by way of a discussion initiated especially by the administrator attending to the matter. If a user has already been warned about their problematic conduct and nevertheless continues to engage in disruption, I as an administrator will not normally issue another warning or otherwise attempt to initiate a discussion, but will directly block instead. That's because if the user has already disregarded another user's warning, they are not likely to heed mine.  Sandstein  15:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly did you even bother to look at the talk page for the article in question? Talk:Jude_Harrison I think you'll find I was indeed part of a discussion there a while back when the initial issue arose. No consesnsus was determined, the image stood. It was only admin Maedin who decided that they would change the image based on something that hadn't happened (a consensus on the article talk page). They in fact had not even said one word on that talk page, and still haven't. I was reverting for this reason. You thought i was going to break 3RR. In case you hand't notice I didn't do this. I had been warned once before for the 3RR and guess what...I didn't break it then either. You walking around with you Banhammer thinking your solving things is just doing more harm than good. The giving preferential treatment to the user who started the problems, simply because they have admin status....and you think that is a responsible way to go about things? JFitch (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is forbidden even if it does not reach the level of three reverts in 24 hours, see WP:EW. Maedin made less reverts than you did, only two per page, so lifting her block was appropriate. Essentially, do not edit-war, especially not over silly details like what color balance to use, and you will not be blocked again.  Sandstein  16:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that you have continued reverting, so I've reblocked you.  Sandstein  16:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons

Before I bring this to WP:DRV, I would like you to reconsider the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. As I see it, there was no consensus to delete the article, in fact it was evenly split, and the reasons for deletion were mostly about cleanup issues. There is also the fact that at least 13 reliable, third-party sources were provided to demonstrated coverage of the whole. —Farix (t | c) 09:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You make good points, but I'm not really convinced. The 13 sources you mention seem to be several issues of the magazine Newtype USA. All the other editors who commented after you were unconvinced by these sources, with one editor saying that these articles contain only passing mentions of the article subject. Nonetheless, I'm relisting the discussion to get more input. Strike that, I overlooked another delete opinion, and relisting at this late stage would cause various complications. But feel free to ask DRV if you think the closure was mistaken.  Sandstein  19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources- Not Found Online

Hello. I am gathering newspaper and magazine articles on a subject noted on Wiki. A few were written offline or are no longer on the web but can be of helpful. Another editor suggested http://www.scribd.com. Would this be acceptable in your opinion for me (and possibly others) to refer to if I post the articles on it? If not, do you have a better idea. Thank you so very much! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In principle, a newspaper article needs not be accessible online in order for you to be able to quote it as a reference. That's because somebody who wants to verify what you wrote can still go to a paper library to check out the archive copy of a newspaper. Online accessibility is just a bonus for the reader. I do not recommend that you post copies of the articles to Scribd and link to them, because in doing so you would likely violate the copyright on the articles (unless they are in the public domain), and per WP:ELNEVER we may not link to sites that contain copyright violations. So I recommend that you simply cite the offline version of the article. But if you want to, you can note on your user page or on the article talk page that you are willing to send electronic copies of your references to somebody who needs to look at them.  Sandstein  05:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful suggestions! (and for taking time out to do so) I will follow the route of my user and/or talk pages. Avoiding copyright issues was my main concern in addition to others having online access, which I was told was needed. Problem solved! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I am new to Wikipedia- If I post the following statement on a subject’s “Discussion page” after I begin making edits, would the follow notation be appropriate? I am taking my responsibilities as an editor seriously and would appreciate your experience to guide me.

Dear Editors,

I have sought the advice on the “User talk page” of administrator  Sandstein  under my question- “Reliable Sources Not Found Online”. Their response (in short): “In principle, a newspaper article needs not be accessible online in order for you to be able to quote it as a reference. That's because somebody who wants to verify what you wrote can still go to a paper library to check out the archive copy of a newspaper. Online accessibility is just a bonus for the reader. So I recommend that you simply cite the offline version of the article.” It was also suggested that I offer to e-mail a copy of an article in question to those who require additional certification, which I will happily do if asked. Thank you! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that making a statement like that is only necessary if somebody actually questions the sources you cite, or you think that it is likely that people want to verify your assertions because they're somehow exceptional. Many articles cite offline sources without ever being questioned for that.  Sandstein  05:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What Sandstein is suggesting is actually illegal. You cannot send electronic copies of copyrighted material around the Internet like that, even by e-mail. Unless the material is in the public domain or written before 1923, it's a violation copyright laws. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You certainly can. The question is whether you may, and I am pretty certain that you may. Under most jurisdictions, individual reproductions of copyrighted material for the purpose of scholarship, such as sending a copy of an article privately to an editor colleague, constitute legal fair use.  Sandstein  05:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you cannot. The Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in the United States, and is subject to U.S. copyright laws. Doing as you suggest constitutes copyright infringement under U.S. copyright laws, and will expose you to a possible lawsuit by the copyright holder. SimpsonDG (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

One editor sending a copy of an article to another is fair use, which is an explicit legal exception to copyright and therefore not in violation thereof. And the status of the Wikimedia Foundation is not relevant to e-mails that editors send one another.  Sandstein  16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not fair use, it is copyright infringement. "Fair use" means you may legally make one copy, for your own personal use and scholarship. Once you start distributing copies on the Internet, you have violated the publisher's copyright. And the status of the Wikimedia Foundation is absolutely relevant: it determines which country's copyright laws are applicable (in this case, those of the United States). SimpsonDG (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein and Simpson,

Thank you for your advice. I have received and sent e-mail of copied works in the past due to the nature of education, as my school deemed it acceptable- Yet understand both of your opinions. The main article I would like to improve upon is to simply fill in holes. The subject is featured in magazines out of print, in addition to regional publications difficult to find online. (Having some broader publications already cited by others) My concern is the lack of civility of a few editors on this subject's page who will likely edit postings to prove each other incorrect. (They have done this before, yet it appeared to be as a bit "personal" on a discussion page- fortunately not towards me!) Should I simply edit and note the references? I am an old dog, yet I will run quickly to you for advise if this begins! (so pleased to have your advisement) Suggestions? ElizabethCB123 (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I recommend that you just start editing, citing your offline sources using the templates {{cite book}} and {{cite news}} as appropriate.  Sandstein  16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless Sandstein is hiding his credentials, he is not a lawyer, and is in no position to offer legal advice to anyone. Follow his advice at your own risk. SimpsonDG (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein and Simpson,

I will soon contribute without legal risk in hopes that if any questions arise, I can depend on additional support through experienced editors such as yourselves! (And I will lean if needed!!!) Please know that no claims I post will not be verifiable offline or with absolute truth- Always! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just consulted with our family's attorney (who in part specializes with infringement issues) and he found that this subject has grey areas depending on the situation and circumstances. (meaning it is taken case by case) However, he confirmed that the advise to post copy to a website like http://www.scribd.com (as suggested by another editor) is a ill idea. Had I not asked on this page, I would have taken the other editor's advise. Thank you again. (Both of you) Best. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As expected, verifiable notations on the article for Marisol Deluna are now being asked for "full citations" despite adding more than one references to support specific claims referring to {{cite book}} and {{cite news}}. How would you suggest I deal with this? Can quoting a section of a page or section supporting the notations on the editor's page be helpful? While remaining civil of course. Thank you! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. There seems to be no discussion of this kind on the article talk page. Can you please provide a WP:DIFF of the edit you think is problematic?  Sandstein  19:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. The problem is that you did not provide all the information required to identify the source you cite and find it in a library. What you write results in e.g. ""7th Annual Rising Star Awards- Honoring Hispanic Entrepreneurs". Con Edison Company (New York). September 29, 2004." That is not a sufficient citation because neither the author nor other identifiers such as ISBN, ISSN or (if this is a periodical) the title of the periodical are identified. Take a look at {{cite news}} and fill out all parameters that you know.  Sandstein  19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I absolutely agreed with your comment about her being recognized as a "Rising Star". Yes, additional information is needed and will see into it. However, the other two statements being questioned have two references each and followed {{cite book}} and {{cite news}}. I noted more than one reference to give an editor a broader scope in which to research verifiable information if needed) Any suggestions? (Oh, this is where a scanner would come in handy!- Kidding!) Thank you.ElizabethCB123 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction- I see where the holes are. Have more information for references, so this will be fixed. My apologies, yet thank you! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:IntelligentUniverse

Can we be sure that the checkuser block of User:Liveintheforests as a sock of User:Anglo Pyramidologist is valid? (Oh, and I don't see any public record of it - do you know where it is?) The whole point of the unblock request is that he admits IntelligentUniverse and Liveintheforests are both his, but claims that Anglo Pyramidologist is his brother and that when they're both at home they share the same computer. Checkuser might connect them, but as Tnxman says, "However, if the story about the two users being brothers is true, similar technical evidence would be expected". If we were prepared to consider the possibility that IntelligentUniverse is a brother of Anglo Pyramidologist, why shouldn't we do the same for Liveintheforests? My look over the writing styles shows very similar styles between IntelligentUniverse and Liveintheforests (as expected - he's admitted that connection), but Anglo Pyramidologist's writing style does look quite different to me - he seems like a better writer, with better grammatical style, and without the over-long sentences with multiple concatenated clauses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, for the purpose of the unblock review, the question is theoretical, because (as Atama said when overwriting my unblock decline) even if Liveintheforests is not a sock of Anglo Pyramidologist, IntelligentUniverse is an admitted sock of Liveintheforests, and so must seek unblock via Liveintheforests's account. I haven't compared the writing styles, and you may well be right, but as a general principle I tend to be very sceptical about any explanation involving WP:BROTHERs.  Sandstein  20:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't seen your unblock being overwritten - but yes, good point, he should make his requests at Liveintheforests. I know what you mean about the old "brother" excuse, but it is sometimes actually valid, and he does seem unusually adamant about it. Anyway, I guess we shall see. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What is TLDR? Also, kittens would be better than trouts here

Also, I hope you don't mind my saying that I think AGK meant very well in all of this even if I disagreed with him, and he has had so much grief over his block-annotation, which I am sure he would not have done if he realized it would be at all controversial, that people should probably give him a nice kitten or something instead of a trout. Well, I'm sure you know that as well. betsythedevine (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

unomi 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, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Kittens for all the much maligned and abused AE admins, here is yours Sandstein (hope you aren't allergic). Aso WP:TLDR (too long; didn't read). un☯mi 21:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of administrator tools

You said on ANI that I misused my administrator tools. I'm not sure what your intention was, but such remark implies that I abused my sysop access. I doubt that I can put into words how grossly offensive I find that. I fully expect my fellow administrators to tell me when I've messed up, but I never thought I'd see that. Sandstein, I do not exaggerate when I say that I must now seriously re-evaluate my willingness to contribute to Wikipedia as an administrator. AGK [•] 23:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not my intention. As far as I know, you otherwise do fine work as an administrator, and I am all in favor of you continuing to do so. I meant "misuse" in the sense of "use for something they are not meant for", not in the sense of "abuse for one's own benefit or some other nefarious purpose". The block facility has the purpose of preventing access to Wikipedia to stop disruption, and not the purpose of expressing one's opinion about previous blocks, that's why I think it is a misuse of the block tool to use it like that. I also think that it is not useful, as others have said, to request a community discussion of six-months-old expired blocks.  Sandstein  05:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask you to review...

I've merged in most of the details from My Little Pony Friendship is Magic cult following (with your assessment as merge) into the main My Little Pony Friendship is Magic article along with other bits (including a major Wired article that just came out today on it). I was just going to do the redirect to complete the merge but I don't know if you were thinking "history merge" or "merge with redirect" here. If you were thinking a history merge, I can do that (I'm an admin) but I didn't want to step on toes there since the AFD tag is still on the main article page. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking much about that dinstiction.... As far as I am concerned, a normal merger with redirect is fine. I don't know why the AfD tag is still in the article; I've removed it now.  Sandstein  19:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Persistent vandalism on Josip Broz Tito for political agenda; a guy removes valid sources even after removing of sources by supposed fascist historian by him:

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.126.34 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sandstein. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 08:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Courcelles 08:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Great edit summary

It's rare that I get to smile at edit summaries on community discussions! Thanks for brightening my Wikipedia experience today! Sadads (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

North Charleston, South Carolina and User:City of North Charleston

Recently the above named user has started editing again at the article in question. The user has made 5 edits total, all to this article, all unsourced, and one which was fairly blatantly NPOV ([22]). Their most recent edits consisted of removal of sourced census data and insertion of unsourced data, as well as an inadvertant incorrect statement ([23]). I reverted this edit ([24]) and attempted to engage the user at their talk page ([25]). While I was doing so, they reverted my revert ([26]). I also warned them of a possible COI issue ([27]). I wanted to seek your advice rather than edit war by re-reverting and prior to filing a report at WP:COIN. What would be the best way to approach this? Thanks.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also apprised them of the issue with their username ([28]), though I fear I may be over-templating.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've username-blocked the account and left further advice, maybe that will help resolve the issue. If you cannot verify the changes through a search, I think you would be justified in reverting them again.  Sandstein  18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 20:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Common Statement?

I started working up a combined draft of the points made by apparently like-minded people at User:Wnt/User_Faction/santorum#A_mutually_compatible_point_of_view. You're one of the 11 I think should be compatible. I'd like to get as many points as possible that everyone involved can agree on completely, so I'd much appreciate it if you could endorse the statement, and/or specify which points you reject or need reworked or explained. (and in all fairness there are a few I can see need work). Interested? Wnt (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My statement was procedural and regarded the scope of any possible arbitration case. In the RfC, I've (weakly) supported a merger on UNDUE grounds. So I'm not sure that my opinion is compatible with that of all of the other people, or these opinions with each other.  Sandstein  21:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for answering. I'm not sure how this will turn out... Wnt (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 2, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Economic history of the Arab world

Hi Sandstein. I notice this has a G5 tag on it, and I was going to delete it for that reason, but I saw that you had closed a previous AfD for the page as "keep", so I wanted to ask your opinion before proceeding. What are your thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it has substantial edits by others and has survived an AfD, so should not be speedy deleted IMHO.  Sandstein  05:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it be. Thanks. 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification regarding MickMacNee case

Further to the initial discussion at the "Motions and requests by the parties" section of the workshop page of the MickMacNee case, this message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee now considers you to be a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee, and that your conduct will be examined during the proceedings. By direction of the arbitrators, I have accordingly re-added you to the list of parties to this case. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

another editor

Hi Sandstein could you please tell me who the "another editor" is that you are referring to in this edit summary? "Has stated his intent to continue edit-warring once the block expires. Also continued severe personal attacks, calling another editor a "sociopath" " Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the user represented by the delta symbol, as can be seen in the diff I linked to at ANI.  Sandstein  18:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I will have a better look at the time line, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can a High School Yearbook be used as a "Reference"?

Hello. I am considering the use of a school yearbook to add verifiable information to a few articles. Is this considered and acceptable means of referencing? Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an American and so do not know whether such books are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required by WP:RS. You might want to ask at WP:RSN.  Sandstein  04:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein: You didn't phrase your answer as a question, but I'll answer it as if it were a question anyway. No, it's not a third-party reliable source, but it might be considered acceptable as a primary source depending on the situation. It's been years since I looked at my yearbook, but I suppose it would probably be acceptable to cite in an article about the school on how many games their sports team won (for example). (Of course, a school newspaper would probably be a better source). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents, I would avoid using a year book as a source. At my school the year book was created every year by a committee of juniors at the school and only looked over by an assigned teacher and I believe that this is a common practice for high schools, in the US at least.

However, the main reason I would object is because unless you bought the yearbook from the school in the year it was issued or you go to that school's library there is no way to obtain a copy to verify any information claiming to come from that book. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." I think yearbooks in general by their nature fail many of the tests laid out in that page.

Phancy Physicist (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:V does not require sources to be easy to access (athough that's certainly nice). Some online sources may require an account or payment, while some books may be available only in university libraries. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But that is exactly my point. Yearbooks for all intents and purposes are self-published by the school and not available to the public in general. No matter how obscure the book or article if you go to the public or local university library with effort they can get you a copy. But if I want to verify a fact from a 1974 yearbook for a highschool in Lewistown, Montana, U.S.A. I can't even get it from the Library of Congress. I have to know somebody from Lewistown or go there myself and maybe the school library has a copy. This unavailability combined with its self-publication and lack of professional fact checking makes a yearbook a bad if not unacceptable source IMHO.

To discuss this further I would say go to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Can_a_High_School_Yearbook_be_used_as_a_.22Reference.22.3F Which the OP of this post started.

Phancy Physicist (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear All- I noticed a "school newspaper" mentioned as possibly a more reliable reference than a yearbook? Oddly, I can get access to this as well. However before I dive in... Can I reference one for an article? Where I sttended school, things were fact checked, yet understand not all schools and yearbooks are created equal. Thank you! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's also a question best suited to WP:RSN, sorry.  Sandstein  13:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Gigablast

I see that Gigablast was deleted a few years ago. Though it is certainly a tiny company, I think it's notable as an independent Web search engine with a significant-size index. Please take a look at User:Macrakis/Gigablast to see what you think of my proposed article about it, which includes two independent reliable sources. By the way, I am not affiliated with Gigablast in any way, though I have been in the search industry for some time (Lycos, FAST). --Macrakis (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That could be a potential keeper, if these sources are reliable secondary sources as per WP:RS, which I can't determine. You can restore it as is, or if you want to be sure it is not deleted again, you can ask for opinions at WP:DRV first.  Sandstein  00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

thoughts if possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.113.180.32 the most recent removed edit

thanks 87.113.180.32 (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. What is it you want me to examine? It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  15:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As an admin can you read the removed noticeboard postings? as i provided diffs and relevant pages and links detailing my concerns but they were reverted. 87.113.180.32 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't read them. They were removed with the WP:OVERSIGHT tool to which very few people have access.  Sandstein  17:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

[Rev Deleted by LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)] 87.113.180.32 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

another problem is that she is also publishing through the society using her wiki articles as basis and then can potentially link back to those for her wiki article which could potentially mean she creates anything one wiki makes a publication of it and then uses it like a reliable source http://www.arabianhorses.org/education/genetic/docs/11Genetic_CA_Review.pdf 87.113.180.32 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm, 87.113.180.32, I and other people just spent several hours discussing this with you. It was pointed out that your post was probably removed because it might have been seen as revealing personal information, and I gave you the link to the relevant policy. It was pointed out that vague accusations of "can potentially link back to those" are of almost no use whatsoever without you or someone else providing a concrete example of where circular sourcing has occurred. It was pointed out that the situation at Arabian Horse Association is now much improved since it has appropriate templates in place, and therefore interested parties (including you) can now improve the article based on that. It was pointed out that your overall concern - which seems to be that organisation having an undue influence on content - is largely just an incidental result of the organisation being significant in the topic area, and the editor in question being particularly productive on Wikipedia.

But after all that is pointed out, you go right ahead making the same vague accusations here, and you post a link to a webpage that says "Members only" in the title and is a list of full names, street addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. I'm baffled. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note I asked Sandstein this morning . they responded this afternoon so i am telling them why i had contated them earlier i did not come here after i spoke with you but was replying in regard to an earlier enquiry the time stamp shows that i came here first 87.113.180.32 (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

in addition i have given no name or personal details directly on this page as you said that may have been the earlier problem87.113.180.32 (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

87.113.180.32, if you believe that there is still a COI problem, please make a request at WP:COIN (but this time without revealing private information), because the editors there seem to be already acquainted with the issue, whereas I'm not.  Sandstein  18:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you confirm that you do not need to see the RevDeleted content, so I may suppress it in line with WP:Outing - Oversight policy? Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Fine with me.  Sandstein  18:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I shan't post the link in question but how else am i to show that the member is on the comittee in question? would an admin confirm that info exists even though it cannot be shown?87.113.180.32 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If experienced uninvolved editors have already advised you, as per Demiurge1000 above, that there is no current COI problem, then it is probably best to drop this matter altogether. Be advised that under no circumstances may you reveal private information about other editors that they have not already revealed themselves (WP:OUTING).  Sandstein  19:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Messages in chat gave me the impression that the issue had been posting the surname on wiki so i thought that had been the problem. It was not made clear that showing the google found page that happens to include the details in question was a problem. My impression had been that it was putting them directly on wiki that was the problem.87.113.180.32 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Whats OTRS requesting mean? Just saw in in this page history87.113.180.32 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTRS.  Sandstein  19:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Privacy issues? So someone emailed about that specificly? Sorry if i caused problems, I did not think that the info would be regarded as problematic or hidden in any way when eveything came up right away on a simple search for the username 87.113.180.32 (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant no offense and have said sorry to her. I shall just leave it now.87.113.180.32 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity... I emailed the oversight list regarding the 18:47 18 June 2011 edit, because an administrator with whom I discussed it, suggested that I do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on editors' behaviors.

Good day, Sandstein. Sorry for contacting you about this issue but I am really annoyed by what I perceive to be a lack of good faith and etiquette from some editors and I do not know what to do. It may just be my perception but I'm truly bothered. Calathan contacted me to inform me that he had requested a sock puppet investigated against me since he believes that I'm a sock puppet because some IP !vote rationales are similar to mine in some AfD and he seems to be trying to change the AfD outcomes in which I participated (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jfgslo). I understand that he had done it with the recent problem with Anthem of joy, but I am truly annoyed because this is the second time that I have been suspected. This was the first one User talk:TheFarix/Archive 11#About the current batch of socks and I wouldn't have know had User:TheFarix not been kind enough to warn me. I am not the only one that has been suspect (User talk:BOZ#Sock puppetry allegations) but the way in which this has been handled by dissenting editors in AfD seems to me like a lack of good faith and etiquette and an attempt to overthrow previous AfD outcomes.

What truly bothers me is that I have never acted in such a way to raise suspicions that I am sock puppet. A simple check to my contributions would have shown that I'm not related to those IPs or that sock puppet. Even just asking beforehand would have been enough. I wish there was some kind of venue where I could raise my complain against this behavior towards me and others. Is there something that I can do in this situation? Jfgslo (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, right now the sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jfgslo is still ongoing, so you should make your argument that you are not a sockpuppet on that page. An administrator will evaluate the evidence and decide whether to believe you or not. You should however know that normal editors cannot match usernames to IPs, so the user who made the investigation could not have done so. If you have any complaints against the reporting user, you should wait until the investigation concludes and then proceed as described at WP:DR.  Sandstein  13:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I will follow your advice regarding WP:DR once the investigation is closed. After reading your comments and checking Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims, where it says that I do not have to defend myself, and as I am just a regular editor and never edit without logging in, I don't see how I could be confused with a sock puppet, so I think that I do not need to make an argument to defend myself. Do you think this is the best action regarding that sockpuppet investigation? Jfgslo (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's really up to you. You do not have to defend yourself, but a brief statement to the effect that you are not in fact a sock will probably not hurt you either. You may also want to note that your first contributions are some two years older than those of the named account(s) you are alleged to be a sock of, but that won't help you with respect to the IPs. An admin will have to decide how likely it is that they are you. Though it may count in your favor that you are able to edit even after the IP range has been blocked.  Sandstein  17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also left some observations on the SPI page; please continue any related discussion there.  Sandstein  18:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer so thoroughly. Jfgslo (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Can you take a look at this anonymous editor's edits? [29] He/she basically appeared to (ostensibly) follow and undo several of my edits and/or reverts. It's worth noting that the edits I made were to A) maintain a widely held consensus at FC Bayern Munich and B) regarding WP:MOS at Beck's. Given the recent issues I've had with another editor, in which he threatened to wikihound me anonymously after being indefi-banned, I am wondering if this IP is a proxy site. What do you suggest I do to deal with this, should it become a greater problem? Erik the Red ^(Talk) 23:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, on account of the penis edits, I've blocked the IP for harrassment. If such blatant harrassment continues, WP:AIV or WP:ANI should normally be able to deal with it. No idea whether it's a proxy, but if you think it is, WP:OP can check it.  Sandstein  05:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll play it by ear. Erik the Red ^(Talk) 11:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Laman Jegan Joof

Hello,

I noticed that you have nominated my articles for deletion, i.e. Laman Jegan Joof etc. You also seems to accuse me of other things which I shall not go through here. I am just wondering when you where planning to delete the Laman Jegan Joof, Xoy Ceremony, and Sererism articles whether you have thought about other possible variations of the name or at least consult me? If you asked me, I would have told you that, the surname "Joof" for instance, is the same as "Diouf". Joof is the English spelling and Diouf is the French spelling. The same is for Djegan/Djigan. Since I speak and write in English, I have to use the English spelling (Jegan) and not the French spelling(Djegan/Djigan). You said there is nothing on Google. This is the same thing I have been accused of by certain Administrators even after providing sources. Even after citing "The state must be our master of fire" in the Jegan Joof article, that is still not enough for you. You said there is nothing on google. Have you tried googling:

Djigan Diouf

Please stop jumping to conclusions and accusing people of things. I have better things to do with my time and effort than to waste all my time and energy producing these articles if I didn't have verifiable sources for them.

Tamsier (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've replied on the AfD page.  Sandstein  05:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just asking

Pointless discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sandstein in this edit you alleged I had "years of topic bans" (highlighted by me). May I pleas ask you to provide the differences of me having "years" of topic bans before 4 April 2011 (the date you made the comment)? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I said "years of topic bans and blocks". That may have been imprecise; what I meant to say was that you have been the subject of topic bans and block over a period of years.  Sandstein  05:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for clarification. You made your comment on April 4, 2011. My first block was posted by involved Malik on January 25,2010. He reverted it in 40 minutes, but even, if I leave it alone, how many years between January 25, 2010 and December 23, 2010 (the date of my last extremely unfair block)? Of course you do not count my self-requested block from 2009, don't you?--Mbz1 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Sandstein, I hope there was enough time to calculate how many months there are between January 25, 2010 and December 23, 2010 :-) I hope you agree with me that your comment about "years of topic bans and blocks" was misleading to say the least. Sandstein, I was topic banned directly because of your misleading comment on AE. I have been topic-banned for almost three months now. I believe that you, Sandstein, should lift my topic ban now. It is not because I care about contributing to the topic. I do not. It is because it would be a right thing to do. Anybody is entitled to make a mistake, but a very few are fair and brave enough to admit they did, and fix it. Are you one of these fair and brave ones, Sandstein?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Er, you were blocked in 2010, and have been topic-banned in 2011 ... grammatically, those are "years of blocks and topic bans". Even if they were for only 1 second each year over 19 years, it's still grammatically "years of blocks and topic bans". Are you really going to keep needling him? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC) BWilkins, thanks for grammar lesson. I always appreciate one, and I mean it, but IMO you are mistaking.Yes,I was topic banned in 2011, except I was topic banned on April 7, and Sandstein made his comment on April 4. That's why I am saying I was topic banned on April 7,2011 because of Sandstein's misleading comment on April 4, 2011, and no, I am not going "needling him". I said what I said and I am done. BWilkins, from my prior experience of posting on Sandstein's talk page, I know he does not like, when the users are talking to each others and not to him. That's why, may I please invite you to my talk page, if you have more grammar lessons for me :-) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Be that as it may, I cannot lift a topic ban that I did not place. You would need to ask the person who did, but I doubt that my statement, misleading or not, was the determining factor for the ban.  Sandstein  17:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Your statement was misleading and I was topic banned for a whole year because of it. I am sure my banning admin would not have minded you lifting my topic ban, because he said "An argument could be made for dismissing this report with prejudice given the weak and highly inappropriate nature of the filing statement", but if you cannot lift my topic ban it's OK.I do understand not everybody has the balls to do something different :-) As I said I do not care about editing the topic. Thank you for calm responses and for your time. I would only like to make one more point please. My editing in the topic has never been problematic, and I hardly have been editing in this topic at all. I have never cared very much about editing in this topic. Could you please take a look here, where I am asking you for another month of topic ban? Would a problematic editor, who edits disruptively in the topic ever do something like this? Have you seen any other editor asking to be topic banned?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC) From what I remember from my time at AE, your contributions to the topic area were often problematic. But my opinion is not relevant to your position, and I feel that this discussion has no purpose. Please refrain from editing my talk page unless you have something of importance to ask of me. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please help

Hi Sandstein,

I am posting this with reference to the deletion of the page "Voobly" from wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voobly). I would like you tell you a few things about this issue. It's been written that voobly page was deleted saying "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". First of all Voobly is not a business and second, we did not create page to promote voobly. If some unknown did something in the past then I would to inform you to it was not us. Age of Empires is an old retired game. But people always wanted to play this as this is an evergreen game. So Voobly was formed as a result of that. Voobly was a community where people from all across the world play their favorite game Age of Empires online for FREE. It was not at all a commercial project. Even the official game creators(Microsoft Games) added voobly in their list. Please check the below link. http://zone.msn.com/en/general/article/aoferetiring

I would like to request you to let us create a page at voobly with name "Voobly" as we feel honour by having a page at wikipedia. I request you to kindly please respond help us in creating a page. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakmdeo (talk • contribs) 19:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The article Voobly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted because it sounded as though it were promoting the software, written from its developers' point of view: "Voobly also supports many features for this game such as our NAT Traversal which bypass port forwarding, our rating system which is based on the MSN Zone ratings, and our advanced lobby system which allows players to communicate with ease." This is forbidden, see WP:CSD#G11 and WP:SPAM, no matter whether or not it's a commercial venture. The article was also deleted because it did not assert that Voobly is notable, which is Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion, see WP:CSD#A7. You will not be able to write an article about it unless you can establish that the topic is notable, as described at WP:N. If you still want to try, I recommend that you read WP:COI first and then try the Wikipedia:Article wizard.  Sandstein  19:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your quick response. I followed your suggestion and tried to create an article in Wiki following the instructions. However Wiki is not allowing me to create saying that the article is using link from a site which is banned. In this case it is Voobly itself :( . I have absolutely no idea about how to proceed from here onwards to request unban Voobly. I request you to kindly help me in unbanning Voobly and to create page at Wiki. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakmdeo (talk • contribs) 13:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your site is indeed listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, because it has been apparently repeatedly used to spam Wikipedia. Too bad for you, you (or your co-workers) shouldn't have done that. If somebody else writes a policy-compliant draft article about your company that establishes its notability, the blacklist entry can likely be removed; until then there will be very likely no article about Voobly.  Sandstein  18:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee evidence

This communication is in my capacity as the clerk assigned to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. The maximum limit on evidence is 500 words and 50 diffs, but your evidence runs to over 2000 words and almost 50 diffs (including the five AFD links). Please immediately reduce the length of your evidence. If you cannot, or are unable to, do so within 24 hours, a clerk will summarily redact or remove your evidence. Thank you. Regards, AGK [•] 23:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So redacted.  Sandstein  05:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. My view, for whatever it's worth, is that your agreement with HJ Mitchell was a very favourable outcome. Regards, AGK [•] 22:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)