Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or 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.
RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leanne Tiernan
WP:BLP1E does apply because the only thing this person is notable for is being kidnapped and allegedly sexually asssualted. Six deletes indicate consensus. Recommend review as she does not meet WP:N. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Er, the "LP" in "BLP1E" stands for living person, which the subject is not. In my opinion, consensus to delete is not established. Sandstein 05:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Understand that. However, my point as per the delete votes is she did nothing famous why she lived. If being kidnapped and allegedly sexually assualted is her unfortunate claim to fame, there are thousands of other WP:OTHERSTUFF that would apply. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- In fact, if you look at the two Keep votes before my Delete vote, those editors make the case she was not notable and recommend that the killer is more notable. I don't concede that however. He's your run-of-mill pervert. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on this or should I take it to deletion review? ----moreno oso (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- In fact, if you look at the two Keep votes before my Delete vote, those editors make the case she was not notable and recommend that the killer is more notable. I don't concede that however. He's your run-of-mill pervert. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Understand that. However, my point as per the delete votes is she did nothing famous why she lived. If being kidnapped and allegedly sexually assualted is her unfortunate claim to fame, there are thousands of other WP:OTHERSTUFF that would apply. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Failure to comply with an enforcement warning you posted
This [1] is a knowingly disruptive and tendentious breach of WP:NOR; and evidence of blatant disregard for the DIGWUREN enforcement warning you posted here [2]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- At first glance this appears to be a content dispute which should be resolved via WP:DR. Not every addition of unsourced content to an article is disruptive. Only if this is part of a pattern of problematic conduct does it become sanctionable, in which case you should make a proper WP:AE report with sufficient dated and well-explained diffs. Sandstein 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your information. I will do that in due course. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that I'm currently restricted to editing via iPhone only and so pasting in links showing that the 21st century claim flies in the face of historical record, media reports of the time, British government statements and the memoirs of Poles who were invited is very difficult. I will post links to sources as soon as I'm next at a proper computer. However, if you think it appropriate I will self-revert until I can post such sources. I personally would think that using a source to support something which the source does not say (and claiming that the source means other than what it says is utterly unacceptable but that's just my opinion). Varsovian (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have no opinion about your content dispute (though it looks as though that article needs 1RR soon). But I strongly suggest that you do not make potentially controversial edits until you are technically able to make them at an acceptable level of quality, i.e., including any required sources. The only thing that's urgent on Wikipedia is vandalism and BLP violation removal, everything else is not on a deadline. Sandstein 17:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. I didn't actually think that the edit was particularly controversial, given that all but one of the sources which I have now inserted into the sentence in question were already in the article (and the new source only backs up a source which was already in the article). Varsovian (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have no opinion about your content dispute (though it looks as though that article needs 1RR soon). But I strongly suggest that you do not make potentially controversial edits until you are technically able to make them at an acceptable level of quality, i.e., including any required sources. The only thing that's urgent on Wikipedia is vandalism and BLP violation removal, everything else is not on a deadline. Sandstein 17:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Leanne Tiernan Deletion Closure
I believe you have made an error in your closure as no consensus therefor resulting perversely in keep. The Article was overwhelmingly decided not to keep. The two results plausible were Delete outright or Move. Keep was not one of them, please can you expand on your reasons and if necessary Move the page over a redirect.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leanne Tiernan. As explained above, there was no consensus for deleting this article. Sandstein 19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Though no concensus to keep the discussion said move or delete not keep. Lucy-marie (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you mean. Those editors who opposed deletion did so on the condition that the article be moved if it was not deleted. Accordingly, after closing the discussion as "no consensus to delete", I moved the article from Leanne Tiernan to Murder of Leanne Tiernan, but I did this in my capacity as a normal editor. Sandstein 22:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Topic ban question
Hi Sanstein, before I will proceed to my question, I would like to give you a barnstar please:
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
I would like to thank you for the topic ban you made me the subject of. It took some time for me to realize, but now I know it was not only the right, but also the kind thing to do. It allowed me to concentrate on the positive contributions and to write few articles that would have never been written, if I were not topic banned because after I was topic banned I tried to prove to you, Sandstein, that I am capable of making positive contributions. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC) |
And now my question. Yesterday was the last day of my 3 months topic ban, and I am not sure those three months were enough to make me to stay out of the troubles. They probably were not. Could you please add one more month to my topic ban? I am afraid I am not strong enough yet, to avoid troubles on my own, and I need your help. Thank you for understanding. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Er, thanks. But admins do not generally issue blocks on request, and I do not think that issuing other sanctions on request would be helpful. If you do not think that you can make good edits in a certain topic area, I advise you to simply stay out of it. If you need advice in any particular situation, please feel free to ask. Sandstein 21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind offer. I took more than enough of your time and from now on I will try to avoid posting more questions on your talk page. I am not sure how to explain it to you, but for the last month I felt as I was learning to swim in a stormy ocean, and the only thing, that will help me, if I was going to drawn, was my topic ban. Now my support is there no more, and I am on my own. I will try to follow your advise. It was great to know you! Regards. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
Sandstein, I have a question, if a user with whom I am banned from interacting makes false claims that a source says something which the source doesn't actually say, who and where can I alert of the situation without breaking my ban? Dr. Loosmark 14:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- You can't. Sandstein 15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Misunderstanding
I sent you an email regarding misunderstanding of the situation. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- May I ask you what kind of action Molobo wanted to initiate. As I'm currently the only user in a discussion with Molobo and he withdraw his misinterpretation of a source I used, I'm probably the affected user. Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was about something I observed, nothing about any editor I am in contact with.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Requesting arbitration enforcement
Sandstein I request arbitration enforcement against user: Varsovian. He made this beyond pale bad faith accusation [3] that I made "deliberately provocative edit designed to trap him". Please note that the only diff which was made by me is this: [4] in which I have simply corrected a link which was broken. (Somebody forgot to put an "<" ). To claim that it is a deliberately provocation is... well out of this world. I request you stop the bad faith accusations by user:Varsovian and enforce the non-interaction ban. Yes, we are allowed to report each other but IMO only if there is really some substance in the claim. Otherwise the report can simply be misused to defame the opponent. Dr. Loosmark 12:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Declined. Enforcement requests to uninvolvement admins are allowed under the terms of my ban. I'd make an exception only for obviously abusive requests, which the request by Varsovian is not (or at any rate not more problematic than this request by you). Both of you seriously need to stop obsessing about this victory parade, or more substantial sanctions might be needed. Sandstein 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not abuse request? ok could you please just tell if you believe that my correcting a link was a "deliberately provocative edit designed to trap him"? I just want to know what am I allowed to do and what not. If now I cannot even correct a link then basically any edit of mine can be claimed to be deliberately provocative or what. Dr. Loosmark 13:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- That enforcement request by the other party has already been evaluated by another admin and I see no reason to do so again. Now please stop arguing about this and edit somewhere else. Sandstein 13:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well fine. It's very stressful for myself that even the most possible innocuous gnomish edit can claimed to be deliberately provocative and I am sorry you can't see that. But anyway I will go to edit something else thanks and bye. Dr. Loosmark 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Interaction ban again I'm afraid
Does this edit violate this interaction ban? Specifically is describing this request as "beyond pale bad faith accusation" violate the restriction against "The other party may not to be informed of, and may not reply to, that request unless asked to by the admin."? Please note that I make no comment on and make no reply to the request made in this edit. Varsovian (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC) On second thoughts, I'll do something constructive instead. I'd like to delete this post from your talk page but I'm uncertain if I'm allowed to delete any content at all from another user's talk page and hence I have only struck it out. Please consider deleting it yourself. Varsovian (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict with the preceding, now struck-out text:) See, mutatis mutandis, my reply to the request above. While you are indeed both prohibited from replying to enforcement requests by the other, you are also allowed to make new enforcement requests. I'm resolving the conflict as follows: You are both prohibited from making enforcement requests that allege that an enforcement request by the other violates the interaction ban. Of course, administrators may still sanction, on their own initiative, any abusive or frivolous enforcement request. And my patience with both of you wears thin. Sandstein 13:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I mention you (briefly and conditionally)
here.radek (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Administrative question
Hi Sandstein. I am curious-could you tell me on which Wikipedia rule/guideline is the interaction ban imposed by Varsovian/Loosmark based upon? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)