User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/October

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#London_Victory_Celebrations_of_1946

This is a courtesy note that I have asked for an old ruling of yours to be repealed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Street

Would you please userfy a copy of Grant Street to my namespace? User:GrapedApe/Grant Street would be fine. After this article, I think I can make a good case for a standalone article?--GrapedApe (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  15:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--GrapedApe (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Pizza cheese merge discussion

There is a merge discussion in which you may wish to participate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing Eastern European names

Hi Sandstein - as far I do understand banning me forever from editing names has solved the problem with a throwaway key policy, or did it just cause mess like this. This is a nalf year of happy WP:POV bashing, that continues up to this day. Best regards. Lokyz (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, is this a request for me to do something? (See also WP:GRA).  Sandstein  18:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is. How could be my indefinete ban lifted. Because by this ban you've destroyed Lithuanian commonity in this wikipedia. Every single editor of Lithuania has left. Literray.Lokyz (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't provide any links regarding that ban, and mere assertions of this type are not sufficient grounds for action.  Sandstein  12:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we finally are reaching a common ground:).Lokyz (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt

See this post on an IP's talk page:[1]

I blanked it and left a message at User talk:DieSwartzPunkt.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, is this a request for me to do something? (See also WP:GRA).  Sandstein  18:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this is just for your information; I know you had been involved in the past in trying to keep the peace between Wtshymanski and DieSwartzPunkt.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have some time

Perhaps you could help improve the article on Birkhäuser? Tijfo098 (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I know nothing about Swiss publishing.  Sandstein  06:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of CSD G4 on UFC 27

As the admin that closed the DRV on UFC 27, can you please review my tagging it for CSD G4. Mtking ^(edits) 04:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is a G4 case and have deleted the article.  Sandstein  08:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, did you even look at the article before deleting it? You said that the reason for the deletion was "No substantial changes that would change the AfD's outcome." because the page had been previously deleted. Since then, I added two reliable secondary sources to establish this particular event's notability and cleaned up the article a bit to make it more readable. I feel that the new page warranted a new AfD discussion. Just want a brief explanation of why it was deleted so hastily despite. Luchuslu (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I compared the two versions of the article. One source, sherdog.com, was already linked to in the AfDed version, and only provides the contest's results. The other, new source, [2], does not change the AfD's assessment, namely, that this is a sporting event of no lasting importance that received none other than standard sports coverage.  Sandstein  06:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

SO, by your definition of lasting importance, why not just speedily delete all mixed martial arts events pages? I don't see any less importance or significance in UFC 27 than in, say, UFC 26 or 28. Yet this one article was singled out? Luchuslu (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:WAX, but that discussion has been had in the AFD and does not need repeating here.  Sandstein  17:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User Wtshymanski

Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required. However, I invite Wtshymanski to take the concerns voiced here under serious consideration. Administrative action may be requested if the conduct that has been the focus of this discussion continues. Sandstein 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to report that Wtshymanski is at it again, most recently unilaterally flagging the article Interrupts in 65xx processors for deletion, despite the fact that said article receives quite a few hits. I posted a rebuke to him about his behavior on that article's talk page. Although I have been on Wikipedia for about six years, I've never had a reason to report user conduct and am not familiar with the process. Please advise.

Thanks!

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing actionable here. Editors can legitimately disagree about whether an article such as Interrupts in 65xx processors meets the guideline WP:N. It is however unhelpful to repeatedly add or remove notability tags; rather, if doubts persist, somebody should start a merger or deletion discussion to settle the matter. But, Bigdumbdinosaur, your own conduct is out of line. Comments such as "You, sir, are a menace to Wikipedia" or "If I see any changes to them by you I will revert your edits and flag them as vandalism. Any questions, mister?" are by no means compatible with the standards of civility and collegiality editors should hold themselves to. For further dispute resolution advice, please see WP:DR.  Sandstein  09:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps my remarks were not the most diplomatic. However, given Wtshymanski's history of unilateral actions and non-diplomatic retorts to those who reach a consensus that doesn't agree with his opinions, I believe that diplomacy and he are incompatible (it's all a matter of record, as you know). His actions merely discourage others from making legitimate contributions to WP and I see that as being a menace to the long-term health of this project.

Prior to contacting you, I took the time to read over all the verbiage that was posted in regard to Wtshymanski's activities. I also examined the editing history of some of the articles in question for a broad picture of what it was that others were complaining. It is clear to me after having spent hours doing so that the administrators are reluctant to take formal action against disruptive users. Wtshymanski's unilateral actions were clearly disruptive, had invoked the ire of many editors and in several cases, were been perilously close to outright vandalism. He seems to spend far more time posting unhelpful and derogatory comments on talk pages than he does adding genuinely useful content. Yet no sanctions of any significance were ever administered.

Just so you understand, I place no particular value on whatever status I may have as a WP editor and I certainly have no interest in getting involved with WP politics. I'm not at all invested in WP in any way. How you or any other administrator chooses to deal with a disruptive user such as Wtshymanski is nothing over which I will lose sleep. If you are willing to allow an individual with a bad attitude and a "I know everything—you know nothing, peasant." demeanor to alienate other editors and run roughshod over the editing process by repeatedly attempting end-runs around WP procedures, then I must say you don't have good control over the process and my activities at WP will come to a permanent end.

Thanks for your time.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)