User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

I'm not sure what to do about User:Arb/Exopolitics and User:Degen Earthfast/Exopolitics. Both are abandoned drafts but the editors are active. These were started by the editors. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Salla (2nd nomination), just started by me, ends with deletion, these can be nominated as well because they have nowhere to go.  Sandstein  19:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that your response to my block request was predicated on false assumptions. You said "You are not blocked and you seem to be able to edit just fine." In fact, my IP range was blocked (now unblocked by a helpful administrator), and I was unable to "edit just fine." I had to use an alternate IP address to be able to edit, and that's an IP address I don't have available to me on a regular basis or every day. Luckily someone else eventually fixed the issue. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I apparently misunderstood you. I'm glad that somebody else was able to help you out.  Sandstein  11:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have drafted a new set of standard discretionary sanctions (at User talk:AGK/DS) which I intend to propose the committee substitutes for the current formulation. Timotheus Canens and NuclearWarfare have looked over the draft and provided several very useful comments that I've implemented into my draft, but there are a couple of suggestions they made that we are still debating so the draft is not quite completed. However, I thought it would be useful, before I present the draft to my colleagues for debate, for the draft to be given to you and your fellow AE administrators. Do you think that draft would be a satisfactory replacement for everything currently in the grey box at WP:AC/DS#Sanctions? I think a re-formulation of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions will be needed at some point, but we'll take care of that at a slightly later point. I'd be grateful if you could circulate this message around the other AE administrators; I can't confidently state who is a "regular" patroller at AE these days, having been out of the game for a while. Thanks very much for your comments and assistance. AGK [•] 09:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that, thanks for the opportunity to offer comments. Do you want to move it to user space, so that we can comment on the talk page? Or where should we comment?  Sandstein  09:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is at User talk:AGK/DS, but there is a section underneath the draft (at User talk:AGK/DS#Comments) where comments can be made. Regards, AGK [•] 12:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've informed the other most recently active AE administrators about this message, to the extent they haven't already commented.  Sandstein  15:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you miss it at ANI, see [1] where Paul Bedson admits sock puppetry and offers to sock to help another editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That revision is unavailable (oversighted?) At any rate, we should be thankful for giving us notice, it may make the socks easier to detect. The checkuser suggested at ANI is a good idea.  Sandstein  16:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have expected it to be oversighted as he gave contact details. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive. 4 socks blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned your name and an earlier Rfc you closed in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Flag and Coat of arms of Western Sahara .2F_SADR. Cheers! Location (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you tell me why you undid my edit? In what way is it "too peculiar"? Many interventions for drug addicts involve ultiminatums. 96.48.151.67 (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but it is a relatively rare situation compared to the others. We can't possibly list every conceivable situation in which ultimata can be issued.  Sandstein  20:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually now removed all "mundane" examples as essentially arbitrary.  Sandstein  20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rare? Millions of families in North America deal with the effects of substance abuse by their loved ones. In what world does a diplomat threatening to declare war occur more often than a familly threatening to cut ties if their loved one doesn't seek help for their addiction? Yes, we can't list every scenario in which an ultimatum is given, but is having 3 scenarios really too much? Come on. Illneedasaviour (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC) (signed in)[reply]

I'm not North American, so I wouldn't know. At any rate, it's a very random example, and articles should be based on reliable sources - the article currently has none. I even doubt whether it's more than a WP:DICDEF.  Sandstein  21:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me why then that the Lars Walker fluff remains in the 'historical accuracy' section, when a Professor of History statement regarding the show is deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.139.10 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please copy this to Talk:Vikings (TV series)? I'll answer there, but that way other contributors can also join the discussion.  Sandstein  13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will be pleased to know my block expired last night. I would be grateful if you could point now me to the articles that have been improved by the block. Rich Farmbrough, 05:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know - you'd have to ask whoever imposed the restriction you violated. If you think it's counterproductive, you can appeal it. If you don't, or fail to convince that it should be lifted, you'lll have to abide by it.  Sandstein  06:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]