Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:35, 3 August 2010

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Editing Deleted Page

Hi there. I'd like to edit the Arrica Rose page that was deleted. I have what I think is relevant information as in her music featured on NBC's Lipstick Jungle in Paste Magazine May 2008 and Esquire Magazine (Best Cover List), iTunes biography, All Music Guide credits as well as several other articles. She is also the founder of a notable non-profit called I HEART Inc that produces charitable events. Arrica and her band shared the stage with performers like Fran Drescher, Jackson Browne, Whispertown2000, and Local Natives at various I HEART events. Although I'm not quite sure exactly how to go about editing the page (attempting to research that!) now that it's been deleted, wanted to present the information to see if you could steer me in the right direction. Thanks so much!Jtbelle (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, to overturn the "delete" decision you'd need to demonstrate the subject's notability per WP:BAND, that is, provide references to coverage (text, TV reports...) about Arrica Rose by reliable third party sources (newspapers etc.) that is detailed enough to be the basis of a neutral article. The links you provide above do not lead to such coverage; in particular, "Lipstick Jungle (TV series)" appears to be a comedy drama and thus not the sort of content that can be the basis of an article. Do you have references to coverage that fits the bill of WP:BAND?  Sandstein  06:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Not sure how else to contact you. Hope you don't mind me posting here. Thank you for reviewing my unblock request. I appreciate your taking the time to examine the issue in order to make what I (needless to say) think was a fair judgment.

As I already expressed on the Talk page prior to the 7 day block, it's proven futile for me to try to maintain the agreed version (pending revision through further discussion and consensus), as my efforts to undo the reverts of people who refuse to make any kind of effort to discuss their objections on Talk continually (well, twice, prior to this 7 day thing, which doesn't count on this point) result in me getting blocked. Thus, as I said on Talk, I'm going to stick with helping Ling.Nut get his rewrite ready. I hope admins will continue to monitor the Six Day War article and protect it so that versions which have had gone through extensive discussion and consensus-forming processes are not simply reverted by these guys who refuse to discuss their objections/suggestions, etc. If you can do anything to help out the majority of editors who are reasonably working together to improve the article in this regard, I would appreciate it. And it's probably fair for me to speak for that majority in that regard. I trust my decision to let other editors whom I discuss the wording with actually implement the agreed version(s) will demonstrate my good faith to admins responsible for twice blocking me. I just want to see this article improved, including by keeping it in compliance with WP:NPOV. Thanks again. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Trudy Späth-Schweizer

Hello! Your submission of Trudy Späth-Schweizer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are two more sources to confirm your hook  ; .Both have only one sentence mention about her, but it could be added for the hook I guess. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, adding these sources would be a plus, not so much to re-verify the hook, but so that the article has more than a single source. Nsk92 (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's one more . They call her "Gertrud Späth‐Schweizer", but I believe it is her.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, the first link is a copy of a Misplaced Pages article, but the third is useful for the official name ("Gertrud").  Sandstein  17:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein, I'd like to ask you a question please. I need to upload somebody's else image to be used in the article. The image is released with a free license, but the site is a commercial site, they sell those items. Will this be OK to use the image and link it to the commercial site in the source field? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a form of attribution to that company as the copyright holder... I think we can use such external links in the image description.  Sandstein  15:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion wanted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Sandstein, I have noticed a couple of places where it has been suggested that preciseaccuracy (talk · contribs · count) is a returning user. With this post User:Noon has suggested that this user is factomancer (talk · contribs · count) aka factsontheground (talk · contribs · count). User:Mbz1 has also asked pa if they are a returning user went on to suggest that "precise" is not real identity and has now started referring to pa as "she" which matches factomancer's gender.

Noon highlights the fact that pa is focusing on an article created by factomancer as the key reason for identifying the two users as the same. Looking at the histories, I see that they both use edit descriptions rarely and there is a tendency to repeatedly return to a board or talk page and make additions to their posts. Factomancer was accused at AN/I of making spurious complaints and I think pa's complaint against Mbz1 and the Hebrew broccoli user was spurious. Now I notice, that the last page of history for factomancer contains quite a few posts to your talk page. I therefore wonder whether you feel that the style of postings to user talk pages and admin boards look the same. I'm asking because I've got a poor record of succes at SP/I and CU and the equation of the two users isn't my idea anyway. Noon impies that they are too busy to do the donkey work and Mbz1 has an interaction ban with facts so can't raise the SP/I. The interaction ban is 2-way, so facts would be in violation of it if she is pa. Would you care to express a view? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the forum in which such concerns should be discussed is WP:SPI, because it provides a more transparent process, ensures that all concerned are heard, and requires reports made in a format that facilitates investigation. If a user has a sock concern, it is in the first instance up to them to "do the donkey work", as you put it, and not to investigating administrators.  Sandstein  11:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sandstein, I do have some concerns about user:preciseaccuracy. May I please file an spi request in spite of my interaction ban? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No.  Sandstein  18:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter cohen, I have briefly looked at the contribs of both accounts. Your report here is not specific enough to allow an investigation of your concern. Very general statements like "style of postings" or "spurious requests" (many people make lots of these, unfortunately) are not useful. Any SPI report should tell investigators exactly which edits they should look at, and why you believe that these edits are meaningful for an SP investigation.  Sandstein  18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and for your time. I asked because I didn't think it would be very good if it were treated as an open secret that facts and pa were the same person. (It would be particularly bad if they are different.) I thought that your personal experience of dealing with facts might make it easier for you to recognise her. But it looks as if we'll have to wait for Noon or someone else to put together a case.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be regarded as meatpuppetry/violation of the ban, if Mbz1 emailed me her reasons for thinking the users the same and then my deciding how convincing I think the case is and then raising an SPI only if I am convinced?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned users applies, so in principle, what you propose may work, unless the interaction ban is worded in such an (unusual) way as to prohibit this.  Sandstein  19:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If Peter Cohen believes their is evasion than it is by his own volition and not for MBZ1 that the case can be started. Certainly be exceptionally critical of anything emailed to you Peter Cohen but don't shy away from pulling the trigger if you are convinced and any evidence leads you to seek out more. Cptnono (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It was me, who asked Peter to ask Sandstein here. So Peter is guilty in nothing, only I am.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, please stop this immediately. I will consider you to be in violation of your interaction ban if you make one more edit related to this matter.  Sandstein  20:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitration enforcement request

I request arbitration enforcement against user:Varsovian for breaking the interaction ban with me, here is the edit: . Even if he claims that he is only commenting Dan's post, it's clear that he inserted himself directly into the discussion I had with Dan (and quite literally too, he inserted his post between mine and Dan's which is provocative). In my opinion he is doing the exact opposite of what the interaction ban is meant to be - stay out of each others' way.  Dr. Loosmark  11:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein am I allowed to reply to the request which appeared bellow?  Dr. Loosmark  12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitration enforcement request

I request arbitration enforcement against Loosmark for breaking our interaction. Here are the edits: , , . By repeatedly arguing with regard to EB (the relevance of which I was first to question and had repeatedly discussed before Loosmark entered the discussion) in my opinion Loosmark has done the exact opposite of what the interaction ban is meant to be: stay out of each others' way. If he wished to argue with regard to EB, he should have made it crystal clear that he made no comment on or reference to me by explicitly stating that he made no reference to or comment upon any post by me and made no comment on or remark concerning or reference to me. Varsovian (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)