Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:45, 1 July 2014

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.

Thanks...

Thanks Sandstein. To clear things out about my TBAN. Would you give me a right to edit some articles who could have TBAN material in it if I ask you for an exemption before I edit them? Jaqeli 11:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli, that's an unbelievable suggestion. You need to NOT think about any of the articles that are part of your TBAN - even suggesting that you want to edit them shows that you don't get it. If you ask to edit a TBAN-related article, you can be blocked for violating your TBAN. the panda ₯’ 11:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, DangerousPanda, not just for asking, but, Jaqeli, you should work on the reasons that led to the ban before asking for exemptions.  Sandstein  11:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I mean the articles which have marginal connections to my TBAN, e.g. Pharnavaz I of Iberia. Also to clear things out, I can appeal my TBAN directly to you and also to the enforcement page, right? Jaqeli 12:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli, I would NOT recommend editing Pharnavaz I at all, since that is what got you blocked.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli: Yes.  Sandstein  14:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Korra Book 3

Sorry about that, just a bit of confusion due to phrasing. You seem to have pretty much clarified it now. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks.  Sandstein  14:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Legend of Korra Book 3

why revert my thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGnerd (talk • contribs)

You refer to this? I undid the addition because it did not cite any reliable sources. Please see WP:V for more information about citing sources and why it is important.  Sandstein  14:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Legend of Korra (action video game)

On 29 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Legend of Korra (action video game), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the action video game The Legend of Korra is intended to be visually indistinguishable from the animated TV series on which it is based? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Legend of Korra (action video game). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement?

You have left me a note on my talk page, with the heading "Arbitration enforcement editing restriction (Arab-Israeli conflict) amended", stating that "In response to opinions by other administrators at WP:AE, the duration of the restriction banning you from commenting about enforcement restrictions by others is set to three months". :I was not aware that any such ban had been imposed on me. Please inform me when it was imposed, by whom, and for what offence; this is the first notification I have received. RolandR (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to leave the message for another user but opened the wrong talk page. Please disregard the message.  Sandstein  11:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why the concerns raised by three separate editors were ignored regarding your sanctions against user:Sean.hoyland. Dlv999 (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have read these concerns, but they are not on point. I blocked Sean.hoyland because they accused another editor of sockpuppetry and did not provide evidence after being asked to, but reiterated the allegations. In particular, Sean.hoyland did not refer to any statement by a checkuser when making the allegations I blocked them for. As an experienced editor, Sean.hoyland should know that if one must accuse another editor of misconduct, this must be done in the appropriate forum (which would have been WP:SPI in this case) and it must also be done with actionable evidence. See, in general, WP:ASPERSIONS.  Sandstein  13:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As his first edits coming back from the block you imposed on User:Sean.hoyland for accusing people of being socks without evidence, he made the following edits ,, again accusing me of being a sock, without any evidence, and begging me to go to an admin to take action against him. (I will mention that based on a similar baseless report, and SPI was just conducted and the CU found it to be baseless ) The filer of that fishing expedition report was blocked for a week . Seems like similar action is needed here. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That is not quite correct. My very first edit after my block was this note to Bbb23 at the edit warring noticeboard, which I suggest you read, where I also referred to you as a sockpuppet. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

See this, as well: "just to make it crystal clear, I have just done exactly the same thing there that recently resulted in my being blocked for 48 hours by Sandstein for describing a sockpuppet as a sockpuppet. I made it as my very first post-block edit. You are welcome to apply another block. I don't mind" . Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• • And just to make it crystal-clear; you have to block me too (my first in my 9 years here). And most other content creators in the I/P area. I find it outrageous that we cannot describe those loud disruptive quacking feathery creatures for what they are; WP:Ducks. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

People, the rules are quite clear. If you think that another editor is a sockpuppet, you must make this accusation in the proper forum, WP:SPI, and with actionable evidence. All other accusations of sockpuppetry aimed at another editor are personal attacks, and are dealt with accordingly. However, if further sanctions are needed to prevent such conduct, I would like to discuss the form of such sanctions of other admins first. Therefore, Kipa Aduma, Esq., if you think that this requires admin action, please ask for it at WP:AE.  Sandstein  08:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi. Is this edit a revert or not? I'm asking because, despite the fact that I'm removing POV accusations only supported by a clear POV unreliable source, those paragraphs have been a long time there, therefore I could interpret that my first edit wasn't a revert. But maybe I'm wrong. I want to know if I can revert this within a 24 hours period without breaking 1RR. Thanks a lot!--AmirSurfLera (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)