User talk:Sandstein

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: [[example article]].

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

Start a new talk topic

Edit warring and 3RR violation by User:J.kunikowski

See the edit history here: [1]. His last rv was after he had been warned here: [2]. He chose to remove the warning: [3]. An attempt to discuss the issue on the article's talk page was met with abusiveness. See here: [4].Faustian (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am new here and I don't know the rules about removal of text. I removed the claim that the highly educated Polish professors, who were massacred by the Nazis, "cooperated actively with the Soviets" and "were in talks with the Soviets to form a pro-Soviet government". According to the wikipedia policy I found here: [5] exceptional claims require exceptional sources (note plural). So far the only source presented is an Ukrainian pdf. I request solid, possibly English language, sources to back the expectational claim which Faustian tries to insert into the article. J.kunikowski (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with your violation of 3RR despite having been warned. And I find it interesting that somehow you appear right after the additional fact was added to the article...you just happened to discover wikipedia. This phenomenon of recent discoveries of wikipedia is a remarkably recent pattern of Polish IPs or single-use editors in the last couple of days (such as this). A coincidence? Sockpuppetry? Off-wiki canvassing? Hmmm...Faustian (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

J.kunikowski is now blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. Faustian, next time please use WP:AN3 for such requests, because they will be read and processed sooner there.  Sandstein  16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do so.Faustian (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein thank you for your help. May I ask what route exactly should I take if I believe that the "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" policy was not observed on that page? The page your linked for resolving a dispute has so many options that I feel a bit lost in there. Who does make the ultimate call in situations like that on wikipedia? J.kunikowski (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the second part of your question is easier to answer: nobody makes the ultimate call on wikipedia. We have to discuss until we reach consensus. About the route to take, try discussing the matter with other editors at Talk:Massacre of Lviv professors#Cooperation with Soviets. If you can't agree on a solution, try to get the input of others to help break the tie. You will need to read all of WP:DR for this to work, I'm sorry. Since the dispute seems to be about whether a particular source is reliable, you can try WP:RSN. Finally, you need to be prepared to accept the possibility that consensus is against you and (almost) all other editors think that the sourcing is sufficient. If that is the case, you need to be able to recognize that and abide by it.  Sandstein  18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. IMO the sourcing is not sufficient, not even close. If such a thing would really be true, that's to say the highest level of Polish intelligentsia actively collaborating with the Soviets, entering talks with Stalin to form a pro-Soviet Polish government (to govern what exactly btw?) then there would a huge number of sources discussing those events. I will try to discuss these issues on talk but from what I have seen there so far I do not have high hopes to succeed. J.kunikowski (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mute (short story)

Hi. :) This is not an unambiguous copyright violation. Please see the note I had just attached to the ticket; if you read the ticket, you'll see he's not claiming we copied from him, but instead asking if he needs to change his own content. (Adding: I had just blanked it and relisted it at CP, but was about to reverse myself given a closer reading of my own of his note.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did read your note too late, see your talk page.  Sandstein  21:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was unfortunate timing. :) We were both working on that one at once. I think it probably is reverse infringement, and I'm willing to write him back and tell him that further investigation suggests the content evolved here naturally. The likelihood that our content contributor copied his text but changed the name of the main character, misspelled a word and messed up punctuation--all of which were corrected by later editors at different times--is pretty slim. :/ Do you mind if I take over the ticket and communicate with this man? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, go ahead. You are more familiar with this case.  Sandstein  21:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I had forgotten until after I blanked it myself that it had already come through CP and been cleared. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've written him. Good luck to me! :D Hopefully I've struck the right tone to allow him to give credit if he did in fact get it from Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just nudging in here uninvited, but where/when was it listed at CP? It's not in any of the backlinks to the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Himmlers Hirn heisst Heydrich

Hello Sandstein. I just bought the Czech translation - it's a hit in my country. I admit, I'm a bit scared after reading Les Bienveillantes (Goncourt, 2006) :) Thanks for this contribution. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read and appreciated both novels, but have found HHhH much more accessible. To my surprise, Binet's acerbic humor works really well, considering the subject of the book.  Sandstein  15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Joy Masoff

Can you speedy close that? While it was a good-faith nom, I already put a link to a NYTimes review on the talk page in an attempt to head this off. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably enough. I've closed the nom.  Sandstein  16:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Need advice

Hello. What should I do to resolve the dispute if the other party doesn't agree to start a mediation process. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can provide much advice that's not already in WP:DR. Do you refer to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dadivank Monastery? You can't force others to agree to mediation, and they are not required to. It appears that there is already a third opinion at Talk:Dadivank Monastery. Unless you can persuade other editors (perhaps at WP:ECN or WP:CNB?) to reevaluate the issue and arrive at a consensus position distinct from that opinion, I recommend that you abide by that opinion.  Sandstein  18:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Does the information in an Info box need a source?
In the Battle of Szigetvar article, the info-box has for the result;"Ottoman pyrrhic victory" with a Note 1 for a "source"/explanation.
The Note 1 consists of:"Although the Turks won the battle, the outcome can be seen as a "pyrrhic victory", because of a heavy Turkish casualties and the death of Sultan Suleiman. Moreover, the battle delayed the Ottoman push for Vienna that year and suspended the Ottoman expansion in Europe." Is this WP:RS? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not a source, that's part of the article even though it is in a footnote. As such, it needs a reliable source if it is contested. Without a source it sounds like original research to me ("can be seen").  Sandstein  18:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. I'll tag it with a citation and post on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Joy Masoff

Thank you for help and interest today in the article. Racepacket (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

HupHollandHup

Hi, Sandstein, could you do me a favour and give this guy the ARBPIA sanctions warning?

He's also an obvious reincarnation... he shows up in July and in days was making very sophisticated edits with no mistakes and in weeks was voting in AFD and editing obscure project pages and just now he templated me. I don't keep track of banned accounts so I wouldn't know where to begin with a sockpuppet investigation, though. Any ideas? Factomancer (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What, do you think, justifies a warning?  Sandstein  15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Today HupHollandHup was edit-warring on Operation Damocles. In the past, HHH has edit-warred on other articles related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Today, I twice added sourced material that was removed without explanation. In the past, Malik Shabaz has edit-warred and violated BLP [6] on other articles related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict [7]. If you feel a warning is appropriate, I accept that - please make sure Shabaz receives one as well. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)