This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 22 March 2010 (→E-rara.ch: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:49, 22 March 2010 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→E-rara.ch: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Happy Purim!
Mbz1 (talk) is wishing you a Happy Purim! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Appeal by Matthead
You might want to check out this. NW (Talk) 03:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sulmues sanction
Hi Sandstein, I just saw you let Sulmues (talk · contribs) get away with just a warning because nobody pointed out how he was previously warned. It turns out he was in fact not just warned but actually sanctioned under ARBMAC repeatedly: topic-banned from Kosovo-related articles in August 2009, with subsequent block for breaching the topic ban; renewed block and Kosovo topic ban in November 2009 ; placed on civility parole in December, with subsequent block ; most recently blocked a week and civility restriction reset per AE thread in January . Surely that ought to be "warning" enough for future behaviour. Would you reconsider in light of this prior history? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware of that prior history and personally agree with you. However, ArbCom has in a 2009 (I believe) clarification request insisted that the formality of a warning is a strict necessity, so I am bound to adhere to that formality, even if prior enforcing administrators may not have done so. Sorry. Sandstein 08:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, frankly, I cannot for the life of me believe Arbcom meant to do anything like this. The requirement of "warnings" isn't bound to any particular formality, such as the use of any particular template. A warning is simply any edit that conveys the information that somebody's behaviour puts him in risk of getting sanctioned. An actual sanction, by definition, conveys that same information. Saying: "I am now sanctioning you for your behaviour under this rule" not just strongly implies, but logically entails the information "your behaviour is such that it may get you sanctioned under this rule". As such, it fully qualifies as a warning in Arbcom's sense. – But if it makes you feel better, I'll look through his talk page history to see if maybe there was some uw-balkans that's since been removed... Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Further to the above: I checked the Arbcom thread you referred to (assuming it was this one). All I can see here is that Arbs were saying it is not enough to make sure editors are merely aware of the existence of the sanction in the abstract, but they must be given to "know that their behaviour is being scrutinised and that they personally may be subject to sanctions". That condition is amply fulfilled in the present case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are probably right. Nonetheless I prefer to err on the side of formality in the case of doubt. You are of course free to impose sanctions yourself if you believe that a warning can be dispensed with under the present circumstances. Sandstein 09:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this is probably too close to that silly Arbcom restriction regarding my own admin activity, so I guess I can't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are probably right. Nonetheless I prefer to err on the side of formality in the case of doubt. You are of course free to impose sanctions yourself if you believe that a warning can be dispensed with under the present circumstances. Sandstein 09:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Further to the above: I checked the Arbcom thread you referred to (assuming it was this one). All I can see here is that Arbs were saying it is not enough to make sure editors are merely aware of the existence of the sanction in the abstract, but they must be given to "know that their behaviour is being scrutinised and that they personally may be subject to sanctions". That condition is amply fulfilled in the present case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, frankly, I cannot for the life of me believe Arbcom meant to do anything like this. The requirement of "warnings" isn't bound to any particular formality, such as the use of any particular template. A warning is simply any edit that conveys the information that somebody's behaviour puts him in risk of getting sanctioned. An actual sanction, by definition, conveys that same information. Saying: "I am now sanctioning you for your behaviour under this rule" not just strongly implies, but logically entails the information "your behaviour is such that it may get you sanctioned under this rule". As such, it fully qualifies as a warning in Arbcom's sense. – But if it makes you feel better, I'll look through his talk page history to see if maybe there was some uw-balkans that's since been removed... Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Declined unblock request removed
| Pointless drama collapsed. Sandstein 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
Apology
I'm sorry I made that sarcastic comment and vented at you via email about that other editor a few weeks back. As I said previously, I never intended for you to take that comment literally. My use of sarcasm in that email was also most definitely ill-advised and a bad choice on my part. I intend to be much more careful going forward as the drama that resulted from my email certainly didn't help resolve the situation at all. (No one asked me to apologise, I just felt it would be the right thing to do.) --Tothwolf (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Regards, Sandstein 12:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Block on 98.206.138.33
I'm considering lowering the length of the block you just placed there as I don't think it's the same person behind that IP as the person behind the IP's previous block in February. Thoughts? –MuZemike 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- No objections, if that's what you think is likelier. Sandstein 19:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
E-rara.ch
Thanks for the article on E-rara.ch. A small detail: you write: "The scanned works are made available in 300 dpi resolution as downloadable PDF files or as individual images through a web browser gallery". Not all works are viewable as individual images through a web browser gallery. E.g. the works from the Geneva library are only presented as PDFs. I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning: you decide. And then, should something be added about the rather odd Terms of Use? Calmansi (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the recently uploaded Geneva books do have miniature view: http://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g. Yes, the terms of use are invalid, since the content is all in the public domain by age, but we can't really say so in the article unless we cite a reliable source that says so (see WP:NOR). Sandstein 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)