Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:40, 25 February 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.

Splurt

Hi, I am an artist with the name "Splurt" it is actually my registered Trademark, im just wondering, who, how, why, my wiki page was "redirected" to an old page named Z-MC. I am known worldwide as splurt, through 1,000,000 youtube views, iTunes, Record releases, and performances. Just wondering why it was changed.Splurtysplurt (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A link, please.  Sandstein  20:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Info that might be helpful is here. —Soap— 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was community consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Splurt to move your article to that title.  Sandstein  08:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfair block , ungrounded statements

1. You made an absolutely ungrounded statement, when you said to me: "you are mainly here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Misplaced Pages. ". I have proven beyond the reasonable doubt that you were dead wrong on that . On the other hand latuff was brought “here to fight an ideological battle and not to improve Misplaced Pages”, which he is successfully achieving with the help of some users and activists administrators as yourself.
2. I’ve provided few reliable sources (such as working definition for antisemitism, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Robert S. Wistrich) to prove my point. You have chosen to ignore each and every one of them, and called them “original research”
3. Please allow me to provide only one quote by latuff for your enjoyment: “And of course people are allowed to make funny cartoons on Jews being gassed”. Please notice not even Israelis, just Jews.
4. I am not going to touch anything connected to latuff ever again, but not because I was not right in my assessment of the man,but because there's way too much around latuff,and the more one touches that the more it stinks.I would not be surprised, if you are to block me again,but may I please ask you to notice that now, after my above statement of stopping editing the article,the block would be a punitive sanction?

Conclusion: The block was unfair, the statement about my contributions was ungrounded and offensive.

You abused your administrative tools.Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, please take the advice by Elen of the Roads. You are free to hold the personal opinion that the work of this cartoonist is antisemitic, and after a look at his work, I see why reasonable people can hold this opinion. But: Per WP:BLP, you are not allowed on Misplaced Pages to call somebody an antisemite and a holocaust denier unless accompanied by a reference to a reliable source that describes this exact person in these exact terms. No ifs and buts.  Sandstein  09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. How come you did not block me for writing his name in small letters? I am not sure you could see why " why reasonable people can hold this opinion". You did not loose relatives in the Holocaust as I did, the relatives that I have never known because I was born much after the war. Your father did not tell you the stories how he was captured by nazis 2 times in a row, and what he experienced before he was able to run away. Your mother did not tell you a story about her sister, who committed suicide, when she knew she could not get away from nazis.
In your response you did not address the number 1 - your ungrounded statement about my own contributions.
Elen of the Roads said: "On that basis, I would support a call for your unblock".
Two quotes from Misplaced Pages article: "In 2002 the Swiss-based Holocaust survivors organization Aktion Kinder des Holocaust sued the Indymedia of Switzerland on the charge of anti-Semitism for publishing Latuff's cartoon titled We are all Palestinians series in their website, which depicted a Jewish boy in Warsaw Ghetto saying: "I am Palestinian."" and In their 2003 Annual Report, the Stephen Roth Institute compared Latuff's work to "the antisemitic caricatures of Philip Ruprecht in Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer." The article has Antisemitism category. Anyway we're talking different languages.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, thanks for your message on my talk page. I am going to remove it not because of what you have written, but because I would not like to have the link to latuff article on my talk page. My opinion did not change. The thing is that to me WP:BLP do not apply to anti-Semites because anti-Semites cannot be considered persons, they are just that... well, just anti-Semites. I still believe that I have provided enough reliable sources to support my statements. I understand that you might have a different opinion, and I will understand, if after this message, you will block me or topic ban me. I understand you are obligated to do so by Misplaced Pages policies. I will accept the punishment with no complains, and, if for nothing else, my block will make Tiamut happy :) She has already tried to make me blocked once before, when she claimed I was a sock, and never retracted her accusations even after Nableezy told her that he "near 100% sure" I am not a sock. Few days ago she succeed in her second attempt to have me blocked :) Oh, well... Anyway... I will never change my opinion, I will not retract any statements I have made on the subject, and I am not going to touch the article ever again because as I explained earlier it stinks way too much. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, you being blocked does not make me happy. I thought you had forgiven me for thinking you were a sock earlier. You apologized and I apologized, remember? Its all on my talk page. Anyway, it seems you want to be a wiki martyr, since you believe your opinion is more important than our policies. That's your perogative, but I derive no joy from it. Tiamut 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A martyr? Nope,it is not about me. I do not believe in 72 virgins awaiting for me in the paradise, you know. Everything is much simpler. As Albert Einstein said “Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it”. I will never do anything against my conscience even, Misplaced Pages policies demand it, and besides, IMO any Misplaced Pages policy should be satisfied by that source: the is listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sensitivity to anti-Semitism notwithstanding, an anti-Islamic allusion when talking to your Semitic sister is par for the course. No worries Mbz1, I remember what we have in common. I'm singing it in my head right now: "I could have danced all night, I could have danced all night, and still have danced some more ..." Tiamut 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tackling the Bureaucratic Mindset

Hi Sandstein, As I understand it Tzntai has resigned from wikipedia following a dispute. You can read his resignation letter here . This now calls into question the whole validity of Tzntai's supplemental bans that were instigated against both Brews ohare and myself. When Tzntai instigated his supplemental ban on me in October 2009, I let him know at the time that I considered it to be based on a totally dishonest interpretation of the facts. It seems now that Tzntai has eventually seen the light. He stated his intention clearly to lift the supplemental ban in the case of Brews ohare, but as it is now clear that he was very busy around that time with other matters that would lead to his resignation, he never got around to making the final log of the repeal.

The only administrator who ever voiced support for Tzntai's supplemenatl ban was AGK. AGK is now over at Brews ohare's talk page voicing support for your blocking of Brews. I left him a message in relation to Victor Hugo's fictional character Javert. You may wish to take a look . David Tombe (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Any retirement by Tznkai does not invalidate his sanctions. These remain in force until lifted by him or the Arbitration Committee. If you continue wikilawyering about this, you may be made subject to additional sanctions under your general probation.  Sandstein  06:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, Please remember to assume good faith. There was absolutely no call whatsoever for your threat to instigate administrative sanctions. David Tombe (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

David, I did not voice support for Sandstein's block. In actuality, at present, I am undecided on the merits of the block. I simply see some critical flaws in the reasoning of Brews' unblock request that I would like to see addressed. AGK 13:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK, OK, I've read your comments again and I see that you didn't support Sandstein's blocking of Brews. I apologize for misreading your statement. You did however seem somewhat reluctant to reverse the situation. I sincerely hope that you pay heed to my remarks about Inspector Javert. That guy sold his soul to the letter of the law, and when he realized the error of his ways, he couldn't cope with the conflicts going on within his head, and he drowned himself in the River Seine. Victor Hugo's point was that there is a higher natural justice that supersedes man made rules and regulations. Javert sincerely believed that he was doing good by sticking to the letter of the law, but in actual fact he was inadvertently doing evil on many occasions. If one choses to get involved in a situation to the detriment of somebody else, one must always look at the higher picture. It is wrong to do damage to somebody and hide behind a small part of the overall picture. David Tombe (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll have to worry about fishing me out of the Clyde. But I think enforcing a topic ban rigidly is more than blind bureaucracy. Those who are topic banned need to respect the will of their fellow editors; and if that will means that they have to stay away from one topic or another, then they should do so—in every way. AGK 00:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK, You mention the will of Brews's fellow editors. Are you talking about Headbomb's will, or are you talking about the seven editors at the recent appeal who expressed a desire to see Brews's topic ban totally lifted, and the remainder of the editors who expressed the desire to see the topic ban relaxed? As regards the ARBCOM case itself, and the recent appeal, I think that you need to open up your eyes a bit more. David Tombe (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

David, you seem to forget the seventy or so editors at the recent appeal who did not express their desire to see Brews's topic ban kept as is, because they all knew what the outcome was going to be. You see, some contributors love drama, but I'm sure that most just shy away from it. This is called bias. DVdm (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And actually AGK, I've just realized that you have deceived me with your comments above and that I fell for it. What am I talking about above? Brews didn't even breach his topic ban. Your comments lured me into a state of mind in which it was assumed that Brews had in fact breached his topic ban. David Tombe (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

When I last checked, I was not in the game of deceit. Perhaps my opinion is incorrect. If so, fine; then say so. But do not get into the game of thinking that it is acceptable to imply that another editor is actively, maliciously spreading falsities. AGK 15:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare

Could you please comment on the issues that have been raised at User talk:Brews ohare in relation to your recent block? Also note, if you haven't already saw: an unblock request has been filed and is pending. Thanks, AGK 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did comment on the unblock request; Brews ohare then removed my comment.  Sandstein  08:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I was just wondering, why did you delete the page about the Black Rock Shooter character? I really wanted to know more about her, as I don't quite understand the storyline from all the Anime trailers. So could you please put it back? Thank you :)

Teh Wiki Person (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A link, please.  Sandstein  08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani Discussion

] to Review Brews Block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you revert this; if the comment was a few hours late, I'd agree with your action, but barely a few minutes doesn't justify that in any noticeboard discussion. I hope you will see why it's reasonable to make the exception. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, all right, done. It doesn't really matter, but every discussion has to stop at some point after a decision has been made.  Sandstein  08:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfair Warning to Nefer Tweety

Sandstein: why did you give a warning to User:Nefer Tweety for filing an Enforcement request here? How is NT supposed to know that a request will be non-actionable before they even file it? Why haven't you done the same with User:Supreme Deliciousness who has filed at least two non-actionble Enforcement requests here and here (there are probably many others) against NT, also on the same case? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

?

Hey, has Arab Cowboy violated his topic ban here?

He was banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case for abuse of alternative accounts: "If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked."

Omar Sharif is a part of the scope of the case as can be seen in its history and also has been mentioned in the arbitration case:

Omar Sharif discussion continued from its talkpage to the BLP noticeboard, so isn't that also an associated page? AC made several posts there in the Omar Sharif discussion: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)