User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/June

Lal Bahadur Dewan
Please inform me regarding the cause of deletion of the page Lal Bahadur Dewan, as I had provided different individual published sources as references regarding Lal Bahadur Dewan. Please do also tell me where could I get the the deleted article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfimin (talk • contribs) 07:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * See Articles for deletion/Lal Bahadur Dewan. You cannot access the deleted article.  Sandstein   07:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Alphaomegaultima
I'm doing case studies on financial fraud. I made an edit to Weinstein page to reflect the amfAR investigation that ultimately lead to the unveiling of Weinstein's monstrous behavior. I think that the amfAR investigation should be included as part of the story as to how Harvey got found out. I have no conflict of interest here other than the first person involved who didn't have a wiki page I tried to set one up for perhaps? There are several others in that investigation who if I can find enough meaningful resources on I will be trying to create wiki's for as well. Not sure what conflict I have? Can I have some clarification? I'm submitting an edit on the page because it is a crucial part of the story. Can you clarify the conflict of interest for me?


 * Thanks for the message. Users with your editing profile (few edits, one field of interest, trying to highlight a particular issue) are often personally involved with what they write about. That is a conflict of interest issue. Do you have any relationship to Tom Ajamie?  Sandstein   15:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)



I don't know the guy personally. I just did a deep dig, out of curiousity, on how Weinstein really got found out. I found that what had actually happened is that he had done some shady stuff with a charity. This caused the charity to hire a lawyer to investigate. The results of his investigation seemingly caused the feds to investigate if there was fraud. The federal investigation expanded to include evidence that Harvey had indeed sexually harassed women! This was all all early 2017, and as we know the #metoo movement really started right after that. In my research of the fraud investigation at amfAR, the lawyer they hired and I kept seeing the name - Thomas Ajamie was mentioned. He didn't have an article. I've never created one before so I figured it would be a good place to try my hand at creating an article. Which I did do. I would've skipped this is I'd know it'd affect all the research I did into the amfAR investigation. I'm a bit new so I didn't realize this would cause a conflict of interest.


 * No problem, if you are not (or working for) the guy, that's not a COI. Now, thanks for joining Wikipedia, but I recommend that you get a bit more experience before extensively editing biographies of living people who are in the news. Your additions to Harvey Weinstein had a number of issues - they conveyed the impression that you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That's not our business. We cover issues neutrally and in line with what reliable sources say. Take a look at WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NPOV, these are some of our most important policies. And try to scope your additions such that they result in a balanced article in which issues are covered in line with the importance that reliable sources assign to them. With Weinstein, for instance, it is WP:UNDUE to write at great length about relatively minor issues because this crowds out the much more significant information (in the eye of sources) about his film work and his alleged sexual misconduct.  Sandstein   17:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, alright, yes this makes total sense. I could see how even my cited sources were mixed up and not clear enough. Maybe I could make an edit without as much detail (since it's not necessary). A real short paragraph maybe? Or perhaps another sub heading covering the fraud investigation he was involved in of rather than trying to include it in the sexual allegations heading? What do you think? I see now that is it covered in detail on amfAR's wiki page. Am I wrong to think some reference should be made (to the amfAR fraud investigation) from Weinstein's page seeing as how it caused the resignation of Chairman Kenneth Cole, because it was a deal he made with WEinstein for amfAR (without the board's knowledge it seems like) and put the charity in a bad light...? It's also covered on Kenneth Cole's page (in much lighter detail). This just makes me think there def should be some level of coverage on Weinstein's page....

I made some minor edits and added some new info/resource edits on some other pages I have knowledge on today as well. I will continue to do that as well. How shall I proceed? It's not my purpose to sensationalize or try and add my personal opinion about this subject. It just seems to be a piece of the puzzle that is important and only seems to be missing on the Weinstein page. Let me know your thoughts.


 * Sorry for the delayed response. I think a brief paragraph, or a few sentences, at an appropriate place in the description of his career would be adequate.  Sandstein   22:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible G4
Would you mind taking a look to see if Faretta is substantially similar to the article recently deleted after Articles for deletion/Faretta? If not, no worries. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Content is about the same, with a few additional sources. your view as AfD nominator?   Sandstein   22:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The result of nominations in this field seems to be unpredictable--there seems to be no common understanding of what constitutes  either essential importance or reliable sources. I don't really know how to accommodate our usual standards in a field where almost everything is so very heavily influenced by PR. I'm not going to make any judgements of my own. (I know this isn't helpful to whether its an A4--the problem is that even tho the article is very little improved, the result of another afd might be altogether different. )  DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw this earlier and am going to delete it as a G4 - there's basically one more source added, with one sentence re-written. The author's passive-aggressive responses to any attempt to discuss it don't really help.  As you say, another AfD might have a different result, but really the author should be pointed towards DRV. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Hello, Sandstein, I saw that you made a draft for a new article at User:Sandstein/Ava's Demon. Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable. But in this case, you haven't edited your draft for a long time. If you wish to improve the draft yourself, please do. Otherwise, you may consider donating it to WikiProject Abandoned Drafts (a participant can help). Is there anything in your draft that could be merged into Ava's Demon? GretLomborg (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've deleted the draft because I don't think I'll finish it.  Sandstein   08:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup
&mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv 🍁  15:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ruth Koleva
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ruth Koleva. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Quickfingers (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kelly Gould
Just wondering the explanation as to why this was a no consensus, as your close was brief and as none of the keep voters really demonstrated WP:GNG IMO. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable view to take. But there was also no consensus that the topic failed notability. In such cases, editors often disagree in good faith about how much and which quality of sourcing is required, and I can't decide this by fiat.  Sandstein   09:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

AE appeal
For your information: on the request of Roscelese I have filed an appeal for them: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --MrClog (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

AE word count extension
Hello Sandstein,

Regarding this discussion: Black Kite hasn't seen the source quotes, owing to the length limit; I would like the source quotes to be excluded from the word limit, as both VM's statements and my own hinge on their veracity. Would you make that concession? François Robere (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Because I already concluded based on the request alone that no action against you should be taken, I need no further evidence in support of this position.  Sandstein   18:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That guy
Compare
 * Christian church led by the Bishop of Rome

with
 * Largest Christian church, led by the Pope and based in Rome

with
 * The church is headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope.

Your change makes me nervous in a couple different ways, even if I'm having trouble expressing how. Note how "known as" qualifies 'pope'. So not the most official title, by usage in article? And the resulting somewhat forced-sounding "based in Rome" is... correct, but is at odds with the otherwise emphasized international/global extent of the church.

If you really object to just "led by the Bishop of Rome" as being too obscure, then perhaps a less clunky
 * Largest Christian church led by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)

That leaves in 'Rome' as a location, and gives both the title and the "known as" aspects. To avoid/mute the endless arguments over text, perhaps it is best to parallel existing agreed-upon constructs? Shenme (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Short descriptions are intended to help users find the right article in searches. That's why I highlighted the features that most distinguish the subject from other churches: it's big, it's associated with Rome ("Roman Catholic Church") and the Pope is the leader. "Pope" is a widely known term. That he is formally the Bishop of Rome is much less known, particularly among non-Catholics. The previous short description was therefore, in my view, much less helpful.  Sandstein   10:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ... But yes, your proposal would also work, but it would be less elegant due to the parenthesis.  Sandstein   10:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

ACM-W List of Celebrations deleted
You recently resolved a proposed article for deletion, but the full discussion included one of the original delete editors to change their vote. The resolution should be based on the quality of the discussions rather than a simple vote. As part of the deletion review, I request that you reconsider and review the notability especially against the other quarter of a million list articles and explain clearly why this particular list was selected for deletion.Cypherquest (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please link to the discussion you refer to.  Sandstein   15:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of ACM-W CelebrationsCypherquest (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm relisting this discussion to get a clearer consensus, if possible.  Sandstein   17:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I love a good foot-noted, well-reasoned discussion and appreciate the wisdom of experienced editors. I'm used to seeing significant articles about technology suggested for deletion (typically by those outside the field), but actually deleting them runs counter to Wikipedia principles and the process usually works quite well. In this case, the article lists some of the most significant events for women in technology (the original event is noted in the White House archives in a tribute to a Rear Admiral in the US Navy) - and these gatherings have spread across the globe. We have nearly a quarter of a million list articles (240k) on Wikipedia; this one meets our requirements. Wikipedia is a critical source for information and eliminating articles about important events in technology impacts public knowledge and perception in this important area. Editors who wish to delete it must state their arguments in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and provide significant justification. Thank you for restoring the article - according to our principles, both the article and the call for deletion should remain.Cypherquest (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination)
Hi Sandstein. Please add a closing statement to Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination) so I can understand why you concluded the consensus to be "delete" instead of "no consensus" and so I can determine whether a rename to List of people with long marriages would address the deletion arguments. Cunard (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   15:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the closing rationale. You wrote, "the 'keep' side did demonstrate that the topic of long marriages was notable because of its coverage in sources; this was mostly not contested". I agree that the sources I provided discussed long marriages. The sources focused on specific people in long marriages instead of discussing "long marriages" as a general concept, such as the demographics (nationality, education, religion) of people in long marriages and what relationship traits lead to marriages in general lasting for a long period of time. A long marriages article that discusses how people remain married for a long period of time likely can be written. Such an article would need academic studies that discuss long marriages in general to comply with WP:SYNTH, whereas the sources I provided primarily focused on discussing specific people in long marriages. I therefore think that a list of people with long marriages article would make sense. I plan to request undeletion of the article at Requests for undeletion and reframe it to be about list of people with long marriages instead of list of people with the longest marriages (which will require minimal changes). I think this does not violate your AfD close since you noted, "I'm not sure about a 'list of long marriages'; this might require another AfD." Please let me know if I am misinterpreting anything. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. But I recommend writing the prose article about long marriages first, and then adding a list of noted particularly long marriages; this will make it easier to establish that the list can be written without OR.  Sandstein   16:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a very good suggestion. Thank you. I can use sources like "Characteristics of long-term first marriages", "Influence of age and gender on affect, physiology, and their interrelations: A study of long-term marriages", and "Long-term satisfying marriages: perceptions of contributing factors" to discuss long marriages in general. If I were to create a prose article about long marriages, I think the consensus would be to merge it to marriage since it wouldn't be long enough to justify a spinoff article from marriage (such as marriage and health). I will start with adding information from these sources about "long marriages" in general to list of people in long marriages and model it after featured lists like List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) which has a sizable introduction and a detailed "History" section. Cunard (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems like it probably could have been a "no consensus but rename to List of long marriages". Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

My band page was deleted
Hey Sandstein my band's wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southcott_(band) was deleted by you... Wanted to know if you could reinstate our page so we could get it fixed by whatever means necessary. We're huge supporters of wikipedia and it has been devastating to see ourselves off the site and we greatly appreciate any steps you could take to help us get this back up permanently. thank you so much for your time and attention with this matter as it means the world to us. Joda85 (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a few good sources that demonstrate that your band meets the criteria at WP:BAND, and which were not already present in the article or discussed at AfD?  Sandstein   14:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

yes. here are some below. thank you for your time and attention.

1.	Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] o	This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] exceptfor the following: 	Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] 	Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. 	Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. https://www.allmusic.com/artist/southcott-mn0000717335/biography https://www.punknews.org/article/14894/rust-records-signs-the-panic-scene-southcott https://www.drivenfaroff.com/2006/02/21/southcott-flee-the-scene/

4.	Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4] http://www.behindthescenepress.com/live/2016/2/5/southcott http://kickrockmusic.com/invasion/band/southcott.html

5.	Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). The lost art of saying goodbye (2003, rockout records) https://www.amazon.com/Southcott/e/B001LHTPN4 Flee the scene (2006, rust/universal music group/less avenged) https://www.amazon.com/Southcott/e/B001LHTPN4

6.	Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.) Jordan Eckes (known in We Are The In Crowd) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Are_the_In_Crowd Chris Pennings (known in Thieves and Villains) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thieves_and_Villains John Damiano (known in Thieves and Villains – The Narrowbacks) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thieves_and_Villains

Joda85 (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What's your view as AfD participants?  Sandstein   15:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Still really a weak keep from me. The Allmusic and Lowell Sun coverage that I found during the AfD is a good start, but I'm not convinced the other examples listed above would satisfy WP:RS, nor that any of the other criteria of WP:NMUSIC are satisfied. --Michig (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

if you guys could get the page put back up, we could circulate our wiki page among fans and get more sources and better formatting. We truly appreciate you guys discussing this with us as a lot of our fans use our wiki page to reconnect with the group after all this time. it is very important to us that we get the page up to par. thank you all for your time and attention. Joda85 (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Joda85, because your sources have so far not convinced the participants of the deletion discussion, I decline to undo the deletion. You should not involve yourself with articles about your own band, see WP:COI.  Sandstein   13:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Were sorry we didnt know about that policy, were just a band that worked really hard for a long time and have actually grown to see a great value in our page and have a great appreciation for this site. as social networks have came and gone wikipedia has really outlasted a lot of the platforms that this band had existed and depended on over the years. I feel like at one point this page was properly noted with sources that's one thing thats been confusing here. I guess we'll handle this internally right now. it's just scary that if this page goes down, then the band is going to lose another crucial fingerprint. hope that helps paint a bit of perspective from where were coming from. thanks for your time and attention with this matter. Joda85 (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , if I had been aware of the AfD at  the time, I  would have voted 'delete'. Likewise if I  were the admin evaluating  the consensus, I  would also have arrived at  'delete'. You  may  feel  that  your  band has lost  a 'cruicial figerprint', but  that  is absolutely  not  what  free Wordpress site  and reference it  in  Google. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on scope of the "Sailing ship" article
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sailing ship, regarding what should be included in the article. You'll find a proposed outline, there. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Parler entry is highly biased
Wikipedia should be taking a neutral stance and the entry for Parler is highly biased and only references left wing news sources with irrelevant snarky comments. It is a technology platform that doesn't restrict speech, the fact that disaffected people end up on there isn't really relevant. I tried to turn the entry into a neutral and informational one, as should be our mandate, but you have put back all the highly biased and opinionated content. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smga3000 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources write. That includes Politico, the main source for the Parler article, which our article does not describe as "left-wing" or indeed having any particular political orientation. Another source, Spectator USA, is even from the conservative end of the spectrum. On Wikipedia, we do not write what our own political views dictate, or else we'd have nothing but battles between right-wing and left-wing people. Instead, we follow what reliable sources write, even if it does not accord with our own views or we find it "biased" or "inaccurate". Please read WP:NPOV to find out how we do that.  Sandstein   20:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Error in the change of the deletion message in the article Geographical distribution of English speakers
Dear ,

I would like to point out that the consensous achieved with the discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geographical_distribution_of_English_speakers) is that the article List of countries by English-speaking population should be merged into the article Geographical distribution of English speakers for an improved consistency with other article with similar names, and not the other way around.

It would be nice if you could fix the message of the article since it says the opposite of what it was established. Thank you. FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks.  Sandstein   13:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, please also fix your edit here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geographical_distribution_of_English_speakers&type=revision&diff=902559951&oldid=901364983) and put a similar message in the article List of countries by English-speaking population. FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You can fix that yourself if you think it is necessary.  Sandstein   08:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Request regarding my topic ban
Hello Sandstein, I am adressing you because of my Balkans-related topic ban. Back then you concluded that after six months you could consider lifting my ban, so even a bit more then six months have passed, I didn´t rushed immediatelly to ask you to review my ban, I changed during this time, I am more calm and patient, and I understand I made many mistakes back then. First of all I need to apologise to you, my atitude back then wasn´t correct and I ended being rude and unpolite to you. Whatever the reasons I had back then, I had other much more apropriate ways of expressing myself. I was going trough some personal problems back then and I used Wikipedia as escape, however I clearly recognise today that I was affected by them negativelly. I am saying this not to try to excuse myself, but rather to explain that during this 6 months I have changed and that I am a very different person than the one I was in December. An exemple was me saying "I am leaving Wikipedia for good!" tipical type of exclamations from people going trough difficult times. I probably said it because I thought it would have impact, silly me, it obviously has impact only on me, because it is me who would feel so unhappy without being able to continue to be an editor. I grew up surounded by encyclopedias, and since I was an only child, it was the encyclopedias that occupied most of my free time. My favourite was to compare how encyclopedias from different countries, different languages and different editions, from the earliest to the latest ones, desribe one same topic. I remember how much I wished I could complete, correct or update content within them. At time while holding those heavy books it seemed inimmaginable. Later, already as an adult, when I found Wikipedia, it was love at first sight. I felt inmediatelly identified with being an editor and with the main principles and guidelines. Since at the time right before I found Wikipedia I was involved in projects related to history of football in Yugoslavia and collection of historical data, I decided to start with that same subject here a well. Unfortunatelly, on several occasions my interest in history of football was missused to label me as Serbian football hooligan. The reality couldn´t be more different. I was never a hooligan, I never played football, and I don´t even go to matches often at all. My relation with football comes from the fact that it is the most popular sport in the world and as such brings people´s and nation´s together. By being son of diplomats I spent my youth often changing countries and going to international schools where I was surrounded by people from all over the planet. There is no better way, in my view, to learn from young age to live along so diverse cultures and respect and appreciate the differences. It is not a coincidence that much of my professional path later in life is developed in multi-cultural environments. Multi-culturalism is a passion of mine, it even reflected in my editing, as my focus from start is about foreign players. My main interest is the sociological aspect of football as contributor to a globalised world. Also, identifiying the migratory patterns of footballers, its causes, effects on both sides, and historical context. I don´t have many articles dealing directly with this issue, instead, I edit and create, both contemporary and historical, articles which mostly in some way or another are related to it. Outside Wikipedia, I am known in Serbia as one of the loudest voices opposing rigorous limits for numbers of foreigners in clubs, and I am challenging nationalists which strongly advocate protectionism of domestic players. My stance about football is exactly the opposite of the one of nationalists, and my focus is mostly on how a more globalised football contributes for more interraction between nations, better knolledge and understanding, more tolerance, and it should bring people together, break isolationism, and ultimatelly, consolidate peace.

I guess I may sounded as a miss universe speach, specially by the end, but I need to try to clarify you the best I can about who am I, what motivates me, what my beliefs are, why you may have concluded otherwise, and why I am not a nationalist and do my best to be objective and not to make tendentious editing. The explanation of mine regarding football may sound too theoric, but is confirmed in practice with real exemples like the brother of a friend of mine who is Serbian and is a footballer, he joined an Albanian club and played and lived there for one year. It was a top-league club from one minor town where locals live close with the players and club stuff. He was alone and he was the first and only Serbian player in club´s history and he testifies how the local population did everything to help him addapt and feel good. The hospitability was incredible and in only one year he made friends for life and in certain way became inhabitant of the town. After returning to Serbia he regularly invites and receves his Albanian friends in Serbia to try to retribute back. He also visited Albania again on several ocassions, bringing with him family members and friends. In times when tensions and animosity between Albanians and Serbs is high, it is this real-life testimonies that make the difference. This is a direct result of football bringing people together. By gathering data about the contribution of foreign footballers, by creating or expanding articles about footallers that had sucessfull careers abroad or left positive impact in the countries they played, I hope to contribute for more and more cases such as the one of the brother of my friend. I believe that, at least regarding football, I made a significant contribution because at time I registered in 2009 there was still so many articles not created and many others poorly expanded. The ones which were well expanded were the ones which are the tipical focus of nationalsts, like the national team, the biographies of best domestic players, national team stars, major national accomplishments, etc., while my focus was opposite, foreign players and coaches, several complete lists, historically important clubs, historical leagues, completing career for players and coaches which usually have included in the article just the part related to the club or national team the editor cares about, etc. For me was specially interessting digging searching sources to writte content about times now forgotten. In Yugoslavia when communists came to power after WWII they dissestablished almost all succesfull clubs from the inter-war period and created new clubs with names and simbology linked to communism to replace them. For almost 50 years the authorities did their best to erase memory about the pre-war period, and succeded. Common people knew everything about football from 1945 on, but hardly anything about prior times, and mostly often missconceptions. It was a pleasurous challenge to dive into books and newspappers archives and discover an entire universe which was ignored for so long. My first articles were being copied and translated to other wiki´s, and they motivated some others to participate as well. I was privatelly contacted by sports journalists, writers and historians from all over Europe which ultimatelly resulted with my collaboration in several books and publications in several languages. It´s not that Yugoslav football was so important, but its beginings were closelly linked with Austro-Hungarian and generally central European football, which was the avantgarde specially during late 19th and first half of 20th centuries. Expanding the information about early period of Yugoslav football filled many gaps and solved many doubts football historians had. On the other hand, domestically troughout former Yugoslavia, our articles contributed to a revival of interest about the pre-war football which resulted on films being made (like The Third Half from 2012, which is based on the life of Illés Spitz who´s article I created in 2009 when available information about him was very scarse, and the Gragjanski Skopje team he coached, article you can confirm I expanded in 2010) and TV series (like Montevideo, God Bless You!, film and TV series about the Yugoslav national team participation in 1930 FIFA World Cup, but which focuses rather than with the world cup, with the qualifications and the lives of the players, many of which I created their articles and expanded with details others). Many articles I created or expanded lacked an existing encyclopedical biography but instead I had to gather information from several sources to compose their article, which would consequently be copied and translated to other wiki´s and other platforms (even the most respectable historical football website, rsssf.com, copied the tables and information we published here first). I proudly spotted several instances where references to English Wikipedia were made as the most extensive and reliable source of information for pre-war Yugoslav football. Nowadays we lost the exclusivity because after being the source for the revival of interest for football in those times, many used our articles as base and then further expanded them from then on. However, I am proud that the endless hours of research I dedicated myself to create that content here, provided one correct and unbiased understanding of football from those times.

My comment is already so long, I will really try to be more concise. Football was an area I willingly focused on initially and continuosly since I became an editor. However, I have made many contributions in many other areas and I do hold same standards to all of them. I value objectivity, neutrality and most of all, a balanced display of sourced content. I believe you were driven to think I am some sort of nationalist account by the circunstances at time and belief my sandboxes represented my points of view while I use sandboxes often to bring texts I may find interesting for some reason. Since the author of the text is Serbian I even made it clear for anyone who may see it (although I didn´t even dreamed people would care about my sandboxes) but anyway, I made it clear in the indication of the sandbox it was "A Serbian perspective over creation of Yugoslavia" making it clear it was someones perspective and not claiming its truth or a point I backed. You concluded I was a single-purpose acount as if I had some agenda, but I create and edit so many articles in so many fields. Yes, I do edit mostly articles related in some way to former-Yugoslavia, but I was born there, I guess it´s not unusual editors edit majoritarilly articles about their country. I understand others may not have the time and patience to analise in detail ones editing patterns, but I am asking you please to allow me to demonstrate you I am a good editor. I am fully aware all eyes will be on me and I am willing to commit myself to demonstrate I am for real. Please let me know if I can give you any further clarifications. FkpCascais (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is too long. Can you be more concise?  Sandstein   07:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, I apologise, I need to know now that over 6 months have passed, if I could consider my topic ban finished? FkpCascais (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't recall this ban. Can you link to it, and very briefly explain why it is no longer needed?  Sandstein   08:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course. This is the link you left at my talk-page refering to the AE thread: Discretionary sanction imposed.


 * I believe that the topic ban is not needed anymore because I see how my attitude was wrong back then. I am able to identify the mistakes I made and become aware from now on not to repeat them. Wikipedia is a constructive project and I can see how my attitude became inadequate. I felt frustrated and I made poor decitions which I understand now how they brought me here. I want to apologise to you and to everyone else involved. I was going trough personal problems at that time, a divorce, and I ended using Wikipedia in a toxic way as escape. I allowed my personal problems to affect my editing and my interractions. It has been over six months now, my life has returned to normal, and I feel ashamed of my behavior of back then. Whatever the reasons I may have tought I had back then, didn´t gave me the right to become disruptive. I am not that person anymore. I am not desperatelly asking you to allow me to edit football so I could keep using Wikipedia to escape from my problems, instead, today I am asking you honestly and fully conciently to allow me to return to a project I love so much.


 * This year makes 10 years since I registered, I participate in several WikiProjects, I have created 920 articles of many topics, and I make a lot of mantainance work like categorization, creating templates, fixing sourcing problems, etc. Although I understand now how the circunstances and my behavior back then made you conclude that I was an editor who is "primarily engaged in promoting one particular nationalistic POV", that accusation hit me very hard and hurt me a lot. Being from the Balkans and editing articles related to it, unfortunatelly still too often brings nationalistically-related problems. I have been doing my best to have our articles the most neutral and objective as possible. By being a Serbian editor (although I have mixed heritage and I live almost my entire life in the West) I guess you meant I was promoting Serbian nationalism. However, during my decade long experience here, I can say I most often clashed preciselly against editors promoting Serbian nationalism. In my attempt to keep articles neutral I faced on different occasions nationalistically-motivated editors from all sides. The problem is that everyone of them will claim their version is the truth and that opposing it means you are a nationalist from the other side. The problems I had were about me opposing other´s editing because of concerns of lack of neutrality. I promisse I will be much more carefull. However, I wish to point out that of my 920 articles, not a single one was ever pointed out as promoting nationalism or nothing similar, despite me having created content linked to all nationalities and topics of the Balkans. I understand that a particlar situation may give the opposite impression, however, if one was trully promoting a particular POV it would be hard to immagine him creating 920 articles unrelated to it. I ask you please tohave in consideration my overall contribution (the list of articles and templates I created is on my userpage) and see the effort I make to create content as neutral as it can be. Some exemples can be: SOKO, Air Commerce, JUSTA, Yugoslav Second League, Football in Yugoslavia, lists such as List of Montenegro international footballers, List of North Macedonia international footballers, List of foreign Primeira Liga players or List of NK Krško players indicate how I create content totally unrelated to Serbia. In the cases of List of Red Star Belgrade footballers, List of FK Partizan players or List of FK Vojvodina players I still have open conflict with Serbian nationalists because I insist in neutrally displaying the proper flag for each player and not "Serbianize" half of the players from neighbouring countries. Then, seems that a text in a sandbox I have made me look as nationalist. I use my sandboxes in a very personal and particular way and I never tought I would be judged for their content without, at least, being questioned about them before. I have several texts and actually most are in Serbian and focus against nationalism in football. The particular text I was judged for is a text I found interesting because of some specific points it makes but without ever standing in favor of all its content. Even after copy/pasting it to the sandbox, I made sure a title I gave it would say "Serbian perspective" so if someone accidentally finds it, to make them know it is a particular point of view, and not a claim of truth. Ultimatelly, I haven´t ever added any of that content anywhere, I firmly believe it is my live editing that speaks for me, not sandboxes and suppositions of what I am based on some cherry-picked exemples put out of context.


 * I want very much to prove you that I am a proud Wikipedian which respects and cares very much about our project. I saw my mistake, I understand now how my focus must be to keep my contributions productive and not conflictuos. I have a great desire to demonstrate that I am a good editor. I have no desire at all to go to controversial content, however, the reason why I do wish to have my topic ban lifted is because much of the content I have knolledge about and I can create often does have links to Balkans, so I wish to create it without being unable of because of the widescope Balkans-related ban. For instance, after the ban, I created an article about a Croatian footballer, which was rightfully deleted because of the ban. However, it was about a Croatian player, not Serbian who´s nationalism I was banned for, so I wish that the ban because of Serbian nationalism doesn´t missallow me from creating content unrelated to it. I sincerelly wish to edit or create content about issues without being affraid that even some remote relation to any part of Balkans may get me blocked. I am aware that this topic ban will have me under minimal, or none, tolerance, but I believe I can demonstrate trust in me is justifiable. FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅, see your talk page.  Sandstein   08:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I promise I will be very carefull. Kindest regards, FkpCascais (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

My T-ban - a request per WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED
Hi Sandstein, You may recall my T-ban. As happens, it is being used in an attempt to discredit me in a completely unrelated matter (see here). It is being discussed elsewhere with aspersions cast against me (see here). In order to stop the aspersions, gossip, and the attempt to falsely paint me as a bad actor, I would like a link to the AE case posted to article talk page. In my understanding, the T-ban prevents me from doing so. If that is correct, would you be able to? Something like, "Petrarchan47 GMO topic ban" as a section at [Attisson talk page] with a link to the T-ban. Thank you in advance,  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You should ask, who imposed your topic ban.  Sandstein   17:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you know whether my linking to the T-ban AE would violate it? It has been mentioned here in a blatant misrepresentation. I'd like to post the link in reply to this comment.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please ask AGK.  Sandstein   17:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic International University
Hi,

I see that you were the administrator that deleted this article previously. I'm advising you that it's back again. Can you nominate this to be deleted or speedy delete?

Here's the first deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlantic_International_University

Here's the second one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlantic_International_University_(2nd_nomination)

Thank you

Lewistheeditor (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not taking action on behalf of single-purpose accounts.  Sandstein   16:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2019 June 26
Hi Sandstein. We previously discussed your close of Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination) on your talk page here. I have asked for community review at Deletion review/Log/2019 June 26 after there were disagreements about whether the changes I made were sufficient. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Article (Naum Koen)
Hi, i believe i have named and discussed the reliability of the sources that confer notability, but i accept that majority think it's just not enough. That being said with everything this person and his company is doing i have a feeling it's only about time until there are more reputable sources that confer notability. So would it be possible to have a copy of the deleted article moved to my userspace? Shemtovca (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't do that, sorry, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   14:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

marketing performance management page
I see that you have deleted this page - today??? - please put it back, several people have asked us why it is no longer there since it provided valuable references. Laura Patterson laurap@visionedgemarketing.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:F381:4500:6019:F31C:3212:B1D4 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please link to the supposedly deleted article.  Sandstein   14:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Soni Wolf
You deleted the article "Sonia Wolf" in closing its AfD. But Soni Wolf has recently been re-created. It's not just a repost of the same text, but notability still isn't very evident to me. Your call. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a G4 case in my view. There is new content, such as her National LGBTQ Wall of Honor position. This would need a new AfD. I'm undeleting the old history to allow history merging if editors desire.  Sandstein   07:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a general query
Hello Sandstein, nice to meet you. I saw that you relisted an AfD that I nominated that had gone unanswered. Couldn't an article that receives no objections at AfD for seven days be deleted as a PROD effectively? Not relevant to your actions, just a general a-wonder-ment(?) that I've had for some time. Thought I might as well ask and find out, assuming you have the time to answer. Thanks! Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 08:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could be soft-deleted, but relisting to get a consensus is normally better. It means the decision is more permanent.  Sandstein   09:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

What to do for articles since the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?
There is a discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Images relating to your RfC close from 2016 and the followup RfC in which you participated which resulted in MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Generally, the question seems to come down to whether MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES should be viewed to implicitly ban the use of photographs of people as lead images for articles about large groups of people. A comment/!vote from Talk:Man/sandbox which was quoted at the MOS discussion: "*No image in the lead - There is consensus that we should not have galleries for articles about subjects that represent very large populations. The rationale, as given by Sandstein: 'lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people'. Now then, how exactly are these issues resolved by replacing a gallery with a single image?" Do you agree with how your words are being used here? The RfC which you closed asked "Should montages of notable people be removed from ethnic group article infoboxes?" under the section title "Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups" Wasn't your point just that it is improper to curate a selection of famous people to attempt to represent the entire diversity of a population? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Sandstein, is this something you want to comment on? I hope you don't feel like I was being argumentative.  It is just my interpretation that your particular words here related to the initial subject of the first RfC, which was about galleries of famous people.  The discussion expanded to galleries of images of any group members meant to represent whole populations, which became MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES.  My concern is that some of the initial discussion which was about famous people is now being used to argue that all lead images of people should be excluded from these articles.  There's a lot of nuance here, and as the closer you would be able to interpret it better than I would.  You seem to be one of the only people who was not pinged to the discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Images.  Thank you.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I guess I don't have any particular opinion about this issue.  Sandstein   07:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Without asking your opinion on the current discussion, I guess my main question is whether your RfC close refers to notable people or not. In the close, you wrote that "it is original research to determine who should be featured in" a "portrait" gallery of "individuals".  Did you mean known people or any people?  I am reading into your words because the subject of the RfC was specifically asking about notable people in galleries.  Thank you.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I can give any particular insight on how to apply the RfC closure to the one-image question.  Sandstein   09:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand, that's why I'm just asking specifically about whether your close was about notable people, and I can go from there to figure out whether that is still relevant. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. All I remember about the issue is what I wrote in the closure.  Sandstein   12:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)