Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or 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.
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)
- @Jon Kolbert, StraussInTheHouse, Michig, and Cwmhiraeth: What's your view as AfD participants? Sandstein 15:23, 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)
- Joda85, 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#Scope?, regarding what should be included in the article. You'll find a proposed outline, there. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:36, 16 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)
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, Smga3000. 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 @Sandstein:,
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)