This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

  • Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
  • If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
  • If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Reasons for deleting The House of Fine Art page

Hi. I noticed that you deleted/removed the page The_House_of_Fine_Art. Can you kindly state some of your reasons for doing so? Thanks Wtoalabi (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Because there was consensus to delete the article in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art. Sandstein 10:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that over one third of the people in the discussion wanted to keep the article, which doesn't sound at like a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1A12:8084:7546:3516:C11B:31C0 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nom AfD Withdrawal

Hi there,

I was hoping for a more experienced opinion - mostly as an area of interest rather than need, but it could be a rule issue (not that any harm has been done)

In this AfD, there was a nom, then an immediate Delete !vote "per nom".

After a bunch of Keeps, the nom decided to withdraw. Normally this can't be done if anyone else has registered a delete !vote first.

Does the fact that the !voter's "argument" is just "per nom" mean they have agreed to follow where the other has led, or is it as if they have written out the other's argument (in which case a change in the former doesn't change the latter)? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In my view, Anachronist should not have closed their own nomination, because a good-faith "delete" opinion normally means that a nomination cannot be withdrawn. At least, they should have let another admin make the call. You can can ask them to undo their closure. Sandstein 20:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The 'keep' arguments answered the question about notability in my mind. Had I let it run its course, I expect it would have been closed as 'keep' anyway, or at best 'no consensus'. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Bradv🍁 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


Can you loosen or lift my TP?

I wanted to edit the article Jewish ghettos in Europe but noticed the section related to WW2 in Poland that stops me from doing so in accordance to the TP imposed (June last year). Link to my editing history in other topic areas to review is here.

Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As these 468 edits since July 2018 included per the editor interaction utility some 222 edits to 43 pages I edited (generally prior to GCB touching the page), I believe I had the (coincidental?) chance to observe many of these edits. I would like to comment that diff such as -
  1. 04:04, 21 December 2018 (SYNTH to state Jewish origin of some communists - Jewish Bolshevism?).
  2. 01:34, 16 January 2019 (making ghettos a "voluntary" thing).
  3. 20:56, 18 November 2018 - violation of her Polish WWII TBAN - removing a critical review (that directly addresses the Holocaust, Jewish partisans) of the work of a very right-wing Polish historian.
  4. 12:18, 11 December 2018 - another TBAN violation - Janicka is a scholar (of an opposite camp to Chodakiewicz) specializing in "categories of the description of Holocaust in the Polish dominant culture"[1] (Shoah = Holocaust), "depiction of the Holocaust in art" [2], "photographing concentration camps"[3], who speaks on "Identity Panic: Counter-narratives of the Holocaust and their Institutionalization Beyond Political Cleavages (the Case of Poland)[4] "When Denial Becomes State Policy: The Origins and Significance of the New Holocaust-Speech Law in Poland" [5] (etc. etc.) who per GCB is a "random photographer". The article in question (on which GCB commented), was also being used to source: A 1942 article titled "The Jews in Polish Proverbs and Proverbial Expressions" published by the Division for Research on Jewry in the Kraków based Nazi research institute Institut für Deutsche Ostarbeit (IDO) claimed that Paradisus Judaeorum is a "proverb which provides a valid insight into the actual relations in Poland". (which was challenged by reversion prior to GCB's comment).
Do not instill confidence..Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, wouldn't they be OK to edit Jewish ghettos in Europe as long as they left the "Poland" and "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" sections alone? Just a thought. Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I am not inclined to tinker around the edges of topic bans because this often creates more overhead and confusion and boundary issues than it is worth. Please edit in other topic areas and use this work at a later time as evidence that you can work collegially with others and that the ban should therefore be lifted. I agree with the above that you can edit Jewish ghettos in Europe as long as you do not edit any content that relates to Poland during the World War II era. Sandstein 14:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanksGizzyCatBella (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectra Records

I'm going to express my displeasure with the procedure of this AfD. I know nothing of the merits, I can't see what was deleted. However, it was wiki linked off of an article I watch. That means it contributes to the content of that article. So there should be a notification to articles the potentially deleted content will affect. I can find no evidence that there was any attempt to notify such articles. Again, I watch, I would have participated if there was any issue with the potential deletion. I feel deprived of such an opportunity to comment. Trackinfo (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Noted. However, our deletion process does not require or otherwise provide for such notifications. Sandstein 14:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

ARCA archived

An amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Amendment request: Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months (January 2019). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)