Jump to content

User talk:Samuel Blanning/April2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Farida Jalal linking

Hello, Samuel, thanks alot for setting up all the links in the Farida Jalal article. I meant to do it by myself, but you were faster. :) Regards --Plumcouch 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Np again :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Last Warning

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User:Samuel Blanning, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. _-M o P-_ 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

April Fool's! :)

Whoa homeslice, chill G. I'm changin' it right now because your puny eyesight can't handle it in all it's ultraviolet glory. _-M o P-_ 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There, cruel man. Done. :( My heart has been broken, but not like this. _-M o P-_ 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

You were a little too late with the unblock but thanks anyway! I talked with NicholasTurnbull on IRC and he unblocked me 3 minutes before you did :)  Grue  20:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Samuel: Oh I am sorry, I thought I'd replied to you, but I realise I'd replied to someone else instead. Well I unblocked Grue just now, because I talked it over with him on IRC and he promised not to go near the userbox DRV debate again, so I figured that was that. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I Quit

_Sanka123_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanka123 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 April 2006

User:Bakewell Tart

The user you have warned (User:Bakewell Tart) has made 9 partial reverts and 6 full reverts to the page User talk:Robsteadman. Is there nothing you can do about that? My request on WP:AN/3RR has not been dealt with so far. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It would have helped if you'd provided diffs like this instead of just links to versions like this. I can't immediately see which four or more of the reverts are the same. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it wasn't that hard. I found the reverts you were referring to and blocked him for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Ooops. Sorry about that, was kind of in a hurry to get it done since he was still at it when I was filling in the report. Shall be more careful in the future. Cheers! --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence Sheriff School

Thanks for warning Popekilroy regarding vandalism to the [Lawrence Sheriff School] article. It seems to me that the user may be a current student or member of staff at the school who is attempting to express his dissatisfaction with the way the school is run, but by vandalising the page, he isn't doing himself any favours.

However, a user by the name of Gamemaster has at least tried to put his point of view across in an erudite fashion. Unfortunately, it is still POV. Would it be worth me rewriting the section in question to make it more NPOV, or should it simply be removed?

Thanks for listening! -- Technostalgia 20:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, looking at the section my initial instinct is that it's unreferenced, and you would be justified in removing the entire section and asking Gamesmaster for a reliable source for the criticism (like a local newspaper article or the minutes of a governors' meeting or something) in accordance with our policies of verifiability, no original thought and not being a soapbox. Editors can't come along to a subject and write whatever they think about - they have to find someone reputable who's said that, and reference that criticism.
I'm afraid I have little inclination to get involved in disputes about school articles myself - the combination of editors new to Wikipedia and poor availability of reliable sources makes writing a decent article about them a frustrating experience for something that is, really, mainly local interest. I was against the wholesale inclusion of articles on high schools for pretty much that reason. I'll keep an eye on how the dispute progresses, though, and feel free to ask me if you need a hand in resolving the dispute. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I've removed the section in question. -- Technostalgia 23:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Piente

Thanks for stopping that vandal Agathoclea 09:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoping to steal your experience for a moment if I may....

I've been trying to help out with WP:SDs and WP:AfDs as much as possible, and I notice you are very helpful in those areas so I thought I'd utilize your expertise for a moment if I may with a couple of queries;

  1. Once I list an article with AfD am I able as the nominator to vote in the process? I notice one I did recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Licking closes tomorrow and is currently tied...
  2. What is the difference between tagging {{subst:afd1}} and {{prod|---}}?
  3. Finally if a contributor continues to remove the {{subst:afd1}} and {{db-reason|---}} tags from the article they wrote does this constitute vandalizm and what is my best course of action? It happened yesterday with the article Kim McGinn by User:toysoy for example - he removed 3 speedy tags so I then moved it to an AfD and he removed 4 of those (after 4 warnings from me on his talk page and 2 on the article talk page) before I listed it with Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and then the article was deleted and protected. Toysoy then complained about me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kim McGinn and covered my talk and user pages with numerous (and completely unfounded) vandalizm warnings the cheeky #@$%!

Anyway, thanks so much in advance and look forward to your reply. ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 11:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. The nominator should be counted as a vote by the closing admin. Just to make sure I usually end my nominations with "Delete" (i.e. "Nn-bio, fails WP:V, ran over my cat yesterday. Delete").
  2. Proposed deletions and Articles for deletion are two different processes. PROD is for deletions that are likely to be uncontroversial, AfD is for those that aren't. If the PROD tag is added to an article, it can be deleted if no-one removes it in five days without further discussion (though {{prod2}} can be added to support a PROD). Anyone can remove the tag, including the article's creator or the admin that comes across it if he doesn't think it should be deleted. If the tag is removed and whoever added the PROD tag still thinks it should be deleted, it should be taken to AfD, which it sounds like you already know about.
  3. Taking speedy delete and AfD tags down from articles is explictly defined as vandalism (obviously, taking PROD tags down isn't), and if users do so repeatedly after being warned they should, indeed, be reported on WP:AIV and blocked. It would be a good idea to point out that if they are blocked, they can't improve the article to the point where it can be saved.
HTH, do ask if you have any other questions. Don't worry, my experience is well insured against theft :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow thanks for the super prompt reply mate (Oops, I forget that term is used much outside NZ/Aus!). That clarifies all of it 110% - really appreciate you taking the time to answer, and keep up the great work (can anyone award barnstars BTW? You certainly deserve it!) Thanks again, ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 12:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, anyone can award them to anyone. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Deletionists' Barnstar Award!

For Exceptional garbage removal in WP:SD Glen 12:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: I took the liberty of adding this to your Barnstars page - hope that's ok :) ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 12:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks muchly :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

198.161.108.18

User:198.161.108.18 is vandalising despite your warning. Please consider blocking the ip. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

1 month. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Jedi6 Userpage

Thanks for reverting the vandalism done to my userpage! Jedi6-(need help?) 21:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

personal attack

I'm curious- how was what I posted a personal attack? I stated a history of the situation. No name calling, no falsehoods. Please explain. Also, how did you come upon my profile? Thanks in advance to your reply Joe 22:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I came across it via Itake's page, who has had a history of uncivil behaviour. But on your point I felt "pathetic" was unnecessary, and generally I didn't see complaining about an editor or bringing off-site issues into the wiki on your user page as constructive - we do have forums for this sort of thing. My main concern was Itake's counter-attack - to prevent it getting any worse, I simply thought it was best to ask both of you to drop it and ask you to take the deletion to the appropriate forum if you contested it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest and your perspective. Is there a chance that you could help me contest the deletion of the article in question? I have no idea how to do that. ThanksJoe 15:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at what was there, I'm afraid if you took it to deletion review the deletion would almost certainly be upheld. Wikipedia is not a web directory, so any article which consists entirely of external links and see also links is bound to be deleted. You might be able to create an non-speediable article if it had some descriptive text of each simulator, but I think even that would run afoul of notability and might end up on articles for deletion (where controversial deletions are discussed) - while the general concept of a geopolitical simulator seems notable, the individual simulators are probably not worth encyclopaedic coverage.
Still, I know very little about the topic, so I might be wrong. If you want to try, I can dig out the deleted text and transfer it to your userpage, if you want, and when you feel it's ready you can recreate the article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I see- thanks for the input. My only concern was that there is a link to an outside list maintained by one person. That person no doubt wants to maintain his monopoly. I'm not a fan of monopolies, especially when they are forced. Cheers- I may take up your last suggestion eventuallyJoe 16:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If the content isn't suitable for Wikipedia, there's nothing wrong with linking to it on an external site. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
right, but from what I got on the discussion page for geopolitical simulations, a majority wanted a list on wikipedia but no one would create one. I created one and it was removed (without discussion as far as I can tell). Also, how can I find the history of that page? Everything about the page seems to be wiped out? Joe 18:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, regardless if some editors wanted that list, I'm afraid it contravenes policy that has the approval of almost every editor here. Even if it had been discussed, it would certainly have been deleted anyway. If you're absolutely set on getting the general opinion of editors, you can go ask deletion review to look at it, but I will assure you the consensus will almost certainly be to keep the article deleted as it stood. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) You can't see the page, but as an administrator I can, so if you want I can copy it to your userspace. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The importance of subst

Hi, why does it matter if, for example in vandalism warnings, there is a subst or not in the template name? --Wisden17 15:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It reduces the drain on the servers, as every time a template is updated, it updates on every single page on which it's 'transcluded' (used without substing). Normally that's what you want, but as a *lot* of user warnings get placed, and there's no need for them to be updated, it would mean a large drain on the servers if none of them were substed and the template was changed, for which there's no need.
Also, if someone vandalised the user warning template, it would show up on a lot of talk pages if the templates weren't substed (although at least some of the templates are fully protected to prevent that, I'm not sure if they all are). HTH. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti (talk · contribs)

Hi Sam. Thanks for weighing in. There are the requisite three administrator yeas, but now the block needs to actually be placed and the enforcement logged on his bans page. Would you be willing to do that? Thanks much either way. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do so shortly. Done. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hey Sam, I was just wondering how long it usually takes for a user to get a responce on a wikitalk page. I did what you said about the emo slang thing, now I am wondering what my next move should be..

(Emoholic 16:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

Depends on the 'traffic' of the talk page (how many/often people read it), and how strongly people feel about your link. If no-one particularly minds either way, you may not get a response at all.
If no-one does reply to your post within a decent period - since you've already had the link taken out once, I would advise erring on the side of politeness and waiting a week - I would say add it again, and see if it gets taken out. If someone does take it out, they should be willing to discuss it with you on the talk page. This is called bold-revert-discuss. If they aren't, or if you aren't satisfied with the way discussion progresses, it would be a bad idea to just add it back in - that could begin an edit war. But I would cross that bridge when it comes, Wikipedia's methods of dispute resolution are effective but also numerous and complicated, and no need to worry about them if you don't have to :-)
By the way, it's customary to add new comments below the old. I moved yours to the right place. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I put this in the wrong place, and thanks for your help :) (Emoholic 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

Deleted edit

Do you know what is meant by a deleted edit? (Eg For the Wikimedia user edit counter, a section is called "Deleted edits") GH 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's the edits made to pages that are now deleted. E.g. I have 74 at last count, which are probably mostly putting deletion tags (e.g. {{afd}} or {{delete}}) on articles. They get deleted, and the edit I made which added the tag is a deleted edit. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Brand X

Thanks for taking care of Brand X and the related articles, as well as User:Kenwood 3000. I didn't want to just revert the articles, since he looked like a determined vandal. (Besides, a revert war would have meant someone getting blocked for violating WP:3RR.) Maybe the 24-hour block will actually force some sense into him. Thanks agian. --Elkman - (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If something like that happens in future and an admin isn't around, you could probably get one's attention at WP:AN/I if the hoaxing was similarly blatant. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Giant's Causeway Legend

Can I ask why you removed my request from the Speedy delete page? --Mal 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

When I got there someone had already dealt with it by redirecting it to Giant's Causeway, as is required under the GFDL (so whoever wants to know who wrote the content originally can follow the redirect back to where the content originally was and find its edit history). So I removed it from the list. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No probs. A wee explaination in your edit comment would have been handy though :P Cheers. --Mal 08:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA thanks

Just to let you know that I brought your name up at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Administrative_thank-yous as an example of a user who produced a particularly funny RFA thank you. I'm sorry I didn't vote for you now!-gadfium 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an interesting issue. Myself, I was always brought up to write thank-you letters to my relatives every Christmas and birthday, so I don't see the harm in it. The idea for my thank you note basically came from nigel molesworth, who had a similar do-it-yourself thank you letter. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

213.249.130.72

User 213.249.130.72 vandalized earlier today after the block you placed on his IP address expired. Steve Casburn 21:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, clearly the same person as before, and I've sent an email to the 'report abuse' address WHOIS gave me. It's registered to York County Council, and we've had good edits from it in the past, though not since this vandal came on the scene. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Emo_Music

The emo_music page has been vandilized twice in a row with no reverts done to the page. The original vanalizm was built upon, so I reverted to the page as it was a couple days ago. Just letting you know.

(Emoholic 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Good job. I think that page is probably a fairly hot target for vandals, unfortunately. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

wow cool

I didnt mean to add the stuff to 50 cents thing cause i thought it was fake. i used the sandbox instead that was cooler. well thnx thats all i got to say for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.54.126.215 (talk • contribs) .

Award

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar is awarded to Samuel Blanning for his vandal fighting and maintanance of WP:AIAV. Banez 08:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jugendweihe

Nice work on Jugendweihe. I added it to my to-do list a couple of weeks ago, when I noticed it was a single sentence, came back to start working on it, and — lo and behold — you'd already done a great job of it.

I can still add a picture of Weltall Erde Mensch, though...

Regards, ProhibitOnions 11:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I should have done a search for fair use images before, actually - I found one of Vom Sinn Unseres Lebens which I've added to the article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User:IP Address still reverting warnings

IP Address (talk · contribs) has reverted all the warnings from their talk page, calling it "archiving", despite your threat to ban if they did so again. They created a link to an archive that doesn't exist! — ciphergoth 12:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I see a working archive on his page: User talk:IP Address/6 April 2006. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA

Leider habe ich keinen ACME Auto-Thanker, daher muss ich das hier selbst schreiben. Herzlichen Dank jedenfalls für deine "Pro"-Stimme in meiner erfolgreichen Adminkandidatur! Kusma (討論) 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect of Weight loss

I semi protected his first two targets, but I thought it better to let him batter away at Weight loss and Body mass index rather than have him wander off to somewhere I didn't have bookmarked. He seems to have given up for the moment anyway. --GraemeL (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

One article seems as good - or bad - as another to be spammed, but since that was the reason for the semi-protection and he seems to have gone, I've removed the protection. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Block of 207.200.116.195

You have blocked the above listed IP. This is an AOL IP address, and as such you are preventing many legitimate Wiki editors from going about their work. Unless there is a compelling reason to block the entire IP (i.e. recent significant vandalism or abuse by anonymous users/sockpuppets), I would ask that you please unblock this IP. Thank you. --Brianvdb 01:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise your block of 207.200.116.5., also an AOL IP has affected my account. The message is who I get is: "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Arbustoo". The reason given for Arbustoo's block is: "3RR on Bob Cornuke"." Your IP address is 207.200.116.5."

-JCarriker 03:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that when you block, or set up an autoblock, of an IP proxy, you will impact all users (registered or unregistered) who are randomly assigned that IP number by their internet provider. As an AOL user, this happens to me frequently. Please see my User Page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for a record of these blocks. Because of this problem, these IP's should not be blocked for any length of time. Information on the block found below. I would appreciate a prompt release of this block. Thank you. WBardwin 09:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Samuel Blanning for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Arbustoo". The reason given for Arbustoo's block is: "3RR on Bob Cornuke"." Your IP address is 207.200.116.195.

I have unblocked both IPs. Please note that I did not block either IP, the MediaWiki software did, and I had no way to prevent the autoblocks. See WP:AUTOBLOCK. I'm sorry that you were affected, but I'm afraid this is going to happen to anyone who uses AOL. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm stuck with AOL until my employer says otherwise. It's annoying to have these blocks, but I try to keep an even temper. Best Wishes. WBardwin 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Eh, "please note" was probably a bit bitchy in tone for me to use. But then it's annoying being unwittingly responsible for preventing legitimate editors from editing. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome message. I like what you did with your userboxes; how did you get all the images on one line like that? The userbox templates just stack them up. I'd probably have more if they didn't take up so much space. --Laura S 16:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I created my userbox section manually using a table. I tried to copy the code here but it broke the talk page, so I copied and pasted the relevant bit to User:Samuel Blanning/Example. Depending on how familiar you are with computer code, it may look more or less bloody awful (and there is quite a bit of cruft in there, e.g. specifying font sizes and colours in cells which don't contain any writing). The table layout itself is quite simple - {| begins the table, each | begins a new 'cell', and the |} closes the table. The first 'style' bit after each | specifies width, heigh, background colour etc, then comes another |, then the picture.
Help:Table is pretty easy to follow to get all the elements of the table in the right place. After I'd got the layout of the table right, I simply copied and pasted the relevant code of whichever userbox I wanted to get the right picture, background etc. You can see the raw code of any userbox very easily by going to the relevant template (e.g. Template:User wikipedia/Administrator) and clicking 'edit this page'.
Hope that helps. You're welcome to copy and paste any of the code you find on my or anyone else's userpage - most of the layout of my own was initially taken from Sango123's. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Sanssouci

Well she is in the hands of the Gods now. I think it stands as good a chance as anuy other page, if not better. It is still basicaly the same page as you originally nominated, just the information is presented in a different way. I added very little - it was all there. So if it succeeds I hope you, Trebor and Mounties do not feel the glory has been taken from you. When I've done an FA on my own, it usually takes me weeks, or even months, so I don't feel a few hours copyediting is very much, my own (IMO) masterpeice Sicilian Baroque had to have hundreds of very severe copyeditors to finish it off. I've really enjoyed working on the page - if it succeeds, we'll solicit for the main page ASAP Giano | talk 13:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You're damn right I can take it

I live off of vandal attacks. I eat them for nourishment. Yummy yummy. --Cyde Weys 10:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I overreacted. Maybe I was subconsciously trying to increase my vn- count :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup!

other half of this discussion is at User talk:KimvdLinde

Yup, officially diagnosed. Most typo's are actually just typing to fast on a laptop, but I fail to see those errors as easily as other, and mis them when I read it over. I actually do important editing in word to eliminate at least some typo's and errors. KimvdLinde 12:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am used to people who 'attack' me for typo's etc, but that happens generally when people need arguments they do not have. KimvdLinde 12:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching the anonIP vandal on my talk page, just so you're aware that's the 3rd time in less than 12 hours that that exact same edit has been made. I posted the last two on AN/I, but since you caught this, can you just block them? They're posting from a 'Bell Canada' IP, and User:Eyeonvaughan who is currently undergoing a User Conduct RfC and is blocked (for making that same edit) is in the geographic area where that IP may be coming from... If you need me to post it at ANI I can do that to. pm shef 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be hopping IPs quite rapidly so blocking them won't do much good. I can semi-protect your talk and/or userpage from editing by anonymous and new users if you like. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User Pro-Lick

This user has been vandalizing the emo slang and emo music pages, and is now attacking me for reverting his vandalism. Will you please review the situation and take appropriate action?

Thanks (Emoholic 17:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

reply is on User talk:Emoholic due to ongoing discussion taking place there

Axl Reisdorff

Can you please unblock my brother? All this vandalism he did was not his, it was Evan Robidoux. Can you please block Evan Robidoux indefinitely, and make Axl Reisdorff A free man?PMP 20:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) User seems to be a sockpuppet of some sort, and is making unfounded requests for other users to block themselves. _-M o P-_ 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am disinclined to acquiesce to either of your requests. Whoever is behind User:Axl Reisdorff, it is still a vandal account that has made unacceptable death threats (if that's not a tautology) to other users.
If there is a 'real' Reisdorff who wants to contribute, I suggest he creates a new account and unchecks the 'Remember me' box when he logs in if his account is vulnerable to compromise. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

I hope you don't mind, but I added a short quote of yours to my userpage. I know it's not even 20 characters long, but it's still an excellent quote. New users should have it tatooed on the inside of there eyelids when they sign up. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I'm honoured. There is a regrettable tendency among some editors to see WP:V as a hurdle to be jumped over in order to be able to write your article, rather than what the article should be based upon from the start. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanssouci is a Featured Article

I saw they had all done that - must be a new thing - looks good anyhow! Giano | talk 08:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Apprentice

Hi Sam, thanks for your message. The information came from the candidates themselves who talked candidly about their apprentice experiences on the The Internet Forum (http://forum.theinternetforum.net/index.php). Basically they talked about things that viewers did not see in BBC's final edit of each show.

One of the administrators collected all their "what you didnt see" information and published them in a PDF file. I obtained one of these and simply listed a few stories as "Trivia". They are true, they were just were not in the final edit of the shows.

signed sHaK

Hi, the PDF actually goes for sale as the creator of it donates the money to charity. I can tell you its called "The Apprentice: The Unauthorized Story" and is available for purhcase here:

http://www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/737724


- sHaK

Louisiana Baptist University

Hi there. You protected this about 10 days ago. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious, current vandals, I figure it's been more than long enough to unprotect it now, even for a case of gastrichitis. Can I ask you to check your other recent protections and lift them as necessary, also to remember protections in general? CAT:SEMI is nearly 100 items, most of them seem to have been forgotten by the protecting admin. Thanks. -Splashtalk 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Huge Trouble

Mr. Blanning, there is big trouble vandal-wise. Remember Axl Reisdorff? He has logged in under PMP and is now Threatening several users- including you. Please block PMP before PMP srrikes again.67.0.103.237 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites

Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sexidate

Notice the user is still adding to the page even tho the AfD was Delete. I also noticed no notice of the AfD result on its talk page. Do you know when this will be done- kinda feel bad he's still working on the "ad" :) Thanks in advance, - Glen TC (Stollery) 08:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Already deleted again and earth salted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Happy Easter! --Misza13 T C 16:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SamBlan

I assume this isn't you? I just reverted its edit to WP:ANI. Apologies if that was you, but it was a strange edit. Would you like to do the honors and username-block it? Bishonen | talk 10:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

Too late. :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

other half of this discussion is at User talk:FayssalF

Hi Sam! Thanks for the note. But 205.167.47.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is not a shared IP. You may have confused it w/ another one. Anyway, I'll definetly reduce the ban. Cheers -- Szvest 18:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Thanks again Sam! I'll do so. Anyway, i reduced it to 48 hours. If you still think it is too much, please reduce it further. Cheers -- Szvest 18:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Clive Bull

As someone who is uninvolved with this dispute, I feel the article is satisfactory. Please mention this in the WP:RFC regarding the article. --Sunfazer 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Both versions are 'satisfactory', but Minglex's is better, and it's being held up by what I am now almost certain is a sockpuppeting vandal. Articles should not have to stagnate in this way. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Minglex's version was the one referred to; however, I don't think 'sockpuppet' applies here, more likely to be meatpuppets. --Sunfazer 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The accounts that attempted to simulate a consensus on Iain Lee to falsely out him as homosexual (as well as roadblock Clive Bull) were all blocked as sockpuppets, and I intend to apply the same remedy to this lot as soon as the evidence comes through. Meat farm or sock farm, I see no practical difference. They are certainly not innocent new users asked by a friend to help them out - the word "innocent" is not one I will apply to hoaxers and pagemove vandals. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Let me know when the RFC is filed! --Sunfazer 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to file an 'official' RFC with 'Users who endorse this position', as it strikes me as a waste of time in a simple matter like this. What's there is simply a "can someone please look at this?" notice. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

blocked user

Hello, David Gerard does not reply and others even go for friendly users who are willing to help like JamieBattenbo and StabiloBoss with their sockpuppet and userbox paranoias. [2] [3] It turned out ROGNNTUDJUU! lives in the house where I currently take care of my friend Henrik's affairs. People here use a common router which seems to have led to some confusion. As you already looked into this, could you please take care of ROGNNTUDJUU!'s block? De mortuis... 14:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to overturn another administrator's decision, and nor, apparently, did anyone else at the admins' noticeboard. ROGNNTUDJUU! is not an acceptable username anyway (from WP:U: "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers"). If there is another genuine contributor behind the IP, then I suggest he creates another account and refrains from voting the same way as people who happen to have the same IP as him in future. I can see that it is possible for two housemates to be mistaken for sockpuppets, but Wikipedia won't work if anyone can 'vote' multiple times by pretending to be multiple people behind the same IP. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
ROGNNTUDJUU! is no random letters and numbers, see Gaston. How are we supposed to know what other people in our house are doing online? I have no way to see where other users are located, and I think it is quite normal that people living together have commons fields of interest. ROGNNTUDJUU! already is his second account, and creating a new one every time someone finds out that there are several people with the same IP is kind of tedious. De mortuis... 16:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to know what they're doing, just tell them not to support your position in votes without making clear that you come from the same place. Anyway, I'm not going to overturn David's block. Maybe you should try asking David formally minus the personal attacks on editors. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
How can I tell them not to support my positions if I do not even know who is a wikipedia user? There are at least a dozen people using the router and there are frequently exchanges. Sasying there are nerds here in my eyes is no personal attacks as it is to no one personally. To me it is just freakish to accuse everyone who has the same opinion you do not agree with to be the same person. De mortuis... 16:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Willschick.jpg

The image that I failed to CSD is now linked from User:William-willett, I'm guessing it's the vandal User:212.85.18.7's new account as it also mentions runescape, one of his targets of vandalism. - Hahnchen 14:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted his userpage as a barely concealed attack on someone else, and not what userpages are for. Can't really do any more than that for the moment. The picture will almost certainly be gone in seven days. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure the image is going to get deleted, I don't particularly mind that you removed the CSD. I just wanted to let you know of a possible Sockpuppet account, that's all. - Hahnchen 15:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
He reposted the userpage, so I've indefinitely blocked him as a vandalism-only account (no article contributions). --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of

I noticed you added this one to Template:SockpuppetProven, but you didn't add it to Template:SockpuppetCheckuser (created by User:Essjay). I'll be going to replace it.

This is useful to catgorise number of verified sock puppets. Thank you. -- ADNghiem501 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You blocked me for reverting vandalism

I am user Jeff Fenstermacher. You blocked my account for reverting blanking vandalism. Per the Wikipedia page on vandalism, "Removing all or significant parts of articles is a common vandal edit." Blanking is vandalism, simply put. It's not a content dispute. It's vandalism. Please be more familiar with your own rule system.207.69.137.36 23:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is user Jeff Fenstermacher again. You wrote "Removing part of a page with a good-faith reason is not vandalism." Sorry, that contradicts specific, written Wikipedia policy as I quoted above. The way to resolve the matter was on the talk page, which I tried to initiate. The other user was blanking. Not editing, blanking.207.69.137.36 23:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "If you have a good-faith and reasonable justification for removing a section, it isn't vandalism. He had initiated a discussion." I'm sorry, that's not what happened. Look at the history of the article. The first time he blanked the entire section without any explanation. As defined on the Wikipedia vandalism page, blanking a section in that manner without explanation is vandalism. Only after he was caught blanking, he tried to find a rationale. You seem to be screening this through some kind of ex post facto personal filtration while simultaneously ignoring the Wikipedia rules. I was only following the rules. In all candor, I think perhaps your "admin status" has gone to your head a bit, with your nannyish comments about "cooling down." I reverted vandalism, simply put. Nothing more. I followed the rules. You didn't. I think you owe me an apology.

Additionally, I was trying to alert an administrator to the situation; however, because you were in such a hurry to summarily block me without any kind of warning or dialog, you made that impossible and compounded the problem. Jeff Fenstermacher 01:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have initiated an AMA Request for Assistance regarding this matter, as I believe your behavior was unwarranted.Jeff Fenstermacher 01:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that you were blocked without warning is false [4]. Neither of you have returned to edit warring and both your extremely short blocks have expired, so what you want your advocate to do for you I'm not sure. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You have misrepresented the facts here and you're being deliberately deceptive.
1) My last edit was at 23:32[5]
2) User "Pilotguy" placed a 3R notice on my talk page at 23:35
3) I made no further edits and honored Pilotguy's request.
4) Notwithstanding the above, without any warning, you blocked my account at 23:38.
You ask, "what you want your advocate to do for you I'm not sure." Let me make it clear for you: you didn't follow the rules, you overstepped your bounds, you're being arrogant, you're being immature, and you're misrepresenting the facts. That's what I want the advocate to address. Further, the page was vandalized, you failed to follow Wikipedia rules about vandalism, and instead enforced your own unwritten rules about what you think is allowable. Serving as an administrator is about responsibility, not power -- you seem not to understand that basic concept. Jeff Fenstermacher 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I apologise for saying that you carried on edit warring after being warned, since that was false. Of course, you didn't need to carry on edit warring, because Pilotguy warned you at the same time I blocked Luo, and at the time I ended the edit war you were the last person to edit. I do not apologise for giving you a one hour block; Luo is not a vandal, you both clearly violated 3RR, you can either accept that or not.
Since you've requested an advocate, I suggest you wait for his advice. You seem to have a problem with assuming good faith with people you come into conflict with, whether it's Luo or myself (you have no reason to believe I was being "deliberately deceptive"), and that won't help your case. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to note the sheer absurdity of your statement You seem to have a problem with assuming good faith with [sic] people you come into conflict with [sic], considering that's exactly what you're doing. You didn't follow Wikipedia rules, you penalized me for reverting vandalism, and then you continue to state that something happened which did not. You're being deliberately deceptive by not admitting to all the facts and by selectively choosing information to make your case. You continue to insist on your infallibility while ignoring Wikipedia rules. I have provided black-letter evidence that blanking without explanation is vandalism, and your assertion that I violated the 3R rule is not based on fact. As well, you conveniently ignored the fact that you blocked me after I adhered to the 3R request, even if I did feel it was invalid. You are bending rules to try to make your case and selectively ignoring facts in an attempt to save face. You seem more interested in being a petty martinet than in contributing to make Wikipedia a valuable resource. I think you should consider resigning as an administrator because you seem not to have the emotional maturity to handle this responsibility. And, yes, I do have a problem assuming good faith in someone who treats me shabbily and in disregard of the rules. Jeff Fenstermacher 22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've explained my position. I don't think continuing this exchange is going to be constructive. Let me know if you initiate any formal dispute resolution, because I don't think I can give you any further satisfaction here. Your advocate, if/when you find one, will help you with which forum is appropriate and how to use it.
By the way, there were two phrases in that sentence that required a "with": "to assume good faith with someone", and "to come into conflict with someone"; hence, two "with"s. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

  • Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage. It seems that VaughanWatch has resurrected his socks... have they been blocked? - pm shef 01:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Massive reverting done by Dilip rajeev

Hi, this editor Dilip rajeev has reverted many sections in the Falun Gong artice can you revert his editing and stop him from further vandalizing the article? thanks --Samuel Luo 01:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I've had quite enough of this. Admins are not referees, we're here to do backroom maintenance, not waltz into an article, decide whose POV is right and block everyone else. If there's been another 3RR violation, report it on WP:AN/3RR. Otherwise, point me to the vandalism, because all I see is a content dispute (and no, "he deleted this paragraph, that's blanking vandalism" won't wash). Try to work with your fellow editors without calling them vandals and you might get somewhere. You might also find Wikipedia:Dispute resolution of use. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You did a great job at translating

Since you did such a good job translating the Ctenophore page, I have a request: could you work on the article about the closely related Cnidaria? PS I like your user page layout. Twilight Realm 05:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks on both counts. :-) (Fuller related reply on Talk:Ctenophore.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:72.17.231.2

We both blocked this guy at the same time, I think you may have beaten me by a few seconds :) - as we'd both blocked him for 24 hours, I can't be bothered fixing it, as it makes no difference. Proto||type 12:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Does it mean I'm ready for my closeup...

...when I've been vandalized by Wikipedia is Communism? ;) --Syrthiss 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You know he/she really respects you when you start seeing "Syrthiss is COMMUNISM!" accounts :-). (I have three that I know of.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi Samuel, thanks for your reply at the help desk. I put the God-like script in my monobook.js and it worked. What I'm wondering is why when I look at my User contributions I see a bunch of text under entrys that are marked Top, with the last word being "Rollback" and the first one being my username, but its not a link, I cant click on it.

I also tried using this {{subst:User:Voice of All/RC/monobook.js}} script, it works pretty nice and also has two rollback options, one regular and one for "revert as vandalism". I actualy liked this one better. The problem with this one is that my popups dont work correctly with it.

I would like to know if there is a place where I could get instructions on how to install them and use them. Thanks, Shlomke 22:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know. I only used godmode-lite and popups before I became an admin and got the 'genuine' rollback button (I still use popups, of course). With godmode-lite I had a similar problem to you - I could always rollback when looking at a diff, such as this, but the one in the user's list of contributions never worked - either it gave a javascript error or appeared as garbled text.
I took the artificial rollback script directly from Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts - I gather you got it from somewhere else. Maybe if you got it from a different source it would work differently - I'm just throwing out random ideas, but at least if you try something and it doesn't work you can revert yourself easily here. Of course, if you've got several scripts it might be tedious to blank your current setup and get them all individually.
Whoever compiled your script would probably know better than me how to fix errors - or you could try asking the helpdesk again. Sorry I couldn't be of much use. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a guide on how to add script (any) to my monobook.js? i just want to know that I'm at least putting it in correctly while i keep playing around with it. thanks again. Shlomke 23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a guide, although maybe there should be - I needed a few goes and I'm pretty au fait with computers. That said, the most common problem with non-working scripts is forgetting to purge the cache (reload the page) after saving the monobook.
There are two main ways of putting a new script in - either copy the raw code (e.g. go here, click 'edit this page', select all and copy and paste the whole thing into your monobook) or subst it, e.g. insert {{subst:User:Ilmari_Karonen/godmode-light.js}}, which both basically do the same thing. I've always used the copy and paste route and dumped any new script at the bottom of my monobook. If there's a certain script you're having trouble with then I could be more specific. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I put back the godmode-lite.js in my monobook.js using the subst and its working fine. I can also do a rollback from the user contribution page. I'm still left with the problem of seeing this [Shlomke&token=e9dcaec6216aad726a20c8db4b40d3be">rollback] thing under every page where my edit was marked Top in my user contribution page, but I guese its OK, perhaps its like that so I dont rollback my own edits. At least now I have my popups working. Thanks for your help. Shlomke 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

rest of conversation at User talk:TrollHistorian

You left on a note on my user page suggesting people wouldn't care about my AfD votes. It should be noted that I have contributed somewhat to wikipedia but I feel wikipedia can be bettered by a focus on what is important, not just internet memes. Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it. --TrollHistorian 23:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

God

Thanks for your input. I've added a source for my facts in the God article. What you're doing is great. You're making us document things and making sure we get it right-- spot on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.178.82 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm sorry your contribution hasn't made it in yet, hopefully my comment at Talk:God helps explain how things work here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi, I've sent you an e-mail. Farrel123 11:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again. Farrel123 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Edelmann

Thanks for correct my mistakes. Glücksritter 00:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for the welcome, that was a nice message. Two-dollarPistol 01:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

other half of this conversation is at User talk:Stco23
I'm sorry. I thought that I was doing the right thing by blocking this user user:Hammeler. I did not know that the administrator are the ones that enforce blocks on users, Hammeler put in five false edits about Rodger Bumpass in two different articles and it was in his contributions every single one. I'm sorry for putting a false block and I hope you will forgive me. Thank You.--Stco23 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Help Please

I have uploaded a couple of pictures a long time ago, and I got them on my contributions, but I am having trouble getting them on articles. What do I do. I hope you can help me. Thank You.--Stco23 08:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it the technical aspect you're having trouble with? If so, the syntax you're most likely to use is [[Image:Oceanvillagemarina.JPG|thumb|right|200px|This is a caption]], which, in order, places the picture, puts it in a thumbnail (to reduce its size and allow a caption), places it on the right (this bit is actually unnecessary as it defaults to right, but you might want it on the left), reduces it to 200 pixels wide (leave blank for the default size, which I find a bit small) and lastly, adds a caption. The result is on the right. WP:PIC has a fuller tutorial with examples, and WP:XIMG has the full syntax. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I know this but they do not show up when I try this, i hope you understand my problem. Thank You.--Stco23 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Possibly a stupid question, but I have seen someone else do this - you aren't inserting the <nowiki></nowiki> tags as well, are you? Try inserting a picture into this post (or my sandbox if you'd prefer a blank sheet), and I can look and see where your code's wrong. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for assisting in the OITC 'affair'. I thinks you're quite right - another AfD is by far the most sensible first move, hopefully there will be a better involvement this time. --Alf melmac 10:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't actually realised it was already nominated, due to the old afd not showing up for the obvious reason, though there don't seem to be any 'speedy keep' votes as yet. Would you object to me moving the article back to its original name when the AfD closes? I'm not sure where the consensus for the move lay, but IMO the current name is a clear NPOV violation. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have no problem with moving it back to the orignal title as it is unlikely we will be able to definitively state whether it is a fraud or not without some divine intervention. I saw the old AfD discussion heading for a name change and felt the same myself, hence why I moved it, that was probably a mistake on my part. --Alf melmac 10:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

lifting block on Lou franklin

other half of this conversation is at User talk:Heah
No, not in the least- that's essentially what I assumed would happen; I just figured it was probably best to leave him blocked until arbcom made their decision, as he hadn't at all modified his behavior in the interrim. So no, I have no problems at all with the block being lifted. Cheers --heah 22:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

666 cuts?

Why would you cut out the following from the 666 listing, BUT leave in other commercial plugs?

BOTH the events below are receiving INTERNATIONAL headlines... I'd think that makes them worthy of an add.

A Church of Satan will be holding a "Satanic Mass" on June 6, 2006 C.E. in Los Angeles. Church of Satan Rev. Shane Bugbee and Radio Free Satan will be ringing in 6/6/06 with SATAN'S ROCKIN' 666 EVE on June 5th in Los Angeles.

Vandal blocking

Thanks for blocking 84.12.24.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - he's done dozens of edits that I'm going to have to undo now.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samuel_Blanning/April2006&oldid=1160694849"