User talk:Samuel Blanning/August2006

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

MFD (User talk:USAID-Africa)

Hi,

Thanks for pointing out prodding is for articles only: I don't nominate many pages so am a little rusty on stuff like that!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Hawthorne Heights Out-of-band agreement Tim Kasher Major Organ and the Adding Machine One Life Crew Tony C. & the Truth Frosted Ambassador Ill Niño Ben Gibbard Jill Carnes Theory of a Deadman Pipes You See, Pipes You Don't Keller McGee The (International) Noise Conspiracy Jeremy Barnes The Renegades Band-stop filter Good Question The Bled

Cleanup Shinedown Orfeo Programme Carrier Indians Merge Jordan Pundik Sea-Based X-Band Radar Revelation Records Add Sources The All-American Rejects Babs Victory Records Wikify Southeastern Oklahoma State University Keith E. House Jamey Jasta Expand Ginuwine New tribalism Blue eyed soul (band)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award

Greetings, Samuel Blanning. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to Kylu for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.

If you'd like to participate in the contest again, check by the contest page in a few days and sign up. See you around. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)

User page

So I've managed to recreate my userpage, from your header and many other's user page's parts. I just want to thank you, and probably you could give me a feedback? :P Imoeng 15:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice and simple design. I can't possibly fault any part of it :P --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Restore of "Trexy"

Many thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Np. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality protection

Hi, I was wondering why Church of Reality is protected. Could we move it to semiprotection? Also, why was it deleted? Its a legitimate parady religion. St.isaac 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What does an "illegitimate parody religion" look like? But anyway, the article was deleted after an AfD discussion, and I'm pretty sure the decision was endorsed by deletion review. If you want the reason why it was deleted then the AfD and DRV discussions will provide that, but briefly, being a parody religion doesn't automatically make you any more notable than any other website. I protected it because it was recreated numerous times - the point of fully protecting the page is that it can't be recreated again. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I looked at the AfD discussion and I agree. I still am confused about the protection though. Is it that once an article is deleted it should never be recreated? If it was semiprotection, wouldn't that allow only a responcible recreate and not the countless reverts that you're refering to? Regardless, it should stay deleted for now... St.isaac 19:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can create an account and, after a mere four days (I think), they can edit despite the semi-protection. In those circumstances, an article can only be responsibly recreated when a consensus is formed at deletion review that it should be recreated. As all discussions at DRV are closed by admins, if there is a consensus to unprotect the page then they'll do so. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Help expanding a page?

Can you please help me expand the Amanda Dowler page? As there Is a lot of Information about her on the Internet but I am unsure how to put It all into wikipedia so It Is relevant and the page Is conformed to the manual of style.--Lucy-marie 20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember the case, I'd be glad to have a go at the article, though I can't promise when I'll get round to it. Could you tell me what information you've got off the Internet? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Mostly all of the current informatiion was gleaned from surrey police and the BBC. i am unsure on what requires refrencing and how to refrence inarticle. the best way i found of finding information was typing her name in to a search engine. Im not sure if that is the corrct way to go about it but it seams to be where the most facts are avaliable on the case. Im not sire if what I have done so far Is In line with wikipedia policies or such but Its how i gleaned my information. any help on this page would be very much apreciated. Also any help on any thing I have done wrong will also be greatly welcomed. Thanks very much for your quick and speedy response. --Lucy-marie 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• There is much more information on the internet but I'm not sure what is relevant to wikipedia and what constitutes irrelevant information. Also i am unsure how to go about building the page up like other article s have been built up. Any help in any of these area and I will hold you forever greatful. Thanks very much.--23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• So Sam are you upto giving a girl in need some help with a page?--Lucy-marie 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  Could you give me any links you have to the BBC and Surrey Police sites you found information on? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Surrey police http://www.surrey.police.uk/search.asp?search=1&keywords=amanda+dowler
• BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2907541.stm
  
• http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=newsukfs&tab=news&q=amanda+dowler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll work on verifying the article with inline citations first (hopefully later today, though as I said I can't promise), and if I notice anything that isn't there I'll expand the article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I referenced and expanded the article. Hope you like what I've done with it. There are two things I'd like you to look at: firstly, I removed the BBC News picture of the place where her body was found. I think a fair use claim is a real stretch, as a) we can't really argue that we're using it to illustrate the BBC News programme and b) it shouldn't be that hard to get our own free-use version of the location. All we need is a Wikipedian or friend of a Wikipedians near Fleet with a camera who fancies a nice walk in the forest. (I passed quite close to Fleet a few times while I was working myself, unfortunately I'm up in Cambridgeshire now.)

Secondly, I couldn't find a source for the statement "It Is believed she was killed and burried shortly afterward". I've left it in with a {{fact}} tag, if you remember where you saw this information, could you add the source, or tell me where it is and I'll fix the citation? Hopefully you can see how the inline citations work, otherwise I'd be happy to explain it.

Anyway, I think it could go on the front page in the Did You Know section, so I'm going to add it to Template talk:Did you know. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for what you have done on expanding the page. I used the image from the BBC as it showed the police oficers at the scene and I thought that It Illustrated where the body was located and that there was a body at the location. I think you have done a great job with the page and have made the page look more professional and wikified. I will try and locate the quote about the body as I can almost swear that I read It In the masses of Internet pages I searched. I am not quite sure what you are on about with the whole did you know thing but It sounds like quite a good Idea. A little explanation of what It Is all about would be handy as well. Thanks very much for your help on this page I'll find some aproriate award for you. Thanks--Lucy-marie 22:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I congratulate you on spelling honour correctly.--Lucy-marie 22:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you on all counts :-). The "Did you know" section is on the Main Page under today's featured article, and showcases Wikipedia's newest articles. Anything less than five days old, longer than a stub and properly referenced is eligible. You can see my nomination at Template_talk:Did_you_know#August_1. As for the picture of the body's discovery, I just think we need more to be able to claim fair use. With the image of Milly herself, we'll obviously never be able to get a free alternative, so the claim of fair use is very strong. With the picture of the discovery site, we could conceivably get someone to drive out there and take a picture (one that would be a lot higher quality), so our claim is a lot weaker. I've posted a request on Wikipedia:Requested pictures, maybe we'll get lucky. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the article will make the DYK section on the main page?--Lucy-marie 09:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

At time of writing it's just gone up. You should get a message on your talk page soon about it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for yor help. I think It Is now a fitting account of what happend to Amanda and that now the fact are aesily avaliable to the public in one centralised place, rather than being scattered accross the Internet. Thank you for getting the article on the DYK section I think It will now serve as a way for anybody who knew something and is trawling the internet can have their memory jogged. Thanks again for your hard work and taking my original page and turning it into the professional article It Is now.--Lucy-marie 13:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy to have helped, thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha!!!

Blah!!! BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! HAHA DANNY MENDEL WILL TAKE YOU DEAR SIR HAHAHA

Very enlightening...SoaP 23:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

an invitation

seeing as you are a student of economics, and a contributor to the deletion review on lostpedia, i would like to extend an invitation regarding an article there which really needs de-academicisation (if such a clunky term exists!)... i've been involved in trying to make the Economics article there more readable to the average reader... at the moment, i feel, it's way too academic. i don't know if you're a fan of LOST, but this article sorely needs input from people well versed in the discipline. if you're too busy, i fully understand! thanks... (btw, your userpage is really well formatted) --Kaini 03:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't watch Lost, so I really have very little I could add - and if you want to make the page less academic, you really want to find someone who isn't studying it academically. It all looks fine to me, but that's because it's in the same style of what I've been reading for the past two years. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

cool, thanks for your reply! --Kaini 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Content Restore

Hey I've now made a userpage so am just requesting the original content of the page lostpedia as soon as possible. Sorry to ask again on your userpage, but I really wanna see the page after so long trying and wanting to be able to discuss about it. Thanks very much --Nickb123 II 12:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, considering the fuss made I was surprised to see that there was hardly anything there, so I'll just copy it below.

(GFDL notice: content below copied from the Lostpedia article, author attribution is in the deleted edit history of that page)

---

{{Infobox_Website |websitename = Lostpedia |screenshot = <nowiki>[[Image:Lostpedia-website.png|200px|Lostpedia's website on 09 April, 2006]] |commercial = No |type = Reference / Wiki |reg = Optional |owner = Communal |author = You }}</nowiki>

Lostpedia is a an unofficial Lost wiki.

Lostpedia wiki was set up in order to keep track of the numerous mysteries, facts, and theories surrounding ABC's series Lost. We would like this wiki to evolve into a free and open directory of knowledge about Lost.

==External links==

• Lostpedia's Main Page

---

(copying ends)

Apart from the categories and an interwiki commented out "pending interwiki configuration" (which will never happen), that was all there was. Obviously if you want to work on it you're still welcome to copy that to a subpage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that as deleted and reviewd/endorsed keeping this in userspace for more than a short while may be problematic. Just zis Guy you know? 15:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that you were one of the users who had a hand is getting rid of the Lostpedia article, and you then show up when I'm looking into it months later. Its almost like you've got a vendetta --Nickb123 II 17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Who, me or Sam? We both frequent WP:DRV and other such places, what's significant about that? Just zis Guy you know? 20:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That was partly why I restored it on my talk page and not in a user subpage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

I notice one user:Login has been reverting your revberts of Mtheory. I'm not sure I understood those, but assume that you know what you did and, as an admin, had good reason to do so. You had better see to it. --Svartalf 18:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a soxtravaganza over there - see the linked arbitration case for more details. He's already been reverted, I blocked the account. Thanks for letting me know. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing AfD discussions

I don't know it that's your branch, but a guy with only an ISP address is editing the AfD discussion (closed) for Barbara Schwarz see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (third nomination) . I reverted that once, but he keeps doing it, so I'd rather leave it in capable hands, even though I guess the 3 reverts rule would not be held against me in that case. --Svartalf 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I re-reverted and left her (according to the signatures the IP is Ms Schwarz herself) a message on the IP's talk page. A talk page message always works far better than trying to communicate via edit summary, which she may not read. And it isn't vandalism, incidentally, unless she keeps it up it's just a 'newbie error' (if she does keep it up, it's disruption and is indeed blockable, but we don't yet have reason to believe that she will).

Thanks for keeping an eye on this - you should feel free to revert late edits to AfDs without worrying about 3RR. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Signing PRODs

Hi, I thought we were supposed to sign our PROD noms? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't think so. It doesn't say that in WP:PROD, and it looks like unnecessary metadata to me. We don't do it for any other tags (AfD, cleanup, whathaveyou). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, no biggie. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Although the links that I added are not primarily commercial or my "private websites" I do understand that this was not the proper way to contribute to Wikipedia so I shan't do it again. Maybe I will discuss things on different talk pages if I find the courage, for this Troy in England discussion is the source of a lot of emotion on the part of many scholars and also non-scholars because it seems so unbelievable at first notice. Thanks for your patience and your encouragement. 212.123.163.102 11:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On August 6, 2006, a fact from the article Amanda Dowler, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 12:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Award

To Samuel Blannig for making my day.

I herby award Samuel Blannig the ray of sunshine award. He has brightened up my day no end in two ways.
i)Fixing of The Amanda Dowler article
ii)Getting the article put on the fron page of Wikipedia in the did you know section.
You have really made my day and for that you are somebody I will allways come back to with any query or proposal. You found time In you busy admin schedule to fit me In at short notice and to help me out. So for that I award you the ray of sunshine award.--Lucy-marie 13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of my post

There is no support in wikipedia policies for contributions of blocked users to be removed. Please review the removal from AN or be so amiable and re-post the contri elsewhere if you decide that AN is not a suitable place for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.70.5.66 (talk • contribs) .

Blocked users may appeal their block through the {{unblock}} template, the unblock mailing list, by emailing administrators or, if their block is long-term, appealing to the Arbcom or Jimbo Wales. Evasion through sockpuppetry is not permitted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That only means honesty is punished. I could change the IP, I could register another nick and evade that block if I wanted to disrupt. Noone would ever know it's me. Plus I would probably get unblocked if I wanted to, but I don't, as I don't intend to edit wikipedia as an encyclopedia, however, I have 700+ edits and I feel that I should be allowed to post a non-inflammatory, rational comment regarding how things are run on wikipedia on any taklpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.70.5.66 (talk • contribs) .

Honesty would involve either waiting out the block or using the legitimate means of appeal that I described above. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a doppelganger. Please don't hurt me.

If you want to use my account, Son of a Peach can e-mail you my password. Thanks, Sam Blanning 20:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is SoaP, I made this redirect, it was driving me crazy. SoaP 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just blocked the account and deleted the userpages, assuming they were impersonation. But if it was actually yours then I can't see any problem with creating actual redirects in that userspace under your own account. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin!!!

I would like to become an admin. Could you take me under your wing and teach me t3h 1337 4dm1nsh1p? SoaP 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are four things people at WP:RFA like to see, which are fairly easy to achieve:

1. Experience. Usually people like at least six months, preferably more unless you are a mindblowingly amazing person. People like a certain amount of edits as well, but if you deliberately try to increase your edit count, that will show up and you'll get negative votes for it, so it's best just to do your own thing and not worry about whether you're maximising your edit count or not.
2. Varied experience. People like a nice balance between article, Wikipedia:, Talk: and User talk:, because that shows you're involved in the actual writing of the encyclopaedia, the backstage stuff, talking about articles and communicating on a more personal level (respectively). Particularly, most successful candidates will have participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or the other XfDs at the very least. Even better is if you've been closing old AfDs that have resulted in unambiguous 'keep' decisions, as that shows that you have a use for the admin buttons. Vandalism fighting is also valuable experience, as warning vandals will frequently bring you into conflict with them, which will give voters an idea of how you will handle such conflicts as an admin - some will slink away, some will vandalise your userpage, but the trickiest are the ones who will have no idea that they were doing anything wrong.
3. Edit summaries. Looking at your contributions, you don't use them that often, and when you do they're not... particularly illuminating (e.g. [1] [2]). You should almost always use an informative edit summary, even on talk and Wikipedia pages, and even if it's just 'cleanup' or 'reply' or copying the first line of your post. There's a script somewhere at WP:SCRIPTS that forces you to use one before it will let you save your edit.
4. Don't fuck up.

You won't need to think about RfA for another five months of editing at the least, but hopefully that will give you a general idea of how to prepare for it. Let me know if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Number 4...What language from an admin! But thanks for the advice. SoaP 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As per above, there's a lot of criteria for becoming an admin, but talking like a priest isn't one of them :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:) SoaP 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to be an admin...however, I'm not feeling to active for Wiki for some strange reason. It feels kind of like I've fallen behind the expectations for vandal-fighters and most of all, standing at the feet of titanic administrators such as yourself has significantly weakened my resolve to even attempt reversion...sorry. I'll still make an attempt to take a bite out of vandalism.SoaP 23:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

None of us are getting any money for this (except for all the donations Jimbo has squirreled away to his Swiss bank accounts), so you shouldn't do one edit more than you actually enjoy doing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mandy Moore linkspamming...

Thanks very much for sorting that out. I wasn't entirely sure as to what could be done about that guy as he seemed cagey enough to avoid editing frequently enough to avoid both the 3RR and the 'recent vandalism' thing. Much appreciated. Btw, have you also considered blocking User:12.180.244.85? Looking at the edit history, it's obviously the same guy, with the same agenda. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If more spam edits come from that IP, it can be blocked without warning, and probably for a long period as there are no other edits. Otherwise it's a bit pointless as it hasn't edited (at least without an account) since mid-July. We don't block IPs indefinitely because they're swapped about so often, unless they're open proxies. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay mate, fair enough. I'll keep an eye on it though... --Kurt Shaped Box 00:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for prompt action

I appreciate your fast action in restoring the incorrectly deleted article "Miroslaw Vitali". My faith in Wikipedia has been restored! Syrenab 12:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For reverting Penny. I much appreciate it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also, apropos of the same issue, for That's not actually a death threat, she just wants you to die at AN; even as it conveyed an accurate observation, it gave me quite a hearty laugh.  :) Joe 22:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks..

.. for blocking those Open Proxies. :) --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Np. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with user:Kferd73

Gracias. SBHarris 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank Naconkantari, he did the block. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

editing socialism

Hello, I am user jackbirdsong, and recently i stumbled my way into attempting at a more concise and readable article under the heading of socialism. All was well until a user, apparently a recurring problem, completely edited the article into a holy mess. I noticed you blocked (i'm guessing suspended?) that user, and i wanted to express my thanks for that, along with my hope that you will help me to keep an eye on the page, as i am inexperienced in the ways of wikipedia. Thanks again. --Jackbirdsong 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The user in question was banned back in May - see The Middle East Conflict Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and has since created over 50 new accounts to make the same edit over and over again ad nauseam. If you see any more edits by him, please revert them on sight and report the account to WP:AIV without bothering to warn him, though I've semi-protected Socialism so that should keep him off for the moment. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 32	7 August 2006	About the Signpost

Guidance on publicity photos called dangerous	False death information survives for a month in baseball biographies
Wikiversity officially announced by Wales	Single-user login, stable versioning planned soon
Wales, others announce new projects at Wikimania	Wikipedia satire leads to vandalism, protections
Early history of Wikipedia reviewed	Report from the Polish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

new entries

Hallo Samuel

For the first time now I contributed to two articles: "Iman Wilkens" and "Where troy once stood". Would you check them to see if the're allright and as English is not my native language could you check on that as well?

Regards --Antiphus 05:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Iman Wilkens looks ok, though it had some basic style errors which I've tried to correct - pages should not start with sections, only the use of the article title in the lead section should be bolded, references and external links get their own sections, and with people, their categories need to be 'sorted' so they appear under the letter of their surname, not their forname. You can see what I've changed here. Don't worry - the Wikipedia Manual of Style is massive, and best learnt on the go. I've never read any of it. I also expanded your reference - you don't need all the information that I put in there, but there definitely should be an ISBN number or equivalent for any books cited, so readers can go and find the book for themselves.

Where Troy Once Stood, I'm sorry to say, isn't a good encyclopaedia article at the moment, as it suffers from two core problems - verification and neutrality. With verification, I'm talking about sentences like "ridiculed by experts and reviewers" - what experts and reviewers? "On the other hand his books are high on the most-wanted-books list and are sold second hand for high sums of money" - what list, sez who? These are good claims of notability, but must be backed up or they mean nothing. The article should cite print or web articles to back up the claims, e.g. print or references to the reviews that have been ridiculing the book. An example of the citation style to use is in Iman Wilkens, and you can find instructions on how to use at m:Cite.php.

As regards neutrality, it accepts unquestionably that the claims in the book are true: "the false assumption", "in this book it is made clear", etc. Encyclopaedias have to be written from a neutral point of view, and this isn't. While it's perfectly acceptable for an encyclopaedia to repeat an author's claims and how he came to that conclusion, it can't say that they're absolutely true, especially with an idiosyncratic view such as this book's. They can be covered adequately while still not taking sides. It doesn't need too much work to correct it - for instance my first example can be made acceptably neutral just by removing the word 'false'.

I hope that helps and that you can try to correct some of the problems with the second article - if you don't someone else will, and it may not be as much to your liking as if you did it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've edited both articles, improving on verification and neutrality but I think that stylewise Where Troy Once Stood needs some more adjusting, which I'll do in time.--Antiphus 18:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good in terms of verifiability and neutrality. I made a minor fix to Where Troy Once Stood, adding a category and the name of the page in bold to the first sentence (all lead paragraphs should contain that if possible). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability

I disagree strongly with your reverting my edit. There is a dispute, the entry I made was as neutral as I knew how to make it, with links to both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Non-notability, not just the former. Your comment that "notability is still an accepted reason" is untrue. While accepted by some, it is by no means accepted by all, which is the point of the dispute. I'd like you to take the initiative to revert to the earlier edit; I'm not interested in starting an edit war.—Chidom ^talk  21:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea that Wikipedia should not have any notability criteria is on the fringes, being generally agreed to violate WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, as well as making WP:V and WP:NPOV in vanity articles impossible to maintain if it ever happened. Your edit made the length of the paragraph in question twice the length of any of the other paragraphs, and is an example of m:instruction creep. On this page in particular, the fringe dispute is not worth going into, just as we don't mention in the paragraph two steps above that the use of bolded 'keep' or 'delete' is condemned by some editors as a violation of 'AfD is not a vote'. Editors reading this page aren't looking for the ins and outs of the various debates surrounding deletion - they want to know how to participate, and the root page of WP:AFD should tell them that and only that. Anyone who wants to know about the arguments surrounding notability will find them at Wikipedia talk:Notability and other forums. I'm not reverting. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I re-edited the paragraphs with an explanation as to why on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for Deletion page; I've tried to present a more balanced view. I still (obviously) disagree with a blanket statement that notability is a good argument; however, I have not said (nor does my edit say) that Wikipedia should not have any notability criteria. I'm also not sure that having a paragraph be longer or shorter than others is a good qualification for its inclusion or deletion. I'm not known for my brevity, however, so if you can come up with a balanced presentation with fewer words, that would be great. —Chidom ^talk  03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion (actually mainly a repeat of what I said here, as I think it still applies). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rmrfstar's RFA

Hi. I was interested in the comment you left on Kelly Martin's talk page. Can I solicit your participation in the discussion on the RfA's talk page? --Guinnog 12:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah

thank you merci for your kind words. can you help me succeed here.FrenchDude 00:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The tips I gave you at WP:ANI cover the most important things. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mop vs Flaming sword

I really liked the comment you made here. I entirely agree and I really liked the way you put it. Friday (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your powerful and well phrased defense of civility and humility on Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2 and Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin2; one of the few you somehow don't have on your user page yet. AnonEMouse (squeak) 11:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I really had a good chuckle on that one, too. Ah, I guess times have changed these days due to inflation. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverse psychology?

I wasn't using reverse psychology to get the admins to do what I want; I was making a statement about the futility of reporting anything. For too long I've seen admins do absolutely nothing about repeat vandals (always claiming "they haven't done enough yet, so it's not worth doing anything about them", causing me to have to report them 3 more times to get anything done) and even less about the ones who are trying to destroy the neutrality of Ayn Rand related articles. It took over a year just to get one of the people who was making biased edits banned, and he wasn't even the worst offender (Laszlo, the actual worst offender, is still allowed to continue his vandalism). There's no reverse psychology in stating this; there's only the truth about Wikipedia's weaknesses being pointed out. -- LGagnon 04:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's very little point in trying to make a statement at WP:AIV, because it will be removed as soon as it is recognised as being in the wrong place. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As per norm?

What dose it mean on a request for deletion when a user writes as per norm? I have never seen It fully explained and seams to be a way of sombody registering a delete (usually) against a page without proper explanation. So plaese can you expalian to me what as per norm means?--Lucy-marie 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "nom" rather than "norm" - it's an abbreviation for "Per nominator". So it's a valid explanation as long as the nominator had a good reason in the first place. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

since you seem to very reasonable

Based on your comments on the RfC, I thought I might direct your attention to WP:RECALL. It's a new policy submission I put up earlier. rootology (T) 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a full reply on the Wikipedia talk page when I have more time, but I can tell you now that I don't like the idea. The main problem is that if you block 26 users who at any point reach the threshhold, then you're vulnerable. Anyone monitoring WP:AN/3RR or WP:AN/AE would very quickly be subject to pissed-off users calling for blood. "Users in good standing" means nothing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on WT:RECALL. You probably won't believe me when I say that before I set fingers to keys, I was wondering whether I was going to think of anything more to say than the above paragraph :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a good reply... both of them, and thank you. I'll reply back over there... :) rootology (T) 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Inkdeath / Inkdawn

Hi, I'm Free-Encyclopedia. You might remember me because recently you pointed out to me that my username had been complained about by another Wikipedia user. Anyway, I created the article 'Inkdeath,' about the upcoming Cornelia Funke book. However, that was the working title. The recently released official title is 'Inkdawn.' I want to know how to change the title of the article without changing the content. I would appreciate if you could do it this time. But I would like to know how to change the title of the article, so I can do it in the future. Because since I started writing this entry, P. Diddy has officially changed his name three times. Please reply as soon as possible, please.Free-encyclopedia 02:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. All you have to do is click the 'move' button at the the top of every page. Incidentally, where did you hear that the title was being changed? I found some forum chatter on Google but no 'official' announcement. With things like this it's a good idea to cite your source in the article if possible. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the 'Inkspell' page. It says the title was changed there. In an interview a few months back, Funke said the working title of her book was 'Inkdeath.' So I checked the 'Inkspell' page out of curiousity, and I found the title was different. To double check, Funke said so herself on her website. The German portion of the website; I would assume she makes the same announcement on the English part. January 2008. It says sometime in 2007 on the 'Inkspell' page, but I didn't feel like changing it.Free-encyclopedia 21:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see - when I did my Google search I was searching for the English titles, not the German ones. By the way, when you post a reply please edit the current section of the talk page rather than starting a new one - just click 'edit' next to the header. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Bob Ratchet

He knew perfectly well what he was doing, and made six edits plus an attack page: ALL VANDALISM. Warnings were gonna do no good based on his actions. --How dare you? 01:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We usually try to assume that warnings will do some good. With this user, the instant block was reasonable, but personally I would have given an 'only warning' along the lines of {{test4im}} first. They do work - often a user will indeed know perfectly well what he is doing but will stop once threatened with blocking. They're also almost always required before blocking if the vandalism is coming from an IP address and not an account (to avoid collateral damage).

Also, you might want to consider changing your username if you're going to be helping with problem users. It's quite confrontational in that sort of context. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for reporting the vandal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Brand X vandal back again

Norman3412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back and vandalizing Brand X and related articles. He just created a fake John Goodsall entry, which I've cleaned up (by wiping any sort of false information). I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of his contributions are also vandalism and unsourced edits. I thought you'd want to know (unless, of course, you already did). --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Fred Bauder already blocked him as a sockpuppet of General Tojo - I've changed the sockpuppet tag and rolled back the rest of his edits. May have caught some good ones as I did, but if there were any that raised an article to FA quality, I'll eat my hat. Certainly I'm not leaving allegations of paedophilia in bios of living people for the sake of some spelling changes. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_10

As an administrator, I expected you to actually READ my arguments and discuss and debate them with me. Did you do that? No, you went and said "OMG, Look at all the Wikinuubs, lol!", and then completely disregarded all of my comments. As an administrator, I expected you to be above that; apparently I was wrong. I no longer believe that you are administrator material, and will most likely appeal my case. Ameise -- chat 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you can give me a reason as to why you completely disregarded mine and several other people's arguments. Ameise -- chat 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review reviews process, not content, as I already said. I read the comments (though as I said, I sympathise if others don't bother) and none were compelling enough to justify another AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides the facts that exactly 4 people voted, no one was notified that an AfD was in process while we were loaded down in development of the software, and that the same 4 people that voted to delete it also are the ones who continually try to keep information about it off of the Star Wars Galaxies article? Ameise -- chat 16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should any of that be a reason to overturn? Article subjects don't decide whether their articles are kept on Wikipedia, and I would consider it pretty obvious that if you consider something not worth mentioning in the most directly related article then it doesn't merit its own article. By appearing to say "We weren't told and we were busy so we should be allowed another chance to stuff the ballot" you practically make the case against relisting yourself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Who was going to stuff it? I -never- told anyone to register to stuff a ballot, I was referring to myself and the other main article editor; unless you are accusing me of being an SPA. For that matter, when did I -ever- say that I considered it not worth mentioning in the most directly related article; if you actually had read what I had just said, I stated that the ones who voted to delete the article were also the ones who deleted all information about it IN that article. Please read what I say in the future. Ameise -- chat 20:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for updating the DYKes, not to mention using another one of my suggestions and a beautiful photo by Egil Kvaleberg! It's so good to finally see the "European" update taking place! I don't know whether you updated the DYK seeing my comments in the admin notice board, but I am still wondering about the "recent articles" archive the template links to - they are neither recent nor do they contain an archive of DYKes, as those are archived at the bottom of the DYK template talk page. Is that like it should work? Bravada, talk - 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I did see the notice, thanks for that. I think we may be alright for the moment, as there's currently enough items that two updates a day will probably include all of the eligible items - when there are ten or twelve items in one daily section it starts to look daunting, but two updates will take care of all them, and that's assuming they're all eligible. Best to leave the notice up just in case, though.

With Wikipedia:Recent additions, I believe the archive on T:TDYK is periodically archived there - Wikipedia:Did you know says "Please archive expired items to the list of archived items until they are stable before moving them to Wikipedia:Recent additions". I'm not sure what 'until they are stable' means, I've never done any of the moves. You could ask on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from User

Hey Sam thanks for your reply to my post on the Village Pump page. User: Camilo Sanchez

MyWikiBiz discussion

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award

Samuel Blanning, thanks for signing up for the Esperanza User Page Contest. The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.

Please drop by the contest page for contest updates and questions. Take care, and good luck! May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Booth

Hi,

Did you delete or protect the page on Richard Booth?

Why? Is the reason recorded anywhere?

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.3.115 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Both. The article was recreated three times by its subject, User:Richardbooth. Once in June, and three months later it was deleted after an Articles for deletion discussion. He then recreated it in December, despite having participated in the previous discussion, and it was deleted immediately as a recreation. He then recreated it again in March, which spawned another AfD discussion, where no-one appeared to notice the previous deletions (and Booth certainly didn't acknowledge them, despite being aware of at least the first nomination). I closed that discussion, and closed as 'delete' for the reasons you can find at the top of that page, which included its repeated recreation by the subject. I then protected it to prevent further recreations, as there seems little doubt that Booth would have recreated the article after a couple of months after the AfD as he did before.

For future reference, when an admin protects or deletes a page he should leave a reason in the page's log. You can find that here, or by going to the page, clicking 'history' and clicking 'View logs for this page', which contains links to both deletion discussions (I screwed one of them up but you can still copy and paste it into the search or URL field). Hope that helps. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

someone messing with an article

Hallo Samuel

Someone made me aware of a grammatical mistake I had made in my Iman Wilkens article which I welcome of course but he did it in a manner I really dislike. (He put a very funny? line in the article about Troy being located at the "Four Went Ways"). I thanked him for his lecture and asked him to repair the article and I suppose I'll give him the opportunity to do so but isn't this a form of vandalism? Regards Antiphus 19:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

His edits seem good faith to me. Grammar correction certainly isn't vandalism, and while inserting incorrect information is vandalism if done deliberately, if it's done accidentally in good faith then it's just a content dispute matter.

He says on his talk page that he read it in news reports, so you should feel empowered to ask him for a citation to a specific report. Otherwise, feel free to remove that bit of the article as unverified, especially if the book doesn't actually mention it (but don't do a wholesale revert unless you feel his grammar edits were all wrong as well). It's possible that someone read the book and deduced that the area Wilkens claims as Troy now contains a service station. I did a search for "four went ways" and "troy" on Factiva and found nothing, myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You were right; there was no cause for my distrust. He agreed that I'd re-edit the line he contributed and this improved the article. Best Wishes Antiphus 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Brand X vandal

Hey Samuel,

Just noticed that you banned the IP address of the Brand X vandal (User:82.35.114.39) that I mentioned on User:Elkman's page. Just wanted to thank you, as I spend a good hour each day just reverting this guy's edits (I've nominated about 2-3 pages he's made for AfD). I appreciate the quick action on this.

All the best,

--Ataricodfish 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're quite out of the woods yet. Toadfish7530 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still at work on John Goodsall and related articles. I don't think he's been blocked yet, so I think a block (and a painful LART) are in order. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just noticed and began to revert some edits. I've reported it on the vandalism in process page. This guy needs a hobby. --Ataricodfish 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He's back again: Jack2529 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did it again to Brand X and John Goodsall. I'm beginning to lose all patience with this situation -- and with Wikipedia as a whole. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. One thing I would recommend is to stop leaving him messages on his talk page, it only encourages them. Just list them at WP:AIV and say 'sockpuppet of User:Kenwood 3000, please block immediately without warning'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tally by admin/non-admin

How would this be?

Admins - 3 support, 5 oppose _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Non-admins - 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral

Now it's lined up. I wanted your input beore I put it up though. It's not a big deal, just a statistic. Karwynn (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the format I'm worried about. (If this is something to do whether you think the order implies importance, you've still got admins first by Western reading standards.) Its existence implies that it matters how many non-admins support the proposal compared with admins, which it doesn't. As they're equal at the moment it's a bit moot, but if there was a significant difference (or even a difference of more than 2 or 3), it would plant the seeds of a pointless "OMG admins don't want to be accountable" vs "OMG non-admins are a lynch mob" argument. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my intention, I jsut wanted to get some stats. Not imply this or that. But if you're uncomfortable with it, I'll leave it off. But I'll recall you later!!!!!  ;-) Karwynn (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's an interesting statistic, but I think those who are interested should count it themselves (it's not exactly burdensome, it just takes three minutes with Special:Listusers). The prominent display of it and the apparent obligation to update it is a problem, in my opinion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 33	14 August 2006	About the Signpost

Editing for hire leads to intervention	Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
Report from the Chinese Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Was this really necessary?

Was your recent gross personal attack really necessary? [3] --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps at some point you'll realise that the way you presumably feel now is how others feel when you show such utter disrespect to them. I doubt it, but I'm certainly not going to moderate my manner of speech for the sake of your feelings. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a saying that when you wrestle in the mud with a pig, you both end up dirty but the pig enjoys it. Do you want a list of diffs where I have been incivil to Tony? I mean really incivil, not his hyper-sensitive-only-when-it-comes-to-himself version. It does no good. - brenneman ^{L} 13:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam, you're not helping here. It's not a matter of my feelings, it's about your gross, unprovoked and unwarranted personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, perhaps you should take a break. You're starting to argue in circles. You state twice that you have no issues with rude, arrogant behavior, but as soon as someone does likewise to you, you take offense. rootology (T) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Tony, I've no interest in pretending that I'm able to "help" anything, when the only person that can "help" the situation is you yourself. The situation I mean is that more and more people are starting to return the contempt they read in your condescending proclamations, insults and accusations of "trolling" so frequent that none of us know what you even mean by it anymore. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Again Rootology mischaracterises my statements. Arrogance, condescension and whatnot, are character traits often associated with people who speak plainly and without hiding their meaning. This is not the same as incivility. Far from it; mere bluntness is not uncivil, otherwise we really would be going around in circles.

As for you, Sam, you know better than to excuse your personal attack by purporting to read contempt in the words of another. To compound it as you do here, by adding accusations of misusing the word "troll" and engaging in insults is not helpful to the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this must be one of those irregular verbs. "I speak plainly", "You make a personal attack", "He/she/it trolls". Whatever. "Trolling", "bollocks", "complete and utter bollocks", "trolling" - if that's 'plain speaking' then this is Dutch, and I've never had an affinity for brick walls so I'm not going to bother repeating myself if you've got nothing more than empty accusations to tire me with. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I make no excuse for pointing out when editors are trolling (particularly when, as below, when they really should know better). Now you don't seem to have quite gotten the message that I'm complaining about a gross personal attack that you made. This worries me greatly. Do you think it's okay to engage in that kind of corrosive attack? --Tony Sidaway 08:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fallacy of many questions. Question limits possible replies to "Yes, it's okay to engage in corrosive attacks" or "No, what I said was not okay". A classic example of a cheap device also known as "Are you still beating your wife", and you insult my intelligence if you think I'm going to reply to it. Try again. Or don't, I can't imagine it making any difference. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal

I've reverted the removal of the above phrase, and redacted with some red text and a note underneath that I'd done so. This of course means I edited a signed comment of yours. Revert and/or smack me with a trout at your pleasure. - brenneman ^{L} 07:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Aaron to stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 08:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jihad Beauchman

Hey Sam, could you expand on how you came to the delete conclusion on this one? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I saw your fabled 'rough consensus' for deletion in the weight of opinion, and what really clinched it for me was the detailed discussion between you, Wookiepedian and Tracksharked, the outcome of which was demonstrated by the two 'delete' opinions which followed it (one of which explicitly mentioned it). It's the sort of AfD that makes a closing admin's job really quite pleasant, as I didn't have to gaze into my crystal ball to imagine whether any of the unreplied-to keep arguments would have changed the outcome. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just rather surprised that, you know, a consensus can be reached when people specifically ignore facts. I dunno. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think people did. I'd need to be pretty certain of myself to pull a 'keep' or 'no consensus' result out of that discussion. Given a significant majority, full debate, no change in direction after debate, I can't think of a less clear result. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I've assigned you to coach Philc 0780, and your fellow coach is Shreshth91. Thank you for signing up as a coach and enjoy :) Let me know if you have any questions. Petros471 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just thought I'd drop a line to say hi. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 18:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

New Category

Hello to the bestest admin on the Wiki. This is SoaP, and I was going to tell you about a new template I made - User:Son of a Peach/BlockUsername. It's meant for user intervetntion without the power to block. I was wondering if you could take care of Category:Wikipedia inappropriate username blocks to enforce for me, that's just great...thanks again, SoaP 18:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Schilling and Finnerty AfDs

The inclusion of the two board members in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders discussion may have confused people. Most of the 'keep' comments were made while Alansohn was denying that the provisions of WP:BIO the articles failed even existed. Because no consensus was reached, I renominated the two seperately. I did not know at the time that only 45 minutes had passed, but as I looked at it more, I saw that there had been no effort made since the articles were created to meet Wikipedia standards. Even after the AfD was started, and the provisions that applied were made known, the articles lay untouched. Alansohn is claiming bad faith nom, but I stand by it. Especially given that the author was not spurred to do any improvement on any of the nominated articles after they were nominated. DarkAudit 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right and sort-of-not-really right at the same time. While it's very much acceptable to renominate an article for deletion after the previous result was 'no consensus', especially a stub, it's a good idea to leave at least two weeks in between nominations. I think Alansohn made a very good explanation of why this is a good idea when he said: "I had hoped to [expand the articles] after the AfD was complete, but I was not around in the 38 minute period (check article history) before your new AfD was created". You point out that the articles were not expanded for five months before the AfD, but the thing about AfDs is that in drawing editors of all stripes to the articles, expansion frequently results from them. Sometimes editors choose to expand articles during the AfD, but they might just as reasonably decide that if editors judge that the subjects aren't notable, there's not a lot of point writing articles on them, so they will wait until the AfD closes before expanding.

So for the moment, personally I would follow Alansohn's advice and withdraw the nominations for a few weeks at least. Even if these articles should be deleted, there's no great rush to do it as soon as possible. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

'After the AfD was complete' places a large assumption that the final result would be keep. The idea of an AfD period (as I know it) is to give that time for the article to be fixed, not after. It's not as if I tagged them as speedy delete. There has already been five months for the articles to be expanded, and they weren't. I doubt that they would pass WP:BIO, anyway. County officials do not meet the notability standards based on merely being county officials. DarkAudit 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes five days is enough, but the person only needs to be busy for that period to need longer, or, as Alan said, they may want to see the outcome of the notability discussion - and Alan would have been justified in thinking that the outcome there was 'keep', given that the separate Joe Kelly AfD had resulted in 'keep'. And instantly renominating an article just makes editors feel a bit irritated no matter how good the reason. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That 'keep' result is suspect. There were claims of notability, but it was in a google search, and no one saw fit to actually put it in the article. Even after the AfD, the article is only that he's a county board member. DarkAudit 12:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Google searches are suspect if no-one actually points out any reliable sources that resulted from them. But if you're renominating based on the fact that promises of expansion failed to be realised, it really is a good idea to wait longer than a few minutes to renominate, so no-one can say that you didn't give people a chance (which is what they're doing now). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I renominated based on the 'no consensus', and the fact that those choosing to keep these two did so while Alansohn was denying the existance of the provisions of WP:BIO that the articles failed. I eventually had to quote them verbatim. After that, the debate ground to a halt. DarkAudit 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think your opinion that county officials don't merit encyclopaedia articles has merit. I just don't think you're going to turn these AfDs into being close to a delete result this soon after the last nomination, however. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

new request for expansion help Gymslip

This page has been bothering me for quite some time now and now It has been re-written. I do not like the way It has been re-written but Im not one for reverting something just because I dont like It. So could you please bo so kind as to help me out once again in expanding an article.--Lucy-marie 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm sure you can understand that I don't know any more about gymslips than is in the article, nor do I have a good idea where I'd read up about them, and I'm quite happy in my ignorance :-). I've stuck in a few bits and pieces I managed to pull from a Google Books and a Google web search, and given it a general cleanup in the process. I managed to find some verification for the facts inserted today as well. That may be the best I can do, but I'll have another look tomorrow (it's tantalisingly close to Did You Know length). It's a shame that the previous picture turned out to be copyright. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded a very old Image on to the pgae. The copyright status of the Image is completly unknown, but it dose portray what is being shown.Thank you for correctly refrencing the page for me I still struugle with that.--Lucy-marie 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Please help with the copyrighting of the gymslip old image. This Image can be found on the Gymslip page.--Lucy-marie 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't have anything to go on. Where did you find the image? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This image was found on a group called tenbra tigers and I have no way of verifying what kind of copyrght status is involved do you think a fair use could be claimed?
http://www.smartgroups.com/vault/TenbraTigers/Public?viewtype=Detailed&shownum=20&sort=type&dir=asc&startrow=1
click on school_60s.jpg --Lucy-marie 21:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that its filename includes '60s' doesn't fill me with confidence that it's in the public domain. If that means that the photo was taken in the 1960s it's almost certainly still under copyright. I'll send an email to the owner of that group and see if they can be of any help. If it turns out they own the copyright they might still be willing to release it under GFDL. Fair use almost certainly can't be claimed, partly because we wouldn't be illustrating anything in the picture specifically, just the item of clothing in general, and partly because we can't claim that there's no alternative, as it would theoretically be trivial for someone here to, say, buy one off Ebay and get a picture taken of someone wearing it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying hello

I have come to say you hello. Do you remember me? I am sure not until you come to my page. I just came to say you hello and thanks for helping me on that difficult day. In case of any problem, I shall come to you again for help. I was doing serious studies and so could not come for last three months. I hope to come at least for few days in a week. Thanks again and again. --Bootblack 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Since you were doing your studies we got some improvements to the blocking mechanism that allows accounts to edit from some blocked IPs, so hopefully you won't get autoblocked as often as back then. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the new development. --Bootblack 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Gymslip

On 17 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gymslip, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

An exceptional rewrite. Well done Sam. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 12:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No probs, done. -- Samir धर्म 12:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Am I correct in assuming you added the fact from Resica Falls Scout Reservation to the DYK page? If so, thanks! --evrik 14:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I hope you like the fact I pulled from the article, like Petaholmes the original submission left me a bit cold. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am happy it got featured! --evrik 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award

Greetings, Samuel Blanning. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to Buchanan-Hermit for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.

If you'd like to participate in the contest again, check by the contest page in a few days and sign up. See you around. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hey, good to hear from you guys, unfortunately, I have been away on work for a most of this week, and I may be going again very soon, so I may not be able to speak to you guys for a while, but will keep you updated if I dont go. Speak soon! Philc _T^E_C^I 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Doom 3 Edit

The reason i edited the "Doom 3" page was because it originally said it was released worldwide, apart from Russia, in October 2004. My apologies for any mix ups Ryan

Moby Dick's article ban - projectspace?

You write:

"Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues." [4] Does this include Articles for Deletion discussions related to those issues? Cool Cat believes the diff above is part of a pattern of harrassment on AfDs, according to a post of his on the admins' incidents noticeboard. The simplest way to sort this out in my view would be to confirm whether his article ban does or should cover projectspace pages. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're apparently conflating the remedies. The article ban is in article space only. The remedies concerning harassment apply everywhere. One edit isn't harassment, but a pattern of dogging an editor's footsteps, if it developed, might be harassment. --Tony Sidaway 12:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not conflating the two remedies. Cool Cat believes remedy 2/3 has been breached - as remedy 2/3 is very difficult to 'prove' in this case I believe it would be far simpler if remedy 1 covered projectspace, which seems to me reasonable to ask clarification for if Moby's editing needs to be restricted when it comes to Turkish/Kurdish-related issues. Is your statement that the article ban only applies to articlespace the Arbcom's answer? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I assume Sam Korn has answered that question for me in his reply on RFAR. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your a riot

I don't care what everyone else says your a hoot. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 34	21 August 2006	About the Signpost

Politician's staff criticizes Wikipedia after being caught editing it	Board of Trustees elections continue with call for candidates
Report from the Swedish Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Taco Bell menu Afd

Hey Sam, your closure of Taco Bell menu has been contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 21. Cheers, trialsanderrors 06:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Heyup admin!

Hey dude, sorry I had to rush off, but I'm back now and I've got my page. So how does it go from here? Philc _T^E_C^I 22:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish_merchant_community_in_18th_century_Cadiz

This article was VfD and the result was merge but insofar this has not taken place? Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The AfD indicated that a merge might be preferable to a standalone article, but in the end AfD does not have any say in whether a merge takes place or not. It's up to those who supported the article being kept so it could be merged, or anyone else, to actually do it.

That said, the content has actually been merged. It's under, for some reason, 'Major landmarks'. I've completed the merge by turning Irish merchant community in 18th century Cadiz into a redirect and adding its reference to Cádiz, but frankly I don't see the relevance of the paragraph as it stands - it's certainly not about a major landmark in the way that the other sub-sections it's with are. Anyone who edits the article can remove it or try to place it somewhere more in context if they like - for that matter anyone can revert the redirect and restore it as a standalone article. The AfD's relevance ended when it was closed and the article, for whatever reason, was kept. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Exactly my thoughts. I just found it quite odd too. Have a nice day. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 01:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:InterestedParticipant

Given his latest edit summary of "Nobody cares about your uninformed opinions on Homelessness. You're talking out of your ass, you're a little punk dirtbag kid who has no discipline in his life." on my talk page, I think you can ban him now. --tjstrf 01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks very much for that. Of course, now you just have to ban his IP, since he's evading block that way... *rollseyes* --tjstrf 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's the same guy. Not sure enough to block, anyway. As the IP appears static looking at its edit history, and it's been the same for the past few hours, if it was him using that IP it should have been autoblocked. I've warned him about adding too many tags, though. If you'd like solid proof one way or the other you might try a request for Checkuser. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe not. But the appearance of one directly after the other, and their tag-team reverting on Interested's talk page, and their similar language (sophisticated wiki-isms with no application to the subject) would suggest otherwise. (or at least meatpuppetry) Either way, if it is the same guy I'm sure he'll be independantly ban-worthy momentarily. --tjstrf 01:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360 region list

I think you need to take a look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_26#26_August_2006

I'm new to wikipedia but I am learning fast. I think you should review what I have to say and provide any counterpoints if you would like to. Otherwise please help me to develop this into a good article. I think my main point will hold that the alt.binaries.games.xbox360 www.abgx.net group is very reliable as a source. Either they can be the secondary source with the games as the primary source, or they can be the primary source with other websites being the secondary. I have carefully went over the original research page to make sure that this is not in violation. There are also several other sites that have this information and either update it themselves or get the info from abgx.net. I also know people there so if you feel that it is some sort of permissions violation I can get proof that it's not.

Thanks for letting me know of the DRV. I have nothing to add to my closing summary at the moment but will watch the review for further comments. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:WikiWoo

Not much to say on this beyond a heartfelt thanks. I was pretty certain this user had no intention of reforming himself. I will be keeping an eye on his favorite subjects as I think there is a fair chance we'll see some sockpuppets, given previous behavior. Anyway, many thanks for the decisive action, Gwernol 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

annon user block request.

sam the following user 66.141.168.105 has vandalised the European Union three time please can you block this nutcase from its vandalism. The links to the vandalism is shown below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union&diff=72469263&oldid=72346912
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union&diff=72469550&oldid=72469330
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union&diff=72469806&oldid=72469660
--Lucy-marie 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't vandalised in a while - generally we only block if warnings don't stop them (which they usually do). If they do vandalise even after {{test4}} has been posted on their talk page, WP:AIV will generally give you a quicker response than I can. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:IPUser

The anon friendly WHOIS template.. exists now, just thought I'd let you know. Very similar to IPvandal, if you like it, spread it around. Happy editing.--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 35	28 August 2006	About the Signpost

A note from the editor
Interviews with Board of Trustees candidates	Wikimedia Foundation CFO resigns
Wikimania recap	Report from the Spanish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan mail

Just a quick note in admiration of your outside view on the Kelly Martin RfC - it was short, pithy and to the point. I also entirely agree with your sentiment that it is unacceptable to have policy decisions made at a gathering of about 500 users. But then, of course, I didn't attend Wikimania, and I'm not even an admin, so obviously my opinions don't matter... David Mestel^(Talk) 07:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTD Studios

Hi Samuel,

I probably should made this clear sooner at the top of the AFD, but I was close to withdrawing my nomination on the MTD Studios article alone (but not on the movies) because Dodgem4s (talk • contribs) was starting to incorporate it into his series on the Florida Film Industry which I do believe is notable. Could you please undelete it or would I have to send this to WP:DRV despite being the AFD nominator? --  Netsnipe  ►  13:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please clarify - do you want the information so it can be merged into Florida Film Industry, or do you want the deletion completely overturned and the original article restored? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like the deletion of MTD Studios overturned. Actually, what are your thoughts on the matter? During nomination I couldn't establish the notability of MTD Studios by itself, but as a part of the Florida Film Industry series it'd be a borderline and I'm a bit wary of biting Dodge4ms who does appear more and more of a genuine writer rather than a self-promoter as I suspected at first. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that you weren't the only editor arguing for deletion. Numerous other editors argued for deletion, and the fact that you've changed your mind doesn't nullify their opinions. You can take it to deletion review if you like, and they may find it a good enough reason to overturn - certainly I wouldn't mind if that was the case.

I'm glad that you can assume such good faith on the part of Dodge, but personally single-purpose accounts flooding an AfD always leave a very bad taste in my mouth, as did the extensive link farming to other articles - my favourite was this gratuitious paragraph about Black Zone in an article about a car which was going to appear in it - note that Zone is slated to be released in 2007, so I don't see who could have added that detailed information apart from the film's makers. Apart from links like those and wikilinks from lists, the articles, along with Michael Thomas Dunn, had many of the characteristics of a walled garden, and I'm not sure how you think that can be remedied after recreation. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll inform him of his options. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Art Mastering

• Sam, it seems wrong or unethical that you deleted an article in the field that you admittedly have no expertise. I believe that it would have been more appropriate to recuse yourself and allow another senior editor to make this decision, if you know that this is not your field of expertise.
• Additionally you deleted the only section in the entire Audio mastering article that had some kind of supprt in the press and you left the unsupported reminder unchanged. Sorry but this simply feels wrong.--R. Watts 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by 'support in the press', but if you're claiming that the paragraph was verified by reliable sources, the only article linked to mentions the Art Mastering studio but does not refer to 'artmastering' as a concept. It uses the term solely to refer to the company, which is, I believe, all it has ever been used to refer to except perhaps by the company itself. (Another external link says "Mastering Your Music Online- Article" but links to the root of a website, so I and everyone else have no idea where the 'article' is, what it's called, what it contains etc, so I don't know if that is meant to be 'support in the press' as well. Without a proper citation, it is definitely not.)

  You can ask for a review of my closing of the AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you've obviously read my post to Hankwang you already know that I have no further say at what happens to the paragraph in audio mastering - I had the option of either merely dewikilinking the paragraph, or removing it entirely, and I felt it preferable to remove the paragraph, but I leave further editing up to those that regularly edit the article.

  The fact that audio mastering is not my subject area is not relevant. The key to inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and if I read the links presented, and they give me no indication that 'artmastering' is a widely accepted and documented concept in the field of audio mastering (as opposed to a PR buzzword), then I am and anyone else is free to remove paragraphs claiming otherwise. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

LTA pages

Enjoy using the LTA page while you can, Doc Glasgow is proposing to delete them all since they are useless. pschemp | talk 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins can see deleted pages anyway; Sammy can enjoy it till the cows come home. SoaP 16:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

IP vs Account vandals

Hello. I saw that you fulfilled the block request that I submitted. I noticed that you mentioned in the edit summary that it should have been listed as an IPvandal instead of an account. I just wanted you to know that I had made the request using VandalProof, which is noted as not using the IPvandal template. Do I need to report these manually in the future (to use the right template) or is it OK to keep on as I have? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the only reason I mentioned that it was an IP, not an account, was that you described it as a 'vandal only account', which would usually merit an instant indefinite block. As it was an IP I couldn't do this, so I felt it should be pointed out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, Great. Thanks for the info! I'll remember that next time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)