User talk:Samuel Blanning/January2007

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.

SummerThunder

Sounds good. Also check this out: User talk:Khoikhoi/Archive 22#Arghh...... Khoikhoi 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you might also consider notifying User:Ran about this. Khoikhoi 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bayer Leverkusen

Why was Bayer leverkusen protected? Kingjeff 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Serial disruption by an anon in the 217.x.x.x range, adding false information and using a dynamic IP to thwart simple blocks, unfortunately makes it necessary to prevent editing by IPs and new accounts for a while. I actually unprotected it today, then had to reprotect it when he came straight back. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Now going on other clubs - see 217.230.51.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Agathoclea 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Still, not frequent enough yet that we need to try a rangeblock, I think. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I am admined I think I can deal with it fast enaugh, when he hits my watchlist. I am just surprised that the football wikiproject does not take a more active interest, but I might ask Kingjeff to keep an eye out as he has far more football clubs on his watchlist. Agathoclea 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

dyk

Backlogged.Bakaman 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Romani ite domum

You've not done a proper merge-LoB incorporates none of the text from the detailed Romani ite domum article. An actual merge is where you put the text of the one article into the other. What you've done is a redirect. Please do an actual merge as was discussed. Chris 19:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Check again. The "Synopsis" section already covers the scene in as much detail as is necessary, and I added to "Cultural references" the bit about the graffiti artist that was in the external link. That was what there was to merge, all else was repetition. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
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 07:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Beard Liberation Front on DYK

On 4 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beard Liberation Front, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

— ERcheck (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

What sort of nerd are you, Just because I have created only 2 pages, and do not have as good user page as you; you say I've done the thing again. It was already up there, and she should have deleted it herself. What are you, her bodygaurd?

Any chance you could give me a hint as to what you're talking about, since I last posted on your talk page over two months ago, and you already replied to that? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting my page back to normal, after it got vandalised at Christmas. I owe you one, Cs-wolves 02:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Np. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Backyard Burial

I'm new here, very. I'm not entirely sure how this site works yet in the sense of it having a very intensive and confusing judicial system to someone that hasn't posted articles before. I'm not entirely sure why the page about the band was deleted, but I can provide you with a way of proving they exist or whathaveyou? The lead singer of the band can be contacted at backyardburial@hotmail.com. Is that enough? I'm sure n00bs infuriate you, they infuriate me, I'm a computer technician and website designer. But pease take the time to give me an idea of 'the ropes'.

Sincerely Adam Thomson --NZGrindcore 08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Visited Bath for the first time in October. All the way from little New Zealand. It has the be one of the most interesting and beautiful places in the world. A true historical treasure. I'm sure you're used to it though, hah.

Basically, all articles need to be verified by reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. In this case, there weren't any, and none were found in a deletion discussion, so the article as it stood was deleted. However, if there are reliable sources (in this case, independent press articles on the band), the article can be recreated if it cites them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can get an article and scan it for you to see. Anyway of getting back what I'd already done or is it lost forever? --NZGrindcore 08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want, I can restore the last version to your userspace so you can edit it there before moving it back into the encyclopaedia when it's ready. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated! Thanks for your time. --NZGrindcore 08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Restored to User:NZGrindcore/Backyard Burial. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Userpage...

How do you get that cool userpage box and other stuff onto your userpage... :( I couldnt find it anywhere so even tried to use your source code but it didnt work.

--Alegoo92 16:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the design is mainly copied from Sango123's page, so I don't actually understand it all myself. That is, I know what the code does, but I'd be hard-pressed to create my page from scratch.

The page is made out of several transcluded templates - each box is on a separate page for ease of editing, and the code on User:Samuel Blanning just collects them together in two columns. You might find it helpful to go to the edit window and check the list of transcluded templates at the very bottom of that page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Samuel

Hi,

I just noticed that the article i was doing for an Indie film called AW60 was put up for speedy deletion, and I cannot understand why. You have plenty of articles for film, including one of my favorites the Fifth element, and I don't see why the one I am doing shouldn't have the same consideration. It is from a non-bias POV, and does not advertise the film or subject people to view it who do not want to, instead it is merely informative. I thought it would be great for people who are interesting in the film to be able to find out more about it, and was hoping wiki would help make that possible.

thanks for your time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thearteast (talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Subjects for articles must demonstrate that they are notable by verifying their contents through independent non-trivial coverage. Articles on people, companies, products etc (including films) that do not even assert notability may be speedy deleted. Unless you can fulfill the {{hangon}} tag you added by demonstrating something like that, then the article will be deleted.

Wikipedia is not an information service; if you want people to find out about your film then MySpace is a great place for that. It's drawn mainstream attention to talent in the past (Arctic Monkeys etc) and if it does, then we can have an article on the film, but not before. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
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 07:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

technical question block/edits

Hello Samuel, first I've got to say sorry for talking broken english - hoping you'll understand it anyway. I mentioned this user block (14.04 today) - but the blocked user obviously has been able to make some edits after (up to 14.57 today as it seems to me). Is it a bug or a feature? --Rax 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Feature. Blocked users can edit their talk pages (and only their talk pages) so they can calmly explain the mistaken nature of the block, and civilly ask that they may be unblocked to continue benefitting the encyclopaedia. Or bitch and troll, up to them really. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

oops, not bad - I'll have to check out, whether it is working on de: too. Thanks for the explanation! CU --Rax 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A favour

Can i ask a favour of you please. There is currently a discussion going on about the wording of the BNP introduction which keeps on being undermined and subvertedby one user by the adding of thier own version of the introduction. I would like the page to be protected until the discussion is completed and to prevent the current arrangment for happening time and again.--Lucy-marie 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? At least tell me who that one person is? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

THe user Is WGee and he seams to have stopped now but i will let you know if it happens again.--Lucy-marie 02:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok now it is getting rediculous It is the same user who is doing the edits and clearly is aware of the discusion as WGee has contributed to the Discusion so can you please Protect the page for a short period of time to stop this user unilaterally editing the page.--Lucy-marie 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Although it's difficult to discern an actual consensus on the talk page, WGee certainly isn't in a minority of one. I don't think there's a big enough edit war to fully protect the article at the moment, but full protection isn't someone I involve myself in much and you're welcome to request protection at WP:RPP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Sam!

Since you're online, I figured I'd tell you about my amazing new innovation. Try it out. ~ Flameviper 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the vanilla "online/offline/busy", but it's a clever idea. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't so much a radical change from your usual script. All you have to do is add

[[:Category:Wikipedians who are currently online]]

to the display for "Online". It's really simple and allows you to seek help wuickly from a list of online users. Try it! ~ Flameviper 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would, except I forget to change my status too often when I go offline, and I don't want to compound the misleading impression it occasionally gives. Plus my status bar is transcluded to several pages, all of which would be in the category. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. That is a giant kink in the program that would need to be worked out eventually. But even if it is inconsistent at times, it could be incredibly helpful for users in dire need. ~ Flameviper 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mendoza‎;

Sorry for being slow on the uptake. I'm with you now. I'll help as I can. What about semi-protecting it for a bit? --Doc^g 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the justification for semi-protection. The anon isn't evading any block or trying to game 3RR by switching IP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The anon seems to have backed up his claims on the talk page. Not great sources, but they do make him look right. I'm confused.--Doc^g 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

At best, he's halfway towards truth, and nowhere towards verifiability, which is what we demand. See Talk:Mike Mendoza for full response. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanxs

Thanxs for you help with the DDT and Facebuster reverts.. this guy wont listen to reason or comunicate helpfully... ---Paulley

Np. If he appears again, just report them straight to WP:AIV with some brief explanation along the lines of "serial vandal, see history of Facebuster and DDT". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

About 72.178.235.28

Perhaps you shouldn't have blocked him/her, as you where the main subject of the allegations the IP made. _→AzaToth 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for evading a block, and the block he was evading (which was not mine) was for edit warring and personal attacks. As far as I'm aware his complaints about me are entirely about the fact that I blocked him. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. We request Talk Page of 72.178.235.28 because it wrote " that you became a 6 month block when doing a blank next ".--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 04:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been protected by Khoikhoi. A six month block (which you threatened him with) would be massively excessive for blanking a talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Kalinda Gray AfD

I was only going off AfD etiquette "Do not make derogatory comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor." Apologies if I was out of line. Would you blank the page as above, so that it is seen to be done by an admin, thanks. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (also posted at WP:AN)

I didn't mean that what you did was less valid, only that I'd've preferred the method that didn't involve editing an other user's comments without leaving any sign of it. The attack is kinda borderline - pointless and unhelpful it may be, but "How about let's write an article about someone who is doing something important" isn't really a WP:BLP violation (which is what the line you quote refers back to). If IceCreamAntisocial vehemently objected to his post being altered, it could result in a complicated and split argument, which is the only reason I prefer the other approach. So I'm not going to overturn what you did just because I would have gone about it a different way - your way was perfectly valid. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and I appreciate your advice and guidance --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Jeffree Star deletion

I think there should be serious re-consideration of the deletion of Jeffree Star, including the talk page, and the protection of it. The deletion vote was with relatively low user input, and the guy has become only more famous over time.

Jeffree Star is one of the most famous alt-fashion models (gender-bending, etc.) out there, a recording artist, and general media personality - you'd list him in roughly the same category as you'd list Tila Tequila.

I'm not a fan of him, and I don't know much about him (no biases here) - except that I kept hearing his name incessantly in all different places, and so I came to Wikipedia to see his bio, as has always served me in the past for similar media creatures, only to find that it was deleted.

The talk page and history suggests lots of people have been coming to Wikipedia to find out "Who is this guy?".

The vote to delete him appears skewed by the fact that the type of people who would come looking for info on him are generally not the type to be Wikipedia members and vote on these things.

If Tila Tequila is worthy of a bio (and she is, there's strong precedent on that), so too is Jeffree Star. 141.161.60.20 14:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If Jeffree Star has now received non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources, then ask for deletion review to review it. The deletion has already been nominated for review there four times, yet recognition beyond MySpace and its subculture has yet to be demonstrated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Quikbook

Normally I have no problem against temporarily restoring an article on DRV, but are you aware it is a copyvio? >Radiant< 16:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't - the deletion reason was "spam spam spam". If you know it's a copyvio then please re-delete it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. [quikbook.com], or google the article text. Sorry. >Radiant< 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

blocking

you have seemed to have blocked my shared IP address because of vandalizim on my userpage earlier that IP address is shared between my computer my brother's computer my moms computer and my dads computer(dont ask why we have so many)can you please unblock the IP address because everytime my bro gets on the wiki it keeps saying he has a messege and he doesnt and if my parents do the same i will probably get blamed for it as usuall --Yells at soup 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You've already blanked the talk page in question. I don't see any reason to unblock the IP if it's being solely used for childish games. It's been a while since I was a child with a sibling, but can't you just give him a Chinese burn or something until he promises to stop wasting Wikipedians' time? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

hmm well i could try and tell my parents before he can blame me and if he gets grounded he cant use any of the other 3 comps(inclding mine) cause they each have passwords and he doesnt know them if he gets grounded ill leave a messege or something --Yells at soup 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If your parents use Wikipedia, surely they'll understand that stuff done by the IP address can't be your fault, because you edit from an account? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See the thing is they dont even know i have an account and i dont want them to know because i am a huge japanese anime fan and my parents hate it when i watch japanese stuff they say im wierd and my brother makes me take the blame for most stuff he does or he threatens that he will show them my userpage and i dont want my parents thinking im a wierdo japanese anime freak --Yells at soup 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. Frankly, solving your domestic problems is well beyond my capacity. However, if your parents accuse you of vandalising, send me an email address where I can contact them personally and I'll try to explain to them that it wasn't your fault. I can't help make them understand animé though. (I actually find that very strange. I watch a lot of it myself and my parents think it's great that I'm learning another language if nothing else.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

well for example: fullmetal alchemist to me its one of my favorite shows to them it is a bunch of senseless violence and crap and eureka seven they think its a whole bunch more of crap plus some stupid robot sci fi stuff they will never understand --Yells at soup 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure your parents watch stuff that you think is rubbish as well. Mine certainly do. Different strokes etc. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

my brother actully got grounded one because his grades suck and 2 my parents have a keylogger on his comp thank god --Yells at soup 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User: 66.90.137.157 and User:Drtuttle

User:Drtuttle a now confirmed sock of the above IP has immediately contiued revert warring following the IPs ban per this diff: [1] The Kinslayer 12:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, sockpuppet patterns don't get much more obvious. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but just to let you know the user has one more confirmed sock puppet and a strongly suspected sock puppet. Any chance of a pre-emptive block? The Kinslayer 13:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Huseregrav and Noliesplease, are there any others? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They are the only others we know of right now, but given the persistence of this guy, I'm sure we'll find out if he has any others soon. Thanks for helping so promptly.The Kinslayer 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Access to Deleted Text (John Burnet Hall)

Hello,

I am currently writing a webpage for John Burnet Hall and I noticed that Wikipedia used to have an entry on the subject. I was wondering if you could provide me with the text of that article so that I could use it or, if possible, the user who posted it, so I can contact them.

Thank you.

Gregory Haynes (talk)

The article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gannochy House, which found that the hall of residence (as well as another) was not notable. Some independent reliable sources covering the building would be needed to demonstrate notability and reverse the AfD - do you believe that you can create an article showing that? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand and accept the reasons for deletion, I was merely asking for the information (or the author thereof) so that I could use it on another website (not on Wikipedia). If this is possible it would be appreciated. --Gregory (talk)

The simplest way to do that is if you enter and confirm your email address (go to "my preferences"), I can email you the content and list of authors. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

MascotGuy

Blaitho, who claims to be longtime problem editor MascotGuy, posted an unblock request and said, "One more thing, can we have Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Samuel Blanning too, as Mr. Blanning is abusing his admin powers."

Any idea what that's about? I've been blocking and cleaning up after MascotGuy for some time now, and this is totally atypical behavior for him/her/them. —tregoweth (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not MascotGuy, it's a different vandal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lawl

[2] Vowed to...eat your liver? What the-? ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza DRV

Hi there. I was looking through the comments at the Esperanza DRV, and I noticed your comment here. I notice you said "A random sample indicates that a substantial number of the Esperanza subpages do not have any deleted history to undelete." and "Tell us what pages you want undeleted, of which you believe others would benefit from the content, and maybe they'll be considered and undeleted. This DRV as it stands strikes me as so unwieldy as to be pointless...". As I have taken a very strong and principled stand on this issue, I have actually been doing the work necessary to draw up a list of pages, and to work out what happened to the pages. See User:Carcharoth/Esperanza_MfD_review. Hopefully this can be a basis for coming up with the list you requested. I agree that as it stands, the DRV is too imprecise. I should also point out that working out which pages do not have any deleted history, and reviewing the history to decide if there is any benefit to undeletion, is something that non-admins cannot do. That is why the 'undeletion for review' clause exists at WP:DRV. As for the number of pages, well, neither MfD or DRV were ever really designed to handle such massive umbrella nominations. Clearly a more methodical process will be needed next time a massive shut-down like this is carried out, hopefully starting with someone creating a list of all the pages before the deletions/redirects are carried out. Carcharoth 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Change

Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	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 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mendoza

As per RFPP request by the user who you blocked, I have unprotected talk:Mike Mendoza. The user is not blocked anymore, so I felt protection was not justified still. Anyway, I left a note on the user's talk page (he may not see it, since he's under a dynamic IP), and I hope he will continue the discussion in a civilized manner (and won't go past 3RR again). Just thought you might want to know. Nishkid64 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As information which the subject has objected to found only through muck-raking and unpublished by peer-reviewed sources, I wish I'd just dealt with it as WP:BLP requires for negative unsourced information from the start. But it's too far gone now and protection or no protection, I'm going to settle for not feeding the troll and encouraging others to do the same. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ofcom website is quite clearly a verifiable source. Had Mendoza just admitted to the fact that he was a councillor, which he has done on many occasions during his shows, we would never have got into this pointless quarrel. 217.134.114.139 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Award Time!

For withstanding wave after wave of vandalism on your userpage (presumably all by the same person due to the similarity of content), I hereby present you with the 'Abusive Admin Award. Scobell302 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, added to the cabinet :-). Ahh, there's nothing like the start of a new school term for being threatened with physical violence by small boys still wondering which direction their dicks should be pointing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review - Template:Good article

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Good article. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ShivaDaDestroyer

Hi, just noticed your block - I have no problem with that - what intrigued me was that there was an edit history in a whole range of delete debates - and nothing on the talk page - odd - I would guess a sockpuppet for the purpose of the delete debates from my perspective... I was in the process of adding the most humungous welcome template i have found to date and your block arrived... sigh SatuSuro 03:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the claim the account was being used primarily for vandalism ignores the comments on the delete debates....SatuSuro 03:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Smokescreen, definitely. Some vandals mistakenly think we won't block them if they spend two minutes editing a load of articles like real users do, then vandalise/wikistalk. I wasn't ignoring the smokescreen, I just don't waste words on obvious cases.

I haven't used it in a while but I always preferred a much smaller welcome template, myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - the usual subst.welcome that used to use seems inadequate - maybe I'll only use the biggun for what look like long uncaught newbies with genuine edit histories rather than debate inhbitants SatuSuro 03:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I use my own version, which is basically {{welcome}} with some text telling you what the links actually are. It's been a while since I actually posted it, I think, but I still believe that every single link you add makes it less likely they'll click any of them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It all depends - earlier this month I was putting one out a day... for the 4,000 + watchlist I am burdened with at the moment - some show no sign of reading a word ...SatuSuro 03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression from when I used to leave more welcome templates is that most people don't actually come back to edit once they've made their first edit - in other words, when they've made whatever change they wanted to make. But I find that encouraging in a way, because there's no way we can get them to do more than they want, however warm our welcome, and on any other encyclopaedia they wouldn't have made even that one edit. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for drawing this talk item out - but I was about to alert someone else to an edit war at Southern Ocean - you may or not be interested - also Ineed to get off - . I never leave welcomes - or almost never unless they have mde a number of edits - or edits I know the subject enough to know what theyre up to - SatuSuro 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? At an initial glance I see misuse of the word 'vandalism' in edit summaries, but not much of an edit war, and zero on the talk page. Unfortunately I'm about to get off as well. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to let it be - i am not a hundred percent sure whats goin on. cheers SatuSuro 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Myg0t

WHY IS myg0t deleted its a notcible cheating clan that has casued major eruptions over the internet

Notability for encyclopaedia standards requires coverage in multiple reliable sources; Myg0t has been repeatedly reviewed and we haven't found any. Fame among the geek subculture is not sufficient. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But the criteria for inclusion is not so much notability as it is verifiability. If you can cite it, you can write it. And neccessity is a big factor there, too. So even if it is referenced and formatted, etc, there's no need to have 87 forks of Fire Emblem. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, notability is necessary and is a higher bar than simple verifiability. Otherwise anyone in the phone book could create an article on themselves. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a phone book is a citable reference material. Besides, the only information that could be extracted from a phone book would be home phone number, name and address. Technically, it's citable. But in practice, citing something like a phone book would give too little information to warrant its own article. And that goes for other articles that have no notability except for very small excerpts. In practice, there is not enough context. And that's even in the citation guidelines. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

By your exceptionally flawed logic there should also be no articles on slashdot, fark, digg, somethingawful, or fatal1ty. I noticed from the Falling Sand Game deletion that you seem to have a zeal for saying things aren't notable and should be deleted based entirely on your personal opinion even with overwhelming evidence present. I would consider an entire commercial enterprise serving many games from various companies formed in response to them to be quite notable. Google myg0t, there should still be archives of news articles from when the first opengl hacks were coming out hosted in various and asundry places. --Superslash 06:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about article title

We're having some uncertainty on how to format the article title in the first paragraph of jazz (word origin). Can you take a look? I'm just not sure what the conventions are for this. John M Baker 15:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be for the article to be renamed Etymology of jazz, because 'Jazz (word origin)' is, I think, slightly the wrong way to use brackets, which generally denote what the thing on the left of the brackets are. E.g. Jazz (novel) is a novel, Jazz (album) is an album, but Jazz (word origin) isn't a 'word origin' - that doesn't make sense. If it was 'etymology of jazz' the title would fit both in the title and the lead. Whether this conforms with the manual of style I'm not sure, but there are quite a few pages named like this - Special:Allpages/Etymology_of.

What you definitely shouldn't have is brackets in the lead paragraph, as I saw in the history somewhere - that's the worst of both worlds. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	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 06:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm

You blocked 202.76.162.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indefinitely for vandalism. While I'd agree the IP should have been blocked, I understood the blocking policy as explicitly forbidding indefinite IP blocks - "... Indefinite blocks should not be used on IPs ...". Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, someone finally asked about it without threatening to kill me if I didn't. I don't know why I originally blocked it indefinitely, but I'm sure you can understand, especially after a look at my user page's vandalism history, if I say that I won't be the one to unblock it or shorten it.

Three different administrators have responded to {{unblock}} requests and declined to unblock it, shorten it, or even ask me about it, and the pattern of vandalism before and since the block demonstrate that it's clearly used by one persistent vandal. I don't really care if someone does shorten it or lifts it, but it won't be me doing it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What a lot of hate mail you must get :). I'll leave it up to you to shorten the block or not. In fact, the only reason I was posting here was because a request was posted on Jimbo's talk page. Interesting. Cheers anyway, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If they stop threatening to kill me for a few months or so I might assume whoever it is moved on. In any case someone will probably unblock it anyway sooner or later. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The address is actually used by many users. So please unblock it now! 58.168.194.22 05:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All those users can create an account, and are clearly willing to do so. [3] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But I don't want to create an account for that address! 58.168.194.22 09:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "for that address"? Accounts are independent of addresses. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant "under that address". I mean that I don't want to create an account while using that address! 58.168.194.22 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Then create one under the address you're using now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you even want me to create an account under that address? I'll be able to do things that only accounts can do, such as upload images, create pages and edit semi-protected pages. And I don't want to do that! Do you want me to do that? 124.180.150.86 07:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Well, I guess we both agree that no good can come of allowing you to edit any more than you can now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Backyard Burial

I've posted the link to a couple of reviews on a German site... Sufficient? Otherwise I can pay for a public notice to be in the Dominion Post (main publication of Wellington, New Zealand) and then refer to that to solve all of this criterion drama... I'm learning how wikipedia works... This site is great and I'm looking forward to being a proper contributor. There's a lot of happenings in the background that people don't see, as I've realised.

) Once again, thanks for your time, Sam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NZGrindcore (talk • contribs) 02:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

It would be for me, although opinions differ on the reliability of websites. Don't bother paying for a public notice - I don't know what exactly you mean by that but something that you pay to be published isn't something that would count as a reliable source. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability versus Verifiability

I noted that earlier in this talk page, you mentioned that you believed notability to override verifiability in the field of deletion? I'm curious about your reasoning in this matter, as I disagree with you in certain respects on this issue. Please get back to me. Thanks. ~ Flameviper 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability doesn't 'override' verifiability - verifiability is part of what it takes to be notable and part of the reason we require it, but they're not the same thing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you did not recieve my message as clearly as I intended it. Now that I reread it, it is rather ambiguous. What I meant to say was that verifiability was the ideal criterion for inclusion, but if a subject is blatantly non-notable, then there is no reason to keep the article. ~ Flameviper 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't see what you disagree about. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Or did I misunderstand you? ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 17:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you say that "if a subject is blatantly non-notable, then there is no reason to keep the article", that seems to amount to the same thing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That makes sense. I suppose I simply misunderstood your statement. See you on IRC! ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Could you please unblock 202.76.162.34? I don't want to create an account for that address! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.139.197 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, why's it got to be like that? You were doing so well, another five threats to kill me and I would probably have given in. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It only takes three death threats to make me give in. I'm so jealous. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	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 18:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV/Marsden-Donnelly

Since I commented extensively on your opinion, I would like to invite you to respond. Feel free to ask for the Lexis-Nexis/Newsbank source material if you can't access it. ~ trialsanderrors 03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)