User talk:Samuel Blanning/July2006

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.

Armando (Blogger)

HOW DARE YOU CLOSE THE AFD IN THAT MANNER IT IS WRONG. Sorry, only kidding ... just thought I'd scare you. :) Quick note - I was about to close the AFD myself and got edit conflicted with you, coming to the same conclusion. Good call. Proto///type 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Can you protect Armando Llorens also, for completeness? Thanks. –Dicty (T/C) 13:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well reasoned closure, thank you. On a little historical note, the "hot air" wasn't a backlash against ALS's own involvement (which came very late in the game), it was the result of a "wow moment" during the 1st nomination after the two outside sources were introduced and the mood swung from (Speedy) Delete to Keep, both, as has been amply discussed, with their own problems. In any case, it is good to see closing administrators taking the weight of the arguments into account. ~ trialsanderrors 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Roma and Sinti

Thank you for unlinking all those articles. That was nice of you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Television interference (radio transmitter interference)

Hi, please could I have access to the wikipedia code for the page which has been deleted. I think that the removal of the page was not a good idea, EMC is poorly treated where on wikipedia and AM UHF TV is the most common and best example of how a EMC problem due to high field strengths is investigated and solved. I will attempt to recycle the content into a few other places.

While the article could be viewed by some as a how to guide, it is firstly an explanation of how this type of EMC problem occurs and is resolved. If you read the articles on gold-fish you would gain plenty of information which would assist you in setting up a tank (and keeping the fish alive), so should the pages on gold fish which explain how the nitrogen chemistry in the tank works be removed ? (I think not).Cadmium

I have restored the content at User:Cadmium/Television interference (radio transmitter interference). Please add {{db-owner}} to the page when you're done with it as retaining deleted articles in userspace if they're not being worked on to return to articlespace amounts to free webhosting.

I only closed the discussion, but I do agree that the articles amounted to how-to guides. Some articles inevitably include instructive information, but it should be presented in context and in an encyclopaedic way. Much of television interference (radio transmitter interference) was written in a second-person perspective - asking the reader questions, giving direct instructions, etc. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me have a second chance to have a go at the article. I know less about wikipedia markup and the finer points than I know about the things I write about so I will let you know when I have finished rewriting the article into a more general EMC article. Also as you requested I will add the {{db-owner}} tag to it. Where should I add such a tag (at the top or the bottom ?).Cadmium

Either, though the top is best so admins can see the rationale for deletion (i.e it's an unwanted subpage of yours) at a glance. If you're going to move the article back into articlespace at some point, you don't really need to delete the article - it's best to just move the article into articlespace using the move button, which you should see at the top of the page. After you move the page, User:Cadmium/Television interference (radio transmitter interference) will become a redirect, which is perfectly fine. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have marked the sub page of my user page for removal. I have moved the content into a page which is more in keeping with the published aims of wikipedia than the original. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cadmium (talk • contribs) .

I've deleted it. (Where was it moved, by the way?) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers thanks for removing the unwanted sub page of my user space. The content has been moved to a new page called EMC problem (excessive field strength). Do you think that the new article is interesting. I have tried to write it in a better way to give an overview of the EMC problems which can be caused by a radio transmitter's strong local RF field. Sorry for not signing the post which I made a few lines higher, I forgot.Cadmium

Jesus On Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think Cyde's block was very fair, as I checked the disruption clause and it actaully states that users will usually be warned before being blocked, so why wasn't I, given that I am an established user. Myrtone -- 05:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Either post on a general discussion board (WP:AN etc), or pick a single person to ask and ask him. If you have so little confidence in my ability to answer that you must ask the same question of four other people, I see no reason to answer. And what has JoW to do with this? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Let me take this opportunity to express my thanks for all the help you are giving me, both in revertions and in blockings. I particularly appreciate that today, you have reverted edits the Troll made under anon IP's, which must mean that you have all those pages on your watchlist. It's really kind of you to take the trouble. Best regards, ImpuMozhi 14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Scabbers the Rat has been reporting them to AIV, and after I block them I rollback all their edits - in a user's contributions list, admins have a 'rollback' button next to every edit that is the current edit on the page. As I'm using Firefox I just hold down Ctrl and click on every single entry, and they all get reverted in a few seconds. So it's not as much trouble as it must look, but thanks anyway :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Major18

I blocked him for 31 hours for the legal threat he made and also for impersonating another user. I didn't feel like there was enough (for now) for more than that. I think I'll request a CU. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No objection here. Certainly his edits were extremely, to use the technical term, stupid, but I was holding off in the hope that the edits to User talk:Pak21 might be part of a mellowing-out. I doubt we're missing out on any potential FAs due to his block. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL. God I love admin humor. lol Here is my post on RfCU. Pretty certain it's Mechanismtongs. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Thank you for clarifying the date issue in DYK. RoscoHead 04:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Np. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian G Wilson

Hi. BGW contacted me about deleting his user/talk pages. I see [1] you removed a request from him for this... any reason not to delete them? William M. Connolley 07:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He's indefinitely banned. I've no huge objection if you blank or delete his talk page, but his user page needs to retain the {{indefblockeduser}} template. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK William M. Connolley 09:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment roster

{{subst:test1}}

Guess you're not a vandal. :) But I have reverted you're edits to the above article, see my edit summary for the detail why. Thanks! And don't do it again! :D — The King of Kings 13:34 July 06 '06

Fair enough, but I've dewikilinked the entry (also see edit summary). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I'll just have to revert people making the link again. Although, I can probably make a good (or at least fairly decent) article in the future. Cheers! — The King of Kings 13:41 July 06 '06

160.94.224.179

Re: your AIV removal - Yes, but only for 31 h. The IP has the habit to wait and repeatedly return after several days, so I did request a longer block. Femto 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems resolved, User talk:Geni --Femto 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops

We're butting heads here. I was trying to update and now I got an edit conflict because you are in the process of updating too. Please finish now you started (the page needs a refreshment and I've been out of the loop for a long while here), but next time, please wait and give me a chance to finish. If I archive, I usually finish the job... ;) - Mgm|^(talk) 20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• See no biggie, you seem to have chosen the same items I did. I have a small suggestion, though, could you change the one item about the skater to: "...that Austrian figure skater Herma Szabo practiced on her grandfather's ice rink in Vienna -- the first artificial ice rink ever made--and went on to win five world championships?" as suggested by the commenter? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for getting in ahead of you, but you didn't put the big red 'Page is being refreshed notice' on, otherwise I certainly wouldn't have started to refresh myself. I see you've changed the Austrian entry - I couldn't see what was so crucial about the rink being in Vienna, myself, which is why I only added the word 'Austrian'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Back when I was refreshing this thing on a daily basis, the refresh notice didn't exist yet. Where can I find it? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's definitely recent (but a very good thing - I've started to do a refresh only to find someone else had jumped in before myself). It's in the 'Refreshment' section under the yellow 'Minimum time to next refresh' box, currently commented out. When you start to do an update you just remove the comment tags. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks. Perhaps I'm even going to create some articles with the summer holidays approaching... - Mgm|^(talk) 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

afd

Hi! regarding Banu (Arabic), i would appreciate if you would undelete Banu (disambig), it was only deleted since Banu (Arabic) was speedie deleted, and it being deleted adds negative to my % of deleted edits. Thanks. --Striver 23:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's only two things to disambiguate that I'm aware of - Banu and Banu (Arabic). I've gone ahead and replaced the link to the disambiguation at the top of Banu with one to Banu (arabic), and vice versa on Banu (arabic). If there's a third article Banu somewhere, just go ahead and recreate the disambiguation page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone variator

Thanks for putting my shiny picture on the main page :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-07 00:25

Hippias Major

Thanks for DYKing that; gets fresh proofreading for free & educates the masses all at once Bridesmill 02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

the Mulder and Scully image

Sorry about the image and the copyright thing. MulderandScully 09:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article

hi, the above metadata template has been recreated again (its one you speedily deleted previously). Could it be speedy deleted again? Thanks. Niz 12:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks sam! Niz 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You deleted this without allowing a full discussion. And you wonder why users get upset at the deletionists.Rlevse 12:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not one but two full discussions have taken place on this template. See the TfD discussion and the DRV discussion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Disclaimer1

Yeah, that's much more appropriate, thanks for taking care of it. I was going to put an indef block on, but wasn't 100% sure - that was before I saw that post, which makes it definitly needed. Thanks. -- Natalya 13:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Satisfied"?

I nominated People's Correspondents for DYK. I would ask you to have second thoughts about not including it in DYK. best Camptown 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a perfectly fine article and the fact that it wasn't chosen for DYK doesn't reflect on its quality one bit. I passed over it during one update simply because I'd already chosen two history items, and it's more or less a requirement that we don't have more than two articles from the same subject area or country if at all possible (that's my opinion at least, you can ask on WT:DYK if any of the other updating admins had other reasons). There just weren't enough updates - sorry, it happens, and we do try to avoid it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Phyllis Busansky article deletion - please reconsider

Hi Sam. I need your help and some understanding here for a moment. Busansky is NOT a LESSER candidate in FL9. She is the LONE Democrat. No primary. No nothing. She's it. The FL9 race is being watched nationwide. She is one of only 20 or so DCCC "Red to Blue" candidates. Additionally, her opponent's Wiki page is still up and running. His name is Gus Bilirakis and he IS in a primary right now. I am requesting you reconsider and allow the page to return, preferably with limited protection against vandalism. The article was heavily revised to conform to NPOV guidelines. If you won't, then I would request that you at least take down her opponent's page in the interest of fairness because his page would also be a candidate for deletion under the same guidelines. Please reply when you can. User: JohnTampa

I'm not 100% familiar with America's political system, but Bilirakis is a current member of the Florida House of Representatives, and has concrete notability based on that, whereas looking at Busansky's article before deletion, she holds no post with an equivlanet claim to notability - the central claim to notability in the AfD depended on a position she does not currently hold. If you want to nominate Bilirakis' article for deletion, you're very welcome to do so. If you want Busansky's article's deletion reviewed, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious

Per the closing comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Buell Anderson, could you clarify "reasonable period of time" so that in itself it doesn't also become an argument? Thanks. Ste4k 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest engaging in discussion with the regular editors of the article, if you aren't already, in pursuit of satisfaction as to the article's verifiability. If you feel that the discussion isn't going anywhere, you should feel free to nominate it again in order to get outside opinions. Apart from that, I would suggest waiting until at least two weeks from now, maybe even a month (the sky isn't falling tomorrow), and explaining fully why the result of the previous AfD wasn't satisfactory, in order to ward off 'speedy keep, we went through this already' opinions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine, a month or so is good. I agree completely about the "sky falling" perception about articles in general. I'd also just like to mention that this was a "double" AfD and the second article still has it's tag on it. "Endeavor Academy". Ste4k 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've closed that one as well. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I Uncivilized , rather I am victimized

Please see the following uncivilized outbursts from your wikipedia editors (bold letters) :

(removed text which screws up my talk page, poster is banned anyway)

BTW what is my mistake when I quoted from wikipedia such as :

Ashvamedha 4. The Priest says the following (mantra): (7.4.19f) "May the horse expel its sperm and may the Queen receive (the sperm)." 5. The Priest recites: (7.4.19g) "O horse, place your male organ in between the legs of the queen. Excite the queen's vagina so that it will receive your huge penis". The Queen then places the horse's limp penis in between her legs.

And for this truth I am victimized for slandering. Is this spam or slander. Now I demand action against these people ( BabuB & Aupmanyav ) for personally humiliating me by calling me a dog. I am a low caste hindu (shudra) who is protected by law in India. If any upper caste Indian insults me he will be immediately in jail through non-bailable warrants without consideration & will invite prison term. Please ban their work.Stop them. If you cannot do anything then give me their addresses & other particulars so that I can reach authorities.

I dont want to vandalize any article but whenever I contribute I am warned as a vandal & I am told to discuss on talk page. If i write on talk page u ppl call me a spammer. What is this? I think u should lock all pages of wikipedia.

I have not insulted anyone personally nor do I intend to. But we low caste people are not illiterate nowadays like we used to do earlier in the rule of upper caste hindus. And why wikipedia is not putting words of Ambedkar from [2]. This is beyond my comprehension. Ambedkar was a great scholar, studied in America & England & after reading hindu manuscripts he wrote many books on Hinduism. He is revered by more than 250 million Indians (many ppl even make his statue & worship him like a god) . He wrote constitution of India. His credibility cannot be questioned on subjects of Hinduism. Only minority upper caste hindus (especially Brahmins like BabuB) oppose Ambedkar. My only grouse is that his words are being ignored. Please put Ambedkars opinions on hindu related articles.

Besides that if you really want to protect wikipedia then u identify editors then do not let anyone else edit it. If u keep the editing open to public then be ready to invite edits from anyone.

Now see what BabuB says on his user page (removed text which screws up my talk page, poster is banned anyway)

This means that he is calling himself belonging to a superior race (Brahmin). If anybody speaks like that in india it is similar to a german calling himself a nazi or a european calling – I am White. And when a person has declared himself to be a racist you ppl in wikipedia are protecting him and made him an editor . this is ridiculous. We low caste people represent more than 250 million whereas Brahmins like BabuB are only 4% of population( i.e. in minority). Through centuries they (Brahmins) monopolized education, literature & religion. Using this monopoly they wrote inhuman laws like manusmriti to create Apartheid. Brahmins views are not views of common hindu. Stop them or else many common hindus like me will be against wikipedia. & wikipedia will be sued. If u cant do anything plz tell me where I can report these matters to top mgmt. of wikipedia. BTW ENRON was sued in India. --Anirudh777 10:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If an Indian saying "I am Brahmin" is like a European saying "I am white", and that is equivalent to claiming to be a Nazi, I have no idea why you're talking to me, since I describe myself as white on my userpage.

I am not 100% familiar with India's caste system but I am more familiar than some, and I know that declaring yourself to be of one does not make you a racist (declaring that being white or being Brahmin makes you a better person than being black or Dalit may, of course, be different). While Babub's choice of wording is questionable, I see no comparison between your edits and his. I glance at this contributions, and I see valuable edits to the encyclopaedia. I glance at yours and I see promotion, POV and incivility. I have little more to say to you, I am waiting on the response at WP:ANI. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Zinedine Zidane

Thank you.--Andeh 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Np. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Modele

hey thanks a lot for your help. I just added on the discussion a few links that are verifiable. I hope the article does not deleted. I it doesnt I will try to add something different every day about the actors in the show as also more info on the plot. Again thank you very much and nice meeting you! Thanks for all your help. Please if you think its still getting deleted and if you dont mind giving me more hints. thanks again. Jose Javier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josejnr (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven

I want this individual reviewd for his behaviour. How do I go about that?--Crossmr 20:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait and see whether he continues to war over the closing, please. I'll be more than happy to discuss that with you when the AfD is stable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

He's using his admin powers to WP:OWN Lumber Cartel, he's locked the article so that he "can work on it" and this is entirely inappropriate behaviour.--Crossmr 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to restore the AFD notice on the article... Guettarda 20:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected the article and restored the AfD notice. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, now can you please advise me as to how I have this individuals actions reviewed, particularly by a process that doesn't take months or weeks on end to perform.--Crossmr 20:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to wait for Dragonfly to respond. He may realise that he was wrong. If his response is not satisfactory, then would be the time to ask for review - OTOH, if he admits that his actions were unjustified, then getting other people round to say the same thing would be beating a dead horse. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not really good enough. Anyone who is going to behave in that manner should not be an admin. Those priveleges should only be given to trust worthy individuals who have wikipedias best interests in mind.--Crossmr 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All of us are only human, and all of us make mistakes. That includes admins, believe it or not. The important thing is how we deal with them once we've made them, and that's what I want to wait and see on. The AfD is open and the article is unprotected, so right now this is very much a molehill. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A mistake is a poor judgement call, say a short ban instead of a strong warning for someone. Closing an AfD 3 days early, claiming a concensus that was not present, and locking an article to protect your point of view is a conscious decision to abuse your power. That is not a mistake.--Crossmr 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

He's taken the time to goto the AfD and correct a non-important spelling mistake I made in my comment, yet has not apologized. As far as I'm concerned I want him dealt with, again, where do I do this?--Crossmr 21:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, Dragonfly has not yet done enough to justify anything more than "please don't do that again". He has made a mistake, it has been reversed, and for any continuing action to be justified, there would have to be a continuing pattern of behaviour or the likelihood of one.

The venue for having him "dealt with" at this stage would be a user conduct RfC, which would invite outside opinion to look at the issue. However you would need two people to certify that they "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" before the RfC began, otherwise it would be deleted. You can certify as one - at the moment the only other person who has tried is me, and I'm not done yet, so I'm not going to certify an RfC as having "tried and failed" unless Dragonfly doesn't respond satisfactorily to the question I've just posted on his talk page asking whether he intends to act in that way again. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Lumber and Crossing

I certainly don't do that sort of thing regularly, and I have no intention of doing so in the future. Aside from closing the AfD early (which I will admit was a mistake), I locked the article because Crossmr had reverted my changes... which was presumably because I did all the changes in a single including the removal of the AfD tag. I regret that Crossmr was upset, and would be more than willing to apologize if he wishes. DS 22:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just ensure that you don't. The rules and policies exist on wikipedia for a reason, its the only defense this place has against turning into a gong show. I don't take people who tread on those lightly, especially those who are supposed to be in a position of authority or power.--Crossmr 23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your layout

I never thought something so beautiful could be expressed in a wikipage =D. Although I would like a little darker colors, it's just an appealing layout.

I salute you, sir! --mboverload@ 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the boxes on my userpage, they did actually use to be darker, but I washed out the colours to make the text easier to read. I might still change it at some point so that all the boxes are white with a coloured border like on this talk page and the general header. Glad you like it, anyway :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Die Gerd-Show

On July 10, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Die Gerd-Show, 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.

--Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re : AFD/Quinley, Kevin M.

Oh, probably due to connection problems that AfD wasn't closed. It's now closed, thanks for notifying me. I've thought about your opinon, but I think there really isn't consensus on this one. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Klashnekoff

Kind of amazed to see the Klashnekoff article deleted... As a hip hop fan living in London I find he's everywhere - on every mix tape, headlining on tours such as the BBC UK Takeover events recently, and on cable TV doing his videos - so it seems bizarre to me to see him considered NN. Kyza and his Terra Firma crew, fine - they don't have solo albums - but Klash has two. I bought them both in HMV, so they're hardly obscure or hard to obtain.

Please could you let me know the grounds on which this decision was made? I admit the original article made it sound rather like crystal-ballery but I was planning to rewrite it... alas, it's out of order for me to remake a deleted article, yes? Efortune 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The grounds in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyza, basically. Your assertions of meeting WP:MUSIC just didn't seem to convince anyone. Mikeblas directly addressed them as such - if he hadn't I would not have been inclined to close as 'delete', but as all new evidence was considered I saw no reason not to differ from the majority opinion in closing. Generally, radio and TV appearances are too temporary to justify an article on their own - they're extremely difficult to recover for those who weren't listening at the time, and reliable print or web references are far superior.

A lot of these articles on 'underground' hip-hop artists seem to have a walled garden tendency - they all link to each other due to collaborations, collectives and the like, but they don't get many links from outside.

Could you answer something for me though, as I'm not entirely clear on this and it's possible the article could be recreated with better assertion of notability. You say he's got two albums out (which satisifies WP:MUSIC if they're on a major label) - the article as deleted mentioned one current (Sagas of Klashnekoff) and one forthcoming (Lionheart: Tussle of the Beasts). Which is right - one or two albums? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Two albums. The second is Focus Mode; it's essentially a remix album based on Sagas but does contain new material.

I take your point regarding walled gardens, and I hate to be one of those people who turns up on AFD pages saying that one word of their specialist knowledge is worth a thousand absent citations. However, in the case of underground hip-hop, WP:MUSIC doesn't always seem to be fit for the purpose. A case in point: Skinnyman is another extremely prominent British MC who has only released one LP; the same goes for Braintax. It seems obvious to me, as someone who listens to a broad spectrum of UK hip hop, that you couldn't write an encyclopedic article on this music without mentioning all three names. Yet the nature of the UKHH scene is such that the profile of the major players is pretty low outside London. Acts are rarely signed by major labels, recieve limited airplay on national radio, and don't do a lot to generate the kind of stuff that satisfies WP:MUSIC.

UKHH acts derive their notoriety within the scene from mixtapes, pirate radio airplay, live appearances and latterly new media such as digital radio and TV. None of this lends itself to easy verifiability. So I'm wondering whether UKHH is in a particularly disadvantaged position in Wikipedia... or whether I'm just part of a subculture which is actually much less notable than I perceive it to be...Efortune 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Techno Source

I notice that you have declared this to be 'No result'. Apart from the nomination the only clearly expressed sentiment was a Delete. This seems to be a case where we need more views so I am asking if you would relist this for further discussion, please? BlueValour 16:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can assume Jay w wants to keep the article, since he did extensive work to it during the nomination. AfD is not a vote, so the fact that two people argued to delete an article which was then significantly expanded, and didn't say whether the expansion made any difference or not, is not really material. I'll renominate the article now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points and thx. BlueValour 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Major18

Hey it's no problem. I saw he had been blocked for 31 before and, while tempted to make it longer, erred on the side of caution and gave him only 48 hours. I have no problem with you going ahead and extending the block, don't worry about it. Glad to see he got the ban. And besides, I got the pleasant surprise of seeing the extra blocking options when I blocked him. Regards -- Banes 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lou Franklin

It looks like we both just tried to reblock Lou's IP address. I had already rolled back his edits when I went to reblock; I'm not sure if I should have rolled back and taken the troll bait on all three accounts (User:Lou franklin, User:Hernando Cortez, and the IP, User:66.30.208.149) but I'd say that the countdown definitely had to go. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned user, revert and block on sight, fin :-). Not sure why Essjay's previous block on the IP didn't take hold, I didn't see any unblocks or possible conflicts. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's weird; I remember that one of Lou's previous blocks didn't 'stick', either. Curious. Oh well--as long as people are still keeping an eye on him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect the pages? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the accounts' pages (why not?) but not the IP's, as that could still change hands. If I could set semi-protection to automatically expire in six months like a block I would, but I can't, and it's too long a time to just assume that I'll still be around to unprotect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I can explain the reason for the block conflict: Lf made several attempts to edit in the past 1½ months or so, triggering autoblocks. One or more of those autoblocks affected 66.30.208.149, thereby canceling out the earlier block. 23:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Could autoblocking be any more awesome? Perhaps, in addition to causing collateral damage and random block conflicts with indefinitely banned users, when you block someone it should call you a nonce, piss in your beer and shit in your hat. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

72.80.169.118 / Tommy23

Sam, I notice you blocked User:72.80.169.118 earlier today. I believe this IP user is in fact User:Tommy23 based on edit history and a curt (and threat) comment I got this morning as a result of reverting the IP users edits:

• User talk:Wangi#AIRPORTS IN THE UK
• User talk:Tommy23#Categorisation of UK airports

Thanks/wangi 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I blocked that IP two days ago for repeatedly inserting wrong information at Dublin, which I don't see Tommy doing recently. Is there evidence of abusive sockpuppet editing (e.g. logging out to dodge WP:3RR)? If it's sufficiently obvious a block might be merited, otherwise you might want to try WP:RFCU (you must be very explicit about what the evidence is and why the sockpuppetry is abusive to get a response there).

I did leave a warning for his incivil threat to you. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just assumed it was this morning since the talk page was still perm protected then. No, the user hasn't used the different accounts to dodge 3RR or anything to my knowledge. But I am half expecting those cat edits to be made again to the UK airport articles. Thanks/wangi 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway/No refactor

I'll try to remember to avoid that. In general I find that the signature refactoring is so beneficial to editability that I do it as a matter of course. One thing some editors do is open a doppelganger account (in your case I guess it would be User:Sam Blanning) and then redirect that to their original. This would mean you wouldn't have to fiddle around with pipes in your signature. --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming

Hey, could you please take a look at this edit and give me a little advice on how to proceed? It seems completely out of line to me, this guy deleted several paragraphs of the talk page, and pasted a new topic I had placed as such for very good reason back deep into another discussion where it didn't belong (not restoring much of what he cut, by other people, at all) with an edit summary "Stop making new sections." I believe I'm allowed to make new sections on a talk page when appropriate, no? This person reverted the citation request my edit there concerned previously, with no comment, and presumably thinks that hiding my text deep inside a different topic will effectively squelch it. Anyway, it's part of a larger very messy problem I wouldn't ask you to get involved in, but this edit in particular seems quite over the line. I'm a little at a loss what to do about it, though. Another poster tried to restore it, but Plijyqseft made a large number of edits immediately after, and drew some other parties into an argument, so it's very messy to restore after that many edits. It doesn't seem like an editor should be allowed to make an edit like that in the first place. Any advice would be appreciated. Arker 04:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the removal of text was intentional. There's apparently a bug with tabbed browsers like Firefox where the end of an edit on a very long page can get cut off, I epxect that's what happened. Maybe you should archive some of that talk page if any of the sections are inactive. As for the refactoring, I'd rather not make any judgement, not being experienced with the talk page in question. If it improves readability, it is allowed to move stuff about - if it doesn't, best to revert and ask them politely not to do it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

Here's an opportunity to use rollback on Edit summary: [3]. Stephen B Streater 06:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for letting me know. I did a null edit with the right edit summary [4] - what do you mean by using rollback? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 07:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant deleting the edit like this. Looks like overkill in this case. Stephen B Streater 08:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt

I believe he is editting anonymously from 149.135.3.213. Xtra 11:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a month, doesn't seem to be used by anyone else. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar and nom. for adminship

Thanks! Just in case you didn't notice I replied on my talk page. Paul Cyr 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the nomination, if a user votes against me, but the reasons are misrepresented, should I point that out, or would it just seem like sour grapes? Basically, the comments are from a user who I was in a content dispute with, who then I reported them for making personal attacks. The user said they did not want to deal with me further, but the vote seems to show a grudge against me to the point of misrepresenting previous disagreements. Paul Cyr 21:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at his contribs, it seems like the user may be canvassing for oppose votes. What normally happens in this case?

I've posted a note regarding the canvassing on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Paul Cyr. People are very sensitive about objections to nominations, so it's best to be careful and stick purely to the facts as much as possible. Does the fact that Gnetwerker said that he would not deal with you further make any of his objections clearly invalid? If not, leave it. I think Gnetwerker is being fairly open about the previous dispute, given that the diffs he provided concern it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've explained my view on the situation on my RfA talk page. Paul Cyr 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick question: where on the RfA page would it be appropriate to make a statement? Paul Cyr 23:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't be certain without knowing more about what the 'statement' would contain, but general statements and comments would usually go either at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Paul Cyr (best to start a ==new section== to catch the eye) or under the 'comments' section on the main RfA page (where all that oh-so-vital editcount data is right now). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A special thanks to you Sam for nominating me for adminship. I wasn't too suprised when my RfA didn't pass. I am also far from disappointed. It seems that most oppose votes were because of my low edit count - of those many indicating support if I were to try again in a few months. In any case, I will keep doing what I've been doing, and also try some other admin focused areas, to help address some of the voters' concerns. Once again, thanks! Paul Cyr 21:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I may support you next time too. I would hope for slightly more WP:AGF from you as a way to assist in difficult cases. Rule by consent rather than by force. Stephen B Streater 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 recommendation

I've made a recommendation regarding User:Giovanni33; I'd appreciate it if you would comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Giovanni33 again. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Mind your own business, you (Personal attack removed). JayWZR3 10:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

tango.info

I think you forgot to delete this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tango.info (2nd nomination) after closing the afd. --Ragib 19:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd. Thanks for letting me know. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Organizations AfD

Thanks for the reasonable closing there. I feel that some editors need to realize that article improvement has phases; interrupting a phase by listing it on AfD during a vunerable point in the process is like firing a retail associate because he/she had to put the rugs on the ground to organize them before placing them back on the shelves. Deleting the article lists based on a poorly worded (and therefore subjective and misinterpreted) WP:NOT policy not only causes the cruft to spill out once again, but it also deters future pushes to actually turn it into a general article describing the organizations of Star Wars. We need to make ammendments to WP:NOT to conform to those states in WP:FICT AND make a better "What AfD is not" page. Agreed? :-) — Deckiller 15:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't quite understand your point - no-one in the AfD mentioned any ongoing improvement to the list. I certainly don't think there's any problem with WP:NOT. The indiscriminate collection criterion needs to be there to be sensibly interpreted, or we lose a lot of the backbone of the notability criteria. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My deletion of Shem booth

hi there Sam. Due to the fact that nobody notified of the commentary at WP:ANI on my deletion of this article, I managed to miss the post as the headline didn't mention me specifically - I was unable to respond to the claims of the user before it went dead. There is a long response I posted to the user in question on my own page - but in short, the claim to notability that was present in his autobio was that he was a PhD student. AFAIK, I have seen random PhD students speedily deleted before and so, I wrote that comment in the deletion summary to make clearer the a7 reasoning. As for his claims that I had many angry messages about my deletions, well that is true, but they were about expired prods and a repost of Kai Wong, so I had to reiterate that I have not being roguely deleting stuff, just in case me might have misled anyone. Thankyou, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If anything I think you should be deleting more stuff like that, not less >:-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Laitman deletion

Can you please source exactly what part of the vanity policy this article infringes, as I can't see what it violates. Thanks.

I think it's vanity not in the sense that it was obviously created by the author, but that all it does is describe the man's own beliefs, as I described. That isn't really what an encyclopaedia should be doing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nisanu/Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology

Mr. Blanning, Thank you for supplying the page as requested for deletion review. Sorry to make you do that when he already had the page up at his user space, I did not see that. I am done looking at the page if you would like to delete it now. I was not sure if I was permitted to delete it from my userspace or not as I am a new editor and am trying to be mindful of messing something up too badly! I figured perhaps it would be wise to check with you first. Thanks again! Nisanu 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it's the work of a moment to restore things, really. In future, if you want something deleted from your userspace, you can add {{db-userreq}} to the top of the page and it will go in the queue for stuff to be speedy deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mergedisputed

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_17#Template:Mergedisputed

XfD spam alert - When a large number of people disagree with me, but I'm still fairly sure I'm right, I call on sensible people to explain it to me. You seem sensible, so can you look over this discussion and tell me where I'm going wrong? - brenneman ^{L} 23:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Aaron, I know you were acting in good faith, and I may weigh in at some point if I have anything to add that other TfD participants aren't covering. But as a rule I don't respond to anything posted on my user talk page that was posted to someone else's at the same time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's plenty fair. I usually try to make it clear that I've done so, and also try to make sure that I don't pick anyone who I know will agree with me! Tito, for instance, is good at convincing me where I've gone wrong. I just closed an AfD as "borked" due to spamming anyway, oh the irony. - brenneman ^{L} 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And, for the sake of transparency, it was you and User:Lar that I asked. - brenneman ^{L} 09:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 29	17 July 2006	About the Signpost

Library of Congress, Holocaust Museum negotiate with Wikimedia	Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, single login
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. --Michael Snow 05:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

help please

It had come to my notice that an entire catagory is up for deletion i personaaly only thought that individual pages could be put up for deletion and not entire catagories could be put up for deletion.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101 (Robot) I have put a lot of work in to the robot wars robots please can you advise me on the best way to help save that pages i have worked so hard on.--Lucy-marie 12:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my personal opinion is that the robots aren't significant outside of the context of the show (to simplify, people talk about the TARDIS when they're not talking about Doctor Who, but they don't talk about Hypnodisc when they're not talking about Robot Wars). Therefore they don't justify separate articles. Most of the content is only verifiable by watching the TV show, which makes it rather pointless. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

yes but if this whole catagory goes then it means that other minority intressts may also have the justifyablitiy to be removed because they are deemed 'pointless'. I also think there is a form of malice agint this catagory as some of the pages are huge and highly detailed and a lot of work has gone on to them. i think it is just vindicative and that the person who put them up for deletion has a vendetta against robor wars for some reason. --Lucy-marie 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the validity of your slippery slope argument (and Robot Wars is a very popular show, so I don't think it qualifies as a 'minority interest'), and I don't think your characterisation of the nominator's motives has any basis. That's all I can think of to say. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of these pages would consevably lead to the justifyable deletion of charaters for t.v shows. this is because they are fictitious and only verifable by watching the t.v show so the deletion of these pages dose in fact set a dangerous prescident.by the way if robot wars is very popular then isn't it questionable that they are famous enough to be on wikipedia.--Lucy-marie 18:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They aren't really characters, though. They're machines, so they don't have storylines, characteristics or backgrounds in the way that fictional characters do. I'm not overjoyed about the amount of detail we have on other TV shows that is only verifiable by the episodes themselves either, but I really don't think the deletion of the Robot Wars participants will set a precedent for them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way I can save these pages?--Lucy-marie 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from persuading the editors to change their minds, which to be honest I don't think will happen (for the reasons they gave and the reasons I gave), not really. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

I have found no reason for the Brian Peppers page to be deleted and only be recreated on February 21, 2007. There are many useless things on Wikipedia that some would consider for deletion, including the Brian Peppers page. But isn't that what Wikipedia is all about, useless subjects that a good chunk of people don't care about but find interesting once they are found and read? - Badramen

There's 'useless' and there's just plain stupid, mean-spirited and callous. If you put 'brian peppers' into Google, I'm sure you'll find whatever there is to know (I never understood what more there was to it than a bunch of geeks finding the Holy Grail - someone uglier than them - and emailing a bunch of people). It's not of lasting importance and consequently Wikipedia doesn't need to have an article on it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I tottaly agree can you help me save pages I am intersted in such as the robot wars pages--Lucy-marie 12:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See above. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We're talking Pulitzer or Lindgren here!

This Shepherd's Pie is awarded to Samuel Blanning for excellence in closing AfD debates. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No baked beans? Is there something wrong with you? (But thanks anyway ) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

Thank you, I was wondering how to get rid of that! Roleplayer 16:32, 19 July 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 |-|) 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantown

I don't quite understand what you've done here. You're not an admin, so you can't delete the article. Who do you expect to actually follow up on the notice you added?

Also, why did you move it to Via Strass' userspace? I didn't see a request for it anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I placed a delete notice on the actual article, you can delete it. I copied the article to user subspace because User:Via strass was the user that posted the article so I moved it to her subspace in case she wanted to keep it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Mostly Rainy 10:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

David Bautista

Please add semi protect as loads of people keep adding spoilers and vandalising about his injury.--Lucy-marie 11:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't justify semi-protection at this point in my opinion. I don't see enough vandalism, and adding and reverting spoilers constitutes a content dispute, not vandalism (though adding information on future events may violate WP:V and probably should be reverted). You can ask at WP:RPP if you want a second opinion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Naturalistic science-fiction..

If it really wouldn't be a bother unto yourself, may you get me a copy of Naturalistic science-fiction? DrWho42 01:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Naturalistic science fiction, I've restored it to User:DoctorWho42/Naturalistic science fiction. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my user talk page. It's nice to be defended. :-) --Heron 19:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Hello

I hope that you are very fine. I would like to have any information about a particular block: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anwari_Begum&diff=54971305&oldid=54381703

In case, you have the relevant information, kindly make them public. Thanks. --Bhadani 17:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As the block says, it was a result of Checkuser evidence showing that the account was a sockpuppet of blocked user Prin. The case is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Prin. I don't have any more information than that - Essjay did the check, not me, I merely carried out the blocks - and Checkuser information is never made public in any case. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Guise?

You wrote a good point on the deletion review for The Rabbit Joint. Ultimately, you're probably right. At the risk of violating civility and/or (aren't they basically the same?) etiquette, I'll simply state I don't like your choice of words. Calling my actions a guise? That's not how I would've described my intention. I'm not part of any cabal. My only guise is the expansion of truth (even if my efforts are, at times, misdirected). In any case, this isn't some crusade of mine. If this little bit of trivia is too small for wikipedia, I'm not going to hold a grudge over it (there's plenty of other things to do). Xaxafrad 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

By "guise", I meant nothing more than "name", or more specifically, "whether this article is about the song or the band". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I didn't realize you were pre-emptively endorsing the deletion of the song article (apart from the band article). But maybe there's something I'm missing: the previous deleted articles, are they completely gone or do they exist in some kind of undeletable netherspace from which they can be brought back? Maybe an old version lacked references, too (it wasn't mentioned in the AfD discussion). Xaxafrad 02:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, all deleted content can be seen and restored by administrators, unless it was deleted with the oversight feature. I had a look at the old versions, and there's nothing that was an improvement on the version deleted at AfD that I can see. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 30	24 July 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Special report, writers wanted
Another country reportedly blocks Wikipedia	School files suit against anonymous user(s)
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Wikipedia featured in The New Yorker
Election officials named to handle vote for board seat	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and Notes: Biographies of living persons, 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. --Michael Snow 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

History merge

First delete Template:Pelican to make a history merge for Template:MPS? -- ADNghiem501 07:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just redirected Template:Pelican to Template:MPS and undid the redirect on Template:MPS, so the version with the longer history is now the 'master'. I don't think there was anything useful in the history of my accidental duplication that requires a history merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

nice user page!

Hey I just want to confess. I tried to open your user page edit page so I can copy the layout and use it on my user page, but I know yours is very sophisticated and I couldnt copy it, hahaha. So would you teach me how to make that kind of userpage? Im mostly interested on the top icons (userpage, contributions, emails, talk page, stuff)

Thanks, Imoeng 09:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement. My userpage is built out of a number of transcluded templates - you can see them simply by typing the name in curly brackets into the search bar and pressing 'Go', or into the URL bar after 'en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'. For example, the top icons you're referring to are transcluded with {{User:Samuel Blanning/Header}}, which uses the contents of User:Samuel Blanning/Header.

The header itself I nicked off User:Master of Puppets, and there is some quite complicated code in there - in itself, the table code is quite simple, the colour coding is quite simple, even the hack used to turn the images into links is quite simple, but when thrown together I don't really know where to begin explaining it, and certainly would have a job writing it from scratch. I would suggest doing what I did - now you know how to find the transcluded templates, copy whatever you want (e.g to User:Imoeng/Header) and edit it until you get it looking the way you want. You don't need to ask for permission to take stuff from people's userpages so long as you say where you got it - an edit summary is usually considered sufficient, though I have a 'Credits' section for that purpose at the top.

Hope that helps - if you have any trouble understanding the code and finding which bits you need to edit, let me know and I'll try to help. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Did you know

Hey Sam , I noticed you DYK and I was wondered if a fact that's soon to expire could be fitted in since the DYK is a bit higher than the on this day section on the main page. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would help, to be honest. I checked how the columns were looking when I updated, and they're pretty even, though the different sizes of the relative top and bottom sections (FA/DYK, ITN/OTD) mean that the headings aren't aligned, as you pointed out. I doubt they often are aligned, and I think adding a new fact would just put a load of blank space under the On This Day section. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder...

You forgot to c-upload or protect Image:Hansken.rembrandt.jpg before updating the DYK and putting it on the main page. Don't know if you were going to, but just in case, I thought I'd remind you. Not like you didn't know that though. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers - you're right, I usually do the protecting before they hit the Main Page. I blame my crappy laptop which can't handle more than about 3 browser tabs... and my civil servants... and drinking my Wikizade too quickly. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kitten Vandal

Just a note, when you block suspected/confirmed Kitten Vandal sockpuppets, there is now a specialised template at {{KV}}, please use this one as it automatically puts the user into Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of the Kitten Vandal. Thanks ><Richard0612 ^UW 09:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Parvinder Singh

I know that it is in the guidelines to delete the page, however, the point of this deletion review is to review new material. How is anyone supposed to do that now that you deleted the page. Ansell 03:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review primarily reviews the process, not the content, so what the editors there are focused on is the AfD discussion, and whether it was conducted and closed properly, not the content of the article. However, administrators can see the deleted content if they want. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Middle East Conflict Man

Per WP:LTA#The_Middle_East_Conflict_Man why don't we set up a Long term abuse page on him as with:

• Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal
• Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels.

Just a suggestion. --TheM62Manchester 11:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not keen on LTA subpages. I think they should be reserved for really long-term vandals (as in over a year) like WoW and WiC - I think the creation of the Kitten Vandal one only a few days after he started was extremely premature, and will just encourage other vandals to think up imaginative vandal aliases so they can get their own subpage. In fact, I think I'll MfD it - there was an attempt to delete all the subpages which failed miserably, but perhaps editors will agree with me that this is different.

Regarding TMECM, I think the description of his characteristics at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Middle East Conflict Man and at the sub-section is sufficient to tell anyone who wants to know about the abuse. I can't stop you turning it into a subpage if you want, though. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I see those LTA pages as the online equivalent of a rogues gallery or police incident room. --TheM62Manchester 12:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the brief LTA sub-sections as equivalent to the police incident room, as they provide the necessary information to prosecute the vandal. I see the LTA subpages, their infoboxes and their special pictures as a Hall of Fame (or Shame if you prefer), which should be reserved for the most exceptional cases if at all. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that he still hasn't quit. Can't he be IP banned? -- Nikodemos 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go to WP:RFCU, give them the names of the most recent sockpuppets and ask them for a range block, they might be able to do something - it depends on the amount of possible collateral damage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 31	31 July 2006	About the Signpost

Onion riff prompts some to cry for change	Professors criticize, praise Wikipedia in listserv discussions
Wikimania last-minute information	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 03:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)