User talk:Samuel Blanning/May2006

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the main talk page.

Your recent block

User talk:84.12.24.79, whom you blocked a few minutes ago, came back as User talk:84.12.170.7 and started by vandalizing my userpage. Please zap him too. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please block

If you block my ip, please be sure to block 128.84.178.* or else I might sneak back on again. 128.84.178.97 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sassalism

Please stop. If you continue to sass me, you will be taken back here to G.A.S.D. and forced to mop the floors.

Richard A. Gulas, Principal G.A.S.D.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.47.193 (talk • contribs) 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Online Status

I have seen a couple of people lately who have a little thing to show their online/offline status. How do you do this? --Think Fast 00:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to User:Topaz/statuschanger.js, and copy the code there into User:Think Fast/monobook.js. Purge the cache and you should see three buttons next to your 'log out' button. Clicking either of them will change your status, which will be located at User:Think Fast/Status.

To get it at the top of the userpages requires some div trickery, which, like most of my userpage, I stole from User:Sango123 - specifically User:Sango123/StatusDiv. I copied that to User:Samuel Blanning/StatusDiv and included it at the top of my userpage and my talk page header. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean that every time you change your status you have an edit added to your status page? --Think Fast 21:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. So keep it quiet from sufferers of editcountitis, if such people actually exist ;-). It would only become significant if you actually clicked it over and over again, and that would come out pretty quickly if you ever tried to use your edit count as a measure of something - during an RFA, for example. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

86.134.83.214

Samuel - Thanks for stepping in to warn the above user. I don't expect they will stop, but perhaps they will think. Jw6aa 23:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. I must have a fetish for flamewars on obscure articles. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The kind of article I have reverted in the past has been the type that includes a huge list of changable information. e.g. [1], versions littered with pro-Quizzing puff and versions that claim official status of competitions that are not official. The company has been the subject of a dispute over their admissions policy - they ban people without a transparent process (as is their right as a limited company), but at the same time try they to regard themselves as a governing body. I believe it is they who guilty of control freakery, that the article is not NPOV, and that if left to people from the organisation and their associates to edit (nearly always under anon IPs) they turn it into an advert rather than a NPOV page of an encyclopedia. I stand by all my edits. I do have an interest in this area, but I think their problem is with me personally rather than my contributions. Many thanks for your help. Jw6aa 13:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

I surely agree with your handling of the edit to Nigger about which an anon editor complained; certainly, as vandalism goes, the edit was altogether tame, and, in any case, was self-reverted. I write, though, to offer my appreciation for your "By most standards, 'Xs are well endowed and are on the giving end of anal sex' is a compliment" comment; even as such comment is accurate and sincerely proffered, it was also, I thought, quite funny. It gave me, to be sure, a laugh, for which I thank you. Joe 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you hit the jackpot on the Comma Lottery recently? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

May the Force be with you.

Dear Samuel Blanning/May2006,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your faith in me, and was overwhelmed by the positive response to my RFA; for it shows that at least I'm doing something right. :) I've started working to improve myself already, and I hope that next time, things run better, and maybe, just maybe, one day we can bask on the shores of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 21:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Burying in peat?

Why is there no WP:PEAT ?

Georgewilliamherbert 22:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Requested articles lately? Even the Vogons couldn't match that queue. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cairo University

Hi, Sam. I'm the guy who left the note about Cairo University on the administrators' noticeboard. Someone else has left comments on the CU talk page now, after deleting, once again, any reference to the undesirable alumni. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes unnecessarily. Could you take a look at the talk page [2] and advise? Thanks! Jessesamuel 23:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Zerida has given a legitimate justification for removing the list of alumni entirely (I make no judgements on whether he's right or not, mind). Why don't you discuss it with him? With the issue of vandalism out of the way you can focus purely on whether the list should be included in an encyclopaedia article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I just wanted to thank you for helping me with my userboxes!--Awesome Username 23:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, work of a moment. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:DYK

Please read DYK guide carefully: "The article that will be listed ON THE TOP of the template should have a fitting and appropriate image attached". Please make necessary changes. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Done, thanks for letting me know. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks

So you responded to me a month ago and I just now realized I never came back to check for a response (nor did I watch the page). I was new, that's my excuse!

Thanks for the info on setting up your userboxes. I used to make web sites for a living so hopefully I can make sense of the code :) although Wikipedia's syntax is a little funky. Probably simplified, but since I'm used to the hard way... Anyway my main question was around how you managed to split up the boxes and just take the pictures, so I'll try that. Thanks again! (and now I'm watching this page) --Laura S 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Rouge block

Yea I was wondering why I couldn't edit for that one second.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin

This arbitration case has closed. Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related articles and discussion pages. He is also placed on personal attack and revert parole. These remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case page. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou

other half of this conversation is at User talk:KimvdLinde
Done. KimvdLinde 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not see it as putting a head in a spike, but more as a general notification that a specific editor has been banned from a specific page, so that new editors know how to dealw with him. KimvdLinde 17:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it is that ArbCom ruling are exceptions, on editors who despite many many effort of the community have continued to ignore the policies that make it possible to work at Wikipedia. he had SO many options to change that himself. But he choose not to do it, and I think that before edtoirs go to the ArbCom it has to be pretty bad. I have done it once (still running), when I definatly did not see any other way out anymore. I do not feel good about it, but there are limites to where editors can go, and sometimes, things have to be done for the greater good. To be honrst, I feel sorry for Lou. I am sure he does not mean things bad. But in the end, I am here to make an encyclopedia. KimvdLinde 17:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande + a cunning vandal

Hmm, have you really gone to the page Roman Empire and replaced the value of the image of the Tetrarchs to 300px? When I do that, a completly image appears of a buch of ppl playing chess. Flamarande 11:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Absolutely nothing changes except the size. Try purging your cache - on Firefox press Ctrl-Shift-R, on IE press Ctrl-F5. I did a more thorough check on the history, and none of the edits to the article in the past few days have been vandalism, all the recent anon edits have either been blatant vandalism or good-faith, and the image itself hasn't been altered since February. I'm sure it must be a technical problem at your end. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems so, I tried it with the computer of my brother. Man, this is weird as I never have seen (at least that I remmber) that image before. Sorry but I honestly thought someone had tampered with the image. Flamarande 12:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I pressed Ctrl-Shift-R and everything went back to normal. What a stupid mistake. Well anyway thanks Flamarande 12:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

other half of this conversation is at User talk:Bhadani
Nice that you reminded me. I was aware of the point, but missed it. Thank you. I am removing them. Regards. --Bhadani 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, may I give a link in this style on my User Page: Image:Wings of Fire.jpg. --Bhadani 13:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you can. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of relevant links and content to a page

Hi Samuel

I have edited a couple of pages here and it would seem one is being confused with some sort of spam because of external linking that is on the page.

The page relates to serviced offices and has been edited becuase of links. Sometimes that page itself has been removed.

I have added four links to the bottom of the page that provide a referance to revelant oragnisations. This is NOT promotional linking and i am now very perplexed as it seems ok for other people to put other pages up and provide relevanmt links.

Please feel free to browse to 'serviced office' and let me know why these links are wrong.

thank you.

Neil.

You reverted a set of changes which served to neutralise what looked a lot like advertorial. 100% of your edit history is spam or vandalism. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Guy's version was more encyclopaedic and I'm not inclined to attempt mediation with a vandal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Free Office Finder

I speedied this as being essentially a contact attempt (email address at bottom, started with web link, etc). Feel free to undo and leave for its five days if you like, I didn't see much point. Another case of rouge admin abuse, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No complaint here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

It looks like we are 26 hours past the earliest time for the update of the template. Maybe it's time to update it now? Pecher ^Talk 14:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been updated. Pecher ^Talk 14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Sanssouci

Did you see this? --Mmounties (Talk) 15:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The upcoming main page feature? Yes, very gratifying. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock me this minute.

I have no idea who this guy is, and I was right in the middle of uploading images for Wetter, Hesse. Please unblock me. Kelisi 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume you're asking me to unblock an IP that you're using, since I haven't ever blocked your account. You'll have to tell me which IP you're using. And please bear in mind that I have no way to tell which accounts are using an IP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Online (2nd nomination)

Just wanted to clarify your close in light of Wikipedia:Verifiability stating that The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. and If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. Do you think there is no consensus on the question of whether the article has reputable third party sources? Steve block Talk 21:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for ignoring 'voting' numbers in favour of enforcing policy (I closed an AfD only yesterday with that in mind). But in this case, I felt that as a) there was no particularly dubious information in the article, and b) those who argued for keeping the article did say that they considered the article to meet WP:V (as opposed to the The Game (game), where keep 'voters' admitted that the article wasn't verifiable but said it should be kept anyway), there was not sufficient justification to pass over the numbers.

That said, given that we've gone down from a keep result in December to a weak no consensus, I wouldn't surprised if a consensus to delete emerged at a later time. In fact, I wouldn't be at all put out if you took this to deletion review and they decided to overturn my close and delete on the grounds of verifiability. A consensus has more justification to overturn a split headcount than a single admin (even a rouge one). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sam. I was more curious in your thinking on closing than in the actual close result itself, even though I was heavily involved in the debate, I wanted to see what is weighed up when difficult ones are closed. I'll probably leave off deletion review, I'm finding myself split in so many directions, and I respect that it's not the worst article ever written. It's tough to know where to begin in this place sometimes. Do I just ignore what I don't like, or do I make an effort to push the envelope? Once again, thanks for a very considered response. I wish all admins were like you, especially me. Steve block Talk 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

Is there some way you can block a user, and not the user's IP address? I've been blocked twice today because I apparently share 72.14.194.32 with Seahen, and I'd appreciate it if I didn't have to wait to make edits. You'll note on my user contribution page that I'm far from being a vandal, as I've increasingly spent my time doing reverts. Thanks! Carl.bunderson 23:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the MediaWiki software is set up such that if an IP is used by a blocked user, it gets automatically blocked, and the only way for an admin to know that it's been blocked is when he receives the flood of 'omg why did you block me >:(' messages. See WP:AUTOBLOCK. I've unblocked the address. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining that. And sorry if I was a touch belligerent earlier. Carl.bunderson 01:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Barnham

Wow. I don't know what to say after that. "Thanks" doesn't cover it. Can I have your words bronzed somehow? AnonEMouse 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That said, don't you have to take the deletion notice off, and make a "survived AFD" notice on its talk page? Or can a non-admin (like, say, me) do that? AnonEMouse 00:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry about that, I thought I'd managed to avoid screwing up so far - I've finished it off.

You could have completed the process - non-admins are allowed to close AfDs which aren't controversial and don't require admin intervention (i.e. have resulted in overwhelming consensus to 'keep'), so removing deletion notices after an admin has closed the discussion is almost certainly something a non-admin is welcome to do. But personally, I'd rather you tell me that I'd forgotten so I can smack myself upside the head and make more of an effort to do it properly in future :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Here's your bronzing.

God grant us more editors like AnonEMouse. --Sam Blanning

Amen to that. I didn't notice that AfD - I know of Barnham, Bacon was a benefactor of my old school. Just zis Guy you know? 14:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That was a heck of an impressive rescue... (you see the neatest thing snooping around on other's user pages! Grin...) I gave AnonEMouse a Barnstar of Rescue, richly deserved in my view. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking (2)

This is getting truly tiresome. I am being blocked regardless of what it says in the log, and the page that keeps coming up says that you are responsible for it, just because my IP address has apparently recently been used by Seahen. I have no idea who that is, I am a regular contributor to WP, but I can't very well be one if you keep blocking me. Please take care of this problem. Kelisi 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I cannot unblock your IP until you tell me what it is. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's 72.14.194.32, I've just unblocked it on Carl.bunderson's request. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preying from the Pulpit

I would like discuss your reasoning for putting "no consensus" on the above AfD. It appears that 8 seperate folks proposed that the article be either merged with the First Baptist Church of Hammond or deleted outright.

There were two people out of ten that voted to keep the article (one of whom using some very unencyclopedic reasoning). Can we please merge this content to First Baptist Church of Hammond as is the wishes of 8 out 10 editors? Vivaldi (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi's AfD was either POV driven or badly reasoned. For example, Vivaldi wrote at the Preying from the Pulpit AfD nomination: "It was a nightly news series from an unknown station, on an unknown date, at an unknown time."[3] However, when the station name and other changes were added to tighten up the Jack Hyles article, Vivaldi revert these additions[4]. Clearly, this user either didn't really believe not having the station's name was important or has failed to pay attention to what is being added. If its the former, this action demonstrates a user trying to white wash DOCUMENTED criticism or if it's the latter it demonstrates a user with a strong POV who cares little for the quality content. Arbusto 01:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a backroom boy, Arbustoo, if you have issues with this editor, take them to their talk page, RfC or somewhere else more appropriate than my talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I thought it was important to mention. Arbusto 01:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's important to mention, then mention it somewhere where it will get the attention it deserves. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned on the Jack Hyles page where those massive deletions have occurred. Arbusto 01:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not the place to discuss merges, so putting a merge tag or actually doing a merge is entirely within someone's discretion when they close the AFD. Any of the people who 'vote' for merging are welcome to add the appropriate merges or do it themselves if consensus is sufficient.

Since you've told me where the merge should actually be to, I've gone ahead and added the suggested merge tags. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

More bad faith by Vivaldi. This user is contacting users who voted delete[5][6]. Note Vivaldi's comments are "you suggested that we delete the article ... can you please comment on the proposed merger of the article at..." Arbusto 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please pardon my intrusion, I am new here (actually, I've been registered for about 2 months). I do not understand what your role is in the AfD process, or how 8 votes out of 10 for deletion or merging are somehow upset by two votes (one of which is from the guy who posted the article in question)? I am also wondering why Wikipedia would have an entire article that is based on an uncredited copy of a TV network's newscast that is hosted on a personal Website? Aren't you the least bit concerned that, at a minimum, the article's main links would be broken should the TV network decide they don't wish to have their TV programs distributed by private individuals making MP3s of them?

For the record, I did not vote, because I have not made up my mind what should be done with the article. Obviously, it cannot remain in its current form, but that is apparently not your concern. I think this article presents a great example of modern day yellow journalism, though I am certain that was not Arbusto's intent when he extracted it from the other articles. Pooua 03:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My role is to decide whether the outcome of the discussion means the article should be deleted or not. For this purpose a vote to 'merge' usually counts as a keep, because it means the article content should be somewhere. A merge cannot take place if the article is deleted - at the very least, it must be turned into a redirect under the terms of the GFDL. Some editors vote 'merge or delete, do not keep', but there were none in that discussion.

With 4 editors arguing for deletion, 5 for keeping it somewhere, and no pressing policy issues, the article could not be deleted. The closing admin is not obligated to do merges himself, especially when consensus isn't clear about where it should be merged or whether it should be merged at all. If you want it merged somewhere urgently, ask JzG, WarriorScribe or ReyBrujo, since they were the ones actually calling for merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this process for me.

I would like to note that the article that was considered for deletion, "Preying from the Pulpit," is actually an extract from Wikipedia articles that already exist. That is, the material is already merged, and the current article is redundant. Pooua 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Pooua wants that content anywhere. It is critical of someone he admires. Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that is Mr. Blanning's concern. If it is, I will be happy to offer a rebuttal; otherwise, you and I, JzG, have ample exchange on other pages. Pooua 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting pages

Hey, i noticed you fixed up the redirecting between the pages Genei Ryodan, Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan) and Phantom Troupe. Sorry to bother you, but could you please explain how you where able to do it? Like..i was the one who stuffed it up by renaming the "Genei Ryodan" page into "Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan)" and then renaming it into "Phantom Troupe".

This caused "Genei Ryodan" to be redirected to "Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan)", instead of straight to "Phantom Troupe." I couldn't work out how to edit the "Genei Ryodan" page to make the redirecting go to "Phantom Troupe" instead, since whenever i tried getting to the "Genei Ryodan" page...i just got automatically redirected to "Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan)". Like...basically, how are you supposed to fix up a redirect if you can't reach the page (since the page automatically redirects you.)

Also, is there anyway to get rid of redirecting pages? Like...the "Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan" page was a mistake. But even though i've renamed the page into "Phantom Troupe", the old "Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan)" page still exists as a re-direct. Is there anyway to just delete it? Or would that involve the whole nominating-pages-for-deletion thing, even though it's just an empty page with a redirect on it?

Thanks Yaksha 09:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When moving a page, usually it's a good idea to preserve the redirect, for two reasons: people who've visited the article before might try to get to it via its old name, and it saves you having to go through 'what links here' and changing every single wikilink to the new name. Redirects are cheap.

To fix double redirects, all you need to do is follow the redirect back and edit the redirect. To do this, first go to the redirect, and when it redirects you to the main article, click on 'redirected from foo', which will take you to the redirect. Edit the page, and you'll see the '#REDIRECT [[whatever]] text, and all you have to is change 'whatever' to wherever the article is now.

To track down double redirects, go to the main page and click 'what links here'. That will show you a nested list of all articles that link to the page, including redirects. There shouldn't be more than two indented levels on it - it should look like this. Hope that helps. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah, it does. Thanks for the explainations. Just one last thing, "Redirects are cheap." <<i noticed quite a few people saying this...i'm a bit confused about whether this is meant to be in support of or against redirects? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaksha (talk • contribs) .

In support. It means that if there's even the smallest reason to place a redirect, then one should be placed - and unless a redirect is actually completely useless (e.g. redirecting to a deleted article) or harmful (e.g. Stupid assbladder pointing to George W. Bush) it shouldn't be deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks again. :)Yaksha 10:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your signature on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2

How can you sign something so blatantly wrong? Look at my block log and you can easily see, that I am not a serial violator of WP:3RR blocked as such by three separate admins on four occasions. I've been blocked twice for 3RR. My last block (1 week) has been for these three edits in five days. [7][8][9] Please note, that one of those changes actually adds a link to the cartoons on an article version without cartoons. Raphael1 16:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you consider me illiterate? You have been blocked three times. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been blocked three times, but my last block has been unjust. 3 reverts in 5 days is not a violation of WP:3RR. Raphael1 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How was the decision "delete"

When there was more "keep" votes?!?!?!?!?!Please answer meDzoni 23:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. My reasoning is right up there on top of the discussion, but what it comes down to is that the article did not meet Wikipedia policy on neutrality, verifiability, original thought or copyright - in fact it violated pretty much every basis of writing an encyclopaedia - and those arguing for keep provided no comfort that it ever would. If you want my closing to be reviewed, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I SURE AS HELL WANT,BECAUSE MOST VOTES WERE "KEEP"! THIS IS ALL BECAUSE IT WAS A CRITIC SONG ABOUT CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL NATO AGRESSION.YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DELETE SOMETHING THAT MOST USERS VOTED "KEEP" ONDzoni 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted article recreated

The article you deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song) (actually moved to El Condor pada before deletion), has been recreated by its original creator User:Dzoni, under that title, and now it has been listed for deletion again, under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Condor pada. I believe that it now qualifies for a speedy delete. Balcer 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your abuse of adminship

Can you explain why you deleted an article where there was Clearly NO CONCENSUS about deleting it. Do you have anything to say about it, before the complaint is filed against you at the appropriate place? BabaRera 23:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've said all I need to, see "How was the decision "delete"" above. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is unheard of,this is dictatorship,going directly against the votes that were "Keep",that were majorityDzoni 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to ask for deletion review or not? Because I'm going to bed soon, and if you are going to file a request for review then I'd rather give my response there tonight. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the previous nomination on Afd. I didn't know it was a recreation. DGX 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There were more votes to Keep than to delete. Only a fraction of editors from Balkans were aware of the vote for deletion. Your decision is highly disputable. We are going to see how the things develop when relevant editors were asked to comment about it. You decision is wrong, and you know it. Now lets see how you are going to defend yourself. BabaRera 23:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to file request for abuse of adminship, not a deletion review. Because, that is what it is. There is also going to be greater awareness about what you did in the relevant community. BabaRera 23:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, though if you want the article undeleted WP:DRV is the only forum where that will happen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont be so sure. BabaRera 23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please BabaRera, mind WP:CIVIL. DGX 23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about my feelings DGX, that was actually pretty civil for a possible veiled threat to recreate a deleted article out of process. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry about the edits to the Afd. I was removing comments that took place after the deletion that said "why was it just deleted" and the such. Sorry again... DGX 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just had to revert another good-faith revert which restored those comments... as if this couldn't be more of a mess. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(to s. blanning) You speak of a due process? There were more people voting to keep than to delete. The article does not concern me that much, as does this blatant violation of the wikipedia rules. Admins are not gods, and this is NOT going to end up like this - by hasty deletion, you have insulted not only all of those who believe the decision is wrong, but done much much more than that. I have serious doubts about your impartiality and good faith - I strongly suspect that you deleted it not for ADMINISTRATIVE reasons (result of a debate), but because OF YOUR FEELINGS about the article subject. That is a very serious blunder. BabaRera 00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100 precentDzoni 00:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never even heard the song, so the thought of me deleting on the basis of my feelings about it is quite funny. You still don't seem to understand that AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you have never heard of a song, it is known mostly to people from the Balkans. That does not mean you do not have feelings about what the song means and that you are neutral. Quite the contrary, as you proved in your explanation WHY you removed the article. You were saying that the issue of Serbian defiance (srpski inat) was nationalist rant and original research, while that is completely false - you just never heard of it, of course. It is a well documented and known sentiment, and you based your decision in part on that a passage about it was added (it was added the last day of vote and it has not been discussed), while it can be at most a POV dispute. The way you formulated the thing reveals your emotions. Moreover, the lyrics copyright problem (which apparently also arose at the very end of discussion, when full lyrics was added) was quoted, and it was not a thing discussed there almost at all (some suggested transwiki, but none quoted it as a main objection). The main issue was notability in the discussion, and users from Balkans did testify it was notable (some pointed out that there is a reference to the song in article about F117a already). But you decided (based on WHAT) that there was no evidence presented (wiki guidelines clearly say that at most a {{verifiability}} tag can be added to a disputed claim, and many users claimed that this is a well known song. You failed to list a proper reason for deletion, on which a CONCENSUS is reached. Yes, AfD is not a vote, it is supposed to be based on a CONCENSUS. What kind of CONCENSUS was reached there? You deleted article for invalid reasons, and while clearly there was no concensus about the thing. That is abuse of adminship. What is worse, your explanation of how it is not a vote go directly against stated spirit and rules of wikipedia. This is putting you at odds with the community that you seem to hold a grudge against. You seem to use your powers as an admin in a way that serves your POV interests, not interest of a community! BabaRera 00:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Without necessarily agreeing with any of the above, I think that the closing the afd as speedy was wrong, mostly because the first afd was wrongly closed. Of course afd is not a vote and and baseless opinions should be discounted, but had you done that on both sides, you would have also discounted claims of it being an unnotable song by an unnotable band from people who obviously haven't even bothered to google for it. In short, don't blame the article for some of its supporters being unpleasant (to say the least about their behaviour in this case). In reality, the song is one of the most well known songs by Radio Index, one of the most important radio and theatre projects in Serbia. The article has now been recreated as a proper encyclopedic article at its proper name, El kondor pada.

As for the copyright matter, the lyrics: I have seen no proof that lyrics are freely available. They are certainly not in public domain because that US-specific concept does not apply to Serbia that way. If anyone adds them en masse again, they should be deleted on sight. Zocky | picture popups 01:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

...please use {{vandal}} template, list EMPTY

on that topic, do you think you could give template:IPvandal a once over, I've taken the liberty of using it myself on a trial basis, but could use some feedback--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 00:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it, though I usually check to see that someone hasn't already done a WHOIS lookup and posted the results on the IP's talk page before I do it myself. Guess we'll just have to see if it catches on. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC against you

Hi Sam, just from the heading, you can probably figure out what this is all about. For some reason, I thought you had already been notified about this, but I can't find any reference to this on your talk page, so if you weren't aware, I'm just bringing you the "bad" (read: ridiculous) news that there's been an RfC filed against you for alleged abuse of administrative rights. TheProject 06:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. No, I wasn't aware of it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick question

If an anon is spamming commercial links, then gets an account and continues is it appropriate to move or copy the warnings from the IP to the account's talk page? He/she reacted on my talk page to the IP warnings from the account so I am certain. I refer to User:222.154.126.115 and User:Vbinfo. Thanks in advance - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 09:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that's appropriate. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I will copy them rather than move incase they go back to the IP. Thanks again - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 09:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand (and sorry to come in maybe too late)... he seems to have promised to stop on your talk page, in which case moving the warnings wouldn't serve any purpose. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops you posted this the exact minute I copied them. Yes he has agreed but that's not after creating the account and adding the link to a number of different articles after three previous warnings. Had I been at my PC during that time I would have reported him to AIV. Guess the warnings can't hurt? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned he can remove them if he wants if he starts to make good-faith, non-linkspam contributions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I added that to his talk page. Thanks again for your help, and good luck (not that you'll need it) with that outrageous RfC. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 09:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article First News, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 10:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Schools' FAQ

Hello, I noted that you worded the schools' FAQ to say that 'almost all' pages are on someone's watchlist. Is there info available on this? I'd be interested to know what % of articles have 0, 1, .. 5-10, 10-20, .. 100-150, etc. watchers. I appreciate that making a list saying which articles had 0 watchers would be a bad idea {boon for vandals}, and the watchers would have to remain anonymous, but (considering that there are >1m articles), I'd be surprised if the majority were watched, let alone 'almost all'. Is the data available somewhere? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know there's no way of knowing that. And my assertion is probably slightly on the bold side, but all useful pages are almost certainly on someone's watchlist, which is what teachers really want to know ("if someone changes Napoleon's birthdate how will anyone find out before my pupils read it?"). You could try asking at the Village pump. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

El kondor pada

I wonder if you can help here. The article is better, but, as you said, doesn't have references noted. A Google search confirms what the article says - that it's a song by the named artists, in Serbian. Unfortunately, the way it confirms this is by listing songs by the artists, in Serbian, or just by giving the lyrics of the song, again, in Serbian. (Well, at least I think it does - I can't really read Serbian, but the results seem to be a list of song titles.) What we really want is some kind of article saying "El kondor pada is a song by XXX, about YYY, that is famous in Serbia for reason ZZZ" - but there isn't a single article saying that, though the sum total of the hits say that. (I'd say 80 hits is notable, considering Serbia is not the most Internet-wired country, and half the country uses a non-Latin alphabet that I don't know how to search for in Google.) Is that citable somehow? AnonEMouse 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Google search? No. It's not a reliable source, and comes more under the heading of original research. There are articles which use Google hits, frequency of Google searches, etc. to prove a point, but never as the sole source for something's notability. I don't think I can help you. I did do a Factiva search yesterday evening and came up with nothing. Whatever the Serbian editors say, highly-popular political songs do get newspaper coverage outside their country if they really are that notable, even if they're in a foreign language. Der Steuersong, for example, a satirical German song about ex-Chancellor Schröder (in German, with lots of untranslatable German puns), turns up 67 hits on Factiva. Germany may be richer, but then we were at war with Serbia, so I really do believe that someone would have taken notice if the song's notability was as high as is claimed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel,I swear on my mothers life,if you find an article about any Serbian song in English,I will accept that I was wrong and I will pursade everyone that this song should be deleted.But off course,you wont find a single article or internet about any Serbian song,not just this one,but any.No foreign jurnalist ever worte about it.Never.So you cant just say that this one has no references in foreign languages,because no Serbian song have.If you find it,then we will agree that thi article about the song is not necessaryDzoni 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this then [10]? Just don't do anything about that oath, please. Balcer 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer,how many times you will try to backstab me,just because I was right and you was wrong about Lepper.Its getting pathetic really...

You know damn well that I ment songs,this is a review of an album,with review of each song.Plus,those are old serbian songs,I ment modern day songs,but not as this,because what you gave us was,basicly,an commercial review for this LP.Dzoni 16:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Would this count? From The Guardian: [11],[12]. Balcer 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And of course there is this. Balcer 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

B92 link you gave me is about review of albums,not review of the songs.As for Guardian,those are articles about competitions for Eurovision,not articles about songs.So your wrong again.

I know that you felt humiliated about Lepper when I was right and you was wrong,but maaan,let it go,just apologise and you will feel better,and you will let your self free,because you know as well as we all do that all your Anti-serbian eforts are being just your desperate atempt to take your mind of you disgusting behavior about Lepper.Dont worry,I wont try to get you blocked because of that(though almost everyone else would have done it),i just want you te feel good about yourself and stop deciving yourself.

As for articles,they are completly off the mark,because those are not articles about the songDzoni 16:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What about this one, Freedom Songs, again from the Guardian. I admit though, if you are looking for a whole article devoted to a single song, that might be hard to find. But then one rarely finds such articles for any song, except those most famous. Balcer 16:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, regardless of what Dzoni requires to be satifsfied here, my searches clearly show that Serbian bands and songs do get discussed in the Western press. This was especially true during the Kosovo War. So one can reasonably ask for a confirmation from an English language press source if a song is/was notable, especially a song that was supposedly played "all over Serbia" during the war. Balcer

That is my point.I was looking for a whole article devoted to a single song.You cant find it.On the other side,you can find articles about songs like "Yesterday","Jailhouse Rock","Hit em Up" ect.

So,you see,English,American and Zionists songs have loads of articles about it,but Serbian song dont,thats my whole point.

p.s.I would like to get an apology from you,you will feel betterDzoni 17:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And yes,how could they write about "El Condor Pada",when the same group have songs like "It is me" in which they attack NATO BUTCHERS Bill Clinton,Tony Bler or Robin Cook.Off course that they were ignored by NATO and Zionists press while we were at the state of war with them.Dzoni 17:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Samuel, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El kondor pada? It's also on WP:DRV as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching the discussion with interest, particularly that between you and Dcabrilo, but don't feel I have anything to contribute at the moment. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can appreciate that. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If I do voice my opinion, I think I'll wait till the end of the discussion period. But currently, while the article is obviously more viable than the one I deleted, the arguments for deletion still look convincing. I find it telling that the only people convinced by the 'sources' offered are those who were happy with no sources in the first place. Not that that saved us from the The Game (game), of course. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely (and verifiably) untrue that the same people who were happy with no sources are now happy with the sources offered. It is getting to the point that the arguments against the song's inclusion are the product of the arrogance more than anything. Profnjm 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean they're no longer (Personal attack removed) or is this a joint venture? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. You must think you are speaking with somebody else. Neither Zionism nor anti-Zionism are in my bag of tricks. I just think this process has dragged on for personal rather than principled reasons. Profnjm 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, I do get it! I actually thought there must be something in your comment to take seriously. But no! Because I'm in favor of the song remaining, and so is that ridiculous little troll Dzoni, I must also be a flaming anti-Semite. You need to pay better attention to the people who converse with you. You also need to (Personal attack removed) and assume Good Faith on the part of editors. It would have served you well in this case, but now I know better. Profnjm 19:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. You were the one who said that editors who didn't take a particular point of view were being arrogant. And you were being serious. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So if after days of endless picky squabbles about verification I venture to suggest that arrogance may be involved, that is the same as you calling me an anti-Semite without any evidence whatsoever? Pot/kettle? You might be interested in knowing that I've been on the receiving end of Dzoni's anti-Semitic vitriol on a regular basis, and no, I'm not Jewish. You are right about one thing: I did mean it. I guess you also thought long and hard before labeling me an anti-Semite? Thought not. Now, though, thanks to you, I know I was right about the arrogance. Profnjm 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for turning your user talk page into a flamewar. I really didn't intend that; I was trying to just ask you for help, as a knowledgeable and interested party. I didn't mean for that to turn into this. AnonEMouse 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that means that Mr. Blanning will be apologizing for flaming me as an anti-Semite? My first comment was no flame. Profnjm 20:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting...?Profnjm 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK Ruparel College

Sweet, thanks! - Reaverdrop 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

khaybar battle

other half of this conversation is at User talk:66.77.124.61

this page is full of nonsense, the only true part to it is the very first part and the rest needs to be deleted. i tried to do that through efit page but it keeps coming back. this is my first time doing this and i am not familiar with the process. thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.77.124.61 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please check dates before posting

Hello, I noticed that Battle of Khaybar has been listed as a DYK entry. This article is nowhere near new! I've worked on this months back and this article is so last year. Please check the dates before posting in the front page as a new article (DYK entries have to be no more than 5 days old). This article was created in 2005. please check the dates to avoid such a happenning in the future. Please note that the actual posting may have been done by you or some other admin but I don't have the time to go through the whole process to figure out who actually posted this article in the main page as a NEW one. Please inform the appropriate admin if you hadn't posted this in the first place. Thanx. Idleguy 02:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that expanded stubs can be listed on DYK, otherwise hundreds of good articles would lose out for no reason. This is a complex one as people had attempted to expand it before, but all attempts were reverted wholesale, and up until a few days ago the 'stable version' was a stub. I consider the current version, expanded from a one-line stub on 6th May, as new. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, please remove this from the list. The content of the article is disputed. --Aminz 03:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of this I haven't reverted its erroneous removal, as it might have been a case of right action, wrong reason. I'm not sure whether a neutrality dispute disqualifies an article, but personally I don't think it should. It doesn't reflect badly on Wikipedia that we have such discussions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Iced-cream and other tales

So, I managed to sketch an informal arrangment with Sgrayban regarding NLT, civility, and (on his own accord) staying out of the article/s involved in this dispute. Any objection if I unblock him? Thanks for taking the time. Oh, and in answer to your original question, yes, I do like iced-cream. El_C 07:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

95th Link

Hello,

You edited out some links to www.95thrifles.com today. I was wondering why? One of the pages the link was on was that of Bernard Cornwell, a man who has offered our society financial investment and who we work hand in hand with for the preservaion of the shorncliffe rdoubt preservation society. Also, the 95th have deep routes of history with Crawford and the light brigade so I saw hese as relevant places to put these links.

Thanks, Adam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.57.170 (talk • contribs)

These links are relevant and non-commercial. Jooler 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To Bernard Cornwell, maybe. To the near-dozen pages he added the link to, including Napoleonic Wars and British military history, certainly not. The 'external links' sections are not mere collections of external links, all the links must add to the article in some way. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For those two no, agreed, but to Craufurd who led the Light Division and Craufurd's Light Division and the 95th who they are re-enacting - yes Jooler 17:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In my view, no. No more than Romeo and Juliet contains links to local performances. They aren't about the division, or the regiment, or the leader, they're about a reenactment society, so they don't belong. However, I'll leave its inclusion in those articles up to the regular editors for want of any will to do otherwise. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy. The purpose of such re-enactment societies is to stimulate interest, preserve the heritage and educate people in an interactive manner about the given subject which would otherwise be lost forever. It's not just a bunch of amdrams putting on a pantomime. Jooler 21:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about amdrams? Romeo and Juliet doesn't even link to the Royal Shakespeare Company, and while I don't want to get into a debate about the artistic merits of historical reenactment, they have higher standards than paying £3 to get in. It's just one step too far removed from the subject of the article. If you look on Wikipedia:External links I don't think you'll find that reenactment societies meet any of the critiera under "What should be linked to" and "Occasionally acceptable links" for articles about military divisions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, thanks for re-considering. Adam

RAF Lists

I see that you were the closing admin on a number of AFD debates for various lists of mine on the RAF. I didn't notice that the lists had been deleted until today and upon looking at the various AFD debates I think I've been a victim of AFD deletion without proper reason like so many others. The nominations were all made by one user who talked about a "non-notable list". There is no such criterion in the deletion policy. The user is perhaps trying to apply the WP:NOT criterion about not having mere collections of internal links. That is not appropriate to those lists since they come under the category of structural list. They are in numerical order and cover subjects that have decades of history. I agree it's unfortunate that there have not been articles created about those subjects in the past couple of years, but that does not reduce the merit of the subjects. There are lots of things that have not been covered in Wikipedia to anything like a thorough level. I suspect that these subjects have not been covered because there is not an immediate public domain resource like DANFS which would allow a simple cut and paste job for coverage.

To show what an article about one of the units linked to in those lists could be like I have written No. 226 Operational Conversion Unit RAF today. I hope you will agree that such a unit is a perfectly valid subject for a Wikipedia article. I haven't got round to writing many of these articles myself but now I think I'd better do so to counter one of the main objections that has been raised about these lists. David Newton 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the article is verifiable - that is, you can cite the sources you used to write the article - it looks good to me. If you can do that so many times that the lists can become useful navigational aids, then go to Deletion review and tell them that the lists no longer consist mainly of redlinks, and the AfD no longer applies. I expect they'd agree and consensus would be to overturn... but only when at least a good number of articles are in place. Some editors prefer categories for this purpose anyway, though. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The main source that I used for the OCU information was RAF Web [13] which I really should add as an external link. The problem with writing articles is that we are talking about hundreds of links. How many do you believe would really give a decent chance of getting this reversed? The biggest problem I have with these deletions is that they are against policy. Despite what many of those who commented say non-notability is not, in and of itself, a reason for deletion. I feel that I have suffered the curse of AFD, ie people who don't really know what they're talking about trashing work. The only comments by someone who is an active editor in the area are by Sc147 and all that they amount to is that Sc147 can't ever foresee the day that an article will be written about those subjects by Sc147. David Newton 21:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly, it was a list, so it wasn't as much about notability as the fact that it was a list of articles that didn't exist and didn't seem at the time to be about to exist, which for many users qualifies as an indiscriminate collection of information.

As for how many links would be necessary, the numbers involved makes me think more and more that creating a [[Category:Royal Air Force Operational Conversion Unit]] or similar, making that category a subcategory of Category:Royal Air Force, and adding that to every article would be more appropriate for the moment. You've then got an automatically maintained list. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not what categories are for. Categories are for collecting existing articles, not providing definitive lists of what exists. It's a common misunderstanding of the point of categories to think that they are a substitute/replacement for lists. I will admit that perhaps I should have written more of the articles to give things a kick start but I hoped that I was not the only person on Wikipedia interested in those sort of units. Apparently Wikipedia doesn't have enough of a following in military history circles yet for that to be the case. David Newton 22:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Clive Bull finally back on track

I can't congratulate you enough! Minglex 06:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cnidaria

Wow... much, much better. I'm not going to proofread the whole thing right now, but it looks great. Keep up the good work. Twilight Realm 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Help required

Sorry, this is a bit of an unorthodox channel to go down for vandalism stuff, but it's a complex case and I need a fairly swift response and noticed you were active... User:Irate who was hardbanned by Jimbo Wales, and has had multiple sockpuppets such as User:IanDavies and User:Son of Paddy's Ego has come back using the IP's User:84.9.210.236, User:87.75.131.249 and User:84.9.193.224 to change articles on British counties, on which he has a fairly extreme view, after User:Lancsalot made a few changes (which admittedly weren't according to the naming conventions, but could have been quickly rectified).

The main evidence I can offer is from User:David_Gerard's block log here; if you look at the bottom he blocked a lot of IP's in this range for being his sockpuppets. The spellings, frequent attacks and style of editing are absolutely identical - just compare them to the contribs of User:IanDavies, for example.

After he started attacking Lancsalot and User:Owain, I stepped in to try and calm things but only got attacked myself. So far he has:

1. created the cat County Watch Vandal, put myself and the other two users in, and removed any deletion tags we put on it
2. attacked our user pages
3. left numerous articles way away from their consensus state

If you want more background on this guy, look at his posts on wikien-l which led up to his ban.

This guy shouldn't be editing at all, never mind making attacks like this. He could be blocked for WP:3RR, WP:NPA, editing as a banned user...

If you can help I and several other editors will be very grateful. Aquilina 12:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the most current IP for a month (no-one else was using it) and did some rollbacks, but I strongly suggest posting this on WP:ANI. I'm not particularly familiar with the editor's history myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To be specific, I've rolled back his user space edits but don't feel qualified to blindly revert his articlespace edits. If you want to do it, that's fine - edits by banned users may be reverted on sight by anyone, I would just prefer not to do it because of my ignorance of the history of the dispute. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On that note; if an edit comes from a banned user, can we automatically treat it as vandalism? (i.e., does 3RR not apply?) A checkuser or admin who has dealt with him before would immediately confirm his identity.

Thanks very much, I will copy some of the above post to ANI. I would have gone there immediately, but it is quite complex and it hasn't been too busy recently. The main expert on this person's case is David Gerard, but he is incredibly busy; I'll let him know what is going on though. If you have any more questions about the case please feel free to get in touch with me or any of the other editors to these articles; he's caused so many problems for so long he is very well known, and it would be nice to see a final resolution.

Many thanks once again, Aquilina 13:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, under WP:3RR, "removing posts made by a banned or blocked user" is excluded from the definition of a revert. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've left a notice as requested at AN/I, and I've left a quick message on the talk pages of the respective editors. Hopefully we should get some comment. Thanks for all your help, Aquilina 14:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I've made the required changes. It's been a busy day today and I'm feeling it a bit now. The distinction is indeed important, I just didn't notice at the time. I'm off for a good strong coffee now! Aquilina 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Irate has begun restoring all his edits as User:87.75.131.131. Aquilina 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted. If he keeps coming back with different IPs I would recommend asking on WP:ANI for his whole range of IPs to be blocked - I'm not familiar with how that's done myself, but there would appear to be no potential collateral damage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And once more on User:84.9.210.134. No-one has replied to your request for a range-block at WP:ANI - is there anybody/anywhere else I could ask? Could this go through AIV as it is blatant vandalism, if not the type they normally deal with, or would I have to go through the test templates? Aquilina 19:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You could try seeing if someone on AIV will do a range-block, but it's not exactly simple vandalism. Once you have to go into a vandal's history to justify a block, it's not really suited for AIV. But then none of the other noticeboards seem set up for multiple-IP vandals either. You can try cross-posting to WP:AN, maybe someone will see it there. I've blocked that new IP as well. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And now User:84.9.195.184. Still no news at WP:ANI, will crosspost to WP:AN. Aquilina 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know how to do block the range, and I can do it, but I don't understand why to. Do you still want it done, the vandal seems to have stopped? Could you explain what is going on more clearly if you do want him/her blocked? Prodego ^talk 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Note left at AN/I - if you require more clarification, please ask - I want to put an end to this. Aquilina 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't stopped - like Aquilina I expanded on this at WP:ANI. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, 3 hour block. Prodego ^talk 21:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Sam, could you perhaps handle the next update. I was going to tackle it in the next hour or so, but I have an article nominated that is in the possible target area for being selected from. Just like to keep things proper and above board. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Though in the end I didn't select yours - I went for the Aboriginal languages entry two steps above it for the sake of regional variety. Since it'll be the weekend soon I can easily do the next update as well, which will almost certainly include yours. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the the update Sam. I'll be happy to do the necessary if you need later, as I see you have a nom a bit further up in the list. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned Image

Do you know what an orphaned image is?—G.He 00:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

An image that isn't used on any pages. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Having a few issues with user knowingly breaching 3RR

Hi Sam, I'm having trouble with an editor and his 3RR violation, user Nikitchenko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on article Office of Special Affairs, and hoping you may be able to assist.

Reversions:

1. 09:21, 13 May 2006 Nikitchenko
2. 09:35, 13 May 2006 Nikitchenko
3. 10:02, 13 May 2006 Nikitchenko
4. 10:19, 13 May 2006 Nikitchenko

(Times listed are UTC) After his third I warned him both on the article talk page and his talk page. Despite this he continued and article is in the state he left it in. If you look at the article history you'll see no less than 5 editors constantly reverting his edits. Are you able to help me at all please? Thanks in advance, - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 10:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. In future, these requests should generally go on WP:AN/3RR. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As always, appreciated and noted for future reference. Thanks again - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 11:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Malamaal Weekly, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Stco23

I want to delete an old version of a Transformers season 1 and 2 picture, but i can't do it because i am not an administrator. So can you do it because i can't.--Stco23 05:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

semi-protect

other half of this conversation is at User talk:Lucy-marie
i am semi protecting articles to prevent vandalism before it happens not after it has happened i personally thin prevention is better than cure so if we can discourage vandalism and protect vulnerable pages from vandalism i think we should protect them from vandalism also can you delete the broken picture on the lancing college page please

i thank you for this help and information. so i request that gordon brown and john prescott be protected from vandalism

GA spam on featured template

hi, i see that the GA spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from yourself and i. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required by these GA guys apparently to put it there in the first place).

this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!

they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.

as an admin, would you be so kind as to unlock the featured template and remove the GA spam? i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've made my position in the dispute clear, and have reverted the template myself, it would be improper for me to unprotect it or to revert it (even though I am capable of doing so). However, when it is unprotected, I will revert Locke again. It is worth noting that Locke is undergoing an ArbCom case where the Arbcom have already found that he has edit warred in templatespace (not just on this one), and will be banned for a month after the case closes and put on revert parole. The fact that he'll be unable to revert doesn't make his opinions wrong, of course, but if no-one else joins his side, it shows that the 'consensus' he refers to is very weak. As I've said, I personally believe many 'merge to x' results at AfD are made with little concern for the welfare of 'x', and for that reason a consensus at the merge target's talk page overrides a consensus at TfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks. i agree the TFD result has little meaning here. Zzzzz 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Celebrities from less priviledged Countries

help needed

found someone that help me on here..its usually confusing for me to find my way around. i am a new wikipedian Stillwaters111 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC) and i need some help. i am currently doing a research concerning the African fashion and life style( concentrating mainly on the modelling industry) and have decided to use the wikipedia medium to help introduce most of these 'non google hit' international models.

Due to the lack of development and information system most of these celebrities are not very well known in the west.

i uploaded an information about (real name removed on request) one of the international models and it was immediately submmited for deletion. There are many more to come, but i am not encouraged by wikipedia users.

will the lack of information about the happenings in the third world countries also deprive them from the free encyclopedia? i hope you can help in this situatuion

stillwaters111 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources available, then as an encyclopaedia we can't have an article on them, I'm afraid. Everything has to be verified somewhere. I noticed that in the AfD on Mekwuye you said "found references on google" - I would suggest putting them in the article and alerting AfD to that fact. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

stillwaters111 is (real name removed on request), judging by her user page, so this message is perhaps a tiny bit disingenuous? · rodii · 13:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

master of all

i heard you sir,blanning

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second)

Hi, I notice you've had a say in previous discussions about deletions/undeletions for the myg0t article, I'd just like to inform you that another such discussion is occurring now, so if you'd like to voice your opinion, for or against undeletion of the article, feel free to post your thoughts.[14] - USER-cacophony 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proper nouns containing a bang

I've replied on the DRV page, sorry about the delay, things went a little crazy. Please let me know if you have any questions -- Tawker 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pinkboy7

Contrary to what you wrote at AN/I, this most definitely is a vandal (a returning sockpuppet, to be precise). Previously was Stoneboy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fearboy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also tried to register Painboy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but was blocked. In addition to messing with crime-related articles, he also does pagemove vandalism (and never, ever responds to talk messages). Do not be fooled by the "clueless newbie" disguise, this is nothing more than a somewhat novel vandalism methodology, probably designed to delay blocking. -- Curps 04:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and blocking him. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:132.70.50.117

Why did you unprotect User talk:132.70.50.117? anbout half an hour later, the vandal from that IP address (which was blocked at the time) put up more fake vandalism warnings, the exact reason that the page was protected originally. Eli Falk 13:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It had been protected for a month, which is usually long enough... of course, in this case it obviously wasn't. It beggars belief that they were coming back every day for a month and a half to see if they could try their stupidity again. I've reblocked, protected the talk page again, and will add the IP to WP:ABUSE given that this IP is responsible for continuous vandalism. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm contacting Bar-llan University about this tomorrow. Hope this helps! --Sunfazer | Talk 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For tireless dealing with vandalism, and being one of the best wiki-admins ever!

--Sunfazer | Talk 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow... thanks, I'll try my best to live up to that :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true, Sam, you're an excellent admin. · rodii · 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Weird vandalism

Hi, I ran into some vandalism on this userbox page that I'm not sure what to do with. It claims the page was hacked. I'm hesitant to revert, because it looks like a couple "real" edits were made after it happened; also I see nothing in the code to indicate how it's happening (the source code for the page shows it, but I can't find it in the wikicode portion). Do you have any suggestions on what to do about this? I don't deal with vandalism on a regular basis so I'm not sure how to handle this one. Thanks! --Laura S 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That completely baffles me, I'm afraid. I've posted about it on WP:ANI. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow that was really fast, thanks to you and Mackensen! I'm actually a little glad you were also confused by this one; it was so strange that I was worried I missed something obvious. --Laura S 23:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

other half of this conversation is at User talk:I'm N' Mad-dog

Hi, Sam. What are you talking about?... I'm N' Mad-dog 23:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But IT IS actually the Dr. Woodward's Complete Guide Of Pulmonar Illness, for God's sake!! I'm N' Mad-dog 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

a category undelete

I guess this is random and I am trying to figure out how to do a category undelete or gain an understanding of the role of categories in wikipedia. category: war on Terrorism.

I guess since you arent american, I can get a better sense of relevance. heres the Q's (1) are all categories deleted by democratic vote? (2) The time window on deletion voting seems short; 7 days. (3) Why do people want to limit categories. For instance why isnt the category and subcategory options used to index wikipedia more strongly (like yahoo used to try)? in particular for the war on terrorism. Two Objections were offered for its deletion. First that its a propaganda term. But its also the policy of the Bush administration. Bush administration has other policies as well, some of which are inherited (e.g. war on drugs, which began as a Nixon policy, but has survived presidents of both parties and is now a bipartisan policy with a 'drug czar office'). A natural indexing seems to be: foreign policy of US-- FOreign policy of Bush administration-- war on terrorism. Likewise there is no category for war on drugs. WHihc might be found in an index like: Category:US domestic policies--War on drugs or category:US History--Policy initiatives of the NIxon Administration-- war on drugs.

This may be related to the second objection offered for deletion of the war on terrorism link; that the category has representation as a wiki article. But an article is not a index category. Are wiki categories supposed to function as layered subject indexes?

I ask, since the administrator who deleted the category: war on terrorism said take the issue up with someone in undeleteMrdthree 03:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, to answer your numbered questions:

1. Deletion discussions aren't votes - that is, they aren't decided on simple vote counts. Firstly, more than a 50% majority opinion is needed to delete something - generally admins consider around 70% a consensus for deletion (though some will go ballistic if you even suggest that such a guideline exists). Secondly, admins will weigh up the arguments put forward by each 'side' when making their decision. Opinions may be given less weight if they come from very new users (to counter sockpuppetry) or don't address Wikipedia policies.
2. Seven days is usually long enough to gather a decent number of people to discuss the issue and for those who edit the category themselves to see it's nominated for deletion. And controversial discussions are often left to carry on past the 'deadline'. Remember, as long as the discussion goes on there's that ugly notice at the top of the article/category, so to have it drag on too long would result in people asking "When's that notice going to go away?"
3. The third question I don't really feel qualified to answer - I'm not familiar with Yahoo's categorisation system. For me it would depend on how many articles would go in the category - to be useful, there have to be enough articles to justify readers clicking through even more subcategories.

Despite what the other admin told you, I'm not exactly the person to take this up with - the admins in Category:User undeletion have offered to retrieve deleted content so people can, for example, work on it in userspace or take it off-wiki, not to recreate it where it originally was. To recreate an article (or category) entirely, a discussion needs to take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review and result in a consensus to overturn the prior deletion. So I would recommend going there and explaining why the discussion should be overturned. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I told Mrdthree to take it to WP:DRV, not to Sam Blanning. ;) However, seeing as DRV can be a little arcane I can see his confusion. Syrthiss 12:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, struck out :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Its good info anyway, thanks alot! I am going to try to read tht WP:DRV thing againMrdthree 14:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rougelike

Uh, in fact this is supposed to be a final version. But I may have some excessive free time in summer, so I may add some more stuff. If you can compile a list of suggestions and mail it to me, that would be excellent.  Grue  21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/''see mediation'', and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Paul Cyr 19:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Smile :)

—G.He has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

—G.He 23:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

BOPP'D!

Master of Puppets has bopped you on the top with a mop! Bops promote not only WikiLove, but also steady loss of brain cells! Hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the Moppage by bopping someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, and help the chief Mop achieve his goal of world domination. And to spread the Moppage, just use {{subst:User:Master of Puppets/Bop|<you>}} replacing <you> with your username. Happy editing! Master of Puppets ^{Your will is mine.} 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I'm giving to Cyde Weys, or, heaven forbid, Tony Sidaway. :P Master of Puppets ^{Your will is mine.} 00:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I had a feeling that it was something like that, even though Google Translate did a pretty bad job of translating:

"porque tu eres un maraco cabron comemierda hijo de puta"

was translated into:...

"because your you are a maraco cabron comemierda son of puta"

when I used Spanish->English (The sentence was nowhere near French :P) Because of that, I couldn't fully accuse I'm N' Mad-dog at the time beacuse I'm uncertain about the true content (thought I was pretty convinced that it was nothing good from what I could tell at the time). But now I know, and thanks for taking care of the situation.—G.He 23:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Random Question

I know this is really random, but does FANGEN Sie an mean BEGIN in German?—G.He 01:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

steph mekwuye

Dear Samuel,

My name is Steph Mekwuye; I was alarmed today when a friend brought the continual misrepresentation of my name on wikipedia, to my attention.

Yes, I am an international model and have been for 6 years. Yet, I do not wish to be mistaken for anyone else. Or spoken about as if I do not exist. As a matter of fact this sort of publicity does not appeal to me.

The continual misrepresentation of my name on the web is giving me a lot of concern.

I will be extremely very grateful if this is taken care of ASAP.

Thank you

Steph Mekwuye.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I've moved the section of the talk page that concerned your article to archive and removed the last links to the name in Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:The Middle East Conflict Man

Shouldn't a {{usernameblock}} be given to this user, on the grounds of inappropriate username?? I'd do it myself but am not sure whether to. --Sunfazer | Talk 16:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it falls under any of the criteria at WP:U, personally, so I'd recommend against a username block. If he keeps his current pattern of editing up he'll get an indefinite block as an extreme POV edit warrior anyway. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, good call there, Sam. --Sunfazer | Talk 16:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we've got another sock [15]. The Ungovernable Force 05:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking this guy. He has trolled the Norwegian and Nynorsk Wikipedias as well, and I fully support an indefinite ban. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If the trolling on socialism continues today, perhaps semi-protect it. The Ungovernable Force 18:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How did The Middle East Conflict Man get unblocked? I see from the block log you blocked him yesterday. (Thanks, by the way.) 172 | Talk 14:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea, Wikipedia's blocking mechanism is whacked. I've reblocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking 69.176.39.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for one week. This guy is really starting to annoy me with all of the nonsensical edits. --Zpb52 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 2: The Thanksening

Thanks for the revert. Syrthiss 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

cnidaria

any interesting fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.104.22.1 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 23 May 2006

(replied on anon's talk page)

CheckUser request filed

I filed a checkuser request. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised if it came up negative, myself. The prose is very different and I would expect a new sockpuppet to be more subtle than its master, not less. Still, worth trying. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, and I think that is insufficient to go on compared to the intrusion of privacy. I have removed the request. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point he's at a very low level of edit warring (well, relative to Lou anyway) and can just be reverted. I could see a CheckUser being justified if the pattern continues or if seems more likely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And than first go to suspected sockpuppets anyway. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am still at the could be, could not be stage. I personally do not yet find the evidence strong enough to request a checkuser with the invation of privacy that is associated with it. But this is something that will develop itself in the near future I am sure of. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

For a second, suppose that Lou and Hernando are indeed different people, who know each other from the same town they live in. How can they make a convincing case they are indeed a different person? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou's comments on Hernando's talk page are not ones you'd leave to someone you knew outside Wikipedia. As for the "we know each other in real life" defence, if we accepted it in cases like these we'd have to unblock every sockpuppet on Wikipedia. The Arbcom has ruled that when there is doubt about whether two accounts are sockpuppets or merely two people colluding outside Wikipedia, they can be treated as sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iasson#One_user_or_several.3F (did I already quote this to you? Sorry if I did, I can't remember whether it was you or someone else relating to a different puppeteer). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the comments Lou was leaving behind. And I also agree with you that the claim by itself is insufficient to lift the block and I agree also with the arbcom ruling. And I think it is pretty clear that Hernando is a sock from Lou. But it was more to get an idea how someone in a real ase of two persons should handle that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xombie

I would like more clarification on why an article about a series of flash cartoons which are all on Newgrounds Top 100 All Time list, and are higher scoring and more popular (on Newgrounds) than Weebl and Bob, Maximum Ninja and On the Moon is not worth reading. AfroDwarf 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopaedia, our criteria for having an article on something are more than that it is popular on the Internet. Most of that top 100 have no reliable third-party sources available on which to base an article. I would also support deletion of the three articles you mentioned on the same basis (though Weebl and Bob will surely find some sources now it is the Flash Collaboration of the Week).

That's just my personal opinion - when I closed the discussion I did so on the basis of the consensus reached by the other editors. You might be interested to know that the closure of the discussion is up for review at WP:DRV#Xombie. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of WP:WEB AfroDwarf 15:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism on my user page

Hello Samuel, thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. --Terence Ong 11:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naismith Family

You filed this AfD; I just wanted to let you know that I've extended the AfD to cover Carolina Family. If for some reason you have a different opinion on the latter, please make your opinions known on the AfD. Ral315 (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian Cinema Project

Hello Samuel (Last Malthusian of Gastrich fame). I saw you on the participant list and wondered if you could come to the talk page and look at a few moves that Stifle did from Ajith -> Ajith Kumar, and give an opinion. A few people think that only the first name should be kept, as it is the most common name by which he is known. Thanks. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my initial instinct is for just 'Ajith', as that's what IMDb has him under. But I'm sure there are arguments to the contrary I haven't heard yet. Is there a discussion ongoing anywhere? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. See WT:INCINE. Thanks Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

Thank you Mr.Blanning for unblocking me, if you need any help patroling pages for people who have vandalized them, feel free to contact me! I hope to work with you in the future, Best regards, Kitsumiti

Thanks

I just wanted to briefly thank you for unblocking me and relieving me of my collateral damage status. I hope you know that you are certainly appreciated. —Akrabbim^talk 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User Stollery utilizing your admin to block me

Ok Sam Blanning, I looked at WP:3RR. Which states "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part". I still disagree with your that my 4th-5th edits undid the actions of another editor. I was adding tags, not undoing anyone actions. Please clarify your positions and prove me wrong, if I no response from you within a week I am sorry but I file a complaint about your block. --Nikitchenko 22:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The actions you undid were the removal of those tags. Go ahead and file the complaint now. And by the way, I am responsible for your block, not Glen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

Hi Sam,

I'd like to thank you for unblocking the shared univ IP. It is sad that people don't understand the value of the wikipedia and vandalise it. As I'm a PG student at the uni, using the uni network is the cheapest and easiest way I can access wikipedia. So, I've got to live with this at least till I graduate by the end of the year. Anyway, thanks for the early unblock. Happy Editing. Cheers. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 03:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do?

Hi, I was told to post here. This is my new account, my old one was called (email address removed) Perhaps I should add more info? My new account is Yossarian22 and you asked me to post here with regards to "rights to vanish" BTW, thanks for helping me out! --Yossarian22 04:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the old account's userpage and your talk page. I deleted Image:Shibapup.JPG - not exactly because it had your email in the upload summary, but because it had a copyright notice, and I see you've already uploaded a new version with proper licensing (great picture, by the way). And I removed your email address from this page. So your personal information has been removed from Wikipedia (or as much as can be). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

user:59.3.87.102

Hi you say that this is not vandalism but a content dispute? Compare this users edits with:

• user:PeppiMantos
• user:L'informateur

No, it wasn't vandalism. But it was a banned user avoiding his block, which is not permitted, so now that I know that I've blocked the IP for a week. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense edits

I noticed you're patrolling the adminboard for reporting vandalism...could you look at the two most recent edits by User:69.199.92.120? I don't want to get involved in this particular incident. Thanks, --Marysunshine 15:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted both the edits relating to Wilson McCutchan as they're unsourced, and the Ben Ondrus connection looks dubious (no Google hits). Also, Wilson McCutchan used to have an article here, which was deleted in January as probable vanity, so insertions of his name into Wikipedia articles need to be treated with suspicion. However, it's not vandalism, and I'm unfamiliar with the articles so if the anon persists, my ability to prevent him is limited. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for your help! --69.198.151.211 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Imogen Thomas

I noticed you closed the AfD debate on this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Imogen_Thomas with a redirect, rather than merge and redirect, which was present strongly in the debate, and wondered why this was so, as some of the information is not in the redirect article. This is not a complaint, but an inquiry. Thanks. Tyrenius 16:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to incorporate some more text from than article, go to Imogen Thomas, follow the redirect back by clicking the highlighted text in 'redirected from Imogen Thomas', click 'history', and click the timestamp of the last version before I made it in a redirect. All the old text is still there for merging. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple question

Is

This user is a go player.

a template like the green energy one which was deleted? Stephen B Streater 18:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

PS If this messes up your talk page, obviously I don't mind if you edit it. Stephen B Streater 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean "do you think it violates WP:CSD T1", then no. It states more of an area of interest rather than a political viewpoint. As far as formatting goes, you might be interested to know that you can use {{clear}} to force text below a template, picture or similar, rather than trial-and-error with <br>s. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks on both counts. Some hobbies can be quite emotive, though only to people in the fields. Go has its fair share of revert wars it seems! Stephen B Streater 22:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel_Blanning_On_Wheels!!! (talk · contribs)

Sorry for any inconvience. I just saw the words "On Wheels!!!" in my IRC vandal bot, and blocked on sight. Will (^E_@) T 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That was disturbingly fast. Doesn't matter much, I can use this account to edit its stuff, but thanks for unblocking anyway. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Less than twenty seconds, probably less than then. I swear I'm not a blocking bot! Will (^E_@) T 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For blocking 83.104.237.137, it was the first time I used WP:AIV and the response was good. I have cleaned up another site the vandal went after. Dabbler 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A real thank

I convey my real thanks to you for your help. Actually, I was getting very nervous yesterday. I use Internet access from a public place, and my inability to edit was making me really sad. Thanks. BTW, I had also sent you an e-mail. --Bootblack 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the cleanup

Hm, I just noticed that my user talk page took a little trip to User talk:YOU FUCKING GREASER a few days ago, and you cleaned it up. Thanks !! FreplySpang 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Otserv deletion

Was it really necessary? We had previously stated that we were in a state of fixing it up (thus most of the information was gone) before we started fixing it up...

The editors who believed that the article should be deleted did so on the basis that Otserv was not sufficiently notable for an article in an encyclopaedia, not that the article was poorly written. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Middle East Media Research Institute

other half of this conversation is at User talk:84.191.246.229
Dear Sir, I'm trying to modify Memri's page with a longer and offical one, as there are a lot of mistakes such as the relations with wumser. I did not have the time to finish to add things that immediately someone was chaging it again. I don't have much time to waste. Please, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.246.229 (talk • contribs)

User:motorox

You think that he is a sock puppet of me and should be banned indefinetly because I am banned indefinatly. However, Im not, and this is not fair. Please see to his unblock. thanks--AppleJuicefromConcentrate 15:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for that mistake, I was going on what was in the block log. However, the account appears to be a sockpuppet with no legitimate purpose, and I will not be unblocking it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should unblock him. He ain't done nuthin' wrong.--AppleJuicefromConcentrate 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

He repeatedly recreated the nonsensical article you created at a different name from the original in a transparent attempt to avoid deletion. As such his contribution history exactly matches yours, and he counts as an 'obvious' sockpuppet. Trying to get your sockpuppets unblocked does not sit well with your promise to Mike Rosoft that you'll stop creating silly articles, so I would strongly suggest that you drop it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:53, 29 May 2006

(UTC)

He's not a damn sock puppet of me. He's an aquaintance of mine. Jeez just unblock him. He already promised not to do it again.

Autoblock

Thanks for the unblock, shared IPs are a pain I only discovered today. Regards. SeanMack 15:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Tyler-07

Hi, I was wondering if you could help...I warned this user for a few vandal edits a couple times in the last 24 hours. The user was, at the time, contesting a block, apparently claiming that he "shared ip with someone else" and that vandal edits weren't his. You eventually unblocked him. Since then, Tyler-07 has removed all warnings on User talk:Tyler-07, only to be reverted by another editor & myself. I explained that Removing warnings can be considered vandalism, and that if an admin were to verify his claims, that I would removem the warnings myself without prejudice. I'm not prepared to accept Tyler-07's argument that "my name is already cleared. If my name hadn't been cleared, the admins would not have unblocked me" without hearing from an admin about the process.

Sorry about the petty annoyance, but if you don't mind offering some advice, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Scientizzle 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your weighing in on the matter. Thanks. -- Scientizzle 00:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible semi-protect required

there has been increased volume of recent vandalism on theBritish National Party page please have a look at history and consider for semi-protect.

thanx Lucy-marie 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There aren't enough people vandalising it to justify semi-protection. I've blocked User:Shweeny666 for two days for continued vandalism. He's the only one to vandalise the article today, and he's a mature account anyway so semi-protection wouldn't have stopped him. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock help

This policy of blocking AOL users with shared IP's is ridiculous. I can never tell which pages I'm going to be blocked from editing - sometimes it's my own User page or pages I have created.--Hokeman 19:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with the pages you edit - it's purely which IP you happen to be using. AOL IPs are never blocked manually for very long, but sometimes the software blocks them automatically for long periods because an account which uses that IP gets blocked. Only two things you can do, I'm afraid: 1) switch to a decent ISP, or 2) grit your teeth and wait for WP:BPP to come on stream. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I guess I'll have to wait for WP:BPP to come on stream. Leaving AOL at this point would cause too many problems in my life.--Hokeman 20:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection while arbitration is ongoing

Robot Wars Razer (Robot) Tornado (robot) and Panic Attack (Robot) Lucy-marie 12:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your edit war with Lenin is disruptive enough to justify preventing everyone from editing those articles. With Robot Wars, for example, neither you nor Lenin have edited the article in over two weeks. You can list this at WP:RPP if you still disagree. Please sign your posts to talk pages with ~~~~ to produce the name and the date. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply i accept your verdict, but please keep the page under watch in case either of us decide to revert back to the edit war. I will not instagate a new round of this war.Lucy-marie 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OITC

Would you care to connect me with the person who claims has connection to the OITC and/or Dr. ray C. Dam ? I am very curious as to why the trustee of the Gold and Wealth under the Green Hilton Agreement is "hidden"; and what gains do they get in return of lending the wealth via the United States ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Is born (talk • contribs) 13:22, 30 May 2006

I'm not a switchboard operator and I've no idea who and what you're talking about. It doesn't sound like anything to do with Wikipedia. Please explain what you want in more detail, or try the editors at Talk:Office of International Treasury Control. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock

Thanks for unblocking me it was real helpful Mahogany

Craig Reedie

Hi There,

I am a Wiki freak, probably not unlike most everbody else. My cousin Craig Reedie is the retired Chairman of the British Olympic Association and is being Knighted by the Queen of England for his part in securing the London Bid for the 2012 Olympics. I would like to get his info into Wikipedia but don't know how. 36,000 hits on Google... any help here? (email address removed to protect from spam) Thanks. Lisa Sunnyvale, California — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.173.68 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 May 2006

(removed press release - sorry, it clogs up my page)

posted to IP's talk page but cc'ed here

For information about starting a new page, see Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article. The first thing you'll need to do is create a new account with your own username.

Creating articles about people you know personally is often a bad idea - see WP:AUTO - but in this case, you'd almost certainly be doing Wikipedia a favour. We have a number of pages that link to Mr Reedie already, so by creating an article you'd be filling in a gap.

The most important things to keep in mind while writing an encyclopaedia article are - verify your information with reliable sources, and write from a neutral point of view. If, for example, you know that he prefers wine to beer because he told you, that can't be put in the article because people can't verify your personal experiences - you'll have to find a magazine interview or something instead.

I hope this is the sort of information you're looking for - if you need more help, let me know. Creating your own account is the first thing, it's difficult to communicate with numbers :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock 202.156.6.54

Thanks, yes it is Singapores largest broadband ISP, simmilar to AOL but Singapore have this funny proxy/filter/firewall that 'protects' us from bad, bad things like playboy :-), so really it is not a good IP to block, thanks a lot! Stefan 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid (disambiguation)

Okay sorry, if I was wrong about your position then I apoligize. However while you did say that Calton was correct, you also later seem to have retracted that position with the statement: "Actually, it may be that the existence of this disambiguation page is in fact wrong". So I thought I had ample reason to believe you were expressing agreement with my conclusions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I said immediately after that, in the same post, "That doesn't mean I'm reversing my position on the Israeli links above though - as long as the article is, rightly or wrongly, a list of articles which contain the word 'apartheid', it should contain all of them." I'm sorry, I don't think I was being unclear. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be stupid enough to purposely misrepresent your position on a talk page that you have visited as much as that one.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Territorial divisions in Oceania

Hey Sam, can I get a consult? A dispute at South America seems to have spilled over into Oceania. An anon who edits in the 142.150.134.* range wants to change a table of territories at South America to reflect official UN subdivisions, and User:Alinor seems to be contesting this (I'm not really following the dispute there). Now the dispute is happening at Oceania where it is disrupting a long standing consensus: the article has used "Australasia" for Australia and New Zealand, 142.* wants to use Australasia but pipe it as "Australia and New Zealand" per some UN map, and Alinor is insisting on using "Australia" alone. There have been many, many discussions about Australasia and that's what the article uses elsewhere, but now we have this three-way revert war going. Neither of the new editors will communicate except through snippy edit summaries, where 142.* writes mini-diatribes about POV and Alinor refers discussion to Talk:South America. I don't really have a dog in this fight except that I thought the old consensus was fine. I'm pondering ways of centralizing this discussion, but in the meantime I'm wondering whether it would be good to revert to the consensus version and then protect for a day or two until some productive discussion can take place. If you have any advice, or can wave your magical admin wand somehow, I would appreciate it. Thanks. · rodii · 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Oceania, there seems to be a consensus against the anon made up of several editors. You're right that there needs to be productive discussion, and for that the anon should at least register an account. I'll leave him a message to that effect. But given the numbers against the anon, is protection really necessary? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say--I would have said no until the third leg of the dispute got involved. This has all the signs of an entrenched dispute where everyone is happy to keep reverting. But I'll keep plugging away and see how it goes. Thanks. · rodii · 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My sig.....

other half of this conversation is at User talk:Xchrisblackx
Sam, I really have no idea why I don't use the timestamp it's just a bad habit lol, but I'll start using it and thanks for reminding me --Mahogany 14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD

[16] is a nice line of argument, especially the part about Australia :-) Tintin (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)