User talk:Samuel Blanning/November2006

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

Deleted material

Hi

There was a vote on deleting some lists related to the article Biodiversity in Israel and Palestine, the vote was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spiders_in_Israel_palestine.

I did a huge effort collecting these lists and I'm sad cuz they are deleted. Is there any way that I can recover these lists, at least for a while to save them on my PC. I feel shocked that they were deleted after all the efforts I did in research collecting them. If wikipedia do not want them, I do want them, so can you please help me recover them.

Thank you very much.

Devastated wikipedian--Thameen 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I can email them to you - would you like the full wikitext of the articles (including formatting), or just the lists themselves? I can also restore the articles to your userspace, but I would prefer to email them, as the userspace articles would need to be deleted once you'd saved the contents, so it would be extra work for a lot of pages. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good man, I'm less devastated now. plz email me the wiki source of the articles and the template. Thank you for your time. --Thameen 16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Check your email. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks loads. I admire your work. --Thameen 16:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Np. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on deletions=

Let me share this thought with you. It is really disappointing how in wikipedia the results a lot of effort and research get deleted so easily. When I added these lists to wikipedia after a lot of work and research I was thinking I'm adding to the richness of this encyclopedia. But suddenly few members apear who vote for these lists to be deleted and they get deleted, this easy.

No one thought on improving these lists or putting them in a more suitable format or integrating them in the main article in some way. They just got deleted. This makes me wonder how much of the deleted things are trash and how much is sincere high value work.

And the idea that a dozen of members can vote to delete an article is very interesting. What if these members are coordinating their actions behind the scenes, what if they have other motives than the well being of wikipedia in their minds.

What was I supposed to do to protect the lists that I made, to mobilize my friends in wikipedia to vote in favour of these lists be kept? Will not this form of deletion policy give the upper hand to majority or the more willing and more sincere in mobilising others?

I started writing for wikipedia knowing that it is an editable forum. However, the latest delete disappointed me alot. I see my work of days and nights gone in a second. This is heart breaking.

Thank you--Thameen 17:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that we decided on an open-editing system as the best way of growing the encyclopaedia doesn't mean we can expect less of our content than Britannica or Encarta. If there are good reasons to delete something - and I think those brought up in the AfD were valid - then that's what we do. Usually, the fact that something is deleted doesn't mean it's bad - it just doesn't belong here.

Much of your post, frankly, sounds bizarre bordering on paranoid. It's our policy not to accuse people of acting in bad faith unless there is a good reason to think so. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Can you enlight me how making a list of say Birds in Palestine/Israel is bizarre bordering on paranoid?

And will you delete all this lists here Lists_of_birds_by_region and call them bizarre bordering on paranoid?--Thameen 15:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that other users are colluding and acting in bad faith is bizarre bordering on paranoid, and I'm pretty sure you know quite well what I was referring to. As for the "other pages like this exist" argument, it has never been accepted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No do not be pretty sure. I did not understand what you mean by paranoid in your first post until your last reply.

When I pointed out the idea that some members work in editting gangs I was not refering to the deletion of the lists in question, I do not know those who voted for deletion. But I was talking in general. I have been here for a short while but long enough to know how gangs form behind the scenes, this is not paranoia. I wil be surpirised if you do not see this, you may call it other names; small editting armies, group of people interested in a certain subject to appear or disappear in wiki, a network of edittors. But it exists. I'm not saying it happened in my lists' case, but was sharing a thought with you in general about the complex subject of deletion.

You say deletion does not mean the material was bad, so if it is not bad why delete it? Why not merge it with the main article? why not give us the opportunity to improve it to fit into wikipedia?--Thameen 16:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia requires an encyclopaedia, and an encyclopaedia article is a very specifically-defined thing. Sections 2 through 9 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explain what material is not suitable for Wikipedia, regardless of merit. Editors do consider the possibility of improving material - if you participate in AfD for any length of time you'll see plenty of 'keep and cleanup/keep and verify/keep and merge' arguments - rather less people willing to actually do the work, though. In this case I don't see what could be done to make the content encyclopaedic, and nor could the AfD participants. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I did read the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not but did not find in it any reason why my lists were removed. Those were high value lists the result of research I did only for wikipedia benefit. You will not find these lists on the net nor in any book as such. How is a list of all birds living in a spicific geographical region not encyclopedic?

Lets assume a kid opens wikiedia looking for a bird he saw in his garden in say Jerusalem and he wants to know what is this bird called and more info about its life? Lets imagine a student wanting info about what scorpions live in Israel. what can she do? She will need to see each individual species of scorpoins and check if it lives in Israel, and that will take her ages to accomplish.

Aren't ecyclopedias about providing information in an a form easy to collect and refer to? this is what I did.

You said that Wiki aims at being as good as Britanica. Does not Britanica has lists of things that share a coom parameter? Britanica is full of lists.

I think these lists that you deleted were very informative for any one looking for info on the biodiversity in that geographical region. I was hoping that we will see more lists of species for other areas, not to delete my lists ! --Thameen 19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What you're talking about sounds more like an almanac than an encyclopaedia. So far your argument rests entirely on the fact that the information is useful; no-one disputes that it is, but surely that's a reason to get some free webspace and host it there for everyone's benefit. To host something on Wikipedia, it has to be encyclopaedic, and consensus is that this isn't. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia definition of what is Encyclopedic and what is not? On what specific criteria did you base your decision that they are not encyclopedic?

BTW, There was no consensus on deleting these lists or them being non-encyclopedic, there was a majority vote by a slight margin. There were many other votes to keep the lists or merge them which means that some people found them encyclopedic. --Thameen 09:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not make the decision that they were not encyclopaedic; I gauged the consensus in the AfD that they weren't, and the consensus was far more than a 'slight margin'. The concerns were all in the AfD, but I might as well repeat them: excessive detail and maintainability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm following up this discussion cuz I want to learn: 1. Is there a wiki poicy regarding excessive detail and maintainability? 2. and what about Wiki policy on what is encyclopedic and what is not, is there any thing? Thanks for your time --Thameen 15:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You already know about WP:NOT; apart from that, no. I would say it is impossible to construct a policy that defines "excessive detail" and "maintainability" exactly in every instance, so it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis at AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As I read the WP:NOT again I think strongly that the lists should not have been deleted. Bold face below are qoutes from wiki policies:

1. Strangely I do not find any mention of what you call excessive detail" and "maintainability" as a reason of deletion in any of the deletion related polcy pages.

2. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, thus Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc. This means that in wikipedia we can have more detail, does n't it?

3. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List.

4. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, However there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries,. There is a list on consensus of not allowed things, but current consensus of not allowed lists does not include lists of species in a geographical area.

5. The two accepted standards of being Encyclopedic are (verifiability and original research), both are available in my lists. The Deletion policy continues to state that Articles and text which are capable of meeting these (verifiability and original research) should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted. Were not my lists amenable to remedy?

6. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_be_needed does not list any thing related to the case of my lists. I see no mention of maintainability as a cause of deletion.

7. In Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed I find Article needs improvement that is articles amenable to improvement should not be deleted.,

8. In Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process the causes of deletion are clearly limited to it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. I see the lists meting all these criteria.

9. The general theme in all Wiki deletion policy pages is the focus on the three main reasons of deletion, NPOV, OR, Verifiablity. While my lists did not abuse any of the three. I wonder why were they removed. --Thameen 18:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors at AfD interpret policy in their own way; the consensus view is, by and large, what we follow. If I felt that those arguing for deletion were doing so on some basis that didn't follow policy, I would have discounted them; but maintainability is a valid concern. If information has the potential to change too quickly, as this does, then verifiability effectively decays rapidly from the date the source(s) are published. It only takes one beetle of a species that wasn't in the area before to scuttle across the border - or, for that matter, for the border to shift again across the only Israeli habitat of some newt - and the article is instantly wrong. With the sources you took the information from, that's acceptable for their readers - they've got the date they were published and believed to be correct printed on the inside of the sleeve, and readers can decide how much to trust the information now. But Wikipedia is published 'continuously', and everything is supposed to be current and up-to-date, and if that isn't possible it can't carry it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

1. You did not point me to where in the policies is maintainability or excessive detail mentioned. If they are mentioned, please point them out for me. If they are not mentioned, then why do you use them as a reason for deletion. The plocy is clear and creating new standards foe deletion is not a "different understanding of the policy" but a mis-use of it.

2. You are wrong on this issue of maintainability. A. Every article in wikipedia is prone to be updated every now and then. Many of wiki articles are about current events or evolving issues. I find your talk on the need to update these lists as a cause to delete them very contradictory to Wikipedia spirits. Actually you mix things up, it is the paper encyclopedia that should be worried about updates and not wikipedia which is an updatable encyclopedia. B. It is not true that these lists need fequent updates. Species lists rarely need updates. So they are among the most stable lists in wikipedia. This issue was brought up in the AfD. The chance of a new species being discovered in the area or a one going extenct is very minimal. If any changes to the list happen, we are here to update it. --Thameen 15:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maintainability is required to adhere to WP:V, so even if you don't find the exact word it's clearly a valid reason for deletion. AfD answers one question; whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia, for which policies and guidelines help interpret the question of what is suitable; editors aren't required to quote chapter and verse. The issue with maintainability is not just whether it is possible but whether it is feasible. When lists run to this amount of detail, your interest alone isn't going to be enough to maintain it. You won't be on Wikipedia forever - none of us will, and most editors don't remain active for more than a few years or even months. You've already mentioned how much work it took putting the lists together, and this reinforces the consensus in the AfD that it is too likely that in your absence the information will be unmaintainable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You are talking as though I'm the only one interested in these lists and as though these are my personal lists. These lists are for every one interested in the ecology of that region which includes lots and lots of people.

Reading in WP:V again I not only did not find the exact word Maintainability but I did not find any indirect references to it. I will appreciate if you refer me to the paragraphs where it is talked about or alluded to. --Thameen 10:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that people will be interested enough to maintain them, though. And that articles have to not just be verifiable now, but in the future, is self-evident. If you're trying to argue that any word that isn't mentioned in a page marked 'policy' can't be used as an argument, you've got the wrong idea of what policies are for. They're there to clarify what Wikipedia is for, not to shackle discussion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue that any word that isn't mentioned in a page marked 'policy' can't be used as an argument. I'm arguing that maintainability is not part of the deletion policy, at least not in the sense that you used it with the lists in question.

I asked you to show me the parts or paragraphs in the policy that allude to or describe any thing related to your understanding of this maintainability, but you did not. And I'm still waiting.

Saying that your decision was based on just your judgement seems not very proffessional to me until you back it up with Wiki policies.

Your guess that no one will be interested in editing these lists is just a personal guess which is see both unfounded and wrong. How come you reached such a conclusion? --Thameen 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you're making this so personal. It wasn't based on "just my judgement", it was based on the consensus reached in the AfD, and I've explained to you why that consensus was valid within Wikipedia policy. I've also explained that maintainability is a valid concern, for the reasons I've given, whether or not you can quote exact chapter and verse of a policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm was not making it personal. Through this whole discussion I was trying to see how did you reach the conclusion to delte these lists and what I found is that your conclusion was based on your personal notion of the lists are not maintainable. I found that all your bases for removal were invalid. First you talked about excesive detail and I found later that excessive detail is a sign of wikipedia not a negative thing. Then you talked about paper vs. electronic ecyclopedia as a reason for deletion, then I found that this is exactly why we can have more vertically and horisontally extended things in it. Then you brought up the issue of maintainability which is not part of the deletion policy. then you further claimed that no one will be interested in maintaining these lists, a notion that you could not support. You say there was a consensus at the AfD, but there was not. There was only one single voice asking for deletion with reasons, all other voices we of the Delete per so and so, and there were other voices with more sound reasons to keep or merge. In short, I found from this discussion that you deleted the lists but could not support it.

However, this discussion taught me few things about wiki policy and its mechanisms of action, so it was a rewarding discussion at the end of the day. Thanks for this. --Thameen 08:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate image deletion - what do I do?

An vector image that I created with data that I collected, analysed etc. was marked for deletion with a speedy tag by a user who seems to cruise to random articles and place these tags (if I understand the entries on their talk page). I am sure the image had the correct licence as it would have been deleted before now if not. I can assure you I own it as I created it in all senses of the word. I also know that it has been helpful to other users as they have quoted it back at me without realising I made it! The article is on coprostanol, and the history shows what has happened. Are you able to help in any way? Thanks smmudge. --Smmudge 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to Image:Cross-plot 1.png (it's far more helpful if you give the actual page of concern), as far as I can see the image did indeed not have information on licensing or who created it, and it was deleted properly. If you created the image, you can reupload it, this time with an appropriate tag such as {{GFDL-self}}. There is a drop-down box on Special:Upload which will help you find the right tag. You might also want to choose a name more specific to the image than 'Cross-plot' - 'Cross-plot of 5Beta-cop', for example (guessing based on the description you did include). If you don't have the image saved then I can restore it so long as you tell me what license you want to release it under. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reloaded the figure and checked all the appropriate licencing etc boxes are selected - I am sure I did this last time otherwise it would have been deleted earlier. It turned out to be easier doing it this way than getting it restored. Thanks Smmudge 09:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween, Sam. I hope we can forgive each other for our past troubles. Hope you're not too busy to enjoy yourself. Trick or treat! ~ Flameviper 16:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oy! You're online, finally. Hi! I'm not a vandal anymore! ~ Flameviper 17:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I intended to not reply because I resent the implication in the words "each other" that I should feel the need for forgiveness from you. In the interests of harmony I was going to leave that for you to work out, but if you insist on a response... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. If you just said what I think you said, then we're buddies again. Yay! ~ Flameviper 21:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Coaching

Are you and Shreshth still my coaches? Philc _T^E_C^I 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are - I assume the status of admin coaching continues until you become admin, or decide to stop for some reason. Is there something you need? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know, I dont know how this thing works really, I just hadnt heard from either of you in a while, so I thought I'd check. The page has sort of stagnated, with no comments from either of you, and I wondered if something was up. But It seems everything is ok I guess. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Why do the admins keep deleting the article entitled TetraSoft? This company is very significant, at least in the North Georgia area, and has even been featured/recognized on a national level many times.

Consider this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_monster

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? It's short, to the point, and is about a company in a similar field. Why don't you delete it too?

At first, I suggested Mr. Davis create the article about his company, and it was deleted. Then I (Sheila Rae) created the article, and once again it's been deleted. Your guidelines and policies are unfair. I'm a journalist and work for a very large national news publication. I will most certainly publicize Wikipedia's actions in this matter. Your administrators are rude, careless, and abuse the "power" they have been given.

If you insist on not allowing the article "TetraSoft", but keep the article "Delicious Monster", I expect a FULL EXPLANATION as to why. If you do not respond, someone from the agency I represent will most certainly contact Wikipedia's administration as part of the story we are preparing. Perhaps someone with more authority than yourself (or the previous people who have deleted this article), would be in a position to better explain your organization's actions.

Delicious Monster contains three external links to credible third-party sources, which demonstrates that the company meets one criterion of our guildelines on inclusion of companies. TetraSoft contained no such assertion; despite my advice it was recreated in almost exactly the same state in which it was deleted three times.

Wikipedia has never advertised itself as a vehicle for self-promotion. Writing an article on our enforcement of policy in the case of TetraSoft is very unlikely to do us any harm. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua Clover, again...

User:71.242.186.236 appears to be back, under the sock User:Swkap. (He previously inserted info about Samuel W. Kaplan, and now there is a new single-issue-account named "Swkap," an abbreviation of that name, only making edits to Joshua Clover.) His edits are to delete the PhD after his ex-wife's name, and to call her a "teacher" instead of a professor--two things he also did under his prior blocked IP. No discussion, not even edit summary, etc. I put the first two "test" warnings and a 3RR warning on his "new" talkpage...wait to let him 3RR/go to 5th vandal warning and then report as suspected sock and take the whole mess to ANI? Is there a quick way just to get an indefinite block preventing him only from editing this page? (I think the faster and more impersonal this goes, the less time of productive editors/admins will be wasted...) Thanks for any help or advice, Cindery 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Anyone that's been messing us around as long as this guy doesn't merit any warnings; he's seen them all before. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alot

I love you.

Hey, Sam Sam!

Okay, I won't call you that ever again, but I need to tell you something.

I just made a slight modification to my status changer script which automatically adds me to Category:Users who are currently online whenever I click on "online" on the sidebar. This could be a very useful tool in locating immediate help, but unfortunately, it still has some kinks. Tell me your thoughts on the matter. ~ Flameviper 22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The first problem I see is that it's too big. If you need someone urgently, you probably need someone with a specific level of access or at least a certain area of expertise, and this list would just include everyone from A to Z. In the rare event that someone is needed urgently, I think people generally use IRC channels. The second problem is that your userpage setup means you've got 24 pages entered in that category. Maybe you need to insert a <noinclude> somewhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my problem. I was trying to find a way to only add my main userpage to the category, but thus far, I've failed. And the problem with IRC is that not everyone has it, including me. ~ Flameviper 17:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think pretty much every device capable of receiving Internet is also capable of running an IRC program, although I know some networks - schools, perhaps - might prevent IRC traffic. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you have to pay to get IRC? ~ Flameviper 20:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, all you need is a client, and if there are any that you have to pay for I've not heard of them. MIRC is shareware, but I don't think there are any significant limitations if you don't register. There may be free alternatives, but I don't use IRC so I wouldn't know. Wikipedia:IRC tutorial has more information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, IRC could be an option. But let's consider the other alternative. Having a category would be much easier to maintain...Wait a damn minute! I have an idea! I'll get back to you in a sec. Thanks! ~ Flameviper 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I give up...gwah. ~ Flameviper 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Swkap reblock

Hi Sam,

Please consider reblocking User:Swkap on the grounds of [[WP:V}] and erring on the side of protecting the subject's presumption of privacy. In addition to vandalism, 3RR, etc. a complaint regarding Swkap was posted on the BLP noticeboard, noting that Swkap's sock offered no citations for any of his edits. As Swkap has a serious conflict of interest regarding editing the page, he should not be editing it at all anyway, and since no reliable secondary sources exist to support any comments Swkap could make on the talkpage of the article to support his edits, allowing him to contribute to it would only be allowing Swkap to violate the subject's privacy. If you feel you must wait for Swkap to continue to violate the subject's privacy/vandalize the page before you can justify reblocking him, please consider the reblock under WP:IAR, if only to err on the side of protecting the subject's privacy. Were Swkap "reformed," he should still not be editing the page anyway, and he has contributed nothing else to Wikipedia but vandalism/uncited privacy-violation edits to the page he was blocked from, and returned to as a sock. Cindery 23:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied via email. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV-related issue

I don't get it... why are briefs-related articles the subject of trolling?? --SunStar Net 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Some troll or trolls have been creating innumerable hoax articles of which the common factor is 'briefs' for months. Examples are third briefs, Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy, Briefsism etc. They also list them on DRV frequently. All such requests come from new accounts. This has been going on for months - any such nonsense should be speedy deleted, any DRV requests removed before editors waste their time replying, and the accounts blocked as sockpuppets. Why the hoax, I neither know nor care. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem odd, indeed. Trolling is not funny anyway. I'm surprised their entries aren't on WP:BJAODN! SunStar Net 19:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

God, no. BJAODN is dangerously near encouraging vandalism as it is; we certainly don't need to encourage prolific trolls to be even more prolific. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

205.155.216.40‎

For what it's worth, 205.155.216.40 (talk ·  contribs) may be registered to a university system, but it's not necessarily a shared IP. I looked at every edit made to date this year -- 26 out of 29 were vandalistic, 1 was not, and 2 I couldn't tell. Shared university IP addresses seem to have many more useful edits in the mix from what I've seen. --A. B. 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed one article in the contributions that had been vandalised on more than one day, but that wasn't enough of an indicator of consistency for me to block on the strength of a five-day warning when vandalism had stopped a few hours ago - I would have had to be more or less certain that it was the same guy that had read that warning. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing AfD discussions

I've noticed that you've improperly closed quite a few AfD discussion (forgetting to remove the categorization template when closing). --- RockMFR 05:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Any recent other than the school pranks one (which I just corrected)? I've been noticing that I tend to forget this new bit, but I have been going back and checking the AfDs I closed. Sorry if there are any I missed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Web 3.0

Why did you delete Web 3.0, the concept is very real.

Because as yet there's no specific definition of Web 3.0, just a lot of speculation from various sources, none of which are authorative, which doesn't let us write even the first sentence of an encyclopaedia article ("Web 3.0 is..."). For more, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (second nomination). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Disrespect

Please do not disrespect new users such as myself. While it is true you have been here longer and may know about wikipedia a little more, it is not proven that you are smarter or above me in any way. I do not want your disrespect against me or any user again. This would be appreciated

I would like to bring up an example from an argument you made in the deletion review for Tourettes Guy: "Wikipedia articles are not prizes. No-one deserves them." This is an argument you recently made. While many of your supporters and fellow pompous admins may think this is funny and a good argument, most people with brains agree that this is a stupid argument and should not be listened to. For this website's sake, I hope Tourettes Guy gets a chance and God help us if your argument helps the shutting down of Tourettes Guy in any way

All I am saying is realize that you along with many admins and long time users are very pompous and love to mess with new users. Think about this.

With all due respect, 75.30.115.196 05:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers notable people, events and things. It does not cover something simply because it is 'good', or 'funny'. I do respect new users but in return they should try to grasp what Wikipedia is for, and why we may decline to have an article on something, which in the case of Tourette's Guy they do not seem to be doing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 45	6 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration election campaigns begin	Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hola

Hola

Hi. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

I appreciate your actions concerning Mitsos' userpage.

Sincerely,NinaEliza 05:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll try to keep an eye on him for a while, but if he returns to problematic behaviour, please feel free to let me know. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora

I thought you might be interested in the Edit Summary on this edit. --Geniac 15:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but the fact that he made the same edit with the same unacceptable changes (removing {{sprotect}} etc) after being warned not to (the edits to the text I'm not judging on for now, but appear to be pretty tendentious) means I've blocked him. Though he seems to edit very irregularly and the actual edit was two days ago, so I'm not sure if he'll even notice. Have to wait and see. If he doesn't change his attitude soon he'll probably be blocked indefinitely for disruption. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Regarding editing very irregularly; they rotate (see here) --Geniac 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I already blocked User:Tonytonyb as an obvious sock - another account had already been indef-blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why i have been blocked...

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Samuel Blanning for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Mike mendoza". The reason given for Mike mendoza's block is: "inappropriate username (well-known person) - if this is your real name, please [[Special:

Firstly who is Mike mendoza...secondly who is clatters an inappropriate username? Its part of my surname, which is, Ben Clatworthy. Please reply to my account. ASAP?

Thank you,

Ben —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clatters (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You're posting on my talk page, so you're not blocked now. You ran up against an autoblock that the Wikipedia software instated when I blocked User:Mike mendoza. Your username is perfectly fine - you only received a block message because you must have tried to edit from the same IP as he did (do you work at Talksport radio, by any chance?) See WP:AUTOBLOCK for more details on this Mediawiki 'feature'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wall-E (film) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wall-E (film). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Re: Crash My Model car

I checked the history prior to deleting, but I didn't see that large blanking. Looking back, it still seems they're of questionable notability, but I have no problem with the article being undeleted and AfDed. --Daniel Olsen 00:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal 205.188.117.8 has made 10 changes in last two days

Hi Samuel. In response to my WP:AIV posting, you argued that the vandalism was not current. The guy has made 8 changes yesterday and 2 today (November 13) all bad so far as I can tell). EdJohnston 04:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

With AOL users, unless the vandalism was within the last hour - often even less than that - AOL will already have switched the vandal to a new IP. The 'guy' who vandalised today was a different guy from the one yesterday, and the day before it was another guy still. So we don't block AOL IPs unless the vandalism is literally current, and we never block people who vandalise today on the basis of a warning someone else received yesterday. Frustrating, I know - supposedly AOL are making some change to deal with it, but it obviously hasn't happened yet, and knowing AOL I'm not holding my breath. See Wikipedia:America Online for more information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 46	13 November 2006	About the Signpost

Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia	ArbCom elections: Information on Elections
Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic	News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling :)

Stop trolling or you will be blocked! :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Sam! Or I'm telling the teacher Jimbo that you took my lunch money banned me :) ~ Flameviper 16:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Aww...

Gee, all the articles are gone? Yes, I am happy now. So happy I've changed my flashy sig from Shrieking Harpy to .. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Camaro vandalism

I'm the one who reported the Camaro vandalizer. The user seems to have created User:Mil403 to do the same vandalism as with the IP. Same as User:Mil4003 earlier today ... BabuBhatt 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked both. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr.Samuel Blanning.

Thank you very much Mr.Samuel Blanning and sorry for the inconvenience. swadhyayee 14:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor review

Sam, can you please review me at Wikipedia:Editor review/SunStar Net?? Thanks, --SunStar Net 16:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A question

Hi, I see you've created this template -->{{sockpuppeteerproven}}. My question is, who has the liberty to place this on the pages of proven sockpuppeteers? Should it be done only by admins or can ordinary users like me also use the template? Sarvagnya 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's actually redundant now, because {{sockpuppeteer}} says "suspected or confirmed" - you might as well use that. I'm going to redirect it, so you don't need to worry about whether sockpuppetry is proven by Checkuser or just made obvious by comparing contributions - the template covers both.

Though before adding that template it's worth considering whether it's needed - you only need to document this sort of thing where the sockpuppetry is sneaky, not "Willy on Wheels"-type obvious meme vandalism. If the original sockpuppeteer isn't indefinitely banned, it's best not to add it, as it can only provoke further drama (they claim they won't use sockpuppets anymore and remove the tag, others revert, they claim it's their userpage and edit war, they get blocked, they storm off or become even more disruptive, everybody loses). Simply adding {{sockpuppet}} to those that have been blocked will usually be enough documentation. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Sarvagnya 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Body-type preferences among White and Black people on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Body-type preferences among White and Black people. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --W.marsh 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Could you please unblock 202.76.162.34?

Why? Any good faith editors can register an account. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lokodd Vandalism

Lokodd is changing information about population in many articles. He is climing Brazil has 20 million Germans everywhere ( I am from Brazil and WE DO NOT HAVE 20 million Germans here).

He is also changing information about Japanese people, Polish people, without sources.

I told him not to keep changing population informations without real sources, and he attacked my discussion page with offensive words.

I know it's him, because he posts here using his nickname, Lokodd, and also with his IP Adress, 200.161.82.68.

Please, do something about it...

Xuxo

I've blocked the account indefinitely, the IP for a week, and rolled back the edits that hadn't been reverted already. His edits to your talk page show that he has no intention of disputing the figures in the proper way. If he continues when the block expires, just revert them and report it to WP:AIV. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Home

Thank you for taking this up. JASpencer 23:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mitsos

I was wondering what purpose you think it serves to force a neonazi to disguise himself. If he wants to self-advertise as a racist, I say let him. It makes his edits much less likely to be accepted by the community. Removing the copyrighted material was fine, but I think he should at least be able to say what he stands for. Haber 02:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling his politics are going to come out from his edits and general behaviour, so I see no need to allow him to break Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of hypocritical considering that you say your politics are libertarian on your own talk page? Haber 02:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism is a benevolent political philosophy, both in thought and action (i.e, we haven't killed millions of people, and don't intend on doing so). Also, all there is on my userpage is a simple statement of what I believe in. I don't host any libertarian essays, say "libertarianism is the best" or otherwise attempt to use Wikipedia to promote it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No arguments here about which is the better philosophy. If you think it's ok for him to keep a simple statement you may want to clear that up with him and SandyDancer. Haber 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If I told him that he could say he was a fascist on his userpage, it would probably be true, but I'm still not going to encourage him to do so. It wouldn't do him any good, after all. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your time. Haber 02:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bring back the "List of Smallville Allusions" category!

The title says it all. You have NO right or authority to delete that page!

Yes, I do; my right/authority is the strength of arguments displayed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville Allusions. If you want to dispute my closing, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

EMMEDIA

Why has this page been deleted?

EMMEDIA is a community based organization that has existed for more than 25 years. They have effected the lives of countless numbers of artists and community workers. There is publication coming out regarding their history in 2007. They have been supported by the Canada Council for the Arts and the Alberta Foundation for the Arts for over 20 years.

I noticed you deleted the Stride Gallery page as well? These are community-based galleries that have enormous influence on their communities. Please undelete them. They have valuable information that is important to those communities. --scifireal

EMMEDIA had no assertion of the notability of the organisation. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia; we are not a site for providing helpful local information like the Yellow Pages, we are an encyclopaedia, and require subjects to be of encyclopaedic significance. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Durin's Bane

Hey Sam it's me Durin's Bane on my new Name, you like it. It is Smaug the Mighty, pretty cool huh? Just wanted to give my apologies. I won't go on no more hate rages. Now I can edit, thanks man! See you around, if you want to talk to me write back here or you will be able to talk to me on my user page, which I am going to create.

I would much prefer that you had not told me that, as sockpuppetry to evade bans is not permitted, and if you don't actually go on any more rages no-one would have noticed; but as long as you don't behave unacceptably again then I'll leave you alone. Please separate out new posts on talk pages with a new ==section==, and sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end; this will produce the date and the time, like so. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Wiseguys

Per AfD on The Wiseguys, an 8 to 7 to delete is not a consensus and shows only a very weak support for deletion. It's not as much as a vote for deletion but as it is a discussion. If no strong consensus can be achieved, it should be represented within a reasonable amount of time, per policy, so that another discussion can ensue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The numbers for keep include at least two single-purpose account and two which are arguably borderline, which would be given less weight even apart from the lack of convincing proof of notability. As you say, it's a discussion, which means that weight of argument is more important than counting numbers. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I have nothing to do with the article (came on because of vandalism to it earlier), I think that a revisit in the future might be wise only if it can be expanded upon (specific to the article). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In your notice of deletion, you state that "The expansion of the article since the AfD began only contains one additional claim to notability" and I do not belive that is true. As I stated in the discussion, the entry met Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) in several ways.

A comedian, group, or theatrical show is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

3. Contains at least one comedian who was once a part of or later joined a group or show that is otherwise notable.

I contend that the inclusion of Larry CLarck in the WiseGuys company meets this guideline. As I argued it on the discussion page and did not recieve a response to dispute it, this guideline should be considered as met.

A comedian, group, or theatrical show is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

4. Has become a prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city

As I said in the discussion, and had no disagreeing response:

"In every article that can be found about improv in Memphis, it states that The WiseGuys is only one of either two or three shows of its kind in Memphis. As one of three companies of its kind in the local scene that perform the notable style (i.e. short form improv), The WiseGuys meet the above mentioned Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) requirement."

Since the revamped entry was enough to change the minds of at least three of the people who voted for deletion, and even the person who put it up for deletion contributed edits to help meet Wikipedia:Notability (comedy), I think it is a bit rash to delete the article based on concensus, especially since many of the people who voted for deletion did so before the revamped edit. Since they did not reaffirm their vote for deletion after the entry was revamped, I feel that it is disingenuous to weight the initial votes.

Also, according to Wikipedia:Notability (comedy), "the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Seeing as I have shown how the entry meets two more critereon, I request that, as Seicer (talk) (contribs) said, the entry be kept and if further deliberation is neccesary, then let it happen.

Apatronoftruth 08:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) is a failed proposal, so I don't know why you're quoting it. "One of three companies of its kind in the local scene that perform the notable style" is an argument for keeping that borders on 'local interest', when encyclopaedia subjects must be of universal interest across the ages, so I'm not surprised the guideline was rejected. It's very rare (though it would be nice) for people to 'reaffirm' delete arguments following expansion, particularly when such expansion only includes a very tenuous claim to notability (two, if you must, though I've seen no convincing argument for Larry Clark conferring notability either). In such situations I have to consider a) the strength of the arguments actually made and b) the degree to which opinion turned. As I said, there were about as many delete arguments as keep arguments following the 'cleanup', and while one explictly pointed out the insubsantial nature of the renewed case for notability (TheRealFennShysa), evem the non-SPA accounts which were going for keep didn't really have a convincing argument other than their own opinion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering that the person who put the entry up for AfD used Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) as the basis for their opinion to delete, as well as at least two others who make reference to it, it seems appropriate to address the guideline.

(note: On the Wikipedia:Notabilitypage, it still states that the comedy proposal is active.)

You say that you "have to consider: a) the strength of the arguments actually made and b) the degree to which opinion turned." As I said earlier, at least three people had their opinion changed. Noone made a reaffirmation of their delete opinion.

You say that "there were about as many delete arguments as keep arguments following the 'cleanup'", but if you look closely, there are only two opinions stated after the entry was cleaned up for delete, yet three people changed their opinions. This would seem to show a strong "degree to which opinion turned".

Since the argument for deletion was based on what I now understand to be a failed guideline proposal, and almost all discussion about the article on both sides of the issue was based on that proposal, it seems only fair to allow discussion on the article based on the blanket notability guildeline, which you used to justify deleting it.

Therefore, I ask that you reinstate the article and allow further discussion - not merely voting.

Thank you Apatronoftruth 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a contest between the nomination and the keep side, but a discussion about, ultimately, whether the subject is encyclopaedic. I don't believe that the nomination is fatally compromised by reference to Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) when it can be shown that notability is lacking overall; however, reference to meeting a specific criterion of a failed proposal which does not necessarily involve the subject being covered by multiple independent non-trivial sources is made weak by the proposal's failed status.

As for people changing their minds, only Seicer changed from an explicit delete. Apart from SPAs, there was one that was keep from the start and one that was clearly heading towards keep pending improvement to the article. As I've said, it is neither required nor reasonable that every single delete proponent has to reaffirm their argument if the basis for deletion has been insufficiently addressed. If you want further discussion, try Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Thanks for telling me that Wikipedia:Notability is out-of-date, however, I'll go change that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Since all of the discussion was based on the failed proposed guideline, and there was no discussion based on the general notability guideline, I again request that the article be reinstated for further discussion on the pertaining notability guideline.

And, to correct your information, Balloonman also changed hs opinion to keep, which counts as two people who changed their opinion, not one.

Furthermore, as the initial basis for deletion was "Fails Wikipedia:Notability (comedy). Delete MikeWazowski 05:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)" and that issue was sufficiently addressed, I repeat my request.

As this is an attempt to "resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question (this should be attempted first - courteously invite the deleting admin to take a second look)" as the Wikipedia:Deletion review purpose describes, I am trying to follow the Wikipedia guidelines for this occurance.

Apatronoftruth 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Balloonman was the one I was referring to who was arguing for keep conditional on a rewrite, which isn't the same as someone believing that no possible article would be encyclopaedic and then actually changing their mind. I don't believe that a second AfD would produce a significantly different result, and I very much doubt that everyone was basing their opinion on a guideline that had been tagged as 'rejected' since the beginning of the AfD, so I recommend you take this to deletion review if anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Sam,

User with the IP address 128.243.220.21 vandalised my page. Not a great deal, but deliberately changed information so that it was incorrect. It's been reverted now, but could you block that IP or something? Thanks! Militant3121 10:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's stopped vandalising for now, and we don't usually block IPs unless they've been warned and haven't stopped. The IP registers to the University of Nottingham, so if we blocked it we'd probably just be blocking people who wanted to genuinely contribute. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Kingjeff 03:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Caligare

Hello, I have problem, bacause my page "Caligare" was removed. I don't found how can I recover it. I tried many links on Wikipedia, but without success. Can you help me? I don't know why my page was removed.

Thank you in advance,

Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caligare (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Caligare was deleted under the proposed deletion process, which allows any article to be deleted if no-one objects within five days. As you've contested the deletion, I've restored it, but someone may still choose to nominate the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if they still feel that the article fails to meet our notability guidelines for companies. I suggest you quickly try to bring the article into compliance with our guidelines by showing in the article that the company has received non-trivial coverage from multiple third-party reliable sources, as Wikipedia is not an advertising service and consequently your username alone puts the article at risk of deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Reuters Vandal

The vandal you just blocked - see Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#User:Enlighter1_.26_sock_puppets. -- Agathoclea 20:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Tiny point on procedure

Hi,

You suggested a "speedy close" on the DRV for Young Numismatists of America, because there was "no deletion to review." While it is true that there was no deletion to review, DRV's mandate includes keep closures now, and it has included them since it was renamed/expanded from the old VfU.

The question of whether "merges" (as a species of keep) are covered is one I haven't thought much about, actually, so I thank you for broaching the matter. This is what I think, but it is only tentative, and I'd love input: DRV reviews the appropriateness of an AfD's close, both on process grounds, and in the event of new information or change in circumstance. As such, where someone disputes the close -- ie., someone seeks outright keeping or outright deletion, rather than merging -- DRV is the appropriate forum. In cases where it is merely the quality of the merging that is disputed -- ie., the merging editor missed a vital paragraph, etc. -- the article talk page is the appropriate place for dialogue. I do think that Young Numismatists of America falls in the former category. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I will always be utterly opposed to the concept that deletion forums can be used to decide merging. AfD's five-day, adversarial nature is suitable only for the binary decision of whether to keep or delete. Merging brings up the questions of what to merge, where to merge it, how to merge it, whether it needs to be rewritten, copyedited, verified, etc, and that requires continuing active editing by editors and threaded discussion, not five days of 'yea' and 'nay' in AfD at which point most editors leave to go !vote in another AfD. I will never say 'endorse merge' or 'overturn merge' at DRV or anything else that would be endorsing harmful mission creep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's certainly an argument... so what do you think it means when an AfD is closed as "merge", because those closures do happen (however fortunate or unfortunate they are), and someone has got to confront the reality of their existence, at least until your effort to expunge such closes succeeds. I've always felt that a "merge" AfD closure leaves the finer points of editorial discretion to talk page consensus, but the AfD closure reflected a believe that "this article is too defective to exist independently; and yet, too valuable encyclopedically to discard." I confess that I haven't encountered such hostility to these closures before. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone disputing the merge should be free to revert it; the AfD should not be treated as binding (as it is when an article is deleted). Equally, those actually interested should feel free to revert back and go through the usual dispute resolution process if they can't reach consensus, which may include editors who repeatedly revert to one state or another being blocked for edit warring. It's mistaken to represent a majority of editors in an AfD as 'consensus for merging', because most of them don't watch the article after the AfD ends (some of them not even during the AfD) and don't actively discuss what content to merge, where, how etc, and so they can't be counted as part of a consensus. Representing people as part of a 'consensus' to do something when they're not currently interested is like getting a takeaway and asking people who aren't having any food whether you should order Chinese or Indian.

The alternative is to protect the redirect, which has been done in this case, and in some cases I would support this as a softer {{deletedpage}}, but at the moment we have editors revert warring over redirects 'per AfD' which is the worst of both worlds. I don't see what the point was in that particular case; we still have content on the organisation, the obviously unencyclopaedic information (full list of staff etc), could have been cut out without redirecting, so we don't need to make it a matter of process which page the information is located on.

I'm not really making an "effort" to expunge such closes, because it's impossible to regulate the hundreds of AfDs to that extent. I merely hope that closers and participants will eventually recognise the confusion they're causing, and that saying 'merge' doesn't result in the article being merged. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with your first point: a "consensus for merging" doesn't say anything concrete about what to do with an article editorially, except that it should not be deleted outright. Some useful information needs to be put somewhere and (for GFDL purposes if nothing else), the record of the article needs to be preserved. People who argue that the merge consensus is binding in any other way are simply wrong, and should be ignored. A DRV review would be required to delete outright, though; and might be helpful for clarity's sake, though not absolutely necessary, in a case where change in circumstance or new information rendered the merge closure wrong on the merits, and seemed to justify an outright keep.

I do not share your apparent dislike of "drive-by commenters" at AfD, though; in fact, I have quite the opposite opinion. AfD draws the attention of editors who would be otherwise uninvolved in a given article: sometimes, this leads to confusion, that's true. In my experience, though, uninvolved editors, more often than not, furnish valuable outside opinions about what to do in complex cases. I appreciate this input; an AfD discussion need not become useless once the bare question of "delete or keep" is satisfied. Oftentimes, the conversation at AfD leads to article improvement, which includes consolidation through merging. Such outcomes are not binding, and do reflect editorially choices; that does not mean, in my opinion, that merge outcomes are bad. Quite the opposite, I view them generally as laudable efforts to improve encyclopedic quality through discussion. The fact that the discussion happens in AfD (sometimes with "outsiders") is irrelevant to the improvements made. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with "drive-by comments" which suggest merge; where I have a problem is if such opinions are represented as a consensus if, after the AfD closes, new arguments are put forward and/or circumstances change. The best-case scenario is that outside editors come in via the AfD and continue to actively edit and discuss the article after the AfD closes, which is what I try to suggest when closing AfDs with a large number of 'merge' comments (though if it's the 10th or 15th AfD I've closed that day, I'm inevitably going to be more brief than I'm being at the moment). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A question about essays

Rather, your policy on deleting them. Although I will not deny the rules, I do need to ask you if you are acting unilaterally. If you are, then I think you should stop deleting essays; with a lack of oversight, you're vandalizing user pages. If disagreeing with another user's political view is a reason to delete an essay, then what is stopping other users from deleting your own essays as offensive?
I will also remind you, Wikipedia does not appologize for non-censorship, esspecially when it comes to images that most would find offensive, such as nudity, open flesh wounds and religious depictions.
--OrbitOne 16:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about User:Mitsos, Wikipedia is not censored applies to articles. It does not apply to removing inappropriate content from userpages, which are not free webhosting for people to promote political causes. I have no political essays on my userpage, so I've no idea what your slippery slope argument is getting at. If you think I'm vandalising, go report me to the appropriate place, I've no time to try and correct people's misconceptions of what vandalism actually means when they're just trying to make a WP:POINT. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not giving a slippery slope argument. I am asking you to not delete essays unilaterally.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardly unilaterally, concern had already been expressed on WP:ANI about the essays, which is why I found the page in the first place. If you want a second opinion (well, fifth by now I think), go there and tell them exactly how those essays meet Wikipedia:Userpage, that is how they are "compatible with the Wikipedia project". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

However, WP:IAR can be invoked. If he feels his essay improves wikipedia, then he can ignore the rules that disallow him essays on his user page. IAR pretty much means you cannot blindly point at another rule that disallows essays and delete them. You need a reason and explain why the essay does not improve wikipedia.

(second edit)

BTW. The guideline that covers user pages has this to say. "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." It is a statement it is a guideline and that exceptions should be allowed on occasion. It is not set in stone, so it is not something to can force onto other users. It isn't law.

--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 13:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, exceptions can be made. So, you tell me: why should an exception be made in this case? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That is up to him/her to argue. I am just saying to you, it is only a guide line while a rule/policy actually allows him/her to ignore rules, and with them, any guidelines. But you need to argue for why it should be deleted in the first place. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR does not mean that all the policies and guidelines do not have any relevance. All the policies and guidelines have a reason to be followed - in the case of Wikipedia:Userpage, because Wikipedia is not a free web host. To invoke WP:IAR, you need to explain why following the policy/guideline would harm the encyclopaedia. If you don't have a reason why the Wikimedia Foundation should host copyrighted neo-Nazi essays on someone's userpage, then stop wasting my time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The policy WP:IAR allows him to do exactly that, ignore all rules, if it makes wikipedia better. I am sorry for wasting your time, but I would like to see more thought put into such contributions (deleting essays). I will not bother you any more.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Voden inscription

This page has bee voted for deletion before, see [[1]]. Nevetheless, it was recreated yesterday, today it was deleted but was recreated twice since. see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Voden+inscription

Needless to say, the recreated articles disregard any editing that had been done before.  Andreas  ^(T) 17:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, though I see Khoikhoi has already salted the earth. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MedCabal

Hi, we have a heavy backload of cases at WP:MEDCAB and since you are on the mediator list I thought I would request your help. Thanks! --Ideogram 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)