User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2007/March

ANTM8
Good work on referencing up the article for the contestants! It appears that some contestants' names were incorrect, and I still cannot gauge if the ones listed are "reliable". In order to avoid overlinking, I have replaced the external links with one overall link to the same lead article. Ohconfucius 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Right now, it seems like there's only two online sources. I'll try to buy a teeny-bopper magazine and confirm what I can, but I've added additional references where I've been able to find them. I think that what I've got is a start, but if we can find multi-sourced names then they should prevail. (As usual, right?) -- Mikeblas 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm discouraged by editorial and journalistic quality of today, and I feel that there is a tendency to rely on the one principal source, which is usually the show's PR department, or it may sometimes be the persons themselves, backed up by the same marketing machinery. I find it frustrating. Most of the time, for the subjects we deal with here, we just have to make do with what we got. Ohconfucius 02:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then don't rent Idiocracy. It'll bum you right out! Seriously, I don't think we'll change the world by fixing up the ANTM8 article, but getting the references right will be something that will set it apart from other articles in the show series. -- Mikeblas 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the introduction ;-). You are right. Actually, all I was trying to say is that "more" does not necessarily equal "better". Ohconfucius 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: vandalism inaction
Hi there. Checking the contributions of the ip, Special:Contributions/71.60.13.66, delivers a single edit on March 13, this one. While a silly vandalism, he was not warned because of it, and hasn't edited since then. You warned the user because of his edits to Gateway School District, however, the last edit to that article was this one, around 36 hours ago. Blocking is not a punishment for what the user has done, but instead to prevent immediate damage by the user. As you can see, the IP is not active right now, thus it does not merit a block. Personally, I remove reports if an hour has passed without vandalism by the reported user. Others give or take 30 minutes, but basically, unless the user is on vandalism spree, we don't usually block. If you don't agree with my reasoning, feel free to report it back to the board for a second opinion, or its talk page for comments, I won't get offended at all! Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet map
Hi Mike! I just left an answer for you over at Image talk:Internet map 1024.jpg. κаллэмакс 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)