User talk:Samuel Blanning/October2006

Images on episode lists
Are fair-use images allowed on episode list pages?? The only thing I asked that because, I am having problems with some users with images on the Pokmeon episode list, like I wrote images idenitfy episodes visually and identify key moments. But this Pokémon Collaborative Project voted on not having images which I wasn't imformed with.

I got a commit from a two users liking the idea of images:


 * Well I personally think they improve the article, and I've followed certain Featured List Candidates involving fair use images, and opposers have always stated that images should be in relation to the text, much like any other image, and not there for decorative purposes. H ig hway Daytrippers  20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I really like the images, and so many articles have it, I think it's accepted. — Mets 501 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The users that are causing this problem is A Man in Black and Ryulong. Some of the iamges have the Fair Use Rationale for the images. Please help me. (Yugigx60 14:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Could you tell me the exact name of the article where the dispute is? --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


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 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Morlocks closing AfDs
I can't fault your logic on ANI, but I've told Parsssseltongue that I don't mind. I still don't, but I have enough respect for you to reckon yours is ok, too. If you want to counteract my advice, his talk page might be a good place to do it. - brenneman  {L} 12:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not repeat what I already said and run the risk of appearing to harp on about something that I'm really not massively bothered about - the important thing is that it looks like the error, such as it is, will be corrected. The other important thing is that Parseltongue understands the importance of WP:V and WP:CCC, and I think you've covered that adequately on his talk page. If Parseltongue continues reading the WP:AN thread, he'll see my post, and can consider both our opinions and make up his own mind - and if he doesn't, well, he's almost certain to pick it up at some point if he does continue following the path to adminship. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultima Dragons
Hey, is there a way to get the old content of the Ultima Dragons page that was deleted, so I can at least work on improving it in my sandbox? The sources that have been mentioned on the AfD page I have been working on tracking down, and it would be nice if I could have the old content so that I could improve it in my sandbox or what have you so as to actually have a good article to show to the Deletion for Review board people. Thanks! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've restored it to User:Wizardry Dragon/Ultima Dragons. Good luck in finding those references. Incidentally, the logo, as it's uploaded under a claim of fair use and isn't currently in any articles, will be deleted in a week unless the image is used in an article again and the orfud template is removed. You may want to save it to your hard drive if you don't have it already. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a huge issue if it gets deleted, in fact I may just delete it myself ;) It's publicly and freely available on the UDIC FTP. Thanks again! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
As you can see I was fighting a losing battle Re: Iain Lee all day! Thank you for your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarlosPauloEthetheth (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Np. If an article comes under similar attack in the future you can request protection at WP:RPP. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah right-o, didn't know that I am new here! Cheers, CarlosPauloEthetheth 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Samuel - beware, I believe this user may be a clever hoaxer. Several of his past edits are incorrect or unverifiable, and almost all relate in some way to Iain Lee (including, bizarrely, trying to imply he is a descendant of a North Pole Innuit explorer). Stephenb (Talk) 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As as addendum to this, also look at the edits of 82.46.157.9 - I smell a sockpuppet! Stephenb (Talk) 09:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did notice that - unfortunately, in all the confusion I couldn't really sort one lot of nonsense out from the other. I've removed the information tagged as 'citation needed' for the moment and will be able to keep a better eye on the article in the next few days than before. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a a hoaxer, someone has been using my account! Argh! Help! I think i just switched off the browser and not logged out, so there has been some chaos! CarlosPauloEthetheth 15:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A keep is a delete is a keep is a...
Doh! Thanks for the AfD note, my mind must be going a mile a minute... or perhaps not. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for deletionDeletion
Hello Samuel, someone put the article Where Troy Once Stood on a list requesting deletion. I wonder if this is really necessary. Of course I believe in the article but that is not the only reason why I feel bad about this. What harm can this article do as almost any link and reference to it is deleted anyway. I don't feel like fighting this because it all seem so childish. Antiphus 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I consider its notability to be in doubt, although the AfD has made me less doubtful. Because of that I feel the AfD is worthwhile even if it ends in a 'keep' result. I don't feel strongly enough either way to participate myself. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


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 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion
Thank you for doing the undeletion. JASpencer 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

hi
well i am new to this and just wanted to know how it worked just leave a message please when you recieve this thanks

hi
well i am new to this and just wanted to know how it worked just leave a message please when you recieve this thanks Arejay 03:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review new days
Badlydrawnjeff has been adding the new (empty) days lately because we've had a number of cases where people have put in requests that didn't get seen for a day or two because the date page was never linked. So, it doesn't hurt to link in the new day automatically. Haven't seen a day yet that didn't get a DRV request sooner or later. Fan-1967 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Hello Samuel, after more than five days of AfD now and with the vote in favour of keeping the article about Where Troy Once Stood I still found the AfD-message on top. Isn't it removed automatically or should editors remove it? Most of the content of the article is removed by someone with respect to soapbox. Could you explain what that means and is it a reason to delete three quarters of an article? Regards, Antiphus 05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When the discussion is closed by an administrator, he will remove the AfD tag. There's almost always a backlog of AfDs waiting for attention on Articles for deletion/Old. At the moment it's three days, but only a short while ago it was sometimes going up past a week. What that means is that the AfD may still remain open for a few days - hopefully not longer.
 * As for the edits you refer to, I agree with them, personally. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" may be an oversimplification, but it's correct in that we don't regurgitate a subject's theories or opinions. A better term is "undue weight". As it stands the size of the section discussing the subject's own viewpoint fits in well with the other sections - as it stood before, it took up far too much of the article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Relation rules review...
I'm genuinely curious why you feel the modified version of the relationship rules article fails on WP:NOT guidelines. The article is more than a dictionary definition (WP:NOT 1.2), the article is well-cited and keeps to the ideas as presented in the original works (WP:NOT 1.3), the article does not serve as a soapbox for a cause (WP:NOT 1.4), the article is not a mirror to other sites (WP:NOT 1.5), the article is not a blog or a social site (WP:NOT 1.6), the article does not serve as a directory (WP:NOT 1.7), the article is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as all cited sources deal with the topic of rules in relationships and even use the term 'rules' in the original sources (WP:NOT 1.8), and the article does not try to predict the future (WP:NOT 1.9). So why exactly does the Relationship rules article fail these guidelines? Thanks in advance for clarifying. User:kc62301
 * Replying at WP:DRV. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation policy question
Your opinion regarding whether editing to an article should continue during the mediation process would be appreciated here since there doesn't seem to be a relevant policy. I've also asked two other seasoned mediators for their opinion. Thanks. Antonrojo 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've commented at that talk page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
For placing the coat of arms in the template, also I noticed you took part in the DRV of Pro Wrestling Unplugged, an article I was the nominator of for deletion. I have to say his comment "The people who have endorsed this article's deletion know NOTHING about professional wrestling." made me chuckle considering the amount of effort I've put into the wrestling wikiproject and articles, your reply also made me laugh. –– Lid(Talk) 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem and thanks respectively :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian immigration (Israel)
Thanks for your note on the article. My deletion was a matter of process. I don't recall the exact reason for marking, but unfortunately I must leave it as it is. I've got too many other things pending and someone else will have to get to it. Thanks again for your note. --meatclerk 17:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

La'o Hamutuk deletion
As the top of this page suggests, I left a message for you on my talk page on October 13, in response to a message you wrote there about why La'o Hamutuk was deleted. Could you please respond? Thank you. --Cscheiner 18:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


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 06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Clint Curtis question
Thanks, Sam, I would have said that deleting a cited section of text counts as blanking, but I appreciate the criticism. (And am glad I got it before I hit 3RR).

Do you have a second to tell me what my remedies are? I think that edits like this are pretty blatant, particularly given 131.94.55.64's contribution history. Do I really need to request an RFC and a mediation once I hit my three reverts? Thanks, TheronJ 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, deleting cited text isn't blanking vandalism. Vandalism is more about intention than action. Do what you would do with any other editor making any other tendentious edit; revert him, and if you hit three reverts, let someone else revert. That will confirm that he's on the wrong side of consensus. Then if he continues reverting, report him at WP:AN/3RR. I assume you're not the only editor watching the article. The sky won't fall if the anon manages to get it left at m:The Wrong Version for a few hours. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the cool head, and am sure that once I cool down myself, I will conclude that you are right. ;-)  TheronJ 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Emmalina protected redirect
Hi I noticed that you protected Emmalina as a redirect. Is this in response to something I did? I created a history for Emmalina per unclosed request of everyone in Articles for deletion/Notable YouTube memes. I was waiting for a closure since it seems that this article will be deleted. This way I can revert edit so cited information will not be lost on Wikipedia. Also shouldn't Emmalina be a redirect to Notable YouTube memes since that is her main article? Valoem  talk  23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's because, unless I'm wrong, the redirect is intended as a softer version of deletedpage. Otherwise, the history shouldn't have been deleted (there are 175 edits still deleted). It prevents people from wasting their time creating a new article when it will just be redirected again.
 * I can redirect it to Notable YouTube memes if you want, but as you say that article is probably going to be deleted soon, so I don't really see the point.
 * The main thing is, Articles for deletion/Emmalina (3rd nomination) came up with a clear result, that the subject does not merit its own article, and that can only be overturned by a full discussion at deletion review. Otherwise the history behind the redirect wouldn't have been deleted. If an article is to be put in place of the redirect again, the deleted history has to be restored by DRV. It can't be done as an uncontroversial 'History only' undeletion - indeed, I refused a request to do just that, which led me to then fully protect the redirect after discussion here. I think it should have been fully protected when the history was deleted in the first place, but I didn't close the AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a somewhat unusual situation, so if you do ask for a deletion review, please make clear in your nomination that you are looking to overturn Articles for deletion/Emmalina (3rd nomination) which resulted in the deletion of the history before the redirect. Otherwise we could get confusion over whether the request is an uncontroversial 'history only' undeletion, or whether deletion review is even relevant because it's a redirect at issue (normally to redirect or not to redirect is a matter for talk pages, not for deletion fora, but not when the history behind it is deleted). --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, however this article initially passed an AfD Articles_for_deletion/Emmalina, the second nomination was only done one month after initial nomination which, if I am correct, is a violation of Wikipedia policy since you can't repeatly nominate an article thats has passed in a short period of time. The 3rd nomination was done by a user with a history of not researching before nominating. I feel this article has passed an should be keep esp since she passes WP:BIO "cited by multiple indepedent sources". Valoem   talk  23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change - only the most recent discussion is relevant. You can't repeatedly renominate articles, but 'one month' is a long time on Wikipedia and certainly isn't 'repeated'. I shouldn't really have mentioned deletion review, as I'd forgotten that deletion review endorsed the status quo only twelve hours ago. You'd need something pretty convincing to start a review this soon after that. "Multiple independent sources" were presented in the AfD, were obviously considered by all participants, and it still resulted in deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait so in otherwords, an article that passes AfD can get renominated again and again as long as the user waits for sometime, but once an article is deleted it cant get recreated? Valoem   talk  06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it can - if deletion review allows it. No decisions on Wikipedia are binding, except for Arbcom/Board/Jimbo-related ones. --Sam Blanning(talk) 07:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright it looks like Notable YouTube memes has finally been deleted. This calls for an "emergence" recall of the Deletion Review of Emmalina since a strong argument was that she has been redirected because Notable YouTube memes has already covered her. Other than that she is certain notable per WP:BIO. It think the article should be restored now. Valoem   talk  15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Emmalina has adequate coverage in YouTube, where it currently redirects. You're welcome to try for another deletion review, but if by "emergence" you mean "without discussion", not a chance, IMO. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By "emergency" I mean that the reason for maintaining the delete to redirect is no longer valid (per deletion review), therefore what you said about requiring a very convincing argument to reenact a deletion review within 12 hours exists. Valoem   talk  19:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Diane E. Benson on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Diane E. Benson. 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. Deirdre 03:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hes vandalising my page again
Dear sam i would like to offically report User gerrado for vandalising my user page he was warned any more attacks and i would report him to an admin so now i am reporting him to you an admin. Please deal apropriatly with gerrado as he is a thorn i thought i had removed please permenantly get him off my case. Thanks --Lucy-marie 12:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've left him an explicit warning which I intend to be the last. Occasional, even rare vandalism from a contributor who otherwise attempts to edit positively is the most frustrating kind, but it can't be tolerated. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I give you a hand for reverting the vandalism on my user page. THANK YOU! RoyalbroilTalk  Contrib 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

X. Claire Yan
It appears there were 5 votes for "keep" and 5 votes for "delete," and the guidelines say to err on the side of inclusion. How did you come to the decision to delete the article? It seems Wikipedia is just that bit less informative and useful now - the article would only improve - but then again I'm an eventualist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HunterAmor (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the five arguments you're referring to (AfD is not a vote), RFerreira said "Keep if and only if the best selling claims can be sourced. Otherwise...", and that didn't happen (indeed, AnonEMouse stated quite convincingly that this was not only unverified but actually wrong). That makes him explictly on the side of deletion. User:Cdcdoc didn't back up his opinion at all, despite being challenged by another editor. Architectsf said "Surely she has numerous newspaper articles during the campaign. The author role would qualify as well", which isn't sufficient - the burden of proof is on those who want to keep the article, which means you actually have to come up with some credible non-trivial coverage. Your and User:Admiralwaugh's arguments are less flimsy, inasmuch as they rely on the simple fact of her candidacy which is essentially a matter of opinion - and Marriedtofilm (who didn't argue one way or the other) had a solid-sounding argument against Admiralwaugh's claim that the race was inherently notable, which wasn't contested. Policy, not votes is what decides AfDs and it was clearly on the 'delete' side.
 * "Harmless" is not a very good argument for keeping an article, incidentally - if we keep articles that no-one has any interest in maintaining (which applies to all articles on candidates with no other claim to notability once they lose the election), readers can't be expected to know which of our articles were written and checked by independent editors and which were posted by a campaign group.
 * I admit I should probably have included my reasoning in the closing summary in the first place - sometimes I get into the habit of seeing closes like this as sufficiently obvious not to need one, when it isn't going to be obvious to people who went for 'keep'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Stannington First School
No consensus? In a split of merge and delete, I don't think keep is a viable option. Choose one of merge or delete, and go with it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're free to merge if you want, but articles for deletion does not make binding decisions on merges. Quite rightly, as it is grossly poor on doing so, rarely making any more than the vaguest suggestion on how much should be merged, where in the target article it should be merged (if a target is even specified!) and why it should be merged at all. In an AfD discussion, 'merge' is equivalent to 'keep' - the content is merely moved to a different place and the page itself turned into a redirect. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Joshua Clover
Hi,

Sorry to bother you, but you were so spot-on with User: Edward Saint-Ivan. The self-promo problem has cropped up again, but with another user--an anon using two IPs. This time I have some personal knowledge--it's a father vandalizing a son's page. Please believe me when I say it's more malicious and disturbing than it looks. The son will not get involved, out of fear of encouraging stalking behavior on the part of the father, to whom he does not speak (father may be encouraged if he thinks this is a form of "contact" with son). That's the subtext--on the face of it, the father/anon has still made a a number of violations--patent nonsense, 3RR, WP:VAIN, etc. He has ignored all of my attempts to get him to discuss anything, or to read any Wiki policies or guidelines. I made a report about him here: but nothing is being done, meanwhile the father continues to "edit" the page...

Thanks in advance for any help or advice about how to proceed, Cindery 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User:71.242.186.236 has been blocked for violating WP:3RR on Joshua Clover (not by me, but I was about to issue one when I saw it had already been done). If there are other IPs vandalising or still edit warring, please list them or the page they're vandalising - I can't do anything otherwise. I don't know how block ranges, so if a rangeblock is needed you should try WP:ANI. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't see the 3RR block from William Connelly before I wrote to you. If anon persists after the 24 hr block, and Bio noticeboard can't resolve things, I will take your advice re WP:ANI. (He seems to have used two IPs, on Joshua Clover page, that begin with 71 and vary only in the last four numbers--so maybe it is not a range but just the two numbers?) Anyway, thanks again for your help and advice. Cindery 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV
I only nominated that page based on the fact that I read somewhere on here that talk pages needed to be retained if they contained policy violations etc. Your comments straightened it out for me a bit more... SunStar Net ; 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whereabouts? It might merit updating. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'm not exactly certain on this point myself - I agree with the principle, but whether it's sufficiently accepted is a different matter - so I would wait for other editors' opinions in the DRV before you trust mine too much. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's OK, Sam, I just used Special:Whatlinkshere/User talk:Robsteadman as a means of trying to back up my argument! SunStar Net  ; 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of hospitals
Nobody's time was wasted. Discussion is always valuable. -- Necrothesp 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was talking more about the restoration and then redeletion of all the music lists. As I was the one who closed the second AfD and redeleted the 100+ lists, I think I can call it a waste of time if I like :-). By closing the AfD as I did rather than deleting all the lists and hoping no-one would object, I wanted to prevent that waste of time happening again. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia
いかにウィキペディアに貢献する!? (How do you contribute to Wikipedia?) 悪影丸 (21:39, 2006年10月28日 (UTC))
 * If you decide to create an account with an appropriate username, try Introduction and Tutorial. If you have any questions after that, you can either ask me or try the Help desk. You will need to use English - I speak virtually no Japanese (and can read even less). --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Therapies AFD

 * Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book) - Thank you for your fair decision in this matter. (Haven't decided yet whether I'm on a break or done with Wikipedia altogether.)  Yours, Smeelgova 21:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Conscription in Iran-Iraq War on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Conscription in Iran-Iraq War. 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.--Patchouli 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Admin coaching - October 29 - Pending
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Pending' section of the coaching box.


 * If the coaching has started and is ongoing please move the entry to the 'active' section of the box'.
 * If the coaching has finished/never going to start please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
 * You can fill in information about your former students, at the main archive.
 * If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
 * If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! H ig hway Grammar Enforcer!  22:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fold system on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fold system. 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. --Kunzite 02:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Just to let you know (even though I withdrew):
 * The RFA question was posed last night by AuburnPilot, and I also copied the contents of my response to his/her user talk, and the issue with Bobabobabo was dealt with three times over with the sockpuppetry. I usually don't archive as quickly, but I did not feel a need to really to reply to Bobabobabo, as s/he would have seen my actions on his/her own user talk (reverting threatening edits from the user s/he notified me to).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't really understand. Archiving takes a non-trivial amount of time - cutting from your talk page, saving, pasting to the archive and saving again. Why do it if your talk page isn't cluttered? I do it once a week at most, and only when I get the 'this page is too long' warning. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just like having a clean slate every so often. Usually I let it sit for a few days, but this afternoon I cleared it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would seriously recommend clearing it every week or so at most. Not everyone checks within 24 hours for responses to their post, and there's always the possibility that something might need to be followed up. And a long talk page makes you look popular :-). --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, usually I either copy the response to their talk page, or it's a quick volley. And have you seen my archives? Don't you think I'm popular enough?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you go for the "post on each other's talk page" approach as opposed to "post on one person's talk page", then I guess that's ok (at least, it can't get any more confusing). --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


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 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)