User talk:Samuel Blanning/September2006

Starbucks
Why did you remove the Enterprise template from the Starbucks talk page? Starbucks is an enterprise, and the template points to guidance on writing articles about enterprises. Why would we as editors want to ignore what little Wiki guidance there is on articles about ongoing enterprises? It is a proposed policy and if you've read that proposed policy you'll note it suggests we can add that template to any enterprise article. So, can you tell me how removing that template and the link to the proposed policy from the talk page will help us improve the article? Thanks! Mr Christopher 18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The template describes Articles about ongoing enterprises as a policy, which it isn't. It's as simple as that. Although anyone following the link will see that the policy is currently proposed, the template also summarises the proposed policy, so not everyone will follow the link. Please remove the template until the proposal has actually attained policy status. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

help against vandals and personal attacks
how do i protect my discussion page from vandals and personal attacks with out blocking genuine users from contributing.--Lucy-marie 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

can you pleas block User:Gerrado from editing my talk page and discussion page as he has resorted to vandalism and personal atacks.--Lucy-marie 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your userboxes are, er, interesting in regards to how many languages you claim to speak fluently, but Gerrado was over the line in both of his comments. Unfortunately it's not possible to block users from specific pages, but I've warned him that civility isn't optional and if he keeps it up further action may be necessary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I know that I may have gone over the top on user boxes but I was merley experimenting and as It is my user page I think I have a right to post what ever user box like. Thank you for placing a warning on him I hope It dose the trick. Thanks Sam you are the best.--Lucy-marie 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have had to remove another Inflamatory personal attack from my talk page by the same user please take the apropriate action.--Lucy-marie 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody is confused about Raymond
Do you watch the show Everybody Loves Raymond? It was one of the best shows during the time it was on. I recently created the page for the character Amy Macdougall-Barone. The problem is, most people know her as Amy Barone. I am not sure what her 'official' name is on the show. The title of the article was gotten from a link on the 'Everybody Loves Raymond' page. It had a link to the 'Amy Macdougall-Barone' page, but there was nothing there so I started it. Here's my problem. I want 'Amy Barone' to link to 'Amy Macdougall-Barone.' So if somebody types in the first phrase, they get the article with the ladder for a title. But right now, the first links to the 'Everybody Loves Raymond' page. I think what I have to do is create an 'Amy Barone' page, and then make the only part of the article a redirect to my original page. But there's got to be a better way. Is there?

Free-encyclopedia 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean like this? Also, a similar redirect should probably be created from the wrong capitalization of MacDougall to the correct one. --tjstrf 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerrado has somthing to say...
Ok, I'll come clean. It just did not seem realistic that you would have all those skills that is all. --Gerrado 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Post right about this has incorrect link
Amy MacDougall-Barone

Happy First Edit Day
Have a great day! -- Underneath-it-All 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Nogus

 * John Reid 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Walk
Fourwentways found on internet: http://www.shelford.org/walk8.htm Regards Antiphus 10:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you....
Sorry to bother you, but, I noticed that you made a small profile on this website. I would like to know how to, I'm not that good on computers. If you feel like responding, could you leave a message on my talk]? My username is [[User:Tishii|Tishii.
 * You should sign your name with four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and timestamp. S  o  a  P  16:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaargh!
I want to do something on Wikipedia, I feel so helpless... S o  a  P  16:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


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 06:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Disney's Hilton Head Island Resort
Hi. As the closing admin for Articles for deletion/Disney's Hilton Head Island Resort, you might want to take a look at the article's recent history. Cheers, CWC (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, it doesn't really have anything to do with me. AfDs do not make binding decisions on merges - the only decision made there is to keep or delete. Anything that follows is up to the participants as individual editors. Although I performed a simple merge on the basis of the AfD, anyone can still reverse it. It's up to those interested, which may include those who participated in the AfD, to come to a consensus on whether the page should be an article or a redirect. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! I'm not really interested in that particular article either, so I'll just forget about it. Sorry to bother you; thanks for the explantion. CWC (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Genocide
The Pro-choice article should be in the Genocide category if it is also in Human rights and Social justice category, otherwise there is a bias. I could find many sources which would consider genocide. If I get sources would it be able to remain in the genocide category? 75.3.50.41 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed Pro Choice from the Human rights and Social justice category, as it does is bias to have it in those categories. 75.3.50.41 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If Human rights and Social justice category are put in but Genocide category is not allowed to be put in, that would be a clear bias. It would take Pro Choice organizations as sources, but not allow Pro life organizations as sources. 75.3.50.41 00:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

People are trying to readd Human rights and Social justice category back into the Pro-choice article, could you please back me up on this issue? 75.3.50.41 02:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


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 05:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheynhertz-Unbayg now completely blocked
I have just blocked all of his ISP's dialup ranges, see User:Kusma/Sheynhertz. I hope this means he's gone for six months and only complains about me on my German talk page. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well done. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

65.172.241.201
He's back, with similar vandalism, to Civil engineering, Athenian democracy, and Mariah Carey. The vandalism is similar to what you blocked him for in July. Diffs here and and. I've tagged him with blatantvandal-n., but I think an actual block is warranted. Argyriou 18:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've blocked the IP for 3 months. User warning templates should be substituted, by the way - use rather than  . --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Dowler
The page you helped me to create and helped to show me how to inline citate in articles is now a "Good Article" and was passd on September 13th 2006. thank you for all you help with the article.--Lucy-marie 15:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I award you samuel blaning with the wiki thanks award for your help on the article.--Lucy-marie 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Top gear
Please can you do one of two thing to the top gear article. Can you either block the anonomous user who is vandalising the page or semi protect the page a speedy resolution would be most apreciated, thanks.--Lucy-marie 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the sort of vandalism that's difficult to diagnose because in cases like this I don't know which version is right - but given that several IPs have attacked that article in more blatant ways today it doesn't seem likely that they're good faith edits. And of course if you say they're misinformation vandalism I'm willing to take your word for it. I've semi-protected the article as various IPs have been attacking it, though you might consider posting verror on the last IP's talk page in case they try it elsewhere. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Rouge Admin?
As you have designated yourself or been designated a rouge admin you should be awarded the following award the Rouge Admin Award. So i oficialy award you with the roughe admin award.--Lucy-marie 22:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

deletion of myg0t talk page
Hi, I noticed that you deleted the talk page for the article on myg0t, with the reason being "DrV'd multiple times with no change", which is patently incorrect, because the last DrV was successful. Furthermore, the talk page is a piece of evidence for an RFA which is currently in progress. cacophony 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The last DRV was indeed successful, but I doubt in the way that you mean, because the page is still deleted. As for the RfA, while you haven't indicated which RfA you are referring to, I'm sure it will reach the proper conclusion without the evidence provided by the deleted history of an article on an insignificant community of bored nerds (or "hackers", if you must). --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The page is not "still deleted", it was restored and subsequently deleted. Also, The RFA in question is located here. cacophony 04:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, I thought you meant in a request for adminship. In that case it's even less of an issue, as all arbitrators have sysop status and can read the deleted history of articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC?
I noticed your comment in the MacDade Mall deletion review about RfC. I did not solicit Bwithh's comments, but his concerns mirror mine about the closing admin in the AfD for that article. I noticed the same pattern of incivility when reading his talk page. I'm seeking your counsel as to whether RfC is actually something I should pursue. I don't want to make an incident that was initially upsetting but is rather minor into a major distraction. At the same time, I don't want unchecked inappropriate behavior to mushroom. If you feel able to comment on this dilemma, I would be very pleased to have your input. Erechtheus 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether an RfC is justified - Sean is neither someone I have direct interactions with nor someone I particularly notice in passing. My main point was that DRV is the wrong place to start going over admin behaviour - I merely brought up RfC of an example of what might be the right place. My instinct would be to imagine filing the RfC and try to think what diffs I was going to put in the evidence section. If it seems difficult to compile because you can't think of any diffs that don't seem petty, it probably isn't justified yet. Obviously we don't want inappropriate behaviour to mushroom, but equally it's hard to imagine "I fear this user might become significantly uncivil" gaining many endorsements in an RfC. RfCs are by nature adversarial, so if you want to just let someone know how you feel then their user talk page is the best place. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your advice. I'm now glad that I asked someone with better experience than I currently have with RfC instead of just agonizing over the matter alone. Erechtheus 00:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Np. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Axam
Just wanted to note that the user had been warned twice (by two different editors) about 3RR, but then blanked his talk page, and continued the reverts. He has also been using personal attacks. Please see Personal attack intervention noticeboard and Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. -- Jeff3000 00:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for letting me know. I've blocked him for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he's evaded his block by using another IP User:130.49.198.2 -- Jeff3000 01:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP and left him a warning on the IP's talk page and his account's. If he keeps this up I'll be extending it, probably to indefinite as I don't see anything particularly useful from the account. His use of Arabic also disturbs me - I've asked another user for a translation of the phrases on his talk page. I may be going to bed soon (should, to be more accurate), so if my status goes to offline, try WP:ANI if he continues to evade his block. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The user just keeps coming back with different IP's all the time. Not sure what action is necessary. Seems extreme to put semi-protection on for such a minor case, while the vandalism is not constant enough for ANI IMO as he has not been using the same IP multiple times in the last few hours. Any guidance would be appreciated here. Cheers,  Ans e ll  02:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He's a banned user. Revert him on sight. If it keeps up, it will probably justify semi-protection - I don't know what you mean by minor case, but it's generally used in any situation where editors are wasting their time reverting, blocking won't help and there's no pressing reason not to semi-protect (front page articles are about the only case). --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I meant minor as in it was not a consistent vandalism case, just someone wanting a single sentence in the page, and refusing to budge on that. The article has not developed in the last few days under the constant reverting so I would see there to be a case for semi-protection now. They seem to have access to a wide variety of IP's from which to edit so blocking is pointless IMO. Do what you think is best. Ans e ll  12:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you look into User talk:Alex0072 as a possible sockpuppet of User:Axam per their continuance of reverting on Mellat Park. Cheers, Ans e ll  21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked. The other contributions would have given me pause if it wasn't for the bogus 3RR report. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Edward Saint-Ivan
Hi,

There seems to be a problem at Carol Downer. User:Edward Saint-Ivan keeps reverting edits made by other editors to remove a reference Saint-Ivan wants to make to himself that doesn't have anything to do with the subject, really (and that goes to a website, not a WP:RS.) I left a 3RR warning for him on his talkpage, and I noticed that his whole talkpage is similar warnings (about 3RR, inserting OR references to himself, etc). He is fairly uncivil, and his edit summaries are like: "Tough!" and "I can cut and paste!" Should a 3RR be filed, or can something else be done to help him understand how to make useful edits to Wikipedia? Thanks, Cindery 00:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty simple self-promotion case not much different from someone continually spamming external links. Blocked 24 hours, and if I see him continuing after it expires (and his stupid edit summaries don't give me confidence) I'll make it indefinite, as I see no useful edits at a quick glance. Mind you, this is simple enough that WP:AIV could probably handle it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Cindery 06:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Dunn
Hi-

I nominated Michael Dunn for deletion some time ago on the ground of non-notable subject, which led to subsequent nomination for the MD Studios and other related articles by another user. You were the admin that finally closed the articles. Today, however, I see the Michael Dunn is back, and still without any verifiable information of notability, as are some of the other recently deleted articles. Would you mind looking into this? Tsimshatsui 02:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've deleted Michael Dunn and Alone & Restless. Are there any others? You can also tag reposts for speedy deletion (under CSD G4) by adding db-repost to the top. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems to be it. And thanks for the tip. I'm still new at this. Tsimshatsui 02:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

my "vandalism"
other half of this conversation is at User talk:132.241.245.245 The article as I found it included "A widely respected member of the Republican party" which is obvious pov. There are a number of other subtle things in the article that are pov. please return the article to a neutral POV. 132.241.245.245 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Hi Samuel, many thanks for blocking that impersonator account. Unfortunately, a new one has since been created, called User:Neoconned. I'd imagine this is a sock puppet for the same individual. The new account has been used to vandalize my user page. I'm not going to bother with asking this new user to rename the account, as it so clearly is malicious impersonation and a retaliation for the previous block. Hence I'm coming straight here. I'd very much appreciate it if this one could be blocked too. Hopefully the individual concerned will get bored after a few blocks and give up! Cheers, --Neoconned 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Often WP:AIV will give you a faster response on malicious accounts this obvious. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK I'll use WP:AIV in future --- in fact I've just used it to deal with the latest sockpuppet, User:Neoconnedu, and yes the response was very fast. :) Thanks again for your help, --Neoconned 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny (2nd nomination)
Thank you for the elucidating opinion that accompanied the (not to) delete decision. It was most informative. --Dwiki 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


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 05:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply on meta
I have replied on my talk page. - Amgine 18:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Email
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too about metawiki's spamming issue. Arbusto 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Enigma
Samuel

We feel that you unfairly deleted our article. Most of the people who commented on that discussion did not have all of the facts, and or their comments had been made before the article was edited. Our company clearly meets the requirements on WP:CORP and the last form was written as a stub with a complete Neutral Point of View

Please explain how we failed to satisfy WP:CORP

or for what other reason you deleted it.

Thanks, Enigma Software Group
 * I feel that the majority of the "facts" were adequately discussed by the users who participated in the deletion discussion, all of whom argued for deletion (except you). As I said in my closing, the exception was two links you provided shortly before I closed, which were not discussed, but I believe it was well within my discretion to say that they were not sufficient to turn consensus around. I would need a very strong reason to close a deletion discussion which generated an all-but-unanimous consensus for deletion in any way other than the way I did, and I didn't see one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Enigmasoftwaregroup 23:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct that is what they said. But all of those comments were based on an old page, and half of the facts. The old page contained text that was copied from our SEC filings, and after reading the NPOV policy.  I can see how the other editors said delete based on NPOV.  That didn't apply to the edited page that was reduced to a stub.  They all kept saying it didn't satisfy WP:CORP when it clearly does.  But nobody commented on the new articles that I added, and nobody commented on the revision of the page.  All of the comments were based on the old page.  There are no comments on the new page with the new facts.  So let me ask you for a comment.  How is the article not neutral?  And how does it fail to satisfy WP:CORP??  I feel that I am being treated unfairly.  Especially when my competitors like PC Tools get a page.  What is different about us?

Policy on Presentation of New Information
I am reading the Deletion review ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review ) page now. It says: "The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, " We were simply deleted. We never had the opportunity to Relist and reach a new consensus.

> Our page is currently objective and written from a Neutral Point of View. > I can provide at least 6 major publications talking about our corporation which should satisfy WP:CORP > I think this warrants a relist, and should pass the consensus this time around.

Enigmasoftwaregroup 23:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you're welcome to present your case under 'decisions to be reviewed' on that page. Editors will then discuss whether the old discussion should be overturned and/or relisted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I posted it there, I am not sure if I did it right, because I don't see it. It also gave me instructions to post this on your talk page

Enigma software group on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Enigma software group. 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.

Jordan Waring
Hello. I see that you recently deleted the "autobiography" tag on Jordan Waring's article. A number of people, including me, have tried to help Mr. Waring with citation format and internet searches, etc., and I did not vote to delete his autobiography in the recent AfD, but I was wrong. Waring continually comments on his own article (and was the main commenter on the AfD), and he argues with anyone who tries to improve it. The "substantive" material on the article was added by Waring (from his publisher's liner notes, mostly), or from Amazon.com., and much of it is not verifiable from reliable sources. Anyone who has received reivews on their work will, of course, cite only the favorable ones. Now he has threatened another editor on the talk page of the article, and he continues to remove the "autobiography" tag, even though Mr. Shepherd explained why it is necessary (see the talk page). Can you help? -- Ssilvers 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Mangojuice's post explains it very well - specifically, that now outside editors are actively involving themselves in the article, the tag is not needed, and if there are still concerns with neutrality then POV should be used and justified. "The author has written it, therefore it must be POV" is not sufficient; the sections of the article which are disputed, or the verifiable and relevant information which has not been included, must be laid out. What are they? --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to post a version of this to the talk page - I suggest posting further replies there. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speedy advice on this article. I have no objection to removing the tag if Mr. Shepherd doesn't come up with something more specific in a few days.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

New Pnatt sock


I posted this on AN/I too, but I thought it might get quicker attention here. Attempts to recreate pages that were deleted and edits to Pnatt's favorite pages. Thanks, Sam. ju66l3r 21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ju66l3r 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Already done by Naconkantari, though on the basis of his username which I don't really get. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

susan b anthony
Hello, as you are the only admin. I have had any real contact with since becoming a wiki member (via the socialism article), and I really appreciated your help there, I would again appreciate it if you would take a gander at a current dispute I am having over at the Susan B Anthony article with another user in regards to her stance on abortion. There is some discourse we have had in the discussion, yet I believe this person is determined to get his POV in, based upon his unwillingness to compromise, and unnecessary edits. I don't know what else to do at this point. Thank you.--Jackbirdsong 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent AN dif
I don't think you that this dif did precisely what you wanted it to. JoshuaZ 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd already restored Mackensen's post when you posted that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sally
You know you can't win.

WP:PASH
Hello! I saw that you made some (minor) edits to Pennsylvania Route 26. If you are interested on working on any other roads that are in Pennsylvania, please check out the Pennsylvania State Highways WikiProject! If you don't have an interest, that's cool; I thought I'd give a little shout out! --myselfalso 00:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was just cleaning up after an AfD I closed deleted some articles on minor campus streets. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD closure
Could you please comment on how you arrived to the closing decision of the E-W UA AfD? There were 5 deletes, 4 keeps + 1 keep but rename and 1 comment without vote. Thanks, --Irpen 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got nothing to add to what I already said. None of the keeps attempted to address the problem at hand (verifiability and original research) and two were moves for 'speedy keep' that did not provide a legitimate reason for speedy keep, rather than focusing on the issue at hand. I would say what I say every time this comes up and point out that AfD is not a vote, but if it was a vote it would have been delete anyway, so I can't see how I can make it more clear. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

S-U's contributions
As you promised to help with the cleanup: A centralized listing for cleanup coordination is now at SU. Please join us there. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job. Please see my query on the discussion page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

susan b anthony
Hello, as you are the only admin. I have had any real contact with since becoming a wiki member (via the socialism article), and I really appreciated your help there, I would again appreciate it if you would take a gander at a current dispute I am having over at the Susan B Anthony article with another user in regards to her stance on abortion. There is some discourse we have had in the discussion, yet I believe this person is determined to get his POV in, based upon his unwillingness to compromise, and unnecessary edits. I don't know what else to do at this point. Thank you.--Jackbirdsong 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want me to do? Provide a third opinion in a content dispute, or take administrative action against someone who is damaging Wikipedia? When it comes to the content of articles the opinions of admins count for no more than the opinions of anyone else here, so if I'm to provide help, I can either help resolve the dispute (wearing my editor's hat) or enforce Wikipedia's processes and rules (administrator's hat). I can't do both and I would rather know which you want me to do before I involved myself. The reason I didn't reply immediately to your earlier post was that I was trying to work out for myself which was appropriate. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I didn't mean to seem impatient, but I had forgotten to sign my first request (which I later edited to sign), and assumed you maybe read it without seeing the tardy sig. I suppose the most prudent thing at this point would be to provide a third opinion, and maybe an objective perspective can supply some insight. I cannot seem to find a common ground in regards to the dispute, which is, by the way, with james xeno. The current ver should be mine (the disputed sec. is under the 'early social activism' cat., in regards to her abortion views), and if you see any POV, or any other problems with it, please let me know. Thank you for your help.--Jackbirdsong 01:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that because I'm going to be moving soon and don't know when I'll have regular Internet access, I can't really get myself involved in an ongoing content dispute. You might try third opinion or requests for comment. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamikaze
Sam, could you take another look at Islamikaze and its AFD discussion? I've added a number of sources, and I would be interested in knowing whether they address your concerns. (Sorry for not doing it earlier, but I'd never heard of the term until I saw the AFD nomination). Thanks, TheronJ 15:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

More stuff
The IP of the user who was involved in the Mellat Park fiasco is spreading hate on Wikipedia, stating that we hate Iran and Iranians. See, ,. This couldn't be further from the truth. What do you suggest? -- Jeff3000 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted them all. They are all false personal attacks that have absolutely no purpose for the building of the encyclopedia. Not to mention that I had not been involved with two of the pictures referenced... :) Ans e ll  01:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Reposted them all with another IP . It's getting very tiring. -- Jeff3000 20:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They all look to be Tor addresses. I have posted a few at WP:OP but the others are probably also the same. If they are listed here they are pretty much confirmed as such on sight. Ans e ll  23:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Philc's admin coaching
The headers with our names are to give whatever feedback you want to give on Phil's strenghts and weaknesses after looking at his contribs. BTW, this is going real slow, don't you think? -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean - if none of us says anything for a while I think that's to be expected, given that adminship is a relatively long-term goal on Wikipedia, and all we can really do is help Phil address any problems that come up - if none do, then we should be happy about our obsolesence :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of article Hyperiums
Hi,

As one of the longer playing members of the game Hyperiums I used to keep the article up to date regulary. It offered an external resource site to the game.

Iwas wondering if you could elaborate on your reasoning behind deleting it.

Many Thanks

217.65.157.2 15:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)-Hawk-
 * I don't really have anything to add. It was a fairly standard Articles for Deletion discussion, and I employed standard practice in discounting 'votes' from participants that registered an account purely to vote or didn't register at all - this is to prevent influence from outside. If you still dispute the outcome you can try deletion review, under the 'Decisions to be reviewed' section. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.


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 08:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Query
Please can you see if the following article is notable enough to be included in Amanda Dowler page http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006430548,,00.html

It concerns three girls who invented a story about someone trying to abduct them as an excuse for being late.--Lucy-marie 23:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a real stretch to say it's got anything to do with Amanda Dowler, in my opinion. It fills space if you're a tabloid sub-editor, but I don't think it's worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia article. If something significant happens in the investigation into Dowler's death, perhaps the fact that her killer was briefly have thought to have resurfaced in Sep 2006 might merit a mention even if it was a complete fabrication - but at the moment I think it's too trivial even for trivia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you interested in joining me in a wikiproject on murdr victims? If so plese add your name to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject/List_of_proposed_projects#Murder_victims --Lucy-marie 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to work with any more specific articles you want help with, but as I don't have much of a specific interest in murder victims, I'd rather not join an actual WikiProject. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer i however have attracted no intrest at all so can you help me spread the word or something as i am a bit demoralised by the lack of intrest.--Lucy-marie 15:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the scope of the WikiProject is too small? Murder is only a part of crime, and focusing on murder victims only cover a certain aspect of the case - depending on the case the victim(s) may receive a relatively small part of the coverage. With abduction cases like Milly Dowler the attention tends to focus on the victim, so they're more likely to merit an encyclopaedia article, but with serial killers attention tends to focus on the killer (once identified). Even if you just widened the proposed scope to simply Murder, or perhaps British crime, it would include all truly notable murder cases, rather than just the specific ones where the victim happened to receive a lot of coverage. There's a WikiProject Australian crime up and running already as an example. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Amanda Dowler article has now been listed as a feaured article candidate. Just thought its courteous to let you know as you put loads of work in to the page.--Lucy-marie 10:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)