Cheers, [[User:Dave|Dave]] 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, [[User:Dave|Dave]] 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:Sam, Brian Peppers isn't even mentioned on the page that the article now redirects to. That the page should not be recreated is pretty clear, but what should be done about it is nowhere near decided. Some want it blank and locked; others want it redirected to any of several different pages. The volume of discussion is immense, but it's actually getting somewhere. Please reopen the DRV. '''[[User:JDoorjam|JDoorjam]]''' <small>[[User Talk:JDoorjam|JDiscourse]]</small> 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I was looking through the comments at the Esperanza DRV, and I noticed your comment here. I notice you said "A random sample indicates that a substantial number of the Esperanza subpages do not have any deleted history to undelete." and "Tell us what pages you want undeleted, of which you believe others would benefit from the content, and maybe they'll be considered and undeleted. This DRV as it stands strikes me as so unwieldy as to be pointless...". As I have taken a very strong and principled stand on this issue, I have actually been doing the work necessary to draw up a list of pages, and to work out what happened to the pages. See User:Carcharoth/Esperanza_MfD_review. Hopefully this can be a basis for coming up with the list you requested. I agree that as it stands, the DRV is too imprecise. I should also point out that working out which pages do not have any deleted history, and reviewing the history to decide if there is any benefit to undeletion, is something that non-admins cannot do. That is why the 'undeletion for review' clause exists at WP:DRV. As for the number of pages, well, neither MfD or DRV were ever really designed to handle such massive umbrella nominations. Clearly a more methodical process will be needed next time a massive shut-down like this is carried out, hopefully starting with someone creating a list of all the pages before the deletions/redirects are carried out. Carcharoth05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per RFPP request by the user who you blocked, I have unprotected talk:Mike Mendoza. The user is not blocked anymore, so I felt protection was not justified still. Anyway, I left a note on the user's talk page (he may not see it, since he's under a dynamic IP), and I hope he will continue the discussion in a civilized manner (and won't go past 3RR again). Just thought you might want to know. Nishkid6402:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As information which the subject has objected to found only through muck-raking and unpublished by peer-reviewed sources, I wish I'd just dealt with it as WP:BLP requires for negative unsourced information from the start. But it's too far gone now and protection or no protection, I'm going to settle for not feeding the troll and encouraging others to do the same. --Sam Blanning(talk)02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ofcom website is quite clearly a verifiable source. Had Mendoza just admitted to the fact that he was a councillor, which he has done on many occasions during his shows, we would never have got into this pointless quarrel. 217.134.114.13916:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Award Time!
For withstanding wave after wave of vandalism on your userpage (presumably all by the same person due to the similarity of content), I hereby present you with the 'Abusive Admin Award. Scobell30202:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added to the cabinet :-). Ahh, there's nothing like the start of a new school term for being threatened with physical violence by small boys still wondering which direction their dicks should be pointing. --Sam Blanning(talk)03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just noticed your block - I have no problem with that - what intrigued me was that there was an edit history in a whole range of delete debates - and nothing on the talk page - odd - I would guess a sockpuppet for the purpose of the delete debates from my perspective... I was in the process of adding the most humungous welcome template i have found to date and your block arrived... sigh SatuSuro03:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smokescreen, definitely. Some vandals mistakenly think we won't block them if they spend two minutes editing a load of articles like real users do, then vandalise/wikistalk. I wasn't ignoring the smokescreen, I just don't waste words on obvious cases.
Yeah - the usual subst.welcome that used to use seems inadequate - maybe I'll only use the biggun for what look like long uncaught newbies with genuine edit histories rather than debate inhbitants SatuSuro03:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use my own version, which is basically {{welcome}} with some text telling you what the links actually are. It's been a while since I actually posted it, I think, but I still believe that every single link you add makes it less likely they'll click any of them. --Sam Blanning(talk)03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends - earlier this month I was putting one out a day... for the 4,000 + watchlist I am burdened with at the moment - some show no sign of reading a word ...SatuSuro03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My impression from when I used to leave more welcome templates is that most people don't actually come back to edit once they've made their first edit - in other words, when they've made whatever change they wanted to make. But I find that encouraging in a way, because there's no way we can get them to do more than they want, however warm our welcome, and on any other encyclopaedia they wouldn't have made even that one edit. --Sam Blanning(talk)03:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for drawing this talk item out - but I was about to alert someone else to an edit war at Southern Ocean - you may or not be interested - also Ineed to get off - . I never leave welcomes - or almost never unless they have mde a number of edits - or edits I know the subject enough to know what theyre up to - SatuSuro03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? At an initial glance I see misuse of the word 'vandalism' in edit summaries, but not much of an edit war, and zero on the talk page. Unfortunately I'm about to get off as well. --Sam Blanning(talk)03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHY IS myg0t deleted its a notcible cheating clan that has casued major eruptions over the internet
Notability for encyclopaedia standards requires coverage in multiple reliable sources; Myg0t has been repeatedly reviewed and we haven't found any. Fame among the geek subculture is not sufficient. --Sam Blanning(talk)01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But the criteria for inclusion is not so much notability as it is verifiability. If you can cite it, you can write it. And neccessity is a big factor there, too. So even if it is referenced and formatted, etc, there's no need to have 87 forks of Fire Emblem. ~ FlameviperWho's a Peach?16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notability is necessary and is a higher bar than simple verifiability. Otherwise anyone in the phone book could create an article on themselves. --Sam Blanning(talk)16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a phone book is a citable reference material. Besides, the only information that could be extracted from a phone book would be home phone number, name and address. Technically, it's citable. But in practice, citing something like a phone book would give too little information to warrant its own article. And that goes for other articles that have no notability except for very small excerpts. In practice, there is not enough context. And that's even in the citation guidelines. ~ FlameviperWho's a Peach?18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By your exceptionally flawed logic there should also be no articles on slashdot, fark, digg, somethingawful, or fatal1ty. I noticed from the Falling Sand Game deletion that you seem to have a zeal for saying things aren't notable and should be deleted based entirely on your personal opinion even with overwhelming evidence present. I would consider an entire commercial enterprise serving many games from various companies formed in response to them to be quite notable. Google myg0t, there should still be archives of news articles from when the first opengl hacks were coming out hosted in various and asundry places. --Superslash06:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be for the article to be renamed Etymology of jazz, because 'Jazz (word origin)' is, I think, slightly the wrong way to use brackets, which generally denote what the thing on the left of the brackets are. E.g. Jazz (novel) is a novel, Jazz (album) is an album, but Jazz (word origin) isn't a 'word origin' - that doesn't make sense. If it was 'etymology of jazz' the title would fit both in the title and the lead. Whether this conforms with the manual of style I'm not sure, but there are quite a few pages named like this - Special:Allpages/Etymology_of.
Ah, someone finally asked about it without threatening to kill me if I didn't. I don't know why I originally blocked it indefinitely, but I'm sure you can understand, especially after a look at my user page's vandalism history, if I say that I won't be the one to unblock it or shorten it.
Three different administrators have responded to {{unblock}} requests and declined to unblock it, shorten it, or even ask me about it, and the pattern of vandalism before and since the block demonstrate that it's clearly used by one persistent vandal. I don't really care if someone does shorten it or lifts it, but it won't be me doing it. --Sam Blanning(talk)13:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they stop threatening to kill me for a few months or so I might assume whoever it is moved on. In any case someone will probably unblock it anyway sooner or later. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you even want me to create an account under that address? I'll be able to do things that only accounts can do, such as upload images, create pages and edit semi-protected pages. And I don't want to do that! Do you want me to do that? 124.180.150.8607:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted the link to a couple of reviews on a German site... Sufficient? Otherwise I can pay for a public notice to be in the Dominion Post (main publication of Wellington, New Zealand) and then refer to that to solve all of this criterion drama... I'm learning how wikipedia works... This site is great and I'm looking forward to being a proper contributor. There's a lot of happenings in the background that people don't see, as I've realised.
It would be for me, although opinions differ on the reliability of websites. Don't bother paying for a public notice - I don't know what exactly you mean by that but something that you pay to be published isn't something that would count as a reliable source. --Sam Blanning(talk)13:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability versus Verifiability
I noted that earlier in this talk page, you mentioned that you believed notability to override verifiability in the field of deletion? I'm curious about your reasoning in this matter, as I disagree with you in certain respects on this issue. Please get back to me. Thanks. ~ Flameviper18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability doesn't 'override' verifiability - verifiability is part of what it takes to be notable and part of the reason we require it, but they're not the same thing. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps you did not recieve my message as clearly as I intended it. Now that I reread it, it is rather ambiguous. What I meant to say was that verifiability was the ideal criterion for inclusion, but if a subject is blatantly non-notable, then there is no reason to keep the article. ~ Flameviper02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please unblock 202.76.162.34? I don't want to create an account for that address! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.139.197 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I commented extensively on your opinion, I would like to invite you to respond. Feel free to ask for the Lexis-Nexis/Newsbank source material if you can't access it. ~ trialsanderrors03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Deletion of Clock Crew
I know that this article has been deleted way too many times for most people to forgive, but I strongly suggest you rethink everything. This Flash Group is very well known, and you can't argue with that. The sources although mostly based on an article written by if I am not mistaken Tom Fulp the creator of Newgrounds, and some of the more serious historic info. from the CC's very own Clockopedia located at are forums. The ClockCrew is a very credible group of animators and have become a very large phenomenon. What I wish of you is to at least take a look and notice everything there is to know about the ClockCrew can be confirmed by hundreds of people. I wish you no harm and just ask for you to look at it more. AngryStudent23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires notability to be shown via non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. We've said that every time the article has been deleted or reviewed - which as you say is a lot - and it hasn't happened. A lot of the impetus to recreate the article appears to come from members of the group, and they need to understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting one's own organisation. --Sam Blanning(talk)23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Newgrounds animator myself (not part of the CC, mind you) and I believe the Clock Crew to be notable enough for their own article. And if it does not warrant sufficient information, perhaps it could be merged into Newgrounds or a fork thereof. But at the very least, redirect the article to Newgrounds. ~ FlameviperWho's a Peach?01:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources? As for the option of redirecting, usually it's preferable to {{deletedpage}}, but there's no information about the Clock Crew in Newgrounds, so where's the justification for a redirect? Anyone here looking for information on the Clock Crew is not on the wrong page, they're on the wrong website. Redirecting them to a page with nothing about what they're looking for just creates confusion. --Sam Blanning(talk)01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you mention reliable sources, you are correct in a broader sense. However, Newgrounds itself (or at least the Clock Crew summary) seems to be rather objective in its description of the CC. There's no POV slant to be found. ~ FlameviperWho's a Peach?16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, they make money off hosting their videos (via ads). They are not independent by any stretch of the imagination. Newgrounds hosting is mentioned in WP:WEB explicitly as an example of something that does not make something notable. --Sam Blanning(talk)17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newgrounds may be subjective in some respects, like their own quality and such, but that does not apply to the Clock Crew. It's like how one might expect POV slants on Wikipedia since it's about itself, but not on Microbiology, since there is no reason to slant such an article that's irrelevant to our own agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flameviper (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
As I've noted at the deletion review for Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, the entire editing situation surrounding articles about Rachel Marsden is intolerable. I have tremendous respect for the ArbCom and am extremely reluctant to criticize people who volunteer to do a difficult job and make controversial decisions that will be second-guessed (as I'm doing here). However, I think the decision in the above-referenced case did not clarify the situation, but only muddied the waters further. As I explained at DRV, I see future, repeated recreation and deletion of articles related to Marsden under the princples set out in the ArbCom case.
I'm writing to Sam, Kla'quot, SlimVirgin and trialsanderrors to see if we can jointly submit a request for clarification on some points in these principles. I have a working page in my userspace at User:JChap2007/Marsden_ArbCom_request_for_clarification where I've started to work on some questions. Please feel free to add some if you want or propose different wording. JChap200722:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Salivaband.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Salivaband.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot20:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sam. I recently created a wiki of my very own, the Flameviper Wiki. It is actually not as much a wiki as it is a traditional website. Anyway, I was wondering if you would like to create an account. I would have to create it for you, of course, since anonymous account creation is currently disabled, but I will send you the username and password. If you want account, you can just go on IRC and PM me, go to my talk page, or email me. Thanks for your time, and good wishes. ~ FlameviperWho's a Peach?14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason Wikipedia would want more sysops; suppose I allow new account creation or anonymous editing. And besides that, it gets rather lonely (and tedious) trying to do all the mechanical MediaWiki functions on my own, like edit-protecting 80 pages. Besides, who would be a better sysop for a new wiki than a competent sysop an another wiki? And as an added bonus, I like you. ~ FlameviperWho's a Peach?23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't have the time... and besides, it's just you editing now, and when it grows to the point that other people are editing you can just pick sysops from among them. --Sam Blanning(talk)01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Samuel Blanning and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.
If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 21:41, 10 Februay 2007 (UTC)
Okay... (unblock|Unblock 202.76.162.34 please...I don't want to create an account under that address!)
Minor detail -- removed this page from the requests for unblock category, as this user isn't blocked. I haven't looked into this request, beyond that, but you should probably get in touch with unblock-en-l or offer some more elaborate and persuasive reason for the proposed unblock. Either way, not my talk page, here, so butting out unless I'm invited. ;) – Luna Santin (talk)05:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sam - would you be able to remove our discussion topic from your talk page archive of Oct 2006? Don't want it to appear in Google searches! Thanks. Militant3121
This user is blanking pages. I suspect from my interactions with him he has a political agenda. Since he is an editor, I am not sure how to handle the situation. I am not active in Wikipedia precisely because my contributions have been vandalized under the pretext of editing. Regards.
I believe you deleted and blocked the page, Web 3.0. I want to have it restored. I could launch into a description of why I want to have it restored (it's absence is a glaring omission when people come here looking for it and see that wikipedia claims it does not and can not exist - that seems silly.) but I guess my real question is what is the process for getting it un-forboden? Thank you for your time. Numskll22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not having an article on Web 3.0 doesn't mean Wikipedia claims it doesn't exist. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on me or you, that doesn't mean it claims we don't exist. However, neither I, nor you, nor Web 3.0 at the time of its deletion were subjects capable of writing articles on to the degree of verifiability and authoritativeness required of an encyclopaedia.
If you know of multiple reliable sources that authoritatively define the term (not just use it) beyond a dicdef then go to deletion review and present them. Even better is to present a fully-sourced and neutral article that could be moved into articlespace, which can be prepared in userspace (User:Numskll/Web 3.0). If consensus permits, the article may be sent for another AfD or undeleted outright if the evidence is strong enough. --Sam Blanning(talk)23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Article: "Raffles Girls' School Symphonic Band"
Dear Sir,
I would like to enquire upon he reason for the deletion of the article mentioned above and request to view the article and make changes so that the article may be resubmitted and then, perhaps, be approved by Wikipedia.
Having seen the debate for the deletion of the article, I have several questions to ask and answers to give as I feel that the deletion was not entirely fair.
Firstly, the debate, which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raffles_Girls%27_School_Symphonic_Band, says that this school band is non-notable and that it is not significant enough to justify its own page. I disagree with this as this band has proven itself to be notable, by being one of the best secondary school bands in Singapore and having won countless Gold awards in the biannual Singapore Youth Festival and recently, a Gold with Honours in the same competition. This is very hard to achieve and other bands with the same awards are also mentioned in Wikipedia. The band also received a 3rd place as well as a gold in the National Band Competition in 2006. Other secondary school bands, such as Raffles Institution Military Band, have articles in Wikipedia and Raffles Girls' School Symphonic Band is of about the same standard as them, a very high standard. I believe that this article can be rewritten to better reflect the achievements of the band.
Secondly, many of the people who wanted the article deleted also wanted the necessary information merged with the school page. However, this issue was not addressed and the school page has no mention of the band whatsoever. Since the page has been deleted, shouldn't the information be transferred into the school page? It was not transferred, thus many points of views mentioned towards delete is not counted as they all want it merged as well. The article has already been deleted, and the least that could be done is to transfer the information into the school page.
Also, I would like to request to view the deleted article, so that I will be able to see what has caused the band to seem non-notable and insignificant and perhaps, edit it and resubmit it, or find a way to get the article undeleted.
However, I am not sure with the undeletion procedures here at Wikipedia, so please advise me and help me through the procedures.
Notability as we use the term does not depend on the subject's achievements. We require multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject, to have covered the subject. If that can be demonstrated the deletion may be reviewed. If not, it would be better to see if some information about the band would be suitable for the article on the school, Raffles Girls' School (Secondary). --Sam Blanning(talk)12:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi sam - i'm curious about why the slavanap entry was deleted. i see it was called non-notable, but this confuses me. is it the opinion of staff here that opennap in general is non-notable? i ask because i see there is still an entry for opennap-ng, yet slavanap, by conservative estimates, accounts for 2/3 to 3/4 of the total number of opennap servers.
You have got to let this run the whole way. There's a significant amount of discussion going on, and it doesn't even appear you looked at the talk page. Reverse yourself. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Closing of Brian Peppers DRV
Undoubtedly current consensus at the time you shut it was to endorse deletion, but I feel that it did not qualify under WP:SNOW, and should at the least have stayed up for a full 24 hours. Anyway, have to dash now, but please reconsider.
Sam, Brian Peppers isn't even mentioned on the page that the article now redirects to. That the page should not be recreated is pretty clear, but what should be done about it is nowhere near decided. Some want it blank and locked; others want it redirected to any of several different pages. The volume of discussion is immense, but it's actually getting somewhere. Please reopen the DRV. JDoorjamJDiscourse19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}