As you promised to help with the cleanup: A centralized listing for cleanup coordination is now at [[Wikipedia:SU]]. Please join us there. Happy editing, [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]] 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
As you promised to help with the cleanup: A centralized listing for cleanup coordination is now at [[Wikipedia:SU]]. Please join us there. Happy editing, [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]] 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:Good job. Please see my query on the discussion page. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:Good job. Please see my query on the discussion page. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
== Hey F**k-Face ==
If you're going to block people at least have the courage to put the real reason and avoid giving your opinion. Got it?
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. cacophony23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Erechtheus23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Erechtheus00:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The user just keeps coming back with different IP's all the time. [1] 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, Ansell 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)[reply]
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. Ansell 12:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
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,
Cindery00:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I nominated Michael Thomas Dunn for deletion some time ago on the ground of non-notable subject, which led to subsequent nomination for the MTD Studios and other related articles by another user. You were the admin that finally closed the articles. Today, however, I see the Michael Thomas 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? Tsimshatsui02:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. 132.241.245.24502:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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, --Neoconned14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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?
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.
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)[reply]
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? -- Ssilvers14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, -- Ssilvers17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. ju66l3r21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Jackbirdsong00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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, --Irpen01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
