I'm new here, very. I'm not entirely sure how this site works yet in the sense of it having a very intensive and confusing judicial system to someone that hasn't posted articles before. I'm not entirely sure why the page about the band was deleted, but I can provide you with a way of proving they exist or whathaveyou? The lead singer of the band can be contacted at backyardburial@hotmail.com. Is that enough? I'm sure n00bs infuriate you, they infuriate me, I'm a computer technician and website designer. But pease take the time to give me an idea of 'the ropes'.
PS: Visited Bath for the first time in October. All the way from little New Zealand. It has the be one of the most interesting and beautiful places in the world. A true historical treasure. I'm sure you're used to it though, hah.
Basically, all articles need to be verified by reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. In this case, there weren't any, and none were found in a deletion discussion, so the article as it stood was deleted. However, if there are reliable sources (in this case, independent press articles on the band), the article can be recreated if it cites them. --Sam Blanning(talk)18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I can restore the last version to your userspace so you can edit it there before moving it back into the encyclopaedia when it's ready. --Sam Blanning(talk)01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get that cool userpage box and other stuff onto your userpage... :( I couldnt find it anywhere so even tried to use your source code but it didnt work.
Well, the design is mainly copied from Sango123's page, so I don't actually understand it all myself. That is, I know what the code does, but I'd be hard-pressed to create my page from scratch.
The page is made out of several transcluded templates - each box is on a separate page for ease of editing, and the code on User:Samuel Blanning just collects them together in two columns. You might find it helpful to go to the edit window and check the list of transcluded templates at the very bottom of that page. --Sam Blanning(talk)18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel
Hi,
I just noticed that the article i was doing for an Indie film called AW60 was put up for speedy deletion, and I cannot understand why. You have plenty of articles for film, including one of my favorites the Fifth element, and I don't see why the one I am doing shouldn't have the same consideration. It is from a non-bias POV, and does not advertise the film or subject people to view it who do not want to, instead it is merely informative. I thought it would be great for people who are interesting in the film to be able to find out more about it, and was hoping wiki would help make that possible.
Subjects for articles must demonstrate that they are notable by verifying their contents through independent non-trivial coverage. Articles on people, companies, products etc (including films) that do not even assert notability may be speedy deleted. Unless you can fulfill the {{hangon}} tag you added by demonstrating something like that, then the article will be deleted.
Wikipedia is not an information service; if you want people to find out about your film then MySpace is a great place for that. It's drawn mainstream attention to talent in the past (Arctic Monkeys etc) and if it does, then we can have an article on the film, but not before. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Samuel, first I've got to say sorry for talking broken english - hoping you'll understand it anyway. I mentioned this user block (14.04 today) - but the blocked user obviously has been able to make some edits after (up to 14.57 today as it seems to me). Is it a bug or a feature? --Rax15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feature. Blocked users can edit their talk pages (and only their talk pages) so they can calmly explain the mistaken nature of the block, and civilly ask that they may be unblocked to continue benefitting the encyclopaedia. Or bitch and troll, up to them really. --Sam Blanning(talk)22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oops, not bad - I'll have to check out, whether it is working on de: too. Thanks for the explanation! CU --Rax23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A favour
Can i ask a favour of you please. There is currently a discussion going on about the wording of the BNP introduction which keeps on being undermined and subvertedby one user by the adding of thier own version of the introduction. I would like the page to be protected until the discussion is completed and to prevent the current arrangment for happening time and again.--Lucy-marie15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok now it is getting rediculous It is the same user who is doing the edits and clearly is aware of the discusion as WGee has contributed to the Discusion so can you please Protect the page for a short period of time to stop this user unilaterally editing the page.--Lucy-marie15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's difficult to discern an actual consensus on the talk page, WGee certainly isn't in a minority of one. I don't think there's a big enough edit war to fully protect the article at the moment, but full protection isn't someone I involve myself in much and you're welcome to request protection at WP:RPP. --Sam Blanning(talk)16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sam!
Since you're online, I figured I'd tell you about my amazing new innovation. Try it out. ~ Flameviper 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it isn't so much a radical change from your usual script. All you have to do is add
[[:Category:Wikipedians who are currently online]]
to the display for "Online". It's really simple and allows you to seek help wuickly from a list of online users. Try it! ~ Flameviper 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I would, except I forget to change my status too often when I go offline, and I don't want to compound the misleading impression it occasionally gives. Plus my status bar is transcluded to several pages, all of which would be in the category. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. That is a giant kink in the program that would need to be worked out eventually. But even if it is inconsistent at times, it could be incredibly helpful for users in dire need. ~ Flameviper23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Mendoza;
Sorry for being slow on the uptake. I'm with you now. I'll help as I can. What about semi-protecting it for a bit? --Docg02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anon seems to have backed up his claims on the talk page. Not great sources, but they do make him look right. I'm confused.--Docg01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked him for evading a block, and the block he was evading (which was not mine) was for edit warring and personal attacks. As far as I'm aware his complaints about me are entirely about the fact that I blocked him. --Sam Blanning(talk)04:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only going off AfD etiquette "Do not make derogatory comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor." Apologies if I was out of line. Would you blank the page as above, so that it is seen to be done by an admin, thanks. --Steve (Slf67) talk 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (also posted at WP:AN)[reply]
I didn't mean that what you did was less valid, only that I'd've preferred the method that didn't involve editing an other user's comments without leaving any sign of it. The attack is kinda borderline - pointless and unhelpful it may be, but "How about let's write an article about someone who is doing something important" isn't really a WP:BLP violation (which is what the line you quote refers back to). If IceCreamAntisocial vehemently objected to his post being altered, it could result in a complicated and split argument, which is the only reason I prefer the other approach. So I'm not going to overturn what you did just because I would have gone about it a different way - your way was perfectly valid. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be serious re-consideration of the deletion of Jeffree Star, including the talk page, and the protection of it. The deletion vote was with relatively low user input, and the guy has become only more famous over time.
Jeffree Star is one of the most famous alt-fashion models (gender-bending, etc.) out there, a recording artist, and general media personality - you'd list him in roughly the same category as you'd list Tila Tequila.
I'm not a fan of him, and I don't know much about him (no biases here) - except that I kept hearing his name incessantly in all different places, and so I came to Wikipedia to see his bio, as has always served me in the past for similar media creatures, only to find that it was deleted.
The talk page and history suggests lots of people have been coming to Wikipedia to find out "Who is this guy?".
The vote to delete him appears skewed by the fact that the type of people who would come looking for info on him are generally not the type to be Wikipedia members and vote on these things.
If Jeffree Star has now received non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources, then ask for deletion review to review it. The deletion has already been nominated for review there four times, yet recognition beyond MySpace and its subculture has yet to be demonstrated. --Sam Blanning(talk)14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you have seemed to have blocked my shared IP address because of vandalizim on my userpage earlier that IP address is shared between my computer my brother's computer my moms computer and my dads computer(dont ask why we have so many)can you please unblock the IP address because everytime my bro gets on the wiki it keeps saying he has a messege and he doesnt and if my parents do the same i will probably get blamed for it as usuall --Yells at soup02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've already blanked the talk page in question. I don't see any reason to unblock the IP if it's being solely used for childish games. It's been a while since I was a child with a sibling, but can't you just give him a Chinese burn or something until he promises to stop wasting Wikipedians' time? --Sam Blanning(talk)03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmm well i could try and tell my parents before he can blame me and if he gets grounded he cant use any of the other 3 comps(inclding mine) cause they each have passwords and he doesnt know them if he gets grounded ill leave a messege or something --Yells at soup03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the thing is they dont even know i have an account and i dont want them to know because i am a huge japanese anime fan and my parents hate it when i watch japanese stuff they say im wierd and my brother makes me take the blame for most stuff he does or he threatens that he will show them my userpage and i dont want my parents thinking im a wierdo japanese anime freak --Yells at soup03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Frankly, solving your domestic problems is well beyond my capacity. However, if your parents accuse you of vandalising, send me an email address where I can contact them personally and I'll try to explain to them that it wasn't your fault. I can't help make them understand animé though. (I actually find that very strange. I watch a lot of it myself and my parents think it's great that I'm learning another language if nothing else.) --Sam Blanning(talk)04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well for example: fullmetal alchemist to me its one of my favorite shows to them it is a bunch of senseless violence and crap and eureka seven they think its a whole bunch more of crap plus some stupid robot sci fi stuff they will never understand
--Yells at soup04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but just to let you know the user has one more confirmed sock puppet and a strongly suspected sock puppet. Any chance of a pre-emptive block? The Kinslayer13:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are the only others we know of right now, but given the persistence of this guy, I'm sure we'll find out if he has any others soon. Thanks for helping so promptly.The Kinslayer13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Access to Deleted Text (John Burnet Hall)
Hello,
I am currently writing a webpage for John Burnet Hall and I noticed that Wikipedia used to have an entry on the subject. I was wondering if you could provide me with the text of that article so that I could use it or, if possible, the user who posted it, so I can contact them.
I understand and accept the reasons for deletion, I was merely asking for the information (or the author thereof) so that I could use it on another website (not on Wikipedia). If this is possible it would be appreciated. --Gregory (talk)
The simplest way to do that is if you enter and confirm your email address (go to "my preferences"), I can email you the content and list of authors. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MascotGuy
Blaitho, who claims to be longtime problem editor MascotGuy, posted an unblock request and said, "One more thing, can we have Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Samuel Blanning too, as Mr. Blanning is abusing his admin powers."
Any idea what that's about? I've been blocking and cleaning up after MascotGuy for some time now, and this is totally atypical behavior for him/her/them. —tregoweth (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Nick Cooper is still deleting links from the TV Licence pages. The www.tvlicenceresistance.info is backed up with actual proof of what’s mentioned unlike Nick Coopers opinions. I've sent in another complaint regarding this guy and would appreciate some action taken regarding his actions.
Until this is done I’ll be making people aware of what Nick Cooper has been going on Wikipedia and have also highlighted his opinions again which he makes out to be facts without proof
He’s getting worse by the day and if this isn’t resolved well things may get out of hand. All we are asking for is a say on the subjects (with the links) to make it more neutral something I’m sure Wikipedia wants anyway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Defiant1337 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
WHY IS myg0t deleted its a notcible cheating clan that has casued major eruptions over the internet
