User talk:Sam/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Re: Homophobic people

As much as I'd like to deal with "Anti-Semitic people" through the usual channels, everytime I try it's either completely ignored or drowned out by abuse from other editors (I was borderline threatened just today; see "anti-semitic people discussion." If you keep "anti-semitic people", you have no justification to delete my new category. Treybien 16:40 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can't stop you from deleting the category, and I appreciate your asking me first. However, I would remind you again that there is no rational justification for deleting this category and keeping "anti-semitic people". Treybien 14:31 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, Sam. I am leaning heavily toward delete on this one, but am going to look at the arguments in full. User:A Musing (07:05, 31 March 2007)

Category:Women obsessed characters

Why wasn't this category deleted? You closed the poll, did you forget about activating the bot to delete it and remove the cat. from the pages? ~I'm anonymous

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Dear Sam

Dear Sam, yes, I've wanted to write a long reply to you since you dropped by my talk page yesterday, and I wholeheartedly apologize for not getting back to you before. Unfortunately, I've had little time yesterday and most of today to compose the long reply I have in mind. The matter at hand is a serious one, and most definitely not something I wish to dismiss with a hastily written line; so please, if you could be patient and give me a couple of hours to properly address your concerns, I'd be most grateful to you. Warm regards, Phaedriel - 19:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience, and for taking the time to comment in a deep, detailed and respectful manner your thoughts about that particular AfD with me. Indeed, you make many excellent points, many of which resemble my own personal beliefs closely; for this reason, I will put emphasis on those aspects were I have a different opinion, or interpretation of the events surrounding that discussion.
I have read the debate extensively, and I even went further and browsed the previous discussions. After you messaged me, I also decided to read the post at the blog you link above. I must tell you I have an absolutely neutral position when if comes to the old Inclusionism vs deletionism debate; I don't do many AfD closures, but when I choose to perform one, I only do so after careful thought and research of every argument involved. It was in my hands to decide the fate of WP:CSN, for example, and to set a precedent in favor of Deletionism regarding TV Episodes; all extremely controversial matters, maybe even more controversial than the one we currently have at hand. And my evaluation of teh arguments presented at these cases led me to believe, deleting was the wrong thing to do. With this, I want you to understand exactly where I'm standing, and to take note that mere "vote counting" is far from my chosen criteria when determining consensus.
With this in mind, I want to make a few comments. You have expressed that "To say that the consensus is clearly "delete" says that the opinions expressed by Tvoz, myself, and others is without any merit and not worthy of discussion by the larger community." I respectfully and humbly disagree. While I believed, and continue to believe that, at that particular debate, consensus was in favor of deletion, based not only on the number of participants but on the arguments presented, coming to that decision in no way means that further discussion should be dismissed. I find that view overly pessimistic, with utmost respect; it wouldn't be the first time a decision taken at an AfD debate is overturned by a new discussion, where new arguments and elements are brought for deeper judgement.
Your thoughts about our processes and your broader views on hw the function in the larger content of Wikipedia are truly inspiring, and utterly well thought; if I can come up with something positive out of this, it'll surely be reading your views, and David Weinberger's. They will surely stay with me once all this is over. However, I must denote that, flawed as they may be, these processes exist for a reason, and they must be followed until the community decides to replace them. This is exactly what happened in this case, and addressing a point commented both by you and Tvoz, in the sense that surely lots of interested people who would have voiced themselves to keep these lists weren't aware of this debate; and if they had, the outcome would have been different - probably, but one can't guide oneself by suppositions, but by facts: and the fact is, arguments and numbers present at that particular venue were in favor of deletion, from my modest opinion.
For all these reasons, I repeat to you the same comment I made at Tvoz's talk page, in the sense that, tho I deeply, sincerely respect you and your opinions, (and even more, I share many of your views) I stand by my final choice. This doesn't mean in the least that further discussion shouldn't be encouraged or sought, and with this in mind, I kindly urge you to submit a request at Deletion Review; unfortunately, it is not my role as the closing admin to seek this discussion, tho I can gladly take part in it later. Once again, I wish to make clear my absolute appreciation for your kind approach, and for discussing this matter in the open, sincere way you proposed; for this, you've always have my admiration, even if we respectfully disagree at a particular point like now. Phaedriel - 23:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Sam. You can go ahead and say you reject it, but give it a little more time before putting the header. When it comes to it, I want it to be a well-improved essay rather than a single-contribution rejected proposal. Bulldog123 05:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • At least we agree about WP:OCAT. Some people don't. But if you don't want even an essay, then I'm not sure what to do. Bulldog123 08:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Sorry for my mistakes I'll be careful next time.-- 10:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs with personal names deleted

I'm not a contributor to those pages either, but I completely agree with your argument, as you saw, and very much regret that Phadriel closed this with delete. These decisions are taking the encyclopedia in the wrong direction and I'd like to participate in any community discussion about it. I'm quite sure that some other supporters of these lists ffrom the previous AfDs weren't aware that this was being discussed again, so soon after the last one, and would have weighed in had they known. This whole process is seriously flawed. Tvoz |talk 09:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. AFD is populated by deletionists. I'm a regular at CFD and I'm a deletionist there. I don't think CFD is broken because categories are a much different animal than articles. The extra bias at CFD towards deleting categories is probably a good thing. But at AFD, there is an inherent bias in deleting articles with broad popular appeal but lacking academic credentials. This is unfortunate. I wish there was a place for lists of all varieties to exist. I'm thinking of starting a wiki to do this and I've bought to be the domain. I'd prefer if this could be part of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope there can be some large community discussions about lists and WP:NOT. Perhaps the discussion can start on the talk pages of WP:NOT. I also e-mailed David Weinberger for his opinion, and he mentioned it in a blog posting. -- SamuelWantman 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
A discussion has started here about rampant deleting and misreading of WP:NOT, etc. Would be interested in your opinion and advice. Tvoz |talk 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pont Pierre-Laporte

Hi Sam,

I'm sorry, but I didn't take pictures of the Pierre-Laporte bridge. Although I live in Quebec City, I live quite far from the bridge (in fact, on the opposite side of the city) and taking a picture of this bridge is not as easy as taking one of the Quebec bridge. There is a pictures of the Pierre-Laporte bridge on Commons, but it is not that brilliant: Image:Quebec - Pont Pierre-Laporte.JPG. If I ever have the opportunity to take a better picture of that brige, I'll let you know. Cordially, Boréal 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: reading your "seven suggestions", I think we share some ideas about how articles should be built. In fact, I think I might even borough your text and translate it for my personnal page on fr: (mentionnning that tey're from you, of course).


Its no mystery, did you read the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

References on Children of Paradise

Hello Sam and thanks for dropping me a note. Wikipedia is to me similar, in its effort, to the Diderot Encyclopaedia, and may it contribute to Enlightenment because, 200 or so years after the end of that era, it feels like it's getting dark out there, again (And while we are in allegorical mode, I will not say who I think is the new Napoleon, with a hundredth of the class and a thousandth of the wit).

I am a proud financial supporter of the project and am honoured to be a contributor.

Improving the Article on Children of Paradise was not half as fun as creating the one on Frank Spinney from scratch: THAT was a contribution, and a lot of fun... I hope to continue and perhaps, if I get into it, I might improve the French portion (it is ridiculous that the article on Children of Paradise in English have way more depth than the French one...). But I don't like translating half as much as creating/Editing...

But that is neither here or there: There are several footnotes in the article of Children of Paradise to the effect that there are many un-sourced segments. I was able to find the source to some of them in my edits, and I believe that only three remain (two at the end of the production section, one in influence) that I could not verify, and I doubt of the authenticity of any of them. My question is: will they remain there forever? How does that work exactly? Not that it is a huge deal, and I think it is great that you tag those the way you do (can I do that too?), but is there a policy about cleaning up stuff, especially things like "can be interpreted as"...

And lastly, will there ever be a spell check function in the editing boxes? I mean, I finally got the rhythm of working in a word editor, proofing and then pasting, but it would be nice; I mean, after all, that is what this whole thing is about: writing stuff, ideally without mistakes...

Thanks, and keep up the good work. Astragale 09:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Yes, Sam, I think you read me five by five, but this is not the forum... As for the un-sourced paragraph, I have no problem with them really: truthiness has its place as much as the factual in a world under the rule of liberty of expression. It is for people to decide for themselves...

Thanks for the tips and the prompt response... Astragale 10:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello Sam,

Sorry if I sounded curt regarding your comments about politics. I simply think that except with veiled references, it is a touchy subject to bring up on your talk page (then perhaps it is not, what do I know)... Anyway, I am always opened to a political discussion, even if I think I tend to agree with you anyway, but I think it is better to do it via e-mail or a less public board than you talk page.


Astragale 02:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


Comin' atcha Tvoz |talk 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus to move Palestinian people to Palestinians

Dear Sam, I appreciate your expressed interest in the effort to move the "Palestinian people" article to "Palestinians." You said you were waiting for a clear sign of consensus before moving it. I am proud to say that we have come to a consensus. We are waiting for your response. Thank you, --GHcool 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Bridge in Bukhara

Hi! I'm now quite far from home so I can't check my photos but frankly I don't remember any kind of bridges in Bukhara. Sorry (( Alæxis¿question? 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sam (2)

Hi Sam,

It's Barbara from PLoS. We met about a year ago at your house (thanks again for dinner!) and also briefly at a Wikia Campaigns meeting last fall.

I am writing because we at PLoS are getting serious about community engagement using our open-source platform to get scientists and other interested people to discuss and annotate scientific articles, and we'd would like to pick your brain about what you have learned from the Wikipedia experience.

As you might remember, all our content is licensed under the creative commons attribution license and freely available to anybody, and most of our research articles are accompanied by summaries for non-specialists. We think that some of or articles would be of interest to Wikipedia users, and would also like to get your feedback on whether and how we (as editors) and our scientist authors might contribute to relevant Wikipedia articles and link to some of our content in a way that would be welcome by Wikipedians.

Can we invite you to come by the PLoS office sometime, bribe you with bagels, lunch, or tea and cookies, and have an informal chat?

Alternatively, I'd be happy to take revenge for dinner and organize a small dinner with some of my colleagues.

Let me know whether you are willing to have your brain picked and what would work for you.

Barbara (my contact details are on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barabarcohen (talkcontribs) 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)