User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 201-300

3RR

Sam, Xenophrenic is displaying all the classic traits of article ownership and tendentious editing. He has reverted, in whole, the contributions and edits of three separate users in the past 24 hours. He is also began using (as he did in his prior apparition) a rather disingenuous technique to get material out of the article by removing it from the main space, and "taking it to talk" where it will never be allowed back into the article. I dont want thsi to go to arbitration again, but it looks like it may haev to. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychophobia(band)

Yo man y did u delete my article? Theres nothin wrong with it! and answer me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handre13 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on User talk:Handre13. Sam Blacketer 21:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Palermo

Your refusal for the speedy deletion of The Sack Of Palermo truly amazes me. If you consider the copying of ONE paragraph out of ONE book that writes 10 pages on the subject sufficient context you set your standards very low. The article does not give any context. If you would have cared to do a search [1] on the issue, you would have found more relevant context. - Mafia Expert 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:137.44.1.200

The Swansea Uni IP has caused more vandalism, this time to Shirley,_West_Midlands. You were the last admin to leave a warning (last week). I left a tag, thought'd you might want to do something else. Artlondon 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpigotMap

ǔHello Sam,

Another admin (not Jpgordon) has already taken this issue up with me. If you wish to participate (and by all means, please do) then please read SpigotMap's entire user page, which currently consists of nothing but this exact "dispute." If you were to read that page, you would discover the other admin already reviewing this, plus a large amount of dialogue between me, spigotmap, and other editors. Until you can ask more specific questions related to this I ask that you please not operate in a vacuum here. Please respond on my talk page as well or on SpigotMap's, which is quickly becoming a centralized place to coordinate this. Additionally, if you read WP:3RR you will find that you do not have to specifically revert 3 times in 24 hours to qualify as breaking the rule. Please inform yourself then by all means join the discussion here as we try to resolve this situation. Thank you Triddle 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Sam,

I think it's really funny that you directly contradicted the 3RR rule as the reason for unblocking SpigotMap. Let me just point out how:

From 3RR: The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

Your comment on SpigotMap's talk page: Your conduct there in removing significant chunks of text was disruptive even if it did not break the three revert rule.

You have also just been gamed.

Don't worry about me though, I'm done with this. After watching SpigotMap convince two other editors to unblock him, and after both of those editors seemingly did so with out any understanding of the actual rules or block processes, I've elected to voluntarily renounce my adminship because I'm simply tired of people undoing my hard work. Triddle 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have urged you to reconsider. I often enforce on three revert rule reports at the noticeboard and it is a difficult and stressful job. The key issue though, as with all blocks, is not whether a user is appropriately punished for transgressing the rules, but whether action is needed to prevent disruption. If there is no reason to suspect disruption then it is not appropriate to block. In this case, when SpigotMap was unblocked, he did not rush back to revert DSLink; therefore there is no reason to suppose that he intends to edit disruptively. Sam Blacketer 21:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sam. I assure you I will stay away from DSLink, I'll let the Wikipedia community decide on that. Spigot Map 21:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

therefore there is no reason to suppose that he intends to edit disruptively - Nothing except his own words as logged on the very talk page you said you read and his past and present editing behavior. It's enough for me, not enough for you I suppose. whatever, it doesn't mater. Triddle 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michael Zen. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion corrections

I didn't revert the refusal of the speedy on Terrri Summers. The speedy was first rejected because I didn't tag it quite right. So I fixed that. What else should I have done? If there's a rule against correcting a defective request, I'd love to see it cited. You really ought to apologize for your careless remark and review the request on its merits. Your assumption that I had mindlessly reverted violates WP:AGF, doesn't it, especially since just checking the diffs on your second edit shows I'd put the appropriate tag on. VivianDarkbloom 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Arthur Cecil Allen, was selected for DYK!

On October 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Cecil Allen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geoeg

Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned from the 48hr 3RR block and immediately launched in to personal attacks against me, and reverting articles back to represent his own Vanicek-centric POV and refs to himself. I've agreed with User:Athaenara to not react right away, but would appreciate if you would at least issue him some kind of warning. See User_talk:Athaenara#The_Geoeg_problem. Dicklyon 06:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Dear Sam Blacketer, 
 ______  __                       __                               __     
/\__  _\/\ \                     /\ \                             /\ \    
\/_/\ \/\ \ \___      __      ___\ \ \/'\   __  __    ___   __  __\ \ \   
   \ \ \ \ \  _ `\  /'__`\  /' _ `\ \ , <  /\ \/\ \  / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \  
    \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ 
     \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\
      \/_/  \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/  \/___/   \/_/
                                                /\___/                    
                                                \/__/

For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.

The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 08:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Radoviš

69.143.232.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is continuing to revert there, without explanations, after his block expired. ForeignerFromTheEast 22:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the ip continues to revert. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Repeat Offender (Band)

Why would you assume that they do not assert significance? the page is of poor quality because i did very little work on it and intended to finish it in the morning. If you think that Repeat Offender assert no significance, why dont you ask any one of their 12650 myspace friends or any of the thousands of people that have seen them live? To me, releasing 3 EP's with an album due out later this year, they deserve some recognition. If you are willing to reply i will continue to argue my case. They deserve some recognition, and if im in charge, they'll get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeatoffender4031 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe it passes criterion 4 & 6. They did a US tour as a support act for the Veronica's. Ryan Wilson and Steven Childs are ex-members of ARIA winning boy band, Boystar.

Danke

Thank you for reverting him on my user page. I've indef-blocked him as a vandal-only account. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Soldier Investigation Talk Page

Sam Blacketer: Please review the edit war on the Winter Soldier Investigation Talk Page. I am one of the parties to it. I wish to have the talk page not refactored every five minutes. It is confusing and it does not lead to a reasonable discussion. Just confusion and mischaracterization of people's positions. Do you have any suggestions?--JobsElihu 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few.

Don't use the Article Talk page to post 1000+ word discussions on what is and isn't civility. Try the WP:Civility talk page.

Don't take my discussions with you on various Wikipedia editing standards and practices, and copy-paste them from your Talk page into the Talk pages of articles. Try just inserting a link to the huge conversation, instead of flooding the page reserved for discussion of article edits.

Don't continually replace huge blocks of text about rules, editors and generally anything else not relevant to the Article after it has been moved to a more appropriate place like a User Talk page. Again, if you feel it is necessary to refer to the off-topic stuff, do so with a link, instead of burying the relevant comments in spam.

Just my 2 cents. Xenophrenic 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Xeno: You do not own the article. And you do not own the talk page. You are constantly editing my comments. That is why they are long. You will not just leave my comments alone. You are constantly reverting things that I say concerning my own opinion. After you edit my own words I don't even recognize what I said! I have to go to you to have you explain to me what I thought and what I said. It is against Wikipedia rules to edit other people's comments. But yet you are constantly doing it. Also, you also demean everything that I say. I have asked you to stop and yet you constantly demean, mock, ridicule, belittle anything and everything that I state. If you are not demeaning it then you are editing it and putting words in my mouth. For example, I have never, ever used the word "liar" but you have accused me of saying it at least four times. Please stop the edit war on the talk page. If you can't refrain from engaging in an edit war on the talk page how can you refrain from an edit war in the actual article. I think that TDC is correct in that you are the anon editor with an Earthlink account that who was involved in an ArbCom case on the WSI article about a year ago. You are refusing to engage in a reasonable discussion--just constantly editing my comments, removing my comments, moving my comments around, etc. It is unreasonable and it violates the norms of civility. Please stop.--JobsElihu 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough clutter here, JobsElihu. I've responded on your talk page. Xenophrenic 03:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do not care where you have responded. That is just another tactic to control the conversation. You do not want others to review your work. Wikipedia is a collaborative work and I will bring in others to discuss the WSI article and I will bring in others to discuss how the WSI article can be more collaborative. I started this discussion on Sam Blacketer's talk page with Sam Blacketer, not you. You have butted into this conversation and attempted to high-jack it either my talk page or your talk page. It was supposed to be a discussion between myself and Sam Blacketer, but you have not even waited long enough to allow him to respond to me. My conversation with Sam Blacketer will stay right here, thank you.--JobsElihu 03:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I just point out that all this discussion went on through the night while I was sleeping? 00:10 GMT is 1:10 AM British summer time (which we are still on for a fortnight). I will have a look at the talk page to see if any behaviour rules have been broken but I am not inclined to intervene. Sam Blacketer 09:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded again on your talk page so that Sam won't be able to review my work. Xenophrenic 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelmer Valley High School

Hi, I wonder if you would revisist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelmer Valley High School, please? The article has been rewritten showing the school has been independently judged to be Outstanding with a world record breaking gymnastics team. TerriersFan 17:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St peter is a rabbit

Hey, the user has recreated the page. Would you mind swinging by and deleting it again? The guy hasn't done quite enough to earn a block, but I certainly wouldn't lament if he got it anyway. GlassCobra 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same guy has also created Aliensvortex‎, also tagged with a CSD. Thanks. GlassCobra 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Redspruce

Would you like me to revert my last revert back? Do you think I was being unreasonable? Sure, no problem. The text that I was relying on was as follows:

f you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.

I don't actually have a specific preferred version for the page. The episode was ugly and involved a lot of what we call today "the politics of personal destruction". The bottom line is that Bentley was eventually vindicated because otheer people and independent documents backed up what she said and those old charges need to be put in context in her biographical article. So far, two entirely different formulas were conceived to do that. RedSpruce was reverting both of them. TMLutas 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you put in a final result of 3 hours. Any particular reason for 3? This is actually my first 3RR and I'd like to see your reasoning, to understand things better. TMLutas 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the incident explanation before. Thanks for the comment on my talk page.

Regarding the whole spy business, one can take several approaches to balancing the attacks against Bentley with their eventual refutation by external evidence. When the careful, balanced, gentle attempts are rebuffed because there's too much material on other people, accommodation either means you let the slanders remain unanswered or you shorten it up a lot. When that happens, nuance goes out the window. RedSpruce was complaining about an excess of nuance, then appalled when nuance was removed in favor of brevity. Like I said earlier, one can manage the discrediting of discreditable accusations in lots of different ways. Pick one and I'm happy. TMLutas 17:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Murphy

I've added a comment to Talk:Jim Murphy, which I hope may help move this article forward. I'd be grateful if you'd look at it and if necessary add comments. Grblundell 09:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Thanks for the award Sam, I would say though that the new Regiment categories were created by User:Necrothesp. I've just been helping out by populating some of them Kernel Saunters —Preceding comment was added at 14:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Balfour

On 20 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Balfour, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 22 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cyril Banks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 14:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for helping out with REVERT WAR!!! Although, after two blocks already today, I fear they'll just create another account and start again. ObfuscatePenguin 09:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fort

On 30 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Fort, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The royal blackmail scandal

I appreciate you may have strong feelings about this but would it not be better to leave the contentious material out of the article until consensus is reached? I should also inform you of the three revert rule which means that you should not keep readding the mention and undoing the work of other editors in removing it. If you revert more than three times in any 24-hour period you may well be blocked from editing. Sam Blacketer 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is incorrect as I don't have particular strong feelings regarding this article of David Linley. I merely suggest that censorship is not appropriate. Linley will always have a footnote that he was (rightly or wrongly) named in this instance - only time will tell. However there is no currency in waiting for the final answer - it may be years until this is resolved. Linley has been named, this is irretrievable; official confirmation is not the standard, many articles have facts that the subject denies eg OJ SimpsonROxBo 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding breaking rule..

Look at this user how he wants to cover up things.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=168551129&oldid=168550642 --Moldorubo 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice please...

I saw your recent comments on WP:AN/I about {{blp}}. I am taking the liberty of writing you because I am concerned by what seems to me to be a serious discrepancy between WP:VER, WP:NPOV and an interpretation of WP:BLP.

I don't know how new this interpretation of {{blp}} is. It is new to me. Some of the volunteers who have taken on patrolling the wikipedia for violations of {{blp}} interpret reporting allegations, even from official sources, as violations of {{blp}}. One of these patrollers has argued that unless the allegations can be "proven" to be true, by referencing independent third party sources, reporting the allegations violates {{blp}}, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR.

I pointed out that the very first line of WP:VER states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth".

Verifiability is an easy standard to try to comply with. "Truth" is a difficult standard to try to comply with. Aiming to only include material that is true, requires deviation from WP:NPOV.

Well, I won't repeat all the argument and counter-argument.

The advice I would like concerns how to determine whether this interpretation of {{blp}} really is considered valid, and whether, it should trump WP:VER and WP:NPOV. I raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard, with little meaningful response. And I raised it on WP:AN/I, with mixed results.

Thanks! Geo Swan 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on User talk:Geo Swan. Sam Blacketer 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and Christianity talkpage cleanup

Hi I guess you were the admin who deleted the Talk:Mormonism and Christianity archives that I tagged for speedy deletion. There was one archive that was off, so the entire series of archives is off by one digit. I was wondering if you could please move the set of archives all up one notch. At 16 archives they have quite a lengthy set of archives so I though they might be better off with more automated archival, but I think they need to be in line to start this. - Optigan13 21:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I spotted that and did it already - you may want to recheck. Sam Blacketer 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you just got the tail one (#16), but the zero archive is still there in the first position. I was hoping to move all the archives to current # + 1. I tried to do it myself, but every page move I try to pull creates a redirect that I can't overwrite. Should I just do a series of cut & paste moves to correct for this? - Optigan13 21:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't do cut and paste moves. I assumed that archive 13 was the one out of sync. Sam Blacketer 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now sorted. Sam Blacketer 21:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Optigan13 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping?

What does Housekeeping mean? Why is the article under the worlwide known name of f.Y.R.O.M. Country redirected to "Republic of Macedonia" (a name recognized by 123 countries in the world) causing comfussion to the reader?--Dimorsitanos 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on your talk page. Sam Blacketer 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus? Who took part in this consensus? You mean more readers recognized the second name ubiquitus than the first? This seems odd since as I already mentioned according to the so far case 123 countries have officially accepted the second name while all the rest countries of the world seem confused with this name! Is there a poll I can take part into? How did this consensus work? And what does the term "housekeeping" mean?--Dimorsitanos

Which is the best way to redirect an article whithout losing the GFDL? Talk to the administration?

--Dimorsitanos 18:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

I saw an article named "Aegean Macedonia". What does this term mean? I am a greek citizen and I have never heard of a term like this. What does Aegean Sea have to do with Macedonia? On what base does the wikipedia community accepts such a term (and article)? Unless if the wikipedia community is constituted mainly by fyromians but if so, it wouldn't be the english but the fyromian version of the wikipedia (and if so, i would like this to be confirmed to me so that I don't contribute to this version). The map of the article correctly depicts the macedonian periphery of Greece, which is part of the wide macedonia peninsula. On that argument I would like to ask of you to redirect this article under another widely accepted term.
Why do you predispose me not to try argue on that article before trying? This seems as denotation of biase.
I didn't understand what you meant whith the last sentence. Is there another article titled as "FYROM" for the pleasure of the greek community? or just the quotation of the greek ministry's accepted name on the main article?

--Dimorsitanos 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers Absent

Hi. I read some parts of the page-discussion. Still, is there another administrator to whom I may pose my questions and expect an answer at the same time beside Black and Decker? Pending on a reply when noticed. Thank You. Mr--Dimorsitanos 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Delfouneso

The majority of people at WP:FOOTY would seem to disagree with your assertion that an Under-17 call-up confers notability upon a subject, but we shall see. Feel free to comment on the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Ofori-Twumasi. - PeeJay 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue!

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Awarded to Sam Blacketer (rather belatedly) for his exceptional contributions to Did You Know? Thanks to your efforts, dozens of MPs not only have articles, but quite good ones, and its efforts like yours that help Wikipedia excel above and beyond. Keep up the good work! --JayHenry 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart College Middle School, Adelaide

Greetings, I would just like to ask you why you deleted my new article Sacred Heart College Middle School, Adelaide when there is nothing wrong with it. I did not include any derogatory text in the article, and did not post any false information. If you could please take this into account before deleting another person's true article. So would you please re post my article, or at least get back to me explaining why you thought it should be deleted. This would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards, Timsdad 10:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I deleted it, the entire contents of the page were "sacred heart college middle is probably 1 of the maddest schools in the southern hemisphere. that is all" (sic). I don't know if that's what you were referring to. Sam Blacketer 11:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shcms

many thanks for fixing my article shcms, i was not sure how to delete the colon, thankyou :) Timsdad 11:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal Massive Deletion review

Hi. You commented on the Kersal Massive deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 1#Kersal Massive). As the version of the article that was deleted had been heavily vandalised with patent nonsense and stuff made up in school (see User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal for the original page at deletion), and hence did not have a fair deletion discussion, I've created a new, reliably sourced, version which explicitly states notability at User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal2. Many thanks, Laïka 20:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was wondering....

hey, i was wondering if you could tell me how to delete things in the title of an article. i recently made a school article which i mistakenly put a colon at the end of, and i did not know how to fix this wihtout making another article and then that article with the colon not be updated. the article is St. Martin de Porres, Adelaide and there is no period after St (you could also do it yourself if that is quicker). This will be greatly appreciated, thanks Timsdad 08:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard entry re Atze Schröder

Hello,

the BLP noticeboard entry I posted on that topic did not generate as much feedback as I had hoped. Of those editors not previously involved in the debate, you were the only one who voiced an opinion regarding the inclusion of the artist's real name. Do you think it would be warranted to remove the name again from the article? Or how would I get a second opinion?

Thanks, --B. Wolterding 18:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VVPAT

Thanks for the assistance with the VVPAT entry. I believe the user is honestly attempting to improve the article, but not actually having that affect. --Electiontechnology 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Why do you suspect Xenophrenic is Reddi? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must have confused the claim that Xenophrenic is Reddi with the identification of Xenophrenic as the anonymous IP who was a party to the Winter Soldier arbitration case. Sam Blacketer 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Thread

Hello Sam! Thanks for taking the time to address the concerns regarding the incident between User:Charles and User:UpDown. I would like to say the consistent removal of comments on Charles's talk page, [2], [3] and loss of cool here, by Charles demonstrates to me that the user appealing should serve the same block. I would like to suggest an unblock for User:UpDown because of their partial level-headedness in the situation, in which User:Charles was rather rude, IMO UpDown was acting upon instinct gathered in Wikipedia rather that becoming involved like Charles whom has become associated with the AFD nominations of multiple royalty-related articles, check AFD for confirmation. The casus belli was the closure of this AFD earlier today, check the first Keep by UpDown which probably helped to raise tension between the two. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with you that Charles' removal of talk page comments and UpDown's readdition of them does not seem to have helped the atmosphere. However in general any block should apply to both Charles and UpDown as they each contributed to the disruption. I think, though, that if there is reason to suspect that disruption will not resume were they unblocked, then it would be appopriate to reduce the block or unblock, which is why I have asked Charles for his views on the matter. Sam Blacketer 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your comments, I would have to agree. I just located an edit on Charles' talk page by UpDown telling him "to leave Wikipedia". So, we'll have to wait and see what happens. Sincerely, Rudget _zŋ 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect instead of an Afd

I understand that the administrator you is presently involved in a block situation resulting from a redirect as opposed to an Afd. Several days ago I raised this issue on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Using_redirects_instead_of_proposing_Afds. Judging by subsequent events, I don't think that the matter has received the attention it ought to have. Noel S McFerran 22:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - interesting point, and I'll have a look at it. Sam Blacketer 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also could you use your administrator powers to correct a problem resulting from that edit war. The talk page for Princess Marie of Hanover is presently going to a redirect to her father's talk page. Thank you. Noel S McFerran 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this does not need administrator powers: a redirect can be edited by going to it with the URL suffixed by "&redirect=no", or by clicking on the link when I small text on the top left where it says "Redirected from". Sam Blacketer 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah!

Thanks muchly for fixin' that up. I figured the block was coming eventually, what with this one person in my workplace who keeps vandalizing. Can just anyone put one of those "This is a shared IP" things onto an anonymous IP's talk page? Lychosis ^T/C 10:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point - now done. Sam Blacketer 10:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Vandalisim and Harrassment

Hi I seen you helped in the deletion of the page Zachary Jaydon. I was wondering if you could help me out somehow. Mr Jaydon has used the ip 65.219.130.15 and now the account User:TragedyStriker has been internet stalking me for awhile now (someone I knew in person who turned out to be a fraud and was not happy about it.) Under the ip he vandalized the page Ben Bledsoe several times and under this Tragedy Striker one he's vandalizing pages of artists he's worked with and the Mickey Mouse Club page. Then he left me a threatening message on my talk page about reverting those edits and claiming I was 'vandalizing' them. The deletion review of his page concluded he had been nothing more then an extra on MMC thus not a 'cast member'. As for his songwriting yes hes worked with the artists hes editing but hes not noteable; so its not really encyclopediac worthy.

Im asking a few things here since I am not so good with Wikipedia beyond writing and editing articles (I have trouble working the admin system). For starters could both his accounts be blocked again (the ip has been in the past)? And if not from Wikipedia then at least from contacting me? He's vandalized several pages constantly plus usuing original research like I've said so in addition to threats I think that would be enough. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks --Thegingerone 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Norvan Vogt

Hi. I notice you removed the db-repost tag for Norvan Vogt with the reason that there had been no AfD for this article. I am unsure why this is so, as the AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norvan vogt. The AfD was subsequently endorsed at DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_18. Euryalus 10:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original page had no capital letter to begin the surname. Generally I look at the deletion log to see if the page has been deleted previously and if so, why; in this case because of the different page names, the previous AfD did not show up. Sam Blacketer 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankspam

User:Neranei/adminthanks

3RR block of Domaleixo...

Thanks! --Merbabu 09:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice sought...

Thanks for the 3RR help.

I spent a fair bit of time this morning tidying up the List of countries spanning more than one continent article. I removed uncited contentious material, synthesised material mixed in with uncited "reasoning" (ie, original research), removed blatant inaccuracies (not cited), and provided a few references of my own to support the minimal amount of new info I added. Yet, Domaleixo just blind reverted them four times. he removed my references, insisted on his own point of view and the expense of all others (no references), and disregarded my detailed edit summaries.

Myself and another reverted a few times, but now I'm on 3 reverts. And the article is largely in Domaleixo's over reverted version. Even after I was on 3 reverts, i added cite tags and he just removes them. Essentially, I've played by the rules and am thus ham strung, and another guy gets his lousy version cause I stick to the rules and he doesn't.

What do you suggest I do? I could just sit out 24 hours, but then no doubt the game starts again. Surely, providing a source trumps no source? But, it seems not in this case.

any suggestions would be appreciated. regards --Merbabu 11:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for this specific article, problem seems solved for now. but what are your thoughts on the general question for future reference? --Merbabu 12:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and more

He's back this time on East Timor. As before using IP 189.41.something. regards --Merbabu 13:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR by Perspicacite?

I love your flower, I hope you don't mind if I pinch it?

I'm not too well up on the technicalities of 3RR so would you have a look here [4] and here [5] and here [6], please?

I don't think I'm a vandal, and User:Perspicacite keeps removing material which is well cited in our other articles - just follow the links in the material he keeps removing with his reverts.

The material he is removing is well-known history of Cabinda and referenced in SEVEN of our articles - it's a bit like excising a paragraph that states that Hawaii is part of the US or that most humans have two thumbs. It's not like I've removed his own novel theory that Portugal grabbed Cabinda from the Belgian Congo...

If I'm wrong please tell me (or vice versa). Thanks for listening! Alice.S 09:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S is now blocked from editing for 24 hrs due to pointy disruption.^[7] Under the circumstance, I advise no action taken with Perspicacite. El_C 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, El C. Reports of 3RR violations should really go to the three revert rule noticeboard not individually to administrators. Sam Blacketer 10:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Is that second sentence directed to myself? El_C 10:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, to Alice.S who incidentally didn't notice that the flower above was given by Neranei as a thankyou for a support vote in an RfA. Sam Blacketer 10:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I think I messed up one of your sections, too. Sorry about that. Regards, El_C 10:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on AN/I

Sam, I added more info concerning personal attacks to my original complaint on the Noticeboard. This fellow is again adding insult to injury by questioning the mental stability of editors that disagree with him. Ovadyah 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfowitz to Dalai Lama

I think I see your point at the Wolfowitz discussion. The interviews aren't particularly meant to be critical analysis of what a notable person says, but to simply record their perspective and what they feel they know. For instance, I interviewed the Dalai Lama's representative about the whereabouts and information he has on the six year old 11th Panchen Lama the Chinese government has put into hiding. I linked the interview on that page as a "See also" - Wikinews can be wikified. If that is not acceptable, is it more acceptable to work the information into the article with a citation? Or not at all? --David Shankbone 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey For Kids Foundation

The Whiskey For Kids Foundation is a legitimate "humorous" foundation that has fans and merchandise attributed to it. It should be included. http://www.myspace.com/whiskeyforkids —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarfrog (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 15 November, 2007, a fact from the article Percy Daines, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denis Keegan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 13:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 15 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Percy Morris, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three in a row! Sam Blacketer 23:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)

Sam, in what way was this "substantially identical" to this? They have different statements, different sources, and different authors. WP:CSD#G4 is for deletion of copies or pages with only trivial differences... not to blanketly prevent any article from being reposted after a deletion. --CBD 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was there before you on your talk page, I think. They both refer to the same person, and CSD G4 is precisely to stop recreation of pages which have just been deleted. If G4 did not exist then deletion debates would become meaningless. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We were both posting at the same time. I must disagree with your interpretation of G4. It states very clearly;

"A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted."

This was not a "copy". Not only was it not "substantially identical"... it was completely different. G4 does not exist to prevent pages from being reposted. The new page absolutely addressed the reasons for which the material was deleted. If I must take your speedy to deletion review I will, but there is no way this was a G4 candidate. --CBD 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not in practice matter whether a recreated deleted article is a copy or whether you start anew. I do not believe the article which I deleted addressed the notability concerns which led to the AfD being closed as a delete. The two additional claims for notability was that Robert Young was frequently quoted in the media, and lectured on age. The previous article had links to media stories which quoted Robert Young, and already pointed out some academic links. I do not believe this amounts to such a substantial new claim for notability such as to overturn an AfD close. Please challenge it through deletion review. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I created the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher). CBD 22:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Polish government-in-exile in London

As far as I know, the exile government recognized the post-communist gov of 89/90 and yielded to it. I'd assume the current Polish government recognizes awards and such of the exiled government, but I don't know the legal details involved. PS. You might want to ask this at WP:PWNB.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.239.133.107

Hi. Please be aware of my question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:71.239.133.107_reported_by_User:Jeff_G._.28Result:No_violation.29, and please reconsider your decision. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 18 November, 2007, a fact from the article Robert Crouch, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 21 November, 2007, a fact from the article John Gouriet, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews interviews

You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian federal election, 2007

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/
http://ninemsn.com.au/
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22813391-2,00.html

I'm sitting in australia, and I think hes one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.175 (talk • contribs)

Kevin Rudd does not become Prime Minister until next week at the earliest. Please reread my comment, and also compare polling day in the Australian federal election, 1996 and the date John Howard became Prime Minister. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, why don't you just accept that Australia has a new Prime Minister? Seriously, no one cares about your stupid formalities; if everyone else can believe we have a new leader, you can too. --ClEeFy (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that election results produce an exhilarating feeling of excitement and a rush to get on with things, but we are writing an encyclopaedia. It is not appropriate to anticipate events however likely they are to occur. I'm sorry you regard it as a 'stupid formality' to insist that what is in articles is verifiably true but it is part of the core policies of Wikipedia, even if it makes articles sometimes a bit dull. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We in Australia are watching and reading this now. Now one cares for the past, it's all gone. Haven't you been watching about the "new leadership". Get off your high horse and realise that Australia is right, and you are not. We have a new Prime Minister now, and don't need some person to declare it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.175 (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching the election results live right now, and it may be that some change can be made when John Howard speaks. However, John Howard remains Prime Minister until he resigns or is (ahem) dismissed by the Governor-General. It isn't a matter of opinion or debate; Kevin Rudd is not Prime Minister until he has formally been appointed, and policy on Wikipedia is clear that we do not anticipate events. This isn't personal or political because I do not have an interest in the Australian election; the reason I'm standing up for it is precisely because as a non-Australian I am acting without any bias except for fact. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for how rash all Australians are seeming over this issue. You seem to care about wikipedia, and the fact that it provides a verifiable encyclopedia filled with facts. If you really care about creating such an interesting and un-biased source, you should allow us to make some change that lets all the readers know that Kevin Rudd is, or is going to be within the coming weeks, the prime minister of australia. If you don't let some kind of change to happen, you would obviously be just as bad an administrator, as John Howard was a Prime Minister. --ClEeFy (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the term 'Prime Minister-elect' is in use then I think, as I'm now watching John Howard concede, that it would be appropriate. The Kevin Rudd article is only semi-protected. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I ask for now. --ClEeFy (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its now on the Wikipedia current events, I think it is important. How stupid will you look if the community finds out you are the one delaying the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.175 (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

di Stefano

I had discussed my proposal with Jimbo via email before and he was ok with it. In any event, it always makes sense to go slowly with these sorts of things. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions

They look fine to me; some users have been quite serious, while others have been quite cheeky; you look to be somewhere in the middle. Ral315 » 05:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 27 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Hopper (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 09:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi Sam. As you are an admin here, I would ask you to take some steps to stop Hereward77 because he repeats to put warnings?! in other user's discussion pages, and he is the one who keeps including WP:NOT content such as political comments made during Republican's Committee discussion in order to present Bosniaks (an ethnic group as terrorists). Which is more importan he keeps removing the International Court decisions about some events regarding the topic. This is well known behaviour by many users here, who create account and try to present themselves as somebody else. For instance Hereward77 made many reverts in The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war article when he was signed in, but as you can see here he didn't sign in: 124.185.64.124 (a user from Canberra), although in his user page he wrote that he lives in UK. There are so many sockpuppet games here, based on rascism and hatred, and that's why I ask you to handle this situation. The user was blocked but for a short time period, and he immidiately continued to do the same revets?! The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was alerted by The Dragon of Bosnia of this situation two days ago and I just want to concur and comment on his above paragraph. In fact, from my own experience and simple research, it seems clear that User:Hereward is just another reincarnation of an earlier vandal named Ivan Kricancic; for proof, one merely has to look at earlier vandalism on similar topics from a related IP address - [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. This same user previously used other accounts[14][15] and was blocked for sockpuppetry. It does him no favor to note that he also held openly racist views against Bosnian Muslims. Live Forever (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I've left notes for these users giving advice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks a lot for dealing with that IP on The Wave (board). It was almost blocked instantly after my AIV report. STORMTRACKER 94 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your statement, and it seems very reasonable and down to earth. I particularly like "I have tried approaching all difficulties with diplomacy and tact but this may be deceptive." Now if you could provide a link or two to such approaches, you'll have my vote. — Sebastian 08:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this; I have added some links which I think may be useful. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding them. I just looked at all the "a" and "c" links, and searched for all occurrences of your name. Most pages have a handful of 1-paragraph statements, and I browsed through them but it was hard picking evidence for outstanding diplomacy out of the haystack. Is there any specific case that you could point out? — Sebastian 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply]

Peerage

Hi Mr. Blacketer! I've noticed that you've quite a bit of experience writing on MP's, and am wondering if you could help me out a bit. I'm curious if any of your experience may translate to peerage as its relevant to the House of Lords. I've recently edited Paul Bew, Baron Bew (stemming from a result of my reading, and enjoying, his latest work). The title aside, which I'm wondering if it fits with the manual of style, is it proper to style the fellow as a "baron"? All the materials I've seen give him the title of "Lord." Is this one in the same, or are they different? Any light you could shine on this issue would be great, and if you'd like further clarification as to what I'm asking (I'm not as confident in my communication skills after studying all night, haha), please don't hesitate to ask, either here, on my talk page, or on the article's talk page. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered on User talk:Gaillimh. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to respond. I had no idea how the whole title conferment thing works. Thanks again and apologies for the delayed response! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 06:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Cellular devices"

Hi you deleted this category. I spent a LOT of time attempting to create a resource of all cellular devices only to have it deleted. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchmaven (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on Searchmaven. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmy Guru

You deleted the Pygmy Guru article, claiming it to be an "insignificant" group. Yet, Pygmy Guru continues to play shows around the eastern US at an active frequency. In short, fuck yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.225.47 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at User talk:67.82.225.47. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 29 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Straffen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Pygmy Guru

I'm not asking for your support. I'm expressing my general dismay in finding my article deleted. All the time and thought put into that article was wasted. Wikipedia is the collaboration of minds and people, to create a digital encyclopedia where simple folk like myself can visit and retrieve information. And my information was lynched, hung, and stoned to death by none other than Sam Blacketer.

You are the pretentious, bloated Hitler of Wikipedia.

Have a jolly day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illwillbill (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After such a convincing explanation I can now quite see how removing a manifestly non-notable subject from an online encyclopaedia is immediately comparable to a rampaging bloodthirsty mob seeking out members of a racial group to kill in cold blood, or religious extremists enforcing a rigid code of morality through a brutal and primitive method of torture. Indeed it seems perfectly fair comment to compare me to a genocidal dictator responsible for crimes against humanity and waging aggressive war. Please feel free to enlighten me further whenever you spot any similar comparisons. I must buy you a beer for this valuable insight. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[QUOTE] I'm following up a report on the three revert rule report board about the editing on Stacy Carter. Your editing broke the three revert rule by undoing changes by other edits more than three times during a 24-hour period. I have decided not to block you from editing because the report was made a day after the edit dispute and you did stop after another editor contacted you, but please be aware that blocks can and do follow three revert rule violations.

If you get into a revert war with another editor, it is important to engage them in constructive discussion on the article talk page rather than just continue to revert. This action often gains the attention of other users, and if you want others to express their opinions on the dispute you can ask for a third opinion, or make a request for comments. Sam Blacketer 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC) [/QUOTE][reply]

Just want to say that the editor who reported me, Aladdin Zane/Rogue Gremlin, is a sockpuppet hypocrite and made written abuses on my page, which I have removed. He also blatantly editted everything I've contributed without giving a valid, logical reason. :)

User:Haleth 30 November 2007

Trevor Price

Hi!

Thanks for your offer. The speedy delete has already occurred. The page no longer exists. I was instructed by another admin (see my talk page) to use the delete page I've created. Toby Douglass 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re undelete; sounds good. When you say my userspace, presumeably this means it's visible only to me, so I can edit it to a point where it is presented as evidence for its existance? Toby Douglass 18:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re undelete review; don't set it up till I have the page in a reasonable state. I'll work on the page for a while and then get in touch. Thankyou for your assistance! Toby Douglass 18:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Thanks, Quickdraw McGraw! User:Pedant 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message from 1990ijk

ya whyd u delete my page about MY FATHER...******* w/e man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1990ijk (talk • contribs)

well you know what, STOP deleting my pages. i want people to know who my dad is. he wanted me to put it on for him. so there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1990ijk (talk • contribs)

Thank you

Much obliged. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 6 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roger Barton (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Mainwaring, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Two in one day! --Royalbroil 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Mainwaring says "He was also active on issues affecting the unemployed, where he consistently opposed attempts to reduce unemployment." which seems unlikely for a Labour man - perhaps you meant promoted. Recent Runes (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - I missed out a word, and it should say "attempts to reduce unemployment benefit". In other words, he wanted the rate of dole money to be kept. I'll make the change. Sam Blacketer 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G. Harrold Carswell

Thank you for your response to my Request for Comment on this article; I was wondering if I could ask for some advice? Hanzanian has re-added the same material to the article once again, and I'm not sure if I should wait for further responses to the RFC, or if there is anything else I should do. I suspect it might be difficult to gain consensus with this editor. I have left a message for him asking him to join in the discussion on the article talk page, but previously conversations have been less than fruitful, and it seems pointless to leave the RFC open indefinitely if any changes to/removals of the text are reversed. I'm sorry if this isn't the correct way to approach this situation, but I've never been in a content dispute before. Thanks again for your comment, --Kateshort forbob 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon Moi

I keep forgetting that Wikipedia can do no wrong and that any and all criticism is unwarranted.

P.S. This page is over 77 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey Sam, what do you think about the recent events about Durova and the secret mailing list? Menticor (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of people bring the matter up unbidden, as part of trolling. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice response ;) Will ^(talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information

Hi Sam. I would like to inform you that user Osli73 although he was blocked so many times, continues to vandalise articles. As you know I asked your intervention before. Now he is redirecting Serbian propaganda to Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia (which he wrote), instead of redirecting it to Serb propaganda (the article I wrote based on ICTY verdicts), because he nominated Serb propaganda article for deletion. I think this user should be stop finally. It doesn't make any sense anymore. Propaganda isn't the same term as media role, so his vandalism is really obvious. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Lawrence Turner, was selected for DYK!

On December 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lawrence Turner, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del Rev

I took a further look at the record of the admin you mentioned, and commented on his talk page [16]. DGG (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Terry Pitt, was selected for DYK!

On December 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terry Pitt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Parliamentary‎

Hi Sam, glad to see that you too spotted the linkspamming to http://www.parliamentaryyearbook.co.uk http://www.parliamentaryyearbook.co.uk/mp-member/bacon-richard.html by Parliamentary‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I see that a final warning has now been issued.

Hopefully, that will put an end to the spamming, but I also wondered in the username itself was appropriate. You have much more familiarity than I do with policy and practice in that area, but I'm uncomfortable with a username which could be read as implying that the editor has some sort of parliamentary position. Am I being over-cautious? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letter of thanks

Hi Sam. I would just like to inform you that I am going to take your advice to start request for comment when dealing with the users who are not willing to honestly contribute. I am going to start it related to Osli73, if he continues with disruptive behaviour. I have now plenty of material, but if you have any other advice before I start it be my guest. I am going to present this case very systematically, for example to list his block log, his reverts, other disruptive edits like this: Block log:

12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your eagle eye, please

Hi Sam

I have been trying to be less of a wikignome, and have heavily expanded articles on two MPs: Jack Dormand and Norman Baker. I admire the elegant articles which you have written on politicians, so if you have a few spare minutes I'd be grateful if you could cast your eye over those two and tell me what you think.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the expansion of Jack Dormand (wish I still had the copies of Roth's profiles I used to have on my desk!). It has already been passed as good article, and I think that your good work should raise it closer to featured article status. I'd be delighted if it gets there, just to demonstrate that even a politician who never held ministerial office and never became a household name can be the subject of a comprehensive article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is official

Welcome aboard. :-) FloNight (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Kirill 23:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Congrats on your new appointment as Arbitrator! Good luck, and don't wear yourself out :) Majorly (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!!! I'm sure you will do well, serving on arbcom. --Aude (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Sam, I'm sure you'll do an excellent job at Arbcom. Just remember to keep up the good work you do on the regular articles too as your work there is equally appreciated. Cheers - Galloglass 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and best wishes. May you not get stressed-out by our "lengthy litigations". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me add my congratulations too. It's not a job I'd want for all the tea in China, but I'm sure you'll do it well, and may G_d have mercy on your soul for signing up for a there-year sentence! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My steward election

Thank you for supporting my steward election having passed with 72-1-4-99%.--Jusjih (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Sam Blacketer

Congratulations on your successful ArbCom candidacy as well. Acalamari 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR Basboll

I think you have misinterpreted my RFAR request. I outlined Basboll's repeated efforts to seek sanction against me, all of which have been overwhelmingly defeated, but he still persists, disregarding the vast consensus he cease to do so. How else am I supposed to get this guy off my case if he isn't told to do so?--MONGO 09:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the edits to my userpage! Malinaccier (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin role

Hi Sam. I would like to ask you something about the role of admin. I think Philip Baird Shearer misused his admin rights in Bosnian Genocide article, because he blocked his opponent Grandy Grandy and didn't block his mate who shares the same opinion as his in the discussion he was involved in, it is Osli73, who broke 3RR as well. The problem is, Osli73 broke the 3RR, but he wasn't signed-in the first time he reverted. Can you give me an advice what should I do when I notice that an admin misuses his right? Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user & talk pages! I owe you a drink. Whale plane (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFARB/Anti-Domicanism

As far as I know, there has been no attempt at dispute resolution regarding the edits of the involved parties (XL8RTION and UnclePaco). Personally, I think an attempt at dispute resolution would go a long way. One user has an issue with adding material that violates WP:NPOV, while another has a history of engaging in edit wars and making personal attacks. Although dispute resolution and other forms of mediation are not always successful, I think it's safe to assume that there is a high likelihood that the problems with both of these users can be rectified if proper action is taken. I thought you might want to know, since you chose to accept the case. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did note the fact that I was in a minority on accepting this case (worth noting but not should never be decisive). I wish all attempts at dispute resolution good luck. "The greatest honour history can bestow is the title 'peacemaker'". Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]