User talk:Samuel Blanning/December2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.



Thanks for your comments. I figured that such an eloquent appeal deserved an eloquent response. I hope it didn't come across as WP:BITEing :-) Chris cheese whine 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While I admire your willingness to be polite to new contributors, I don't see what was 'eloquent' about the nomination. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


For your information, the reason I write the proposed decisions is that if I don't, no one does. At least not towards the end of the year. Fred Bauder 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with that view is that the more you do a job "because no-one else will", the less others will be inclined to do it because "oh, Fred Bauder will do it". This may seem stunningly irrelevant, but I have the same problem with people answering the doorbell in the nine-bedroom student-shared house I live in.
While I don't want to tell you how to do your job, if you don't write a proposed decision, I would think someone would pull their finger out before the entire process ground to a halt. The end-of-year thing may be a factor but I can't believe that you're the only one with free time around Christmas. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review question

Is this a good suggestion for when people bring up Wikipedia:Long term abuse/X pages/templates on DRV??:

  • Salt the page, and prevent re-creation, but perform a history-only undeletion so people can look back through the page history if they really want to read the old pages.

I wonder if this is a fair enough solution for such pages: this way it should keep both sides satisfied. --SunStar Net 01:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we should bother, to be honest. If it's useful for fighting the vandal then we should keep it; otherwise, prurience isn't a good reason to retain vandal shrines. However, your suggestion does make sense - it's just that I disagree with it, so feel free to propose it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries, Sam, you're entitled to your opinion. As regards the pages/templates, I don't see the point of the LTA pages (with the exception of Primetime and JarlaxleArtemis) per WP:BEANS, however, in the case of Primetime and JarlaxleArtemis, their abuse is more severe, so such pages are warranted. --SunStar Net 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If the SPA that started the kitten vandal nomination does turn out to be a vandal trying to resurrect his own LTA page, then a more clear-cut case of WP:BEANS we could not hope to see; but as long as he doesn't ask for briefsism to be undeleted as well then I'm going to leave him and the nomination alone for now. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope he's not; that briefsism article seems to be a troll magnet, I'm glad it's salted. --SunStar Net 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My mistake for suggesting the history-only undeletion, Sam. Your point on DRV summed it up well. --SunStar Net 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but I still think it was worth suggesting. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's OK. I just wanted to try and satisfy both sides at the same time. --SunStar Nettalk 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Haha, thanks for letting me RC patrolling has been slipping in quality lately... Gzkn 13:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Np. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. 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.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page as of 05:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC). If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

Well, User:Sam Blanning, which you added as an alternate account, doesn't belong to me, it was created by User:Flameviper12 in one of his... incarnations. I have added my actual former name. I'm not sure what else I should add, though - if I was the one adding 'model cases' they probably wouldn't be very representative of my abilities. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I can see your concern: If candidates were only judged by their best behavior then you feel that may not be fair, correct? Maybe my attitude is a I bit more optimistic. I believe that people can learn - not just from their mistakes, but from their successes, as well - or even better. I believe one can be one's own role model. Someone who adds a success to User:SebastianHelm/genderneutral portfolio is (with some WP:FAITH) not just doing propaganda, but also holding User:SebastianHelm/genderneutral to a standard. — Sebastian (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If I see any more neologistic neuter pronouns I think I'll go mad. Someone was using 'xyr' on some page like they were playing Scrabble the other day, and now I've got 'their' with an invisible 'th'. And I know there's also 'Sie and hir' around somewhere. 'He' and 'They' have both always been gender-neutral in the right context, what's wrong with them? I think I might invent my own pronoun just to annoy people if this goes on :-).
*cough* Anyway... I can't think of any finest hours at the moment, at least not that I haven't already mentioned in response to questions (though I think it's questionable whether everyone reads every single one of those). And apart from the Iain Lee thing (also already mentioned) I can't think of any particularly spectacular @#%&-ups either. But if I think of any I'll add them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation! As for Spivak pronouns, I'd be more than happy to discuss their pros and cons in a dedicated place, if you would like to move your comment there. How about that article or one of our talk pages under a dedicated headline? — Sebastian (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If you think that's a serious complaint that I would bother taking to a dedicated forum, you need to recalibrate your humour radar :-). It's just that when I heard about sie and hir, I thought it was an interesting idea; but now I know there are at least three different sets of alternative pronouns competing for people's attention, when none of them have a realistic chance of becoming mainstream (language doesn't even work that way), I wonder why Spivak et al bothered. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If it bothers you that you get confused with User:Sam Blanning, why do you keep that as your signature? You may also want to rename ".../Questions for Sam Blanning" to ".../Questions for Samuel Blanning". — Sebastian (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. I don't get confused with User:Sam Blanning, it's an account that another user created solely to put redirects in the userspace. There is no other Sam Blanning on Wikipedia, as far as I know there are no other Sam Blannings in the world, and I've signed as Sam Blanning ever since I changed from a pseudonym to my real name, long before the other user created that account, so I don't see where the confusion is. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I don't want to quibble over a word. Replace "confusion" with "the fact that someone wrote 'User:Sam Blanning' instead of your other user name". I thought it was an issue for you since it was the first thing you brought up in a conversation that had nothing to do with it. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with that; it's normal.
But the whole point of this section was to get examples of your arbitration skills. Instead of providing any, you chose to create several mountains out of molehills. So, this is the only example I have of your skills, and I'm afraid it doesn't look good. — Sebastian (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I explained why I had chosen not to add any examples, and while I had fingers to keys I mentioned the one thing I did add to your list, which seemed to make more sense than, well, not mentioning it. I wasn't aware that I was making a mountain out of a molehill by correcting an error and then mentioning it in passing, particularly as you didn't say anything about it in your initial reply. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I know you've had to block this user in the past. I just removed some more vandalism this morning. Just a heads up. EOBeav 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, though WP:AIV will usually give you a faster response. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Afd Request

Hi there,

Would you mind taking a look at:

It needs more input from seasoned editors.

Thank you, Linux monster 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get round to it, but it looks like it's ended the right way for now. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question page.

FYI. I've added another question. JoshuaZ 01:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a follow-up if you don't mind. JoshuaZ 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49 4 December 2006 About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The paradox of the oppose votes against you

So, you're getting oppose votes in the election because despite the fact that you've been a great admin, some people disagree with your philosophy about an arbcom that get's it's hands dirty. I just gave you one such oppose myself, although I tried to spend more words praising you than opposing you.

Here's what bugs me though-- ultimately, when people oppose you, you're just being punished for your honesty. You could have written a bland, completely uncontroversial statement which lacked any substantial 'position statements' on anything that could have been controversial. You could have played the poltician, but you had the integrity not to go that route. Instead you stood up, said what you thought, were a very transparent and honest candidate, said what kind of an Arbcom member you'd be. Because of that, you might just barely miss being elected.

So, anyway, I don't have anything substantive to say other than to give you major thumbs up for being so forthright and to tell you that even though I didn't support you as a candidate, I strongly support you as a person. I caught just the tiny tail end of the ED mess, and by the time I heard about the whole debate, by and large, people didn't want to listen to my thoughts on the matter, because everyone else had been over it and over it ad nausem, and they were finished with dealing with it. I'm sure you were sick of the whole thing too. But you listened anyway. You seriously considered, for just a moment, the possibility that you might have been wrong. You heard me out, and in the end you decided that you weren't in error--- but you considered the question, and that's a quality that would make you a truly excellent arbiter-- albeit one I'd probably disagree with on a lot of things. :) --Alecmconroy 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If I had posted a bland statement, I don't think it would actually make that much difference. I don't have the name recognition of some admins and the areas I work in mean my views were already controversial before I posted my statement. Jimbo doesn't necessarily pick the 5 people with the most votes or most support; he can choose anyone who has more support than opposition. So while I think there's no chance of me getting into the top 5 either in terms of numbers or percentage (not that I particularly mind if it would mean watering my statement down), it's still possible that Jimbo might pick me.
Of course, he generally goes for those with the most support, and of the five people who are at the top of the table right now, I don't think there's any reason why he shouldn't just pick all five of them :-). But no matter how slim my chances are, some of the expressions of support have been very encouraging; so has some of the opposition, like yours. So it's been a very worthwhile experience. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of Chilleh

Thanks ... much appreciated ... when I logged it at WP:AIV and saw the huge backlog, I was worried that it was admin's night off tonight. ;) BigDT 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's Poker Night. I went all-in on a flush and Can't sleep just had to have a full house, the jammy bar steward. So I had to get back to work early. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 ;) BigDT 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Range block please?

Hi, Sam, I saw you blocked User: for messing with Newyorkbrad's page. Could you softblock the whole range, and preferably a bit longer? You'll see why if you cast a look at Brad's page history. I've lost confidence in doing stuff like that myself. I'm too ignorant of ranges and open proxies and such. Best, Bishonen | talk 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Same here, I'm afraid - I'd try WP:ANI for rangeblocks. But it seems to have been just those two IPs, and they've stopped now, at least on Brad's page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

I would like to report Emeraude for a personal attaack left on the British National Party Talk Page. The comments asserted that at some point during my life i was either a racist a nazi or a closet nazi. I find it highly offencive that i have been labelled as one of these things as i was simply trying to clarify a point in the article to prevent edit wars.--Lucy-marie 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possible that Emeraude wasn't directing the comment at you, but all members of "right wing groups that claim that they are not what they are". In "if you are or were" I think "you" is the generic you, i.e. 'one'. Emeraude may well clarify this himself when he responds to your post; in the meantime I'll watch the page for a bit, but I don't think this was a deliberate personal attack, just poor choice of words. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I have explained as much in the Talk Page. Lucy-marie's complaint above even accuses me of using words that aren't there ('racist'). Incidentally, I am more than slightly upset that someone can make a complaint about me and I only find out about it by accident more than 24 hours later! Emeraude 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you're upset - with complaints on more public forums, such as admin noticeboards and talk pages, it's polite to inform someone that they're being talked about - but this was just my talk page and didn't go any further than one request and reply. If I felt that I actually needed to do anything I'd certainly have let you know about it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Maybe you could give us some help out at this. I've looked, and the often has a ridiculous backlog to it which is never addressed. I've asked because I've seen you at WP:HD. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I may give it a go, but there are some things I don't understand. For example, would I be able to decline this entry because, though it has assertions of notability, it's completely unsourced? It avoids speedy deletion but I still wouldn't create it in that state. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there's a lot of fringe cases. Even half the articles I've created, I later went to regret. But the fact is, someone has to do it, and right now, it's got almost no volunteers (I hope to take a wikibreak). It's quite rude to say, "create this article, we'll look at it", and then to never even decline it. Patstuarttalk|edits 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If it could be made clearer that editors are allowed to decline articles, not just pass over them and leave them for someone else, if they're not up to standard, I'd be willing to help out; but I can't if it means posting sub-standard articles just because someone asked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The instructions state, If the article does not look suitable for Wikipedia..., with further instructions on how to decline. Patstuarttalk|edits 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Following up from my question in the elections; I did find this particular arbitration somewhat disturbing. I fully support MONGO's right to defend himself. And rootology did burn his bridges. But the only justification I can see for anything approaching the severity of an indefinite ban is the belief that he is Fuckface on ED. The only evidence that I am aware of for this is that Fuckface posted a picture on ED which was taken by PrivateEditor. Rootology's answer to this was: "I was in a freenode IRC chat, and someone asked what all the nonsense was about that I was chatting with, and I sent them the image privately when they asked what all this was about. It apparently got back to the ED people, but I have no control over that. Why would I be uploading things that would point a clear light at me if I were doing things like that, AND bring about this Arbitration if that were the case? That's just ridiculous." Whether this is true or just rootology blowing smoke, I don't know, but in the absence of the Fuckface evidence, what crime would he have committed, exactly? He got involved in a highly controversial 'freedom of speech' dispute that involved attacks on Wikipedia editors, and he got on the wrong side of various admins.

I personally find it sad that a user who had never been blocked before the arbitration case, which he brought, has now been essentially given a lifetime ban. It's like me suing someone for defamation of character, and the judge telling me that because he believed (without an enormous amount of evidence) that someone I was involved with had physically attacked the person I was bringing the case against, I was being sent to prison with no possibility of parole.

It was a very difficult case. Personally I think ED needed to be removed from Wikipedia, and editors needed to be defended. But an indefinite ban for a previously unblocked editor, based on disputed evidence, seems too much to me.

--Merlinme 10:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely going for "blowing smoke", myself, given his blatant lying over whether he was an ED editor in the first place. I can see quite clearly where you're coming from because that's where I started, until I'd gone into the whole thing, at which point I could see no alternative than the remedy 5 against 0 Arbitrators went for. I don't necessary like to cite the 5-0 result as showing that the remedy was justified, as the Arbcom has been accused of hivemindedness and I've been tarred with that brush at least once already, but the Arbcom does not ban people lightly.
Some users are still on edge even after the banning of the principal troublemakers and ED links, and I find the possibility that the Arbcom might have let the issue just drop, and leave us with ED's drama games eating like a cancer at the centre of our community, rather scary. If the Arbcom had done that I probably wouldn't even want to be in it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All of which is fair enough, however I remain unconvinced that rootology was guilty of anything very much other than association with ED people. Reading his contributions at some length, I found him on the whole to be perfectly reasonable. He could be pedantic, fail to assume good faith, and on a few occasions lost his temper, but then so did just about everybody else in the ED case.

To support an indefinite ban, you have to believe that rootology is Fuckface, and the evidence for that seems debatable to me. Nothing that rootology said on Wikipedia makes me think he would vindictively and actively pursue Wiki editors on ED, which (as I understand it) is what Fuckface did. You've said that the ban was a community ban because it actually went in before the ArbCom decision was final, but it was actually brought in immediately after the proposed remedy of banning Rootology, so what admin would ever remove that? (And to be honest, I have some objections to what appears to me to be passing sentence before you've even got agreement from all the ArbCom members yet, although you could make a case that Rootology had lost his cool by this point.)

What I do not want to see on Wikipedia is some sort of version of McCarthyism: "are you now or have you ever been involved in editing of Encyclopedia Dramatica?"

I actually support the ArbCom taking a firmer line in many areas; however if you are elected to ArbCom, I would hope that you would consider cases carefully based on the evidence before you. The evidence against rootology seems tenuous to me. His main crime seems to have been to have got on the wrong side of MONGO (and I should say I understand why MONGO was very sensitive on this). In this environment, the revelation that a picture he took ended up on ED was taken as evidence that he was responsible for some of the worst personal attacks on ED; and for me, that's a non sequitur. I mean, even the reason given for the ban: "links to harassment articles on Encyclopedia Dramatica" seems a bit flaky. Since when is it a crime to have "links"? If I have a relative who is in prison, does that make me a bad person? People should not be guilty by association with nasty people.

--Merlinme 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't buy the IRC explanation, which given that the screenshot could only have been taken by PrivateEditor (I don't know if you've seen it, but it shows him logged in) is the only possible one. "Someone asked... I sent the image privately... it apparently got back to the ED people"? The words "it apparently got back" just beg the question what exactly this is supposed to mean - they imply some shadowy figures passing an image in the Internet equivalent of dark alleyways, which just strikes me as ridiculous when we're talking about a screenshot of a public Wikipedia page that anyone could have taken. The excuse is, of course, absolutely impossible to completely disprove, and yet nonetheless utterly implausible, in my opinion.
Rootology's bridge-burning doesn't help either - it's exactly what I'd expect from someone who's tried to keep his disruptive behaviour low-profile, made one trivial blunder, blown his cover and left himself with nothing to lose.
Anyone could definitely have overturned Fred's block, by the way - it's only binding if it's an Arbitration decision, and it wasn't until the case closed. All administrators willing to unblock Rootology at least until his ban expired should have known that, Fred certainly did.
We definitely don't have a McCarthy attitude - plenty of editors with links to ED are still here. We even have editors associated with Wikipedia Review, which has been a focal point for off-wiki harrassment of editors much longer than ED. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. I haven't actually seen the screenshot, as I couldn't find a working link to it, so it's difficult to comment fully. All I would ask is that, if the ArbCom is to become tougher in its sanctions in the future, it give people a fair hearing, based on the evidence against them, and not (for example) on whether they've got on the wrong side of a particular admin.

--Merlinme 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No argument there. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mitsos

Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, Bobby 16:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll give it a read. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian Lee

Ever get tired of reverting? No need to answer, just an offer to let off some rant if you wish. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh, it's not like I didn't use to do dozens of reverts a day on RC patrol - I don't see the occasional revert on one particular article as that annoying. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Creating A User Page.

Sorry if the article is a bit annoying, but would you please explain to me how I can create my own user page? Salmans801

You can create your userpage the same as any page - just go to it, click 'Start the page' and type away. A good starting point is some information about what you're interested in contributing to and what your areas of expertise are, as this is of most interest to other Wikipedians. This includes what languages you speak - we have a special page for this at Wikipedia:Babel. Many users also give some basic biographical information, like age, education level, area of work (best not to be too specific though, like anywhere on the Internet).
Some useful templates you might like to display on your userpage for your own reference are the daily featured picture, the tip of the day, and the current open tasks template.
Wikipedia:Userpage has a fuller explanation of what you can use a userpage for. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't get it. Could it be possible for you to help me make my user page. Right now it look like its going nowhere.Thank you.Salmans801
Your userpage is about you, and everyone's userpage is different, so other people can't really write it for you. Don't feel you have to have a userpage, especially when you're new - there are Wikipedians who've been here for months and haven't made one, or have written just a couple of sentences. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I listed it at AIV because I can tell from her contributions (by using solely "RV" when reverting) as well as a comment left on my user talk that show that the user is a sockpuppet of the now banned Bobabobabo.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it, blocked indef. I can see the characteristic you were talking about now - apart from anything else, he/she uses 'RV' in all caps when most people don't bother holding down the shift key.
But it would have been helpful if your report had contained more information - at least that the user uses 'RV' in all caps, because it's not immediately obvious that the capitalisation is the giveaway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
And why did you add a tag to the userpage saying the connection was established by CheckUser? --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It will be once I bug a checkuser/steward to prove it (and none of the other ones are any good :( )—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Then it's not established by Checkuser. It's my head on the block if someone asks me 'Why did you block this account, who did the Checkuser?' so I removed the notice. You can replace it with {{blockedsock}} if you like, which doesn't mention Checkuser, but personally, I wouldn't bother. We've got a big enough collection already, WP:DR and all that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, now it has.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Essjay has also proven that User:Ryulongisgay is also Bobabobabo.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Obmij Selaw

Why did you remove him. Aren't alternate spellings of Jimbo Wales prohibited? *Is confused.* -WarthogDemon 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't actually mean to remove it - accidents happen sometimes on frequently-edited pages like AIV. I've blocked the account, thanks for bringing it up. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No prob and I know what you mean. I actually made a bigger mess there just the other week. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson up for RfA

Did you realize that Pmanderson, who voted against you, is up for RfA? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyemoor (talkcontribs) 03:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Please do not canvas people whom you think will vote a certain way in a discussion. This is severely frowned upon by the community. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


The mfd header is still on the page after you closed the mfd and I don't know how to fix this and have the record on the talk page to link the closed mfd. Ta. --Spartaz 23:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I've removed the header. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Irascible Professor on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Irascible Professor. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. dryguy 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Right To Vanish

Hello, I'm invoking the right to vanish from Wikipedia asking that my userpage and talk page be deleted, and my account be blocked indefinatley to prevent impersonation or future use by someone else. Thanks much. Knowing Is Half The Battle 21:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on how to fight vandalism

At the virtual classroom, we've got a discussion going on about vandalism. You are invited to join in add your comments and share your expertise. Ask any question, answer any question, raise any issue, start any subtopic. Anything goes. I hope to see you there.

The Transhumanist    01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but from the look of your 'assignment' it's focused more on those at the sharp end of vandal fighting, that is, reverting vandals (and how to do it with more speed and accuracy), whereas most of my recent experience is with blocking them. I haven't even ever used the external anti-vandalism tools, for example, apart from popups. If you decide to do a piece on something more in my area, then I'd be happy to help out. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Popups related error?

Hey there, I see that you reverted my reversion. :) Was this intentional or an error through the popups tool? --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Popups-related edit conflict, I think - I definitely didn't mean to revert you. Sorry about that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Just confirming before I restored the warnings. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry my web browser froze up dang it!!!--Hornetman16 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Samuel, just letting you know that an incident report has already been filed over this - to no effect. The mediation has also failed. Please reconsider. Curse of Fenric 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV is for simple vandalism - anything that you've filed a request for mediation for is definitely not simple vandalism. (No-one compromises with vandals.) Try the incidents noticeboard for more admin comment, requests for comment to get the opinion of the general community, or, when/if you honestly believe you've exhausted all other options, try requests for arbitration. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


'(continued from e-mail)'

If it was an autoblock, then how come it showed you as the blocking admin?

(thanks for the unblock)

Tyson Moore es 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I blocked the account that triggered the autoblock. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BLP Issues on ANI

I appreciate your input, especially concerning allegations of my intent. Thanks. Frise 01:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, if you are a sockpuppet, then I'm not surprised you didn't want to go through this with your main account. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
That entire section on ANI is scary. Oi. Syrthiss 13:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

IP's vandalism

Please see these diffs: Steve Nash, 10/29 & Steve Nash, 12/11. Do you really believe that this just happens to be from two different people who BOTH hate Steve Nash, and BOTH use the same IP, and BOTH vandalize articles about South Dakota? I suppose it's possible, but not terribly likely.

If I may say; your reaction to this report is terribly discouraging to me as a vandal fighter. I don't make false reports, and I don't overwarn; I look for patterns and I act on them. When admins don't trust these reports, it makes one not want to make reports at all. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair point - but fact remains that he hasn't vandalised since getting the big red hand on his talk page. When you said 'last warning' I assumed you meant 'most recent' - and no matter which way you put it, he hasn't vandalised since the most recent warning - yours. As he isn't currently vandalising, there's no point in blocking. If editors had kept giving him final warnings, and he kept going away and coming back, then I'd block him, but as it stands I'm treating him as a user who may well have stopped after realising we mean business.
I'm sorry if you feel that your reports aren't being taken seriously, but for some reason people keep reporting vandals when they haven't vandalised since their last warning, AIV is a rapidly-moving page and I have to be brief about why I'm not blocking something. Your efforts in keeping our encyclopaedia free of nonsense are appreciated, believe me. (Though it would help if you shortened your sig. Sometimes it takes a while to select the right amount of post to remove because of all that colour-coding.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Your point is a good one as well; as was your advice about my sig. Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c 02:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu Sock

Since I saw you blocked one of his others. (talk · contribs) is his most recent sock IP. He is currently trying to edit by brute force on Gothic metal. --Wildnox 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Now hes changed IP again81.153.143.62 (talk · contribs), maybe semi-protection on his target article? I'm not going to try to keep reverting him any more as it seems rather pointless. . --Wildnox 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked the IPs and semi-protected the article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, sadly it seemed like that was the only option besides waiting for him to get tired. Thank you for the quick action. --Wildnox 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Wow, that was kind of funny. Your edit summary said 75 blocked, and for a second I was like "WTF? Why are there 75 users at AIV?" Then I realized :P Wow, that was really stupid of me. Fredil 02:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50 11 December 2006 About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage! Mytildebang 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Np, account is now indefinitely blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wilkens' sources

Hello Samuel, I don't know if the you-know-which WP-article is (still) on your watchlist but, because at one time you made mention of lack of sources and reviews in the article, I'd like you to know that I've added the main sources and reviews mentioned in the book to the article, --Antiphus 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What I actually meant by that was third-party sources on the book, such as reviews, not the sources Wilkens used in writing it. When it comes to third-party sources there are already some in the article, at least, enough to satisfy the AfD a couple of months ago. I've no particular opinion on how much detail the article should go into on the book's actual content. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I had added a review that I found on the internet, instead of, as I wrote wrongly, quoted from the book. By the way, you might find the sources that are mentioned interesting, specially Johann Heinrich Voss, (not particularly with respect to this subject), as well as these links:[1] and Bronze Age boats, indeed with respect to the subject.--Antiphus 20:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No cat crisis here

Felines are not actually in danger of depopulation, but I could have been more clear in the section header. Naturally I know who you are and regard you as an exemplary senior contributor; exactly the kind of person whose respect I would like to earn. Imagine my chagrin when it's something like this that calls me to your attention. Did I mention it was 2:00 a.m.? Oh, the ignonomy of it all...Doc Tropics 17:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe when it's 2.00am at my end I'll understand whether I'm being complimented or told off here... --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You're being complimented, I'm hanging my head in mock despair at my own ineptitude : ) Doc Tropics 02:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Good to know where the chagrin lay, then :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You had me going there for a minute ...

... wondering if I should go disambiguate Bananarama/Bainimarama. I will add that you're also the only admin whose edit summaries on AIV make me smile, though I hope the vandals don't start creating cuter names just to see what you'll do with them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm dedicated to the principle of WP:DR, but I'd be very surprised if I achieved that level of recognition among vandals :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales Talk Page

Yes ! you are right. That's what I am trying to say. I want to know why my article Kalpesh Sharma with undermentioned contents was removed which as posted by someone and which I edited on [2]

This is also not called self promotion. It's the part of achievements in a similar way like any one writes about himself when a nomination is filed for awards. Do you think that when any company invites nomination for particular awards, the nominees who mentions about their achievement is known as self promotion. If not why my article was treated as self promotion and not allowed on wikipedia on [3]

See a similar article posted by Ankit Fadia on [4]

Is there any difference between my article contents below and ankit fadia's article. I have written the truth and fact whereas if you go through google for key word 'ankit fadia' you will find the evidence about how much mentioned in wikipedia article of ankit fadia is truth. Why this injustice to other users?

Several reliable secondary sources have written about Ankit Fadia, which means we can write an article about him using those sources. The article you have been copy-pasting (please stop doing that) is only verified by blog posts and similar sources which are self-published, do not have a reputation for fact-checking and are consequently not allowed as verification.
Writing a Wikipedia article is not like writing a nomination for an award. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Articles should be written by independent editors, working from reliable sources. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, that does not always happen, but that is our principle. If we cannot write an article on a person because there are no reliable sources on him, than we will not have an article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thnx a lot ! I got ur point. The sources about me are not so notable on internet, but they do appear on several print media and electronic media. If I am not wrong then do you mean that when a source is found on internet is only called to be reliable ? Then what about sources found on print media and electronic media. These sources are not a part of reputation or reliable secondary sources ?

Kalpesh Sharma

So long as the source is reliable in all other ways, then yes, print sources are just as valid as electronic ones. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam Blanning

Thnx Mr. Sam ! Then please help me to start with [5]

. Here is the URL of my website where I have scanned and attached all my achievments, print and electronic media articles, radio news certifcate, certificate of work with minister, government stamped certificate of work with india army intelligence, etc.

My website URL is [6]

Kindly please do needfull as wikipedia does for all the notable peoples across globe. Nice talk.

No-one, including me, may write an article unless a request is made at Wikipedia:Deletion review and there is consensus to overturn. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Sam, I posted matter for my deletion for review the same day you informed me first. But same day without any back response, it was completely rmoved. I saw in history also but it was not found. IT has been removed completely. Now in such situation what shall be done.


Hey Sam. You may like to see this. The above user, Kalpesh Sharma, has been disrupting wikipedia for a long time now. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I've posted on ANI about this user's disruption. Please have a look. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
SAM see the answer posted for the above mentioned claim by aksi. Here it follows:

Answer for administrators of wikipedia

KALPESH SHARMA - Now I will answer to all your queries mentioned above. Good that this is the first time aksi who calls himself great and utcarsch who calls me a jealous has talked in a proper manner on this user page. This could have been done before also, instead of speaking worst kind of language you two administrators. I talked on user page of Jimbo, sam blanning and also to nina eliza. Check it and let me know or ask them what kind of wrong things did I follow. I talked with due respect with them because for every word and every sentenece they gave me a deep and detailed explanation. I request the honorable management of wikipedia to check this where always a shortcut code was specified by these two users. Even there are other administrators working with wikipedia, who work in a proper way. This policy is not being followed by aksi and utcarsch resulting to this issue. When a new user comes to wikipedia he may do many wrong things, because he is not going to read thousands of links availabale on world's biggest encyclopedia. It's the job of administrator to show him the right path as mr. sam and nina did. See their word and detailed sentence. I am an information security expert and not a wikipedia administrator or editor who knows what and how to use and work out withmillions of links in the site webpages. You both administrators did not treat that way and then blaming me. Every where WP:shortcuts were mentioned. What do I know what does these shortcuts mean, you both have not given any proper explanations even a single time. At the end when you were both tired of again and again deleting kalpesh sharma pages, then mr. patruat gave this instructions that stop doing it. This was when I understood why my article was deleted. But patruat had informed first of all on [7] with respect and detail explanation.

In my case utcarsch and aksi had never given detailed or proper explanation and their lanaguage was further bad when due to un understandability my several pages were created. You never did your work properly though so many times the deleting actions were taken by you. Not even a single time you have given any proper explanation. Now, when a person who is technically little aware has so many problems then what would you both be doing with non-technical peoples. You are a spoiling wikipedia's reputation between users of wikipedia. In this way how the wikipedia will be filled with valuable, reliable and notable contents. You both are trying to show that you are innocent. In of the sentences utcarshch says that

I could find only one reliable link[1] that doesn't indicate any notability.[8]

I will show you the evidence that this is a wrong thing, if keyword 'kalpesh sharma' is mentioned in google the following so data is found from search engine. And for your information all are from reliable notable sources. You have till now mentioned only one link of and if so many times edition and deletion was done why did you not mark even one of below notable sources out of so many:

 1. [9]
 2. [10]
 3. [11]
 4. [12]
 5. [13]
 6. [14]
 7. [15]
 8. [16]
 9. [17]
10. [18]
11. [19]
12. [20]
13. [21]


15. [22]
16. [23]

Then comes the topic of great aksi ! sorry but the great word is being insulted by aksi by putting behind his name. He says above that

"He has also been contantly vandalising the article Ankit Fadia until I had to semi-protect it. A complete timeline of his disruption can be found here. His article has been deleted through AfD. Since then he has created multiple sock accounts and created the same article across many namespaces."

I have allready mentioned that my member of groups or some one else who might be knowing about me has vandalized and not me. As concerns to IP if a single internet connection is used with sharing basis from a big company network or e-governence network or somewhere like such place then it's possible that same IP address range is being seen for every user who tries to do modification. My reputation has spread amongst several peoples and I have already worked with chief minister (where Egovernence network exists) as technical assistant. I went to university of gujarat where mr. parimal trivedi is the vice chancellor for some personal matter. There I met many peoples of university staff. May any director, professor or someone even operator level employee would have been directed to post my details on wikipedia. This is not sufficient evidence for saying that single user is vandalizing. I saw the history pages at that time, they were are with different IP address. Every time when some one tried to post about me from my group it was deleted by these two peoples. Then one of my group member mr. agrawal said me that this is happening on pages and contents of your name. After that I tried to edit personally with my own hands my own simple and easy article on


But, when I saw same deletions as my members did ! I went to Mr. Prabhat and gave my opinion that either ankit fadia is a administrator who might be protecting his own pages or administrators who are deleting(utcarsch and aksi) might be playing games so that ankit fadia pages could not be removed. Something is definietly wrong. Because if you look at the data posted on wikipedia about me carefully every time whenever a deletion was made the editing member either from my group or whosoever has placed the contents, has tried to correct the content or article through a modification. Then also it was every time deleted and no proper reasons were given. Now give me explanation whether is it not the job of administrator talk and explain every matter in detail.

Other then this when I was informed by sam on jimmy wales user talk page [25] that go to deletion review, I had edited a message which was also deleted by either of them without any secific reasons. I have mentioned this also in a talk with sam on [26]

I have been trying to get off wiki support is right. But I don't think that utcarsch or aksi has anything to do with that. And one more thing that India is country with freedom to speak in order to give their opinion, protest or give suggestions for one which is wrong. So this is useless reason. don't talk out of wiki topic. Else again I will have to say that do you both have any relations ankit fadia because again and again you are stopping me against my personal protest against ankit fadia. My personal protest or whatsoever I do out of wikipedia has nothing to do with current topic.

The following articles does not even contain single word about wikipedia encyclopedia company nor I have disrupted wikipedia. These articles mentioned complaints against the particular administrators who have been given special powers. Check it here is evidence

"About Wikipedia Administrators

This article is a copy of matter posted by one of my group member on wikipedia because whether or not good, if any one edits ankit fadia's article on wikipedia these adminsitrators do not allow them to do so. Wikipedia administrators are not the employees of wikipedia group in any way they are instead simple persons like all of us working on internet. They have been provided rights of administration for modification of contents on wikipedia to make it more better. Not one or two or three but many peoples edited ankit fadia's contents, but the administrators are relatives of ankit fadia who do not want any one to modify anything about ankit fadia. I am daily recieving many emails of my members and peoples who are in touch with me. Other then this some of wikipedia administrators are going falling to such a useless level that even if any one who does not have relation with me, and if he/she edits ankit fadia's page the wikipedia administrators say it's kalpesh sharma itself. And that I am doing so because my publicity is less then ankit fadia. "

Article 1 - Article 2 -

I don't think that any one can say that I have mentioned any things wrong about wikipedia. But definitely ,I have mentioned about some administrators because I believe that they are really wrong. I don't think that saying anything about peoples, "who are doing something wrong in any way" is incorrect. In short if such peoples are given administration rights who does not allow anyone to edit wikipedia for truth and facts then soon wikipedia will lost reputation and as concerns to utcarsch and aksi they can find work anywhere else also. Without going in depth of the reality and fact about any particular matter, no one can be said to be wrong - niether me, niether ankit fadia, niether utcarshch, nor any of my group members. This is what utcarshch is doing after getting administration powers?

Again utcarsch has mentioned the same thing which aksi had specified that

" I posted a message to LUG-Indore mailing list. User:Prabhat linux, the moderator of LUG-Indore has asked Kalpesh to stop using ILUG-Indore for self-promotion and Ankit-bashing. "

Wikipedia or it's data or policies have nothing to do with what is mentioned on any forum, or what way we work or so on. And if utcarsch is trying to mention that I was stopped by prabhat for ankit related bashing then see this where prabhat has specified on LUG Indore Group on one of my topic against ankit fadia:

emails removed

In, short I found only one problem with both these adminsitrators Aksi and Utcarshch, that they have:

1) Again and again tried to save ankit fadia page though several peoples deleted or commented against ankit fadia excluding me, as if ankit fadia and their some personal relation of benefits exists. 2) Every time no particular deep and proper explanations were given about my page deletions 3) Every time tried to showcase that I am self promoting myself by vandalizing ankit fadia. The clarification of difference between self promotion and achievements is not clear to both aksi and utcarsch, so I had to specify this to sam blanning using jimmy wales user talk page.[27] 4) Without sufficient evidence they self understood and claimed the article of Kalpesh Sharma as edited or posted by single user. Even if it was posted by single user that doesn't mean that they will come and directly catch my throat. They don't have this rights to say me(A reputed person) jealous or sock puppet which may be concern of legal matter and/or otherwise. 5) In the whole matter no where these two peoples have marked or specified any notable good matter for me. All they have mentioned is bad only about me. Why ? I ask. I have many achievements, why their eyes did not see this? Why their eyes did not see what prabhat of lug-indore group said good about me ? they tried to give all my weak points and overall behind that the matter is these two peoples have some beneficial relations with Ankit Fadia and that’s why this issue has gone so long.

I kindly request Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Management and Any other Authorised person to look into this case from their views and not give my matter to any two these administrators utcarsch and aksi. Not at all.

Thnx – Kalpesh Sharma —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

You know what, I'm not even going to pretend to care any more. Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself, nothing I've seen convinces me that anyone would be interested in reading an article about you. Please stop disrupting talk pages. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not disupting Sam. See yourself what administrator Aksi Great doing on my article

instead of reply me in his uswer talk page for a question I have posted for him. And as concerns to above Aksi had written something about me and that is why I had answered. Here above there is nothing called self promotion. Kalpesh Sharma 20:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


I liked Jimbo's userbox that said he trusts in Jimbo! Dang it!;).NinaEliza (talk contribs count logs email) 03:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any userbox on your page that says "This user trusts in Nina" :-P --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate using these but:LMAO. You're right. I should though!NinaEliza (talk contribs count logs email) 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Announcements for Wikibooks

I suppose I was indeed asking for an advert for this sister project of Wikipedia. Just occasionally. Any chance? Robinhw 16:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Others on Talk:Main Page might well post to disagree with me, but personally, I don't believe it would be a suitable use of our Main Page. The discussions on how much space we give to sister projects are already quite fraught, even with the limited amount of space we currently give them; and if we place an advert for Wikibooks, we'd then probably have to promote the other sister projects as well, of which there are hundreds including the alternate language Wikipedias. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

RfCU on Lou franklin

I removed it for the checkuser's convenience, they know whether they need to use a more recent account to check, and can do so if necessary (as in this case), but removing that user makes who the request is on just a little clearer. Prodego talk 15:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

GNAA discussion page at AfD

The page has survived 5 days now, and no one is discussing sources or even WANTS to discuss sources. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly hadn't realised three days had almost come and gone twice. Deleted and salted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


The user who recently vandalized your page, user:Fygde may be a sockpuppet of User:Globalization. Their edit histories are very similar. Prometheus-X303- 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fygde is actually clearly a sockpuppet of a very abusive banned user, and I've indef-blocked and rolled back - Globalization isn't, I don't think. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I thought they might be the same person because of the edit histories, and because your last edit on socialism had been to revert an edit by Globalization. I had a look at the histories of other contributors to that page, and they show similar trends. I guess it's just something these editors are interested in.
BTW, doesn't the bocked user's profile need a template? Prometheus-X303- 22:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Those sort of templates are rather deprecated, especially due to WP:DENY - all the information anyone needs to know is in the block log. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I see. It makes sense. Just let the account fade instead of announcing to everybody that this editor caused enough trouble for a block.
Since I've troubled you this far, may I also trouble you to look at another situation? This IP editor apparently didn't like seeing warnings on the IP's talk page, and so blanked them. I have reverted and explained that warnings are supposed to stay on talk pages (at least newer warnings), but they keep blanking the page. A few other users have also reverted blankings once. The IP has recently placed a warning on my page. I'm not sure what to do. Prometheus-X303- 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as the IP isn't currently vandalising, it's probably best to let it go, as the only use for warnings - apart from for vandals to read them - is for admins to check that the user has been warned before blocking, and if he isn't currently vandalising no-one will need to check that. If the IP isn't obviously static, the new warnings wouldn't 'count' if vandalism resumed anyway. His edits today look good-faith, apart from the user talk page blanking and the spurious warning on your page, but if he does resume obvious vandalism you should feel free to restore them - if he continues blanking and vandalising, the page can be protected. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If you ever run for Supreme Overlord of Wikipedia, I'll give you a good reference. Prometheus-X303- 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Np :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51 18 December 2006 About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss" News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


I saw that you were an administrator. I find that very cool. I was also wondering how you can become an administrator. Do you have do be a Wikipedian for a long time or do you have to edit many articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loulou Lala (talkcontribs) 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Adminship is given to anyone who the community thinks can be trusted with it. Basically, to gain adminship you have to undergo a vote at WP:RFA, and if you get about 80% or above support, you will be made an admin. To get that level of support, generally you need experience, knowledge of policy, and the right attitude.
Experience is generally demonstrated by being here for a while; three months is probably the bare minimum. You also need to have been active on Wikipedia, generally demonstrated by number of edits. Finally, you also need experience in the right areas; writing and editing articles is good experience, because that's what we're here to do, but it doesn't need admin tools. What people really like to see is involvement in fighting vandalism and participation in deletion discussions, because it shows that the user will be able to use the blocking and deletion tools. No need to restrict yourself though; dispute resolution (e.g. WP:MEDCAB, WP:RFC) isn't directly related to adminship, but it shows that you can handle some of the thornier issues. At RfA, everyone's editcount is posted, such as this one; people generally like to see a split between articles, talk pages and project pages. Here you can see lots of edits to mainspace (articles) but few to projectspace (Wikipedia: project pages), so a lot of editors are opposing based on lack of relevant experience.
Knowledge of policy is generally picked up as you contribute to Wikipedia; there's an admins' reading list, but by no means do you have to read every page on that list from start to finish; most you can pick up as you go along. While participating in areas like those I mentioned, you have to do it right; you have to show that generally, you know when IP addresses need to be blocked and when articles need to be deleted. If you don't know, it will be pointed out.
And the right attitude is shown just by being here, and handling conflicts without being incivil, disruptive etc.
Hope that helps; you shouldn't worry about adminship for a while yet, the first thing is to decide whether you enjoy behind-the-scenes work enough to want adminship. Not all long-term users become admins; some are happy working on articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


one of my school friends have vandilised paintball. He is new to it so he didnt know. you can reach me at Ricky 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gibsonr (talkcontribs) 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, though the bot has already reverted and warned the user. The quickest way to fix vandalism, rather than asking someone, is to revert it yourself, which is very easy - see Help:Revert. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Why are you locking a discussion page on this article? I can understand locking the article, but it seems a tad over the top to continually lock and delete the discussion page, even if you feel the article should be deleted.Wangfoo 07:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: talk pages without articles are deleted (CSD G8), and pages which repeatedly have to be deleted get locked. Long answer: there's no article, so the only thing to discuss is its recreation, and the forum for that is deletion review. The only thing such pages are really used for is trolling along the lines of "omg undelete, this page was only deleted because myg0t hax0red Wikipedia" or nonsense along those lines. Having to watch such a page is a waste of time for everyone involved. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was Do Your Ears Hang Low? deleted?

I was going through some of my old links and noticed that the article Do Your Ears Hang Low? was deleted. The log said it was deleted by you for vandalism. Do Your Ears Hang Low? is a relatively well known song, making the subject noteworthy. Why was it deleted then, instead of just having the vandalism reverted? -- kenb215 talk 17:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It was created by a vandal, who created several articles that were complete nonsense. There was nothing to revert to - his was the only version. While the song itself exists, the article contained several additional verses, supposedly 'traditional', but as it was unsourced, there's no way to tell how much was accurate and how much was made up by the vandal. So I don't believe the article should be restored - all it contained was the supposed lyrics. You're free to create a verified article in its place, though. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for semi-protecting the Marshmallow article! It was getting pretty frustrating to check for new vandalism for hours, so I was really happy to see that it's finally protected :-) --Icarus (Hi!) 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Np. I've no idea why you didn't get any joy from WP:RPP - if a vandal is able to hop IPs and is attacking a specific article (or small group), then semi-protection is the standard response. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Puss In Boots

I was wondering why did you delete that article? It is about a film that will come out in 2011. What was wrong with it? Do you not like new users making articles? All I was trying to do is help... Somemoron 17:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)somemoron

As my entry in the log explained, it was deleted according to the consensus formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Yea it was a co-worker playing a joke on me i had just steped away from my desk Leapster 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


stop your abuse of adminship or you're gonna be sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klidasd (talkcontribs) 12:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

reblock or other action needed

You blocked yesterday At about same time the whole range got softblocked in leu of semi-protecting the three articles involved. The user in question has managed to escape the blocks due as he changed his IP-Range to (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to carry on. I am leaving this note with you, as I believe you already familiarised yourself with the background of the case and the other admins I know of who are familiar with it are offline. Agathoclea 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know how to do rangeblocks. Have you tried WP:ANI? If you ask for a block of the range, I'll endorse the request, and hopefully you won't be required to post a load of evidence and explanation before someone does it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Problem is that I can't yet establish the new range he is on. Agathoclea 14:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it just MSV Duisburg, Borussia Dortmund and Bayer Leverkusen? We may as well semi-protect them in that case. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
At the moment it is. Agathoclea 15:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, I've semi-protected all three. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. If you can give me a word of further advice. From tomorrow I will most likely be an admin myself. Would this case be conscrued as "personal" involvement or seen simply as me acting against a set of vandals. Basically I am asking if I can just act if they appear again or let someone else handle it. Thanks. Agathoclea 15:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If what they're adding is completely made up, it's pure vandalism and you don't have to worry about being "involved". --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Good - their edits look very convincing to normal RC-Patrol. I was more worried about the personal attacks that most likly will be resumed especially as their target articles are not available anymore, but we will cross that bridge when it comes to it. Agathoclea 16:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks - zzzzz. They'll be spotted for what they are, at least. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
School holidays are still another week in Germany. He's back. Agathoclea 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* Re-protected. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Didn't want to revert you on that. Agathoclea 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Plop art

The previous article on plop art (to which I made no contributions) was rightly deleted as lacking substance. But I thought the subject had potential as a decent article, based on my reading. So I've created a new plop art article. I believe it may be good enough to stay now. Any comments? MdArtLover 14:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - as you say, more substance than the deleted article, which was just a dicdef. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Whoever created the original didn't bother to do the background work. Thanks for taking a look. MdArtLover 22:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: mainpage vandalism

See THIS. Anchoress 15:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi I am just saying thank you for responding to my admin. question. You directed me toward many pages of information and now I know what to do. Thanks again!Loulou Lala 16:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Np, good luck. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you close this AfD?

I'm wondering why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crack cocaine and hip hop when I had asked for some extra time to try to improve the article. I had been discussing with the nominator ways that we could compromise and bring the article up to a quality that could be included in Wikipedia. AfDs are not a vote and I don't see how you could justify closing that AfD in the middle of discussion. Sincerely, --Howrealisreal 17:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Nevermind. I see what you mean. Sorry about that. --Howrealisreal 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


For making me smile with your edit summary here, and for working through a holiday to help keep Wikipedia going. --Guinnog 00:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, if I considered this work, I wouldn't be doing it. :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Lump of Coal

Best. Edit summary. Ever. But who knows, maybe I'll be getting that Red Ryder BB Gun after all. Thanks for the laugh... I needed it. Happy holidays! :) --Kinu t/c 00:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. I got my mother the new Meat Loaf CD, my sister a bottle of Jack Daniel's and I've managed to make a couple of people on Wikipedia laugh... I think I've done pretty well this Christmas for spreading cheer, hopefully Father Christmas is watching :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I do hope so. Hope it continues well for you; it is still Christmas Eve here, and I hope to follow your example of helping to make it a pleasant Christmas here. Your good humour is appreciated. Best wishes, --Guinnog 00:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Cooperative Research timeline at 911 attacks article

Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external timeline link matter. [28] Thanks. Abe Froman 17:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Done, see Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks for why. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A question

Hi, this is Tymek 17:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just one question about removing articles (because I wrote the one about Poland v Brazil (1938) game)

What is the purpose of deleting an article which does not violate copyrights and which gives actual, true facts? Isn't it just better to keep such articles, as there always might be someone who wants to know more?

This is not about my article only, this is general. Is there a rule in Wikipedia that recommends removing articles that are of no interest to someone or what? I just don' get it, why did people stick to this 1938 game? Besides, as I always say - some things may be insignificant to some, but others may care.

You are the admin, so this is why I've asked you (do not take it personally, there is just nobody else to ask)

With regards Tymek 17:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first I should point out that Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth - when people say "gives actual, true facts" alarm bells go off, so be careful of that. I expect the article in question was both, but it does need to be cited by reliable sources at some point, like all Wikipedia articles; currently, it contains no sources.
However, if an article is verifiable, there are still two reasons why it may be excluded. One is undue weight, i.e. the article may be verifiable, but the best version possible still gives too much weight to something positive or something negative. An example is Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, an article on a fairly unimportant legal case - but one that was embarrassing to a living person, so people who didn't like that person presented it as more important than it was. All the information was verified, but presented in a way that wasn't and would never be neutral. Consequently it was speedy deleted.
The other is maintainability; simply put, there are topics which are so obscure, the only people interested in them are people with axes to grind. An example is Gregory Lauder-Frost, where the only ones interested were a) opponents of the subject, b) the subject himself. If those are the only people writing the article, they don't cancel each other out and result in something neutral :-). That one was deleted after a number of AfDs.
None of these applied to Poland v Brazil (1938), or at least, there was no consensus that they did, but that wasn't deleted so I assume your question is academic. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

About your deletion of American Professional Football League

This was under Articles for Deletion, and the majority of users who voted said Keep. Why you deleted it against the consensus is beyond my understanding, and it is behavior that can get you desyssoped (Translation: you can lose your admin privileges). I will submit the article to Deletion review, and it will most likely be reinstated. If you delete it again after it is, I will contact the proper Wikiauthorities, and they will discuss whether or not to keep having you be an admin. Think about it, Tom Danson 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

American Professional Football League on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of American Professional Football League. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tom Danson 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52 26 December 2006 About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses" News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion of Falling Sand Game

Sam - I didn't agree with your decision to delete this article, but am not going to contest it via DRV. However, I found a mention of this game in the Portland Press Herald from April of this year; it's a two-paragraph article that is all about the game's addictiveness. Would that suffice for you to restore the article? I just don't see the problem with verifiability, since the existence of the game is easily verified, but now we have a mention in a major U.S. daily newspaper. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to see the article? --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Check your email. Thanks for the reply. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the email, I appreciate that. Unfortunately, one article usually isn't enough for notability; I had a look on Factiva, but there's little more than passing mentions in "what I'm playing right now" diary entries. The Herald article devotes the most space out of what I saw, and even that's not much. At least, it's not enough for me to overturn my own closing.
But I've got absolutely no problem with you taking it to deletion review; if they feel differently and decide that there's enough new evidence, well, that's the way it's supposed to work. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Its backlogged.Bakaman 18:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Beard liberation from

Sorry i cant seam to fond their site now either--Lucy-marie 13:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know section

I noticed most of the submissions are way off i thought entries have to be at least 5 days old? Nareklm 14:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's actually at most 5 days old. If an article has been expanded from a stub in the last 5 days, that counts too. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well this is what i mean click Nareklm 14:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see so old articles qualify as long they were expanded thats great i can work on old articles also thanks :-) Nareklm 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Np. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Gothic metal

Hi Sam, I just noticed that you unprotected this article last week. Over the last three days, Leyasu has been back at his revert warring through anons, and several users have been consistently reverting his edits. If anything, this page needs long-term semi-protection to keep Leyasu from coming back; the Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy does not give permission to do this explicitly, but some pages (e.g. George W. Bush) appear to be under long-term semi-protection because they would be consistently under attack from anons over a long period of time. Leyasu has been preventing other users from getting anything done on the Gothic metal article for more than a year. I don't consider myself involved in the content side of the dispute anymore, but I think that to be safe I should have another admin decide whether or not the page should be semi-protected again. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reprotected the article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that so quickly! --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This man is a...

...tit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC).