User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 101-200

Sysop

I have made you a sysop, per your RFA. Congratulations. Make sure you are familiar with our policies before using your shiny new buttons. Raul654 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Sam, a well-deserved promotion. Good luck with your new tools! Majorly (hot!) 20:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have put a general thanks note on my user page, in line with the instruction not to thank RfA voters individually. Sam Blacketer 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the revert of vandalism on my Sandbox. Cheers. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for the heads up. He had a half-dozen unreverted changes, so it seemed more recent, and I forgot to check the time. Congratulations on your recent adminship too. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits

From the fact that there have been so many one contrib only "delete" votes and from VK's passion generally, I have no doubt the afd is on some newsgroup. Heigh ho - there is simply no point. But please would you monitor his recent contributions until you get bored. He needs to raise his concerns on a central page or back off editing anything I have ever touched or both. Congratulations on your admin status. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

all the stuff was here already, i just linked myself rather than just be a name.

man I was confused, because the live video bit had me there i was trying to make a page, the the live video page went and deleated the names and I was worried, so i out it back up normal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AskTheTyrant (talk • contribs) 13:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

ok got it

ok so someone just added it and here is me thinking it legit lol.

oh well lets hope live video get around to sorceing it eh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AskTheTyrant (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Serra Sabancı

I have deleted the article on Serra Sabancı because the only notablity of the subject was as one member of a large board of directors. I don't think this counts as an assertion of notability. Sam Blacketer 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your deletion. You say that her only notability is being a member of a large board of directors. What does it mean? Would she be noteworthy if the number of the board members were small enough? She is a board member of Turkey's second largest company. Maybe you "think" wrong, think it over! Articles in wikipedia mostly start small. If you do not know much about her, undo your deletion.CeeGee 16:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to challenge this decision at a deletion review. I don't think that being on the board of a company is an assertion of notability, especially when she inherited the position. Sam Blacketer 16:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tírghrá

Thanks for your comments regarding its reliability. There's also been lengthy discussions here and here regarding its reliability (and the reliabilty of other sources), and what information can be reliably sourced from it. JzG provided an example that showed that the book may be unreliable, but I found clear evidence from the Sutton Project that clearly proved the book was correct and that McKittrick was in fact wrong, and also explained why McKittrick was likely to have got it wrong. A journalist is only as good as his sources and the information he is given, so there's no guarantee he's always right. Every person in the book is on the Republican Roll of Honour, and it stands to reason that the Republican movement is a reliable source as to who its members are/were. The book and other partisan sources aren't being used to source anything controversial to the best of my knowledge (and if they are I'll be happy to find mainstream sources or remove the claims), for example any claims of someone being shot while unarmed are never sourced from a partisan source. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mrs Emery

Thanks - I thought that was just random silliness. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 11:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Genie-soft Page

I’ve created a page with subject: Genie-soft and you have kindly deleted the page. i didn't post it because I work at Genie-soft or something. i posted it because i believe such company should be supported and should be very well known because it sets an example for other people about determination and well.

This is a third world company with international standards of excellence ... and they have an unprecedented record for being such a company in the Middle East. I've checked other companies' pages on your website, such as Symantec, Acronis, Panda, and others ... and i wrote in the same manner these pages were written. no promotional material was included and it was written in an unbiased way.

Could you please clarify the reason(s) why you deleted the page? Could you also please check the pages i mentioned above and compare the one i wrote about Genie-soft with them and find if there is any difference between them? Your prompt response is highly appreciated. Ayman bdo 12:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response.

Kindly note that one of Genie-soft's backup products (Genie Backup Manager Pro v7.0) was reviewed by PC World magazine on June 21, 2006 and was ranked as one of the top 5 backup utilities world wide. PC World conducted their review with their emphasis being on Price, Design & Usability, Performance & Reliability, and Features.

While GBM Pro v7.0 was ranked one level above EMC Retrospect 7.5 Professional (GBM Pro v7.0 came third and EMC Retrospect 7.5 Pro came fourth), EMC has a huge webpage on your website and Genie-soft doesn't.

A point to highlight here, is that Genie-soft is one of the very few companies in the Middle East that develops its own software products and sells them through the web, and targets the international backup and security markets. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ayman bdo 14:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response. Kindly note that one of Genie-soft's backup products (Genie Backup Manager Pro v7.0) was reviewed by PC World magazine on June 21, 2006 and was ranked as one of the top 5 backup utilities world wide. PC World conducted their review with their emphasis being on Price, Design & Usability, Performance & Reliability, and Features.

While GBM Pro v7.0 was ranked one level above EMC Retrospect 7.5 Professional (GBM Pro v7.0 came third and EMC Retrospect 7.5 Pro came fourth), EMC has a huge webpage on your website and Genie-soft doesn't.

A point to highlight here, is that Genie-soft is one of the very few companies in the Middle East that develops its own software products and sells them through the web, and targets the international backup and security markets. Ayman bdo 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please answer my previouse message? Ayman bdo 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish

So I guess I should start removing everyone from Jewish categories that aren't notable for being Jewish? 75.3.2.96 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claim is not a fact

I'm sorry but you just made claims that were not based on actual facts, maybe just stuff you wished was facts. You want to totally ignore the Protestant-Catholic issue because you are an Englishman that clearly is very racist towards Irish. 75.3.2.96 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

A second edit war is breaking out now, which I'm not involved in obviously. I seem to remember a while ago you made a comment something along the lines of Northern Irish shouldn't be used to describe Irish Republicans as it isn't how they would describe themselves, but I know it wasn't that recent and I'd rather not delve through your contributions to find it. Plus isn't it also true that Irish would refer to someone's ethnic group, and not their nationality? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Theorized continents

Hi. I do not think my points on the difference between the words were addressed, nor were the reasons for moving adequate. Could you please expand on your reason for closing the debate. Thanks, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

3rr

Hey, you should have blocked that editor. See here[1]. He had me blocked a couple of months ago for an innocuous edit on British Isles, and afterwards I realised that it was 4 edits in 28 hours. Got no mercy from admin. I have more or less left WP since. That's why I can't sign, I closed my membership. WP should make no exceptions for anyone, not even Jimbo. Rules are rules. 86.42.176.233 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one ever "has to be blocked". Blocks are never punitive, just preventive. Having established with Bastun that his conduct was a breach of the rule, which he was previously disputing, ensured that the disruption of Wikipedia stopped, and therefore any block would not be appropriate. Of course if he goes back to reverting then a block would be appropriate. Sam Blacketer 08:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion

Why did you delete my page? It was a valid part of Comicopia history, and had been up for at least 4-5 months already. JeffreyABoman 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

that post was not suppose to be taken as spam..

we are serrious about getting an article what can we do to get this done —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicswebpage (talk • contribs)

It wasn't taken as spam; I gave a detailed explanation to JeffreyABoman. Your seriousness about trying to get an article is commendable; however, not every subject is going to be suitable for a Wikipedia article. As I explained to JeffreyABoman, if you can make a claim for notability and provide references to multiple independent reliable sources making non-trivial mentions of the subject, then the article is suitable for Wikipedia. If you can't, then it may well be deleted. Sam Blacketer 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 26#Category:Date of death missing & others

Hello there, I'm slightly confused by your closure of the above, and other connected debates of the 26th. In closing you list the result as 'Repurpose to talk pages and delete' - it's the delete part that causes some surprise. The whole aim of this 'Repurpose' effort is to retain the category but to have it categorise talk pages rather than articles. This is as an alternative to deletion. Could you clarify your intent/meaning?

Cheerio, Xdamr^talk 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me a chance

wow, you deleted my article before I had chance to place my "hangon" tag...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmboogie (talk • contribs) 09:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

My talk page

Thanks, but no. I'd like it deleted so Google doesn't index it. My user page is fine to stay for the moment however. (Caniago 09:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

Castles in France

Following discussion (see here), it has been decided (wrongly in my view, but there you go) that the Category:Castles in France should be renamed Category:Fortified French châteaux. After the initial decision to transfer the contents of Castles in France to Category:Châteaux in France, you used AWB to efficiently transfer all the listed articles, approximately 175 of them. Is there any simple way of now identifying those articles and removing them to the new category, or will someone have to to trawl through masses of articles and identify each one individually? Emeraude 11:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. If the issue is just moving all the articles in one category to a new category, then AWB does that very simply. If the decision is to reverse the merger, then it is more difficult but still possible: If you follow this link you will see all the changes made. Copying the text of the page, stripping out all the extraneous detail other than the names of the pages which were changed, will give a list which can be pasted into AWB. Then set AWB to replace Category:Châteaux in France with the name of the newly demerged category. Sam Blacketer 12:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make it clear - it isn't exactly clear to me! What you suggest looked OK at first, but I'm not so sure because I think it would depopulate entirely the Châteaux in France Category.

The issue is to create the new category (Fortified French châteaux) which I can do. Then to get all of the articles that used to be in Castles in France but which are now in Châteaux in France (but not including those that were originally in the latter and which belong there) and recategorise them as Fortified French châteaux. It is not as simple as moving all of one category to another I'm afraid. I could do this by editing the Cats in each individual article, but 175 of them! Just thought there might be some more automatic method. Emeraude 12:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Saunders Lewis image

Hi Sam, thanks for the message on my cy.wikipedia talk page. I scanned the image from a small and rather grainy picture (hence its poor quality) in a booklet called Coelcerth Rhyddid, published in 1937 by Plaid Genedlaethol Cymru (the forerunner of today's Plaid Cymru). I'm not aware of any copyright problem or I wouldn't have used it. The photo is unsourced in the booklet. Please consider that we have very few images available for Welsh figures in general and it would be a shame to lose this. I'd appreciate it if you coulc keep me informed of the situation. Best wishes, Anatiomaros. 88.111.242.167 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am SamBlacketer on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/SamBlacketer. Thanks. Sam Blacketer 19:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost articles

Heya Sam! Would you be willing to release your writings (located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-04-23/Robdurbar) for use on wikinews under CC. 2.5? please reply asap thanx symode09

--talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify that is the Creative commons Atributation licesnes (not the share alike one, some people get mixed up which one we use, and Symode09 didn't say). Bawolff 11:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to strike through you false comment?

The comment you made here is totally untrue and has been prove so - are you going to do the decent thing and strike through it?--Vintagekits 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have continued to edit but not replied regarding this issue. If you are going to let it stand as is then that is fine but it just gives me a idea of how you work.--Vintagekits 08:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Harassing and accusing people who disagree with you is not likely to be a successful strategy with anyone. Sam Blacketer 08:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Can you take a look here please, and add anything you feel appropriate. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Will This Work - Do Anything Nice (D.A.N.)?

I rewrote the article to be more like an encyclopedia. Please let me know if this is more acceptable. I promise I am not trying to advertise and I apologize for an issues this may have caused. If you have any tips or advice I would love to hear them. Thanks for the help.

Do Anything Nice (D.A.N.)

[Do Anything Nice (D.A.N.)] was founded in 2001 as the Do Anything Nice club in Verona, NJ at [Verona High School]. It was lead by a group of dedicated senior students for several years. In 2005 a Chapter of D.A.N. was opened at Ithaca College ([IC D.A.N.]), located in Ithaca, NY, under the direction of first year student, Michael Unis. The charter of D.A.N was amended in 2005 to include the program D.A.N “Nationwide”. October 2006 D.A.N. “Nationwide” was changed to “D.A.N. America” and with the founding of the first ever international D.A.N. chapter located in Florence, Italy at the [Istituto Europeo], "D.A.N. International" was created.

The organization filed Articles of Incorporation and in January 2007, Do Anything Nice (D.A.N.), was officially filed with the State of New York, USA, as a non-profit corporation. On February 10, 2007 “D.A.N. America” and “D.A.N. International”, were united as “D.A.N. Global”. The “D.A.N. International” branch became “The Global Information Center”.

During March 2007 the program, “D.A.N. Kids”, premiered at [Howard B. Whitehorn] in Verona, NJ. “D.A.N. Kids” opens “[D.A.N. Global]” for the first time ever in the creation of a middle school division.

Links

[D.A.N. Gobal]

The official Do Anything Nice (D.A.N.) | International website: http://www.doanythingnice.org

Articles:

[The Ithacan Publication]

[D.A.N. Week!]

[Hug Station Day!]

Ouch you surely are fast

I was reverting my g12 speedy to put a redirect to Frances Reid, it seems the creator made a typo in the title. Anyway, the copyvio is at the best possible place anyway ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion reason

Hi Sam, i'm the creator for SmartPlanetCMS. Sorry to ask, can i have the reason why this article has been deleted and now in protected status while i already remove all the external link? Other same like article WebHat, IWebex_CMS, TribalCMS and etc is allowed to be published? Thanks. KeithChee 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Sands redux

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Blacketer, if you've a problem with how categories are used on Wikipedia, please find a proper venue for voicing these concerns. Disrupting the Bobby Sands article to prove a point is not only silly, but reflecting quite poorly on your intended aims. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_gender.2C_religion.2C_race_or_ethnicity.2C_and_sexuality, as well as the category itself, which includes lots of people that are members of the Church but are better known for other things. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to chip in here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimmothyjimbo

Hello, could you have a look at this user again I think they just made two deliberately incorrect edits to Henry VIII of England and Oprah Winfrey. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

Regarding your decision here, you made a mistake in your rational, you said "Miskin's edit there preserved the claim of Ariobarzanes' army being only 700 strong." which is not true, he removed the 700 figure alltoegther, he did not preserve it. Here is the diff, please review it. Furthermore, after I had filed that report, User:Miskin made yet another revert within the 24-hour frame-work, he reinserted the "ambush attack" claim [2], which had been removed from the page [3]. Now that makes it five clear reverts within 24 hours in violation of WP:3RR which clearly states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part....revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." In light of all this evidence, please re-review your decision. Keep in mind that an opposing editor was blocked for violating 3RR on the same page, so it's expected that the rules to apply to both sides equally, even though I do understand that User:Miskin has a lot of administrator friends who maybe campaigning for him behind the scenes. --Mardavich 05:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Miskin for 1 month. It was a partial revert at the very least, and clearly in violation of the spirit. He's been blocked 7 times for disruptive editing on this topic. Enough is enough. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

At 5 AM I was asleep, so unable to respond. I also can't predict what editors will do after the report, which included unambiguously breaking the 3RR. The block history shows a lot of blocks in 2005 and one in 2006, so I still think one month is excessive. Sam Blacketer 09:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think so too. Judging by user:Merovingian's comments, the block of 28 December 2005 may have been unjustified. This would make a total of only five previous blocks, four of which took place in 2005. Iblardi 11:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, still highly disruptive. Sam, there is a long, detailed discussion on this going on at WP:AN/I, you may want to weigh in. The 1 month has been dropped down to 1 week, since then, however a statement from you that he has clearly violated the 3RR after the report would be extremely helpful. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been opened for a case in which you have been named as a party. See WP:RFAR to offer your statement. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the difference between dbachmann's and my actions, was that he unblocked without consultation, which is explicitly forbidden per blocking policy. I blocked an unblocked user, which is not. Also, based on review of the 3RR case, I felt there was a mistake made in the decision, which you seem to support (with qualification on the length). Hence, being Bold. I'd appreciate if you mention something to that effect. If you don't want to, that's fine as well, I'll bring it up at Evidence assuming this goes through. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 11:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

First of all I didn't mess up your page on purpose, so please cut me some slack. Someone unfairly removed my report and I was trying to replace it. Secondly, you have protected the page with his edits. Can you please revert the last edit before protecting the page, as there is no consensus for his actions. Thank you. 163.167.129.124 12:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see The Wrong Version. I think you should give me some credit for cutting you some slack and taking up what was a badly formatted report. Sam Blacketer 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That link is really not worthy of a serious encyclopedia. I can see I am not going to get anywhere with you, so fair enough, you win. It is a shame because you leave me with very little faith in the system, but there you go... 163.167.129.124 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you obviously understood my report perfectly well, so why exactly should I give you credit for taking it up. I take it you are an administrator!? 163.167.129.124 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

'The Wrong Version' is a piece of wikimedia humour, which points out that administrators who protect pages are invariably accused of protecting the wrong version. However, protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Administrators don't have to act on badly-formatted 3RR reports. Sam Blacketer 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wilberforce Wanderers AFC

Sam, according to the deletion log, The Wilberforce Wanderers AFC was deleted by you on May 9th. Why was this deleted? Is it possible for you to restore it? 80.169.28.190 14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted under criteria for speedy deletion R1 (unfortunately I made a typo and put R2 in the log). This criteria allows speedy deletion of pages which are redirects to nonexistent pages. The page had consisted since 27 October 2006 of a redirect to The Wilberforce Wanderers A.F.C., but this page was deleted earlier on 9 May by The Rambling Man, apparently for not claiming notability. I encourage you to contact either him or Number 57 who tagged that page for speedy deletion. Sam Blacketer 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Clubs formed by a merger

As the person who started this category, surely I was within my rights to expect that I would be told about the discussion which occurred, in my absence, to delete the category. This would have given me the opportunity to give my reasons for creating it in the first place.

In future, if one of the articles or categories that I started falls into the category for deletion, surely it is only good manners to let me know!!

Please respond Dreamweaverjack 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not nominate the category for renaming, I only closed the debate based on the opinion of contributors to it; you may wish to contact the editor who did. I could only close the debate because I was an uninvolved admin who had not expressed a view. Meanwhile, your Watchlist is there to alert you to changes in articles and categories you start. If you think the closure of this debate was wrong, then you can raise it at a deletion review. Sam Blacketer 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lucky Louie CFR

I can remove the articles but I can't rename the category. If no one feels strongly enough about it to oppose it, can you rename the category as suggested? Otto4711 19:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually no-one can rename categories. It's done by creating a new category in the new name, and then moving the articles you want across to it. Once the old category is empty, it can be speedily deleted if it remains empty for a short time. Sam Blacketer 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to again be accused of doing something underhanded, and if I were to depopulate the category to create a new one then I probably would be. If you're willing to change the close to rename then it can be listed at WP:CFD/Working. Otto4711 22:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism?

Just wondering why this [4] is not considered vandalism?[5] The user rendered the page inoperable (can't revert the edit in fire fox) and added a Viagra link??? -- I already forgot  talk  02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

David Renton

Hi Sam. Sadly, one of the MPs on your user page, whose service goes back the longest, has died today at the age of 98. Dovea 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the news, very sad as Lord Renton remained very active in the House of Lords. Sam Blacketer 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have missed one of the "Class of 45" MPs. Francis Noel-Baker, Brentford & Chiswick. So there are four remaining after Renton's death. RodCrosby 11:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Trojani block-evading

Hi Sam, just a heads-up, Trojani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked yesterday, is block-evading and continuing his revert war on Illyrians. Please see Talk:Illyrians#Anon block evasion by Trojani. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Fakedgazette.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fakedgazette.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mais Oui and the categories

see my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Urgent_alert_on_Categories:_MPs_by_Parliament, and my comments at User talk:Mais oui!#Your_speedy_deletion_tags_on_Categories:British_MPs. This was an astonishing attempt to use the bots to achieve some huge-scale vandalism, and I'm very relieved that you were alert enough to spot it in time. Once I have recovered my breath, I'm going to take this to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gothic edit wars

I don't know if this is the place to put it, but since you were the one who blocked him the first time...now that Diluvien is back, he's immediately resumed his edit wars to enforce his extremely narrow POV of what does and doesn't belong into the gothic subculture, not to mention refusing to have any discussion that goes beyond "No, you're wrong, that's not goth." He demands sources that meet his approval before conceding extremely obvious facts like "The Cruxshadows are popular among goths," because according to his logic, goths cannot, as a group, like music that isn't gothic rock. (This despite the fact that that multiple bands classified as gothic rock have cited, for instance, David Bowie and even Fleetwood Mac as influences.) I'm exasperated and at my wit's end. --Halloween jack 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:H01377

Hi, I noticed yout warning on this user's talk page. Chelsea F.C. has been vandalised since. (And reverted by me) --Peter cohen 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User - Socialdemocrats

HI Sam. Brought this to you as you've dealt with this user before. His behaviour is getting worse and worse I'm afraid. Apart from the several edit wars he is running (both logged in and from a dynamic IP) the sheer bad language and disruption he's now causing is getting beyond a joke. Now he's taken to reverting Prime Ministers images to ones that are about to be deleted. Have considered posting warnings on his user page but he blanks it at regular intervals. Hoping you can sort this out. Thanks Galloglass 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you had blocked Socialdemocrats: this user has consistently been a dick since he joined - not in itself an problem, since many of us make mistakes at times, but most of us try and learn from them. Despite repeated friendly approaches and advice to read and abide by policy, it's all ignored. I've even tried asking on the Admin board for intervention rather than asking for a block (I harboured the suspicion that, having been given a load of warnings intially, Socialdemocrats may have been reacting to what he percievied as unjust criticism and could be brought around), and User:Mailer diablo kindly reset his talk page & left a welcome message... but we're rapidly back to square one. I don't have an axe to grind here, as I've never personally edit-warred with this guy... but to add my tuppence-worth to Galloglass above, and since you seem to have taken an interest, I honestly wonder if WP is the best place for him? EyeSerene^TALK 15:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem now of course is he's always done at least half his edits not logged in. Ah well at least he sticks to the same pages all the time so should make him fairly easy to spot. Thanks for sorting this issue out Sam. Galloglass 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just restored his user page again (blanked 43 times now by my count, with 4 since you unblocked him). It's entertaining if nothing else ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A naming problem

Hi Sam Please forgive me if I am wrong, but I have inferred from some of your edits that you may have a reasonable collection of Times Guides to the House of Commons, or other useful sources ... and I'm hoping that you may be able to help with a naming problem: Talk:Frederick Roberts (politician)#Name. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin (talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Referendums/Referenda

I understand what you are doing, and agree that we should be consistent with our spelling. However, the real world is not consistent, and we must respect that when we refer to real world events. A search and replace is therefore not a good way to tackle the problem. A case in point is the article Referendums in New Zealand, where you have changed several references to the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act of 1993. Please correct your edit.-gadfium 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are standardizing on the wrong version:-) -- Petri Krohn 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's inevitable. My natural inclination would be to use referenda, not referendum, but see Talk:Referendums_in_Australia#Referenda_vs._referendum, which leaves me willing to concede that the -dums have a case.

Another problem with the search and replace is that case is lost. See for example Auckland University Students' Association, where the beginning of a sentence lost its capital letter with the change. I've fixed this example.-gadfium 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason for standardising on 'referendums' was mainly the OED mention in Referendum#Terminology, but I also did an early check on which to use which showed that most references were to 'referendums'. I'm sorry I seem to have changed some references to the NZ Act of 1993. I did spot this early on and tried to avoid changing names of Acts, proper names, names of books and articles etc. I will do a recheck. Sam Blacketer 09:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Having had three of the things here in recent history, locally we term them referenda although I understand the other spelling may be correct in English, albeit it sounds like something the evil Noah Webster might have come up with to 'simplify' the use of the language and destroy its roots. --Gibnews 20:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO: People known by a middle name

I have just re-opened discussion on this issue, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Revisiting_people_normally_known_by_their_middle_name. I am notifying you since you participated in an apparently inconclusive discussion on the same topic in January 2007.

Your thoughts would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you commented, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir Walter Clarges, 1st Baronet, 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 09:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I wanted to make sure you are aware that I am grateful for your detailed explanation regarding the block and situation, and that I am moderating my actions in light of your feedback. Cheers! Vassyana 11:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann hari discussion

Hi Sam. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann hari page, which I know you've taken an interest in.

As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about.

This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR

81.129.156.202 12:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What matters in terms of the article now is what users are doing now, not what they have tried to add in the past. As I wrote on User talk:Vassyana, newspaper columnists exist in a field of controversial opinions with which many people are going to disagree. The job of this article is to summarise them as best as possible, and also include significant criticism of his stances which can be reliably sourced. The fact that an editor may have expressed their own point of view outside the article does not make their edits unacceptable, but they do have to forget their own view when editing.

The burden of proof for sourcing controversial material is on those who want to insert it. If an editor can't provide a reliable source then the material must be removed, and Wikipedia policies provide protection for those who act to remove this material. Indeed persistent addition of unacceptable material is disruptive and therefore potentially blockable. However, putting a case on a discussion page is legitimate.

The reliability of Private Eye is a difficult issue. Some sections of Private Eye are probably reliable enough for reporting accusations, although it should still be avoided if there is a better source. I would not regard the 'Hackwatch' column as part of this, but the more indepth sections like 'In the Back' and 'In the City' are certainly significant and reliable enough for Wikipedia to report what they say. I also remember writing an article about Anthony Courtney some months back in which accusations first published by Private Eye were significant in his career. It is difficult to see how that episode could be covered without mentioning them. Sam Blacketer 12:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks sam, that's really helpful. Could you claify to Felix-Felix that it's not on to insert Hackwatch claims into the Hari article? he is still claimign it is OK provided he makes it clear it's an allegation rather than a fact.81.129.156.202 13:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sam, I'm a little troubled by the personal attacks that Dave r is posting on multiple user talk pages about me, using quotes which are really out of context. He's put them on these talk pages; [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. I kind of feel this is like harassment, I normally laugh off dave's personal attacks, but I recently got a WP:BLP block from just such a smear, which was reversed [15]. I think this has to stop-what should I do? WP:ANI?FelixFelix ^talk 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

word

...to your invisible note on Deaths in 2007. good thinking. tomasz. 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin McRae

Cheers for that, though i don't think I was the one who posted the BBC article. Or at least I'm sure I wasn't the one! The only story I made reference to was the Sky News one. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardrandle (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, I've unprotected the article for now. More news reports are coming in confirming his death (example), so I'm letting the editors back in to update the article to reflect as much. --Cyde Weys 01:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Learntruck

Hi. As you've spotted, in the wake of your recent block of User:Learntruck, a new account (User:Toolsmain) has miraculously appeared out of nowhere to make the exact same edits to Diana, Princess of Wales. Coincidence? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And in the time it took me to type that, you've dealt with it. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 13:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I don't believe in that sort of coincidence! Sam Blacketer 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And now we have User:Angleaside... --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 13:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that editor/sockpuppet is reading my quite helpful and verbose information! Thanks for protecting it, hopefully this will solve it, lol. Looks like we have a conspiracy theorist, eh? ^Ariel♥Gold 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No sooner do you unprotect...

And here we go again with more sockpuppets: [16] and [17]. ~*Sigh*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Second Sino-Japanese War

I have repeatedly asked Kurt Leyman to use the talk page, which he refuses to do. I left 4 messages one his talk page, all of which he removed. It's not that I want a revert war. There's no other way to resolve a dispute if the other party refuses to talk. Миборовский 19:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BLPN page -adding Resolution template

Hi Sam, I just wanted to confirm that I closed/resolved the section concerning Tammy Duckworth correctly (my first time to do so). I went through the history of the BLPN page and it looked as if you have some experience doing this (For your convenience, link here). Thanks, R. Baley 23:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up. R. Baley 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On September 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hubert Duggan, 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobel laureates CfR

Should not your closing of this debate include standardizing the names - 5/6 editors commenting wanted this? I enjoyed Hubert Duggan btw.Johnbod 11:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right – sorry I missed that bit. I'll put them up on WP:CFDW. Hubert Duggan was another one of the nice surprises, when someone who appears to be a relatively obscure politician turns out to have a much more interesting life beyond politics - I've found a few of those, such as David Colville Anderson and Anthony Courtney. Sam Blacketer 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (Cfr). To me HD was rather the other way - I knew of him as a friend of Waugh but not as a politician. Johnbod 12:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Socks

Take a look at Special:Contributions/Solidpilot...[18] [19] Appears to be sockpuppetry. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems familiar --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Architecture of Africa

I answered you on my talkpage. Sadly, you protected the article without the tags. YousefSalah 07:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut pages from Lewis Carroll's diary

I'm confused. Your edit summary here refers to a Commons image. I just tidied up the Wikipedia image page Image:Cutpagesdoc.jpg, but I can't find any Commons image. Do you know what is going on here? Also, can you double-check that Image:Cutpagesdoc2.jpg is really a duplicate, as I think it is actually the second image on this website (likely the source of the images). Unrelated to that, I'm concerned that the original publication of these pages was fairly recent, so the Carroll Estate might still be claiming copyright on the material. What do you think? Carcharoth 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I came across Image:Cutpagesdoc2.jpg nominated for speedy deletion under criteria I1 (duplicate of commons image), with Image:Cutpagesdoc.jpg given as the image it was a duplicate of. However, the page also showed that the criteria for I1 were not met because the image was still on Lewis Carroll. Hence I changed over the image link on Lewis Carroll and deleted Image:Cutpagesdoc2.jpg.

Having now restored the deletion, it seems that the two images are identical; Image:Cutpagesdoc2.jpg is certainly not the second page (headed 'Liddells'). Sam Blacketer 09:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

CARLOS TERRES

no se por que no me dejan poner el documento, es solo un curriculum , mi padre es un artista y solo quiere compartir su trayectoria y que quien quiera pueda leerla y no solo por que ustedes decidan la borren, por favor primero leeanla gracias y espero pueda tener el servicio sin tener que rogar por el privilegio de usar internet

i do not know why you keep deleting the document, it is my fathers curriculum, please read it before you take any actions, the internet should be for all of us, not just a few with power, we want to share information, please let us do so, i dont know wath your job is, but you are not reading the document, there is no way you read all of it that fast, is only info, and we are not vandals like you say, honest people triyng to share info, maybe a little dumb and no so well trained in computers, instead of shuting me down please help me

sincerily yanko terres —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanko Carlos (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you very much, my father is very interested on hi being on you're site, he was hired by the government of california by the city of Brea, orange county, as the artist in residence, he was hired for 7 years, and theres also a street named after him on spain, in the city of irving texas theres a day on his behalf wich all the city celebrates, he is really soome one famous, end more in the USA and europe, not as much in mexico, i will get to translate his biography, to english, so it can be on different languages that way the users may choose wich to read, thank you for your time and have a nice day, tell me how or waht else i can do so his document can be on youre web site

thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanko Carlos (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann hari page

Thanks for your post on teh discussion there. Sam, is there anyhting you can recommend to resolve this once and for all? Is there a wikipedia mechanism to get a definitive decision on this? Obviously this could drag on for a long time...86.157.118.58 12:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your post Sam. You're right: I suspect Private Eye was trying to cover itself legally by printing severe criticisms of their own coverage. It shows that even they don't have faith in their own charges, or they would have refused to print such a stinging rebuke.David r from meth productions 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, 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 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Loansince

He's deleted the warnings that you and other editors have posted, and continues to blank his talk page even in response to a request for a civil discussion. I'd like to request a block, but I'm not sure how to do that. Thanks for your attention. JTRH 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, already seen it. He is on a final warning now. Sam Blacketer 19:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! JTRH 21:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Taunting

Please do not taunt a blocked user. Sam Blacketer 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He taunted me with the same words when I was up for a ban for life and nobody reprimanded him for that. But OK, I'll stop. Space Cadet 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of SqueakBox

Hi Sam. I've unblocked SqueakBox - no criticism whatsoever of your block which looks entirely fair, but I am persuaded that User:Mike D78 (who he was reverting) is in fact the sock a user banned for systematic pushing of pro-pedophilia POV in our articles. Given that reverting contribs of banned users is an exception to 3RR, there didn't seem to be a reason for the block to stand given that conclusion. Best wishes, WjBscribe 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sam Blacketer 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job :)

I debated pointing out exactly what you said in Shutterbug's WP:3RR report, but decided against it to avoid any escalation. Thanks for being so thorough. Anynobody 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Christians

Hello Mr. Blacketer. I added my comment on the AfD after following the link provided by the AfD message added to the list today by NawlinWiki. It appears that s/he nominated the article incorrectly, and as a consequence I erroneously commented on an old AfD. I am aware that List of Christians was recently nominated for deletion, and that the deletion went through. The reason for deletion given by the closing admin was "Issues of referencing and criteria were not sufficiently addressed by those arguing to keep." Thus, it was not deleted because such a list is intrinsically inappropriate for Wikipedia, but because the list in the state it was in was unacceptable, and none of the editors were stepping up to correct those issues. As I explained on the new list's talk page, I intend to address those issues, so that the new list does not repeat the same errors (lack of sourcing, lack of clearly defined criteria) that the original list had. I do not believe the current article meets the speedy deletion criteria you cited, since it is not a copy of the old list, but a new one to be built up properly from scratch. All the best, Nick Graves 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. It is early yet with this new list, and I think a couple of editors who are helping haven't understood what needs to happen with this list to avoid AfD again. I will try my best to steer things aright, in my limited capacity as a single editor. I will also try to find some extra eyes that can be spared watching the page closely. Nick Graves 23:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The list criteria is currently stated as "limited to Christians for whom their religion has been an important part of their public life or works." Does this seem exclusive enough to you? Nick Graves 23:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note regarding the 3RR report. There was some history to that situation and I'll admit that I lost my cool. Your words of advice were, and are apt. Sunray 14:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Geraint Davies (Labour politician)

Sorry, we got a few edit conflicts on Geraint Davies (Labour politician). I'm done with that article for now, so if you want to tweak it any further you should be safe.

I have removed the unsourced stuff about him having the busiest constituency office, because I have no idea how that could be proven. If there is a reliable source for him claiming that, then I guess the fact of the claim could be included and attributed to him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Stanley Evans, was selected for DYK!

On September 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stanley Evans, 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) 06:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ban becomes valid again

When sieving through the current socking scandal involving User:SqueakBox, User:Pol64 and two other accounts, I noticed that it was you who originally blocked SqueakBox for 48 hours here. The rationale for this block was thought to have become invalid, meaning that SqueakBox was prematurely unblocked, a decision that was proven faulty by this checkuser. My request is that you make SqueakBox serve the rest of his ban, or at least leave a note in his block log, showing that it was a valid ban (so future sanctions can be adjusted properly). Dyskolos 15:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It has not been confirmed that Squeakbox is Pol64. Bans are not imposed as punishment but to stop disruption. I am not going to reimpose it. Sam Blacketer 16:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not because I am not Pol64 and have no connection with the user either nor do I support his sockpupet antics. Dyklos has made what is a a third allegation that Pol64 is me within a week, the first 2 having been rejected. This looks to me like harrassment by pro pedophile activism suporters who are angry. Besides I was unblocked after it was confirmed that Mike D78 was a banned user sock. FWIW the reciord I stayed away from the paedophile articles and talk pages, as I said I would tot he unblocking admin, until the block would have passed, SqueakBox 18:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Pol64. It is related to a checkuser that cleared an editor who SqueakBox reverted of any connection with a banned editor. As this faulty connection was the rationale for SqueakBox's unblocking, it stands that SqueakBox did indeed infringe the rules on that day, and should serve the remaining 40 hours of his block. If not, it must be made clear in his block log, that the original infringement was found to be valid again, as only then can future sanctions be based upon his previous corruptions.

Please do not (attempt) to confuse the issue. Dyskolos 22:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sam, just so you know - checkuser evidence apparently indicates that SqueakBox and Pol64 are geographically unrelated. Dysokolos seems to be engaging in a bit of forum shopping here (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SqueakBox (3rd)). WjBscribe 22:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG, is this the Chewbacca defense or something? With this and the discussion at ANI, I can only be lead to believe that you're on the phone having a really good laugh right now.

Well done. Dyskolos 23:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Without being so coarse, my point is that it is not forum shopping simply because it relates to the same user. If the same user makes a string of completely unrelated violations, a string of complaints to different boards is totally justified, as it is necessarilly facilitated by the said string of violations! Dyskolos 23:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the reversion on my user page and the wielding of the hammer. I've grown weary of the silly vandalism and sproted my userpage. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 08:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 4 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Edwards, 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 01:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead velvet elvis

I suspected a sock yesterday but someone else closed that 3rr report before I had time to look at it. I ran a comparison of the two user's contribs using VoiceofAll's script and there is absolutely no doubt that we have a sock on our hands. I have therefore blocked elvis (can we say Elvis has left the buidling?) and reset Rogue Gremlin's block. I left a note on the checkuser case. I hope you don't mind but I had issued the block before seeing your note on the user page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. There wasn't any real doubt in my mind but if the checkuser confirms then it may be time to consider firmer action against Rogue Gremlin. Sam Blacketer 17:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No violation?

Let me point a few diffs out: 1) [20] restores a version reverted many times over the past few days (ex. [21]). 2) [22] is a clear revert to [23], which is again not the first time this piece of info was introduced into the article. [24] again introduced a version of the Austrian Empire heading. [25] introduces a quote removed several times before and as such is also a revert. That user is now introducing many edits into the article that are reverted by others, but he now operates on a long term pattern: i.e. day one he will insert claims A, B, C, D, E and F, which will get reverted. On day two he will introduce claims G-L. On day three, he will reintroduce claims A-F. He is rarely reverting other editors, but inserting many disruptive edits, each different, so that we run out of 3RR, while he skirts 3RR. With various new edits, and changing variants, he is destabilizing the article - which considering that there is a GAC going on is quite disruptive. I'd appreciate if you could review the case in more depth, as I am involved in it I cannot take administrative actions myself. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have had another look in detail and am still convinced this is not a violation of the three revert rule. You may find Matthead's approach aggravating and disagree with the contents of his edits but he is staying within Wikipedia policies and he is not editing disruptively. Sam Blacketer 11:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OperationSpooner user page

As you are not entirely happy, what would you consider the proper course of action? He's been talked to about his edits and his User Page by three admins speaking in tandem, trying to help him along. He simply dismissed them as not getting it. I would like to think the Spoon is just this utterly brilliant political scientist testing out the theories of intellectual anarchism on his fellow editors in Wikipedia, but frankly, he doesn't strike me as that detached.
As I am one of his favorite targets in the User Page diatribe, I am kinda staying away from that (Viriditas kinda cocked things up with his interference, reinforcing the idea that this sort of behavior was acceptable in the community). What else should I do? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the matter to the Administrators' noticeboard so that it gets a wider airing. Sam Blacketer 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

I appreciate your diligence in reverting vandalism on my talk page. Thanks. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		In recognition of your excellent anti-vandalism efforts, I award you this anti-vandal barnstar. Happy editing and keep up the great work! Lradrama 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated when I'm getting the heat from vandals! Sam Blacketer 19:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

SEWilco and 3RR

Your reasoning for "no violation" in regards to SEWilco makes zero sense with all the evidence, and it's going to make fixing the Killian wikis all the more difficult. This is the 2nd time you've helped SEWilco, an editor of no demonstrable interest in the Killian wikis aside from promoting and protecting the loony -- not to mention factless -- right wing agenda associated with the memos. Any more trouble from SEWilco and it's straight to ArbCom and you'll be named as a party. The first time you intervened could have been explained away by innocence in stumbling upon a complex revert war and not sorting things out properly. In the context of all the hostile anonymous IP and sockpuppet editors I've had to deal with since, this second intervention of yours along with your odd comments on 3RR now make you suspicious. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 22:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not honestly expect any thanks for not blocking you for what was a clear violation of the three revert rule. As you may note I'm in the UK and do not have any particular interest in supporting American political campaigns; that's why I feel confident in deciding on three revert rule reports which involve high-profile and intense US-based issues. If you feel I am not being neutral then there are ways you can pursue that. All I will say is that my honest advice to you is to stay away from filing an Arbitration case because not only am I confident that I will not be criticised by it, I fear that the result would be highly restrictive of your editing. Sam Blacketer 23:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that explanation was maybe reasonable the first time, but not now. Given your 3RR comments and all of the nonsense I've had to deal with, there is no reason to believe you. Sorry. But I won't go to ArbCom until I have enough evidence gathered, and I will look into less tedious options before then. -BC aka Callmebc 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from someone at Swansea University who wants to vandalise David Cameron

Wamker, knob conservative tosser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.1.200 (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Sigrid Thornton

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Sigrid Thornton worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DanielBC [_talk^contrib_stats] 10:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was just a glitch edit from AWB I assume, don't worry. DanielBC [_talk^contrib_stats] 10:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, don't know what happened there. I do try to check them as they go through and pop up on the preview. Sam Blacketer 10:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Disinformation page

I'm not sure whether anyone else has contacted you in regards the recent block you put on the Disinformation page, but it would be helpful if you could contact me directly so that I can give you some background. I'm not posting information directly in here because it's a delicate situation and I don't want to inflame it by humiliating those involved even more. My email address is josh at stain dot org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jportway (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion for non-notability protest!

Dear Sir, You have deleted a page I had only started to write for not being notable enough. I did not get a chance to assert the statistical support that you require. The subject was "Hussalonia" a pop band that is really quite interesting in its use of non copywritten music. The "Public Domain EP" by this group is hosted on archive.org and has been downloaded as of 10/9/07 some 35,222 times. You can find this by searching archive.org. This is just one of many albums released by Hussalonia. I don't know if there is any way for you to reconsider and undelete the article but I wish you would. There is indeed more to write. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zml (talk • contribs)

I have replied at User talk:Zml. Sam Blacketer 10:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup", "merging"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 16:39 11 October 2007 (GMT).

How about a little more info?

Hi, Sam. I just received the following note from you...

While I have held that you have not violated the terms of the three revert rule and decided not to block you, please do not think that continually reverting is an acceptable way of editing. The Winter Soldier Investigation is a highly controversial subject and it is very important to maintain strict neutrality when writing about it; if you need guidance from neutral people, there are plenty of us about. Please take care not to become disruptive when you are editing; Wikipedia is not a contest.

Could you please be more specific about your admonition against "continually reverting"? If I am reading this history correctly, in one edit I reverted the insertion of the word "allegations" from a paragraph while adding a source citation to that paragraph. I followed that with a simple (undo) revert after another editor wiped out the citation in what I assumed was an accident. Could you give a little guidance on how to restore the citation, and also on how to remove words that are not from sources, but are merely conclusions? Thanks, Xenophrenic 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. When I saw the source citation removed from the paragraph, I chose to assume it was accidental. That was as close to assuming good faith as I could get when I noticed it. I don't see any other explanation for the removal of a source citation, except to replace it with a different one - which was not done. I'd also like to point out that I had left the other editors edits intact and moved on to other parts of the article before you cautioned me against "continually reverting." You can probably guess by now that I feel your admonitions were misplaced. Xenophrenic 22:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Per your guidance, I have left a polite inquiry with the editor that made the inexplicable edits. I have also located the impetus that prompted you to leave a warning for me, and have added a notation there. Xenophrenic 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again, but could you have a look here when you get a chance? I might be requiring a little more of that guidance... Xenophrenic 20:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Didnt you get enough guideance from Arbcom? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Sam was on Arbcom, but I'll let you know after he's through. Xenophrenic 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have spotted that TDC also has three reverts over the last sentence in the lead paragraph. I will be informing him, but please stay away from reverting the page and continue to discuss on the talk page to try to reach consensus. The reverting on this page is excessive, whoever is doing it. Sam Blacketer 09:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

With every revert made by TDC, more of my edits are swept away. Simple edits like spelling errors or the removal of dead external links. When I undo the damage and then continue to make more productive edits, those too get swept away with TDCs next ever-expanding revert. Every significant edit I have made to that article is presented on the talk page for the article, and TDC has discussed none of them save one (and he is stonewalling on that one). With all of the edits laid out for discussion, he ignores the talk page and yet again implements a massive revert only a few hours ago -- reinserting dead links, errors, screwy punctuation along with deleting whatever new content he finds disagreeable. "...continue to discuss to try to reach consensus" you say? Would that I could. Xenophrenic 10:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Chet Jablonski

Mr. Blacketer,

You recently deleted an article on professional wrestler Chet Jablonski under the reason that it had been reposted from a previously deleted article. However, prior to its deletion, I had substantially rewritten and formatted the article as suggested by the templates on the page. Specifically, a request was made to establish the subjects notability and to wikify the page, which I did prior to its request for speedy deletion. This specific wrestler, at least at the time of my last edit, does pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines however I am able to provide additional references to satisfy verification policies if nessessary. 72.74.216.208 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Blacketer,

I appreciate your reponse and here are the main points I believe he passes as far as notability policies apply. As mentioned, I am able to provide references to meet Wikipedia's verification policies although I fail to see anything libelous in the article which violate Wikipedia's libel policies.

1. Chet Jablonski has competed, and won championship titles in, World Wrestling Entertainment's developmental territories the Heartland Wrestling Association and Ohio Valley Wrestling. He was, until very recently, the promotion's heavyweight champion. He has also made several PPV appearances in Ring of Honor and held the tag team title with Kasey James in IWA Puerto Rico, an major international promotion. (The person has received significant recognized awards or honors)
2. He has faced several notable wrestlers in those same organizations including Tank & Chad Toland, Matt Stryker, Johnny the Bull, Nigel McGuinness and CM Punk. All of these are considered notable competitors, specicifally noted for the exact same achivements Jablonski has attained. (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field)
3. Jablonski was listed four times in Pro Wrestling Illustrated's PWI 500, an annual listing of the top 500 professional wrestlers in North America. (The person has demonstrable wide name recognition)

I have previously written several wrestling related articles through Wikipedia:Afc using these very points to establish notability, although with numerous cited references. 72.74.216.208 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have now taken the deletion debate to deletion review with no recommendation; you may wish to comment there. Sam Blacketer 23:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Airdis Telecom

Sam i obviously have no idea what i am doing. help. i want to dispute the deletion of my article. i read the instructions but i can not find the article to put the [hang on] command in the proper place because it has been deleted. what am i doing wrong? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airdis-wiki (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. Sam Blacketer 23:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Citypixel

Hello Sam,

I was just trying to create a page for the virtual world Citypixel which is the only virtual world using "pixel art" and with the art being down by a very well known pixel artist. I posted it too soon and was adding a lot more content and when I pressed saved, it was deleted along with all the work I just did. Could you please undelete it so I can finish updating it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bailey007M (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I'd appreciate that, I had alot more to add —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bailey007M (talk • contribs) 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Zen

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. Epbr123 23:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

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.--Orlady 03:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Non Notable?

How can you call something with over 3,000,000 hits non notable? Zanusi 10:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rambutan

Hi, ST47 has undone your deletion; would it be possible for you to do it again? It was me who requested it originally, obviously. :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:India/Economy

Hey, why did you delete the page? We were going to use it as a sandbox to rewrite the economy section on India page. I had already put in some effort with cpediting and stuff. Please speedy undelete it. What I had asked for deletion was India/Economy, not Talk:India/Economy. Sarvagnya 18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Recreated; I will leave a note on your user talk page explaining why. Sam Blacketer 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)