User talk:Samuel Blanning/February2007

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.

The Deletion of Clock Crew

I know that this article has been deleted way too many times for most people to forgive, but I strongly suggest you rethink everything. This Flash Group is very well known, and you can't argue with that. The sources although mostly based on an article written by if I am not mistaken Tom Fulp the creator of Newgrounds, and some of the more serious historic info. from the CC's very own Clockopedia located at are forums. The ClockCrew is a very credible group of animators and have become a very large phenomenon. What I wish of you is to at least take a look and notice everything there is to know about the ClockCrew can be confirmed by hundreds of people. I wish you no harm and just ask for you to look at it more. AngryStudent 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires notability to be shown via non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. We've said that every time the article has been deleted or reviewed - which as you say is a lot - and it hasn't happened. A lot of the impetus to recreate the article appears to come from members of the group, and they need to understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting one's own organisation. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a Newgrounds animator myself (not part of the CC, mind you) and I believe the Clock Crew to be notable enough for their own article. And if it does not warrant sufficient information, perhaps it could be merged into Newgrounds or a fork thereof. But at the very least, redirect the article to Newgrounds. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 01:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? As for the option of redirecting, usually it's preferable to {{deletedpage}}, but there's no information about the Clock Crew in Newgrounds, so where's the justification for a redirect? Anyone here looking for information on the Clock Crew is not on the wrong page, they're on the wrong website. Redirecting them to a page with nothing about what they're looking for just creates confusion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

HA. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said independent reliable sources - although it is endlessly repeated in WP:N or WP:WEB that this is what is required. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

When you mention reliable sources, you are correct in a broader sense. However, Newgrounds itself (or at least the Clock Crew summary) seems to be rather objective in its description of the CC. There's no POV slant to be found. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, they make money off hosting their videos (via ads). They are not independent by any stretch of the imagination. Newgrounds hosting is mentioned in WP:WEB explicitly as an example of something that does not make something notable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Newgrounds may be subjective in some respects, like their own quality and such, but that does not apply to the Clock Crew. It's like how one might expect POV slants on Wikipedia since it's about itself, but not on Microbiology, since there is no reason to slant such an article that's irrelevant to our own agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flameviper (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I also noted that you're apparently online, in contradiction to your "offline" status. You might want to consider changing that. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OPPOSE?! WHY, I OUGHTTA-

I understand, it was justified, and at least you gave a coherent reason. Bummer, though. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

As I've noted at the deletion review for Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, the entire editing situation surrounding articles about Rachel Marsden is intolerable. I have tremendous respect for the ArbCom and am extremely reluctant to criticize people who volunteer to do a difficult job and make controversial decisions that will be second-guessed (as I'm doing here). However, I think the decision in the above-referenced case did not clarify the situation, but only muddied the waters further. As I explained at DRV, I see future, repeated recreation and deletion of articles related to Marsden under the princples set out in the ArbCom case.

I'm writing to Sam, Kla'quot, SlimVirgin and trialsanderrors to see if we can jointly submit a request for clarification on some points in these principles. I have a working page in my userspace at User:JChap2007/Marsden_ArbCom_request_for_clarification where I've started to work on some questions. Please feel free to add some if you want or propose different wording. JChap2007 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Salivaband.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Salivaband.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My own wiki

Hello, Sam. I recently created a wiki of my very own, the Flameviper Wiki. It is actually not as much a wiki as it is a traditional website. Anyway, I was wondering if you would like to create an account. I would have to create it for you, of course, since anonymous account creation is currently disabled, but I will send you the username and password. If you want account, you can just go on IRC and PM me, go to my talk page, or email me. Thanks for your time, and good wishes. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Aww, come on, Sam! You're my bud, and besides, I need some sysops I trust. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, why would you need more than one sysop? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason Wikipedia would want more sysops; suppose I allow new account creation or anonymous editing. And besides that, it gets rather lonely (and tedious) trying to do all the mechanical MediaWiki functions on my own, like edit-protecting 80 pages. Besides, who would be a better sysop for a new wiki than a competent sysop an another wiki? And as an added bonus, I like you. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't have the time... and besides, it's just you editing now, and when it grows to the point that other people are editing you can just pick sysops from among them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Honorary sysop then? And also, that makes my cwy. :.( ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 16:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Apprentice

Hello, Samuel Blanning/February2007 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 21:41, 10 Februay 2007 (UTC)

Even if I had the time and inclination, you'll see that my userpage has no place for the userbox that is apparently "required" for participants. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I need 202.76.162.34 to be unblocked...please unblock it now...I don't want to create an account under the address...

I suggest you use the {{unblock|REASON TO UNBLOCK}} tag, where "REASON TO UNBLOCK" is just that. Yuser31415 02:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay... (unblock|Unblock 202.76.162.34 please...I don't want to create an account under that address!)

Minor detail -- removed this page from the requests for unblock category, as this user isn't blocked. I haven't looked into this request, beyond that, but you should probably get in touch with unblock-en-l or offer some more elaborate and persuasive reason for the proposed unblock. Either way, not my talk page, here, so butting out unless I'm invited. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit late for that, you've already created an account. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Militant3121

Sam - would you be able to remove our discussion topic from your talk page archive of Oct 2006? Don't want it to appear in Google searches! Thanks. Militant3121

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

mikka

This user is blanking pages. I suspect from my interactions with him he has a political agenda. Since he is an editor, I am not sure how to handle the situation. I am not active in Wikipedia precisely because my contributions have been vandalized under the pretext of editing. Regards.

72.181.191.166

P.S. any ideas on how to stop him?

If you don't care enough about what I think that you have to spam a bunch of other random people, then why should I care about your problem? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon blocked. This is sock of indefinitely blocked LevKamensky (talk · contribs) who cannot abandon the idea of glorifying his father without proper references. `'mikka 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0

I believe you deleted and blocked the page, Web 3.0. I want to have it restored. I could launch into a description of why I want to have it restored (it's absence is a glaring omission when people come here looking for it and see that wikipedia claims it does not and can not exist - that seems silly.) but I guess my real question is what is the process for getting it un-forboden? Thank you for your time. Numskll 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not having an article on Web 3.0 doesn't mean Wikipedia claims it doesn't exist. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on me or you, that doesn't mean it claims we don't exist. However, neither I, nor you, nor Web 3.0 at the time of its deletion were subjects capable of writing articles on to the degree of verifiability and authoritativeness required of an encyclopaedia.

If you know of multiple reliable sources that authoritatively define the term (not just use it) beyond a dicdef then go to deletion review and present them. Even better is to present a fully-sourced and neutral article that could be moved into articlespace, which can be prepared in userspace (User:Numskll/Web 3.0). If consensus permits, the article may be sent for another AfD or undeleted outright if the evidence is strong enough. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. Numskll 00:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Article: "Raffles Girls' School Symphonic Band"

Dear Sir,

I would like to enquire upon he reason for the deletion of the article mentioned above and request to view the article and make changes so that the article may be resubmitted and then, perhaps, be approved by Wikipedia.

Having seen the debate for the deletion of the article, I have several questions to ask and answers to give as I feel that the deletion was not entirely fair. Firstly, the debate, which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raffles_Girls%27_School_Symphonic_Band, says that this school band is non-notable and that it is not significant enough to justify its own page. I disagree with this as this band has proven itself to be notable, by being one of the best secondary school bands in Singapore and having won countless Gold awards in the biannual Singapore Youth Festival and recently, a Gold with Honours in the same competition. This is very hard to achieve and other bands with the same awards are also mentioned in Wikipedia. The band also received a 3rd place as well as a gold in the National Band Competition in 2006. Other secondary school bands, such as Raffles Institution Military Band, have articles in Wikipedia and Raffles Girls' School Symphonic Band is of about the same standard as them, a very high standard. I believe that this article can be rewritten to better reflect the achievements of the band. Secondly, many of the people who wanted the article deleted also wanted the necessary information merged with the school page. However, this issue was not addressed and the school page has no mention of the band whatsoever. Since the page has been deleted, shouldn't the information be transferred into the school page? It was not transferred, thus many points of views mentioned towards delete is not counted as they all want it merged as well. The article has already been deleted, and the least that could be done is to transfer the information into the school page.

Also, I would like to request to view the deleted article, so that I will be able to see what has caused the band to seem non-notable and insignificant and perhaps, edit it and resubmit it, or find a way to get the article undeleted.

However, I am not sure with the undeletion procedures here at Wikipedia, so please advise me and help me through the procedures.

I await your reply. Thank you for all your help Sammiseah 08:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability as we use the term does not depend on the subject's achievements. We require multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject, to have covered the subject. If that can be demonstrated the deletion may be reviewed. If not, it would be better to see if some information about the band would be suitable for the article on the school, Raffles Girls' School (Secondary). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.205.165.157

I think you previously blocked this user User talk:71.205.165.157. Unfortunately he is now back on line and up to his (her?) old tricks. Perhaps you could block him again. Thanks SuzanneKn 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the report. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star

I was just wondering why there isn't allowed to be a page on him.

I really don't care if there is or isn't, I was just wondering the reason.

He doesn't meet the notability criteria, specifically there aren't enough reliable sources to write a verified article on him. 'Buzz' on Myspace is not sufficient. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

deletion of entry for SlavaNap

hi sam - i'm curious about why the slavanap entry was deleted. i see it was called non-notable, but this confuses me. is it the opinion of staff here that opennap in general is non-notable? i ask because i see there is still an entry for opennap-ng, yet slavanap, by conservative estimates, accounts for 2/3 to 3/4 of the total number of opennap servers.

207.7.221.24 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please give me the name of the article you're referring to - Slavanap has never existed - or it's impossible for me to tell. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

the article existed once, and is referenced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opennap

further discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=SlavaNap

Please reply in the same section. Click 'edit' next to the headline to edit a section.

Articles on Wikipedia need to cite multiple WP:reliable sources with the subject as a primary focus to satisfy notability guidelines. If you can cite such sources, the article can be recreated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

not sure what you consider "reliable" - but here are some: http://www.slavanap.org http://sourceforge.net/projects/slavanap2 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlavaNap http://www.download.com/3260-20_4-86534.html?pagenum=0&sort=1 http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13586

Reliable sources mean what it says in the guidelines I linked. None of the above count; the first isn't independent, the second and fourth are trivial, the fifth is a forum post and the third is us, and we can't possibly use ourselves to confirm that something we wrote is true. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, i am still curious. why did the article exist to begin with? what sources were cited originally? were those sources later deemed unacceptable, or was the original article included in spite of these guidelines? as for the fifth link, yes, it's a forum post, but only because that site automatically posts its articles as forum posts as well, for discussion. the original article is here: http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=884

perhaps if you could point me to the sources which are considered valid to justify the continued presence of articles about opennap and opennap-ng, i think we will both be able to see that most if not all of those same sources discuss slavanap as well.

The SlavaNAP article was created in 2004, and back then policy was applied less stringently. That doesn't prevent it from being deleted now. The Slyck post still appears to be a blog in function if not name, if you disagree try asking for deletion review. OpenNAP cited no reliable sources either, and I've now deleted it as it failed to even assert notability (see criteria for speedy deletion). If you know of any other articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy, feel free to nominate them for deletion. An article that violates policy does not mean that we don't follow policy, it usually means that someone associated with the subject created it and we haven't got around to deleting or improving it yet; see WP:INN. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. my main concern was for understanding the process. you've given me good insight into that, and for that i thank you :)

award

Balls of steel award

I hereby award you these balls of steel. You know why. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. Now I'm glad I dragged myself out of semi-inactivity :-). Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

You have got to let this run the whole way. There's a significant amount of discussion going on, and it doesn't even appear you looked at the talk page. Reverse yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But then I can't see my monitor. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're funny. Reverse yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What you did with Brian Peppers seems like abuse of WP:SNOW. --Dookama 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Snowball Closing of Brian Peppers DRV

Undoubtedly current consensus at the time you shut it was to endorse deletion, but I feel that it did not qualify under WP:SNOW, and should at the least have stayed up for a full 24 hours. Anyway, have to dash now, but please reconsider.

Cheers, Dave 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sam, Brian Peppers isn't even mentioned on the page that the article now redirects to. That the page should not be recreated is pretty clear, but what should be done about it is nowhere near decided. Some want it blank and locked; others want it redirected to any of several different pages. The volume of discussion is immense, but it's actually getting somewhere. Please reopen the DRV. JDoorjam JDiscourse 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty simple to me. If content on Brian Peppers becomes stable at that list, we can put the redirect back (I've deleted it for now). That's a simple black-and-white decision and doesn't require reopening the debate. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn';t even weigh the damn arguments. It's hardly simple unless you're willing to ignore the entire situation. You're way, way out of line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I noticed that you created the redirect (which you deleted when you realized that the target no longer contains information on Brian Peppers) because this was "preferable to a self-reference." There's no need for either. The deleted article is protected from re-creation at WP:PT. The red link can safely remain. —David Levy 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a really unhealthy way to close this, Sam. There's a lot of discussion still going on, and slamming the door on this before clear consensus has been reached will simply push this discussion onto a talk page where this will be pushed back and forth without a mechanism for ending it. Closing this simply doesn't solve any problems, but certainly creates some. Please renew the DRV. JDoorjam JDiscourse 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(cross-posted to ANI; edit conflict) Pace badlydrawnjeff (to whom I directed some remarks on the talk page of the DRV as to which I would welcome feedback from others), the consensus against re-creating the article is overwhelming. Personally, I would prefer retention of the outright deletion over redirecting to List of Internet phenomena, in part because the "People" section in that article is itself a WP:LIVING/privacy/notability horror show that needs substantial attention and clean-up. But I suppose we should leave that for another day. Newyorkbrad 20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to weigh arguments, the psuedo-IDONTLIKEIT arguments need to be abandoned. The overwhelming consensus regarding people's "notability" was reached, the overwhelming consensus regarding verifiability was reached, the BLP issues were nonexistent. Frankly, as noted, there were few, if any, legitimate "keep deleted" arguments presented by this point. Thus making the early close in that direction even more abhorrent. Frankly, Sam should reverse himself or resign the mop - he has not shown even a shred of good judgement regarding weighing arguments, consensus, and our basic policies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't going anywhere else. This was a standard snowball close of the type that has been done hundreds of times before. Nothing is different. If anything this is one of the least significant discussions to require an early close. Unfortunately Jimbo's mistake of inadvertantly setting a 'Brian Peppers Day' has allowed some stupid form of build up, but we aren't and I'm not here to pander to an audience. Now I'm going to go do something else. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reason, you are missing the significance of this article to the reputation of wikipedia as a whole. For wiki-skeptics this is further ammo to show that we are undemocratic censors, having only a pretense of fair and open debate when the cabal had pre-decided the outcome. I don't suppose you have discussed this with Jimbo have you? 4kinnel 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There may be some valid concerns about the closing of this DRV, but 4kinnel, you have mentioned none of them. You have mentioned cabal, censorship, and even Jimbo, 3 of the favorite complaints of trolls; but failed to give any reason whatsoever why the closing of this DRV was out of process or incorrect in any way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem - the debate was closed after only 11 hours, the majority viewpoint was not held strongly enough to invoke WP:SNOW and the admin espoused his own personal views in the matter in closing the discussion. How's that? 4kinnel 18:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This deletion review was about more than whether to recreate it, it was about what to do with the space itself. Should it be redirected? salted? other? That's where snowball deletions are not supposed to be used, and this is why I ask that you reconsider your deletion.--Wizardman 21:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning. Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done

〈REDVEЯS〉 awards this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar to Samuel Blanning for making difficult but correct decisions and sticking by them.

A tip of my hat to you, good sir. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

the "new" WP:ROUGE flag

Indeed. In case you don't have a copy of the new flag, here you go. Well done. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV for article you salted

A deletion review has been opened for an article that you salted. Please see, and opine at, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22#Jeffree_Star. GRBerry 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another page on Montemagno

I would like to add a page on the medieval village of Montemagno (Calci, Italy) but there is already one on Montemagno (Piemonte, Italy). There is also a Montemagno (Lucca, Italy), and certainly more. How do I proceed? Or, in other words, if someone with more skills than me create a page on "my" Montemagno I'll fill inn the rest. Also, if you like, you can view this as: If this isn't the proper place to ask this question, where should I have done so? TaSK 23:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Create your page at Montemagno, Calci. The other pages should be renamed accordingly and should be disambiguated - if there's only two they can just link to each other, if there's more than two of them, they need a separate page listing all of them (see Birmingham (disambiguation) and many others for an example).

I'm a little confused as to exactly how many Montemagnos there are, though - I can find Montemagno, which says it's in Asti, but no pages for Montemagnos in Lucca or Piemonte. (I know nothing about Italian geography, btw, so tell me if I'm missing something.) If you list all the pages we have on Montemagno then I'll know exactly what form of disambiguation is needed.

As for your second question, you can always get help from the Help Desk. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is only one page on Montemagno (Asti), but there should be one on Montemagno, Lucca, and one on Montemagno, Calci. I'll create the pages and then we'll see. Thank you TaSK 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Now there is a page on Montemagno, Calci. Two questions: What do I need to do so that searching for Montemagno will give a list (or whatever) of the different Montemagno's. And, second, the URL is ugly with the %20 etc. Advice is appreciated also here. Thanks again. TaSK 23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Award

I feel you should be nominated for the www.meatspin.com or www.motherman.com award. This is to an administrator who is completely stupid, inept, incompetant... well you get the picture. Long story short, you're all that is bad about Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.78.254.85 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I think i was cruel before: you represent all that is bad about wikipedia. It's full of narrow little administrators like you who delete everything you don't like, blast the word "troll" around like it is going out of fashion. Learn what the word means before you label someone as one, and pick better names Blanning. Sockpuppet and troll aren't clever, and it's not helping the situation. So Blanning, I apologise: you are not all that is bad about Wikipedia: you're just the tip of the iceberg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.78.254.85 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Disney Wizards

Yes, of course, that was the right thing to do. Sorry to distract you with the speedy tag. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can Akalin

Delete it please, there's no such player. CanbekEsen 01:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, since a Google search turned up nothing and there were no sources, but others might insist on an AfD to make sure. I'm not one of them though. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. CanbekEsen 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link

The link you removed at Pipe was not a cross-namespace redirect. It was a valid link contained within the required selfref template. It was not a redirect. I need you to reinstate it so I can figure on what's wrong. --Seans Potato Business 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I should have just relinked it to Wikipedia:Piped link rather than removing it entirely. Fixed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I was doubly confused when I determined that I had a) made an incorrect link, and then b) my link was gone on some other grounds so I couldn't check it. I had to check my edits to see how many links I'd made (just the one)! My mind is going. I can feel it... --Seans Potato Business 02:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

DrV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Swastikas in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stbalbach 05:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

DR of ASCII comic

An editor has asked for a deletion review of ASCII comic. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  Grue  07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Elkan Abrams

As I commented before about the listing of books being blatant advertising, if this is the case then all books should be banned from wikipedia. This would include the listings for Harry Potter, Warriors, Stephen King books etc. There cannot be a double standard when listing information about books. By choosing to delete the entry for Elkan, you are censoring and thus in your own personal opinion determining what is or is not suitable for the internet. Anyone who benefits personally from a listing on wikipedia would be considered advertising, including scholars who post references to their articles etc. If simply posting the name of the main character of a published book and the authors is advertising, then please tell me how complete descriptions of books are any less advertising and how you would suggest I list it so it is not immediately deleted as advertising? Otherwise I would expect to see other books such as those mentioned above deleted. Please explain! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elkan Abrams (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see our notability guidelines for why we only include books (and other subjects) that have been covered by independent reliable sources, and our userpage policy for why advertising is not an acceptable use of userpages. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Snowball clause

You know, the snowball clause is almost always controversial. I certainly hate it when people use it on me. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Only among a minority that had been looking forward to a spectacle. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star

Sam, please see my comments on February 22's deletion review. I hope they make interesting reading and something to cite next time the article is discussed at DRV - if it is discussed that is! --sunstar net^talk 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While it's always good to explain things as fully as possible to those who don't yet understand, this article has been nominated a very large number of times - possibly the most frequently of any recent article where the numerous nominators weren't just trolling - so I'm not sure it'll get through. Needless to say I'm of the same opinion as you in the DRV, was there any reason why you asked me in particular about it? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• No particular reason, just a response for you to give to people who list it at DRV frequently. Anyhow, I appreciate your work on DRV, and you did the right thing deleting Brian Peppers. Keep the good work up! --sunstar net^talk 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

William Sledd

What right did you have in deleting the William Sledd article? A decision was never made.75.89.17.161 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The decision was made here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Sledd (2nd nomination). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

Thank you for attending to Bogdanov Affair. I notice that you applied a Bogdablock to Stern (talk · contribs). One aspect of this troubles me: looking at the contribution histories for Stern and Bester (talk · contribs), I see that both of them were inactive for considerable lengths of time before coming to the Bogdanov article (since 2 August 2006 and 3 July 2005, respectively). Stern used a couple typographical mannerisms, like "Cqg" in this edit summary, which remind me of known sockpuppets. Bester's change is also very reminiscent (many identical turns of phrase) to last year's sockpuppet edits (example). Do you think we're seeing old accounts being hijacked? Anville 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm in no doubt that it was a Bogdanov sock, the edit summaries are very distinctive and the edits just confirm it. The accounts could have been hijacked or given to the sockpuppeteer willingly - it doesn't really matter, because sockpuppetry of this obviousness would justify blocking even without the Arbcom ruling. I don't really care what exactly lies behind it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Seeing accounts stolen bothers me more, somehow, than seeing new ones created. It means, I guess, that people watching the article for sock edits might have to pay a little closer attention to the contribution histories (but that's not so difficult). The fact that the vandalism is so repetitive and predictable makes it much easier to detect, of course. Anville 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It continues, with a user named Tron (talk · contribs) (not active since February 2004). Anville 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just keep rolling them back (no explanation necessary). Report them to AIV if I don't block them first, it's weird but still pretty simple. I've created a long term abuse entry (shortcut WP:BOGDA) so you can quickly link it in any reports. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just posted a clarification request for the ArbCom, suggesting that they amend the enforcement rules to incorporate this new behavior. Anville 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Commented on that page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)