User talk:Samuel Blanning/June2006

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I told you to stop reverting my edits.

I'm the fucking king around here. Revert my edits again and I'll fucking sue, (Personal attack removed). --59.13.220.92 11:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

HAHA (Personal attack removed) I JUST GOT ME A NEW PROXY. I TOLD YOU YOU COULDN'T STOP ME. STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM MY ARTICLES (DD-WRT, Sveasoft, WRT54G) AND (Personal attack removed). (Personal attack removed). --200.123.130.42 11:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

YOU JUST CAN'T STOP ME! (Last Measure removed) :) --67.86.57.116 12:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

lol-ocle

*monocle* :) Syrthiss 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It couldn't last...

My page and others have been hit by User:Irate again, under the unsubtle guises of User:GrahamPP, User:84.9.193.230, User:84.9.210.112 and User:87.75.131.146. I'm got an incredible amount of stuff on in real life at the moment, so can't keep a close eye on things - can these IP's be brought under the existing ban? Many thanks in advance for any help that you can give. Aquilina 11:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All blocked. If he keeps coming back with new IPs I would recommend asking on WP:ANI for another rangeblock. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I spotted you were about, and I needed somebody who knew the case history as it's a long one to explain each time he comes back! If the range block needs redoing or extending I'll go to AN/I though, and let Prodego and Jayjg know as they helped out last time. Thanks once more, Aquilina 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

AndrewBourke

Please look at the changes I've made to User:AndrewBourke. Hopefully the sockpuppet won't revert the changes before you read this message. --Tokachu 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No objection here, though personally I would add the sockpuppet tags to the open proxies and add {{sockpuppeteer}} to User:AndrewBourke. It's usually fairly arbitrary whom you label the 'original', and labelling the username instead of the open proxy number makes tagging sockpuppets easier - it's easier to remember "1=AndrewBourke" instead of 1="49.94.69.365" - I made that IP up because, proving my point, there's no way I can remember what the IP actually was :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: The "anonymous" vandal is at it again (as I imagine you know). He's in clear violation of the Wikipedia harassment policy, as shown by his edits here. Is an edit block on 62.20.102.128/25 possible? --Tokachu 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be using open proxies with loads of different IPs from different ranges. I've just semi-protected Sveasoft and WRT54G from editing by new users. I'm also about to put a report on WP:ANI, if you think a range block will help you could add a request there - I don't know the technicals behind range blocks myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

147.114.226.173

is a proxy server, blocking it to prevent User:ZoeCroydon from editing will cause other users to be blocked during their working day. (Perhaps this is a good thing).

Paul Tracy_|\talk 22:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking work IPs, in my experience, causes much less collateral damage than school, university or library IPs - office workers have much less free time during the day and they aren't naturally attracted to Wikipedia as a research tool. The IPs have previous contributions that aren't related to LBC, but none since that campaign of vandalism and trolling began - and that's not because Croydon's been getting them blocked almost continuously. They were unblocked for many weeks while Clive Bull was full-protected and Croydon was limited to venting the occasional spleen on the talk page. Even so, there were no non-Croydon-related edits.

So far I'm not aware of anyone complaining of being blocked at the same time as ZoeCroydon. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Haditha incident

other half of this conversation is at User talk:217.235.215.177
Please help me get Aiden to discuss the matter instead of throwing around template warnings. See Talk:Haditha_incident#Possible_Speculative_Reported_Statements. Also, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Haditha_incident. --217.235.215.177

Sock?

If it matters, I believe FruitsAndVegetables133 (talk · contribs) is now FreshFruitsRule (talk · contribs) Ardenn 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads-up

Considering your mediation edit "removing a spurious accusation of vandalism from an uninvolved, anonymous party - sorry for delay, will give a full response later today".

I'd just like to point out this edit, which includes the same IP.

RandomP 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask it about him about it on his talk page and restore it if he confirms that it was him. Not that I particularly want to, as it's not a productive comment, but it will have to be dealt with instead of hidden. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

ACME Auto Thanker

LoL. Did you make the ACME Auto Thanker or did someone else make it? It's really hilarious! G.He 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did make it :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, you ROCK!

Thanks a whale, dude! Now I can edit!

PS. I'm probably going to be a sysop someday. In fact, I'm nominating myself for RfA right now :)

User:Flameviper12/sig 15:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries and Siggys

As I mentioned before, I'm running (or considering running) for sysop. THus, I have to push down my vandalism and move forward into a new age, one of reverts, admin-notifications, and helpfulness. You're an admin...I was prowling Recent Changes recently (to beef up my edits and to prove that I AM not just a useless crap), and I chose to hide logged-in yusers and only main namespace. I discovered something rather bothersome; IPs never bothered to summarize their edits. I can understand not pputting an edit summary on vandalism, but I don't get not summarizing anything. It isn't really that hard to add the summary "fix grammar" or "new section". So, I was wondering...could you notify people of that somehow? It's a lot easier to weed out vandals when it's obvious that they're vandals. Perhaps on the Main Page (if only ffor a few seconds)...? I understand that vandals would realize to make misleading summaries, but there could be a person who checks the summaried edits. Not it! Anyway...thanks for your help and consideration... Flame-viper12 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think if edit summaries were advertised, you'd get as many vandals using them as regular editors. And vandal edits with misleading summaries are, in my view, more bothersome than good-faith edits with no edit summaries. But that's just my opinion - it might be worth making a suggestion on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

By the way, you need to subst your sig, not transclude it. See WP:SIG#Transclusion/template. Part of the reason is unnecessary server drain, but the biggest is that anyone could go to the page where your sig is and edit it to whatever they wanted (for the sake of WP:BEANS I won't mention any possibilities here). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I want it transcluded. The reason is that I sometimes make a joke in my sig (e.g. Flameviper12 on Wheels! or Flameviper12 is Communism) and it looks a lot better if all my sigs are changed. Thus, if I decide to change my sig, all my signatures on all the talk pages I sign will be consistent. Thus, perfection. Flame-viper12 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. And... {{User:Flameviper12/sig}} takes up a LOT less space than the entire thing, especiall if I make it complex. Flame-viper12 13:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You could also easily find that every page you post a comment on suddenly becomes 500 full-width images of Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg. (I said I wasn't going to WP:BEANS, but apparently you don't appreciate how open to abuse transcluded sigs are. I have substed every one of your signatures on my own page just in case.) Every time you leave a message on someone's page, you leave a link to an extremely tempting target - especially if you were warning them about vandalism or something similarly confrontational. I strongly urge you to subst your sig. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg is but I don't think I really want to find out. I hadn't really seen that particular implication. Thanks.

File:User-Flameviper12.PNG

~ Flame-viper 12 11:42, 13.06.06

Sam you are!

Netscott loved that little poem you shared with us re: censorship sham! Thanks for the day brightener. :-) Netscott 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tekkin58 request for unblock

His IP address is 156.63.113.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

NP :) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If smaping is a blocvkable offense this should apply

[1] (not the wikipdia edit but the e-mail campaign. It is not his first. In the past he e-malied admins to block me (several of them mailed me the e-mail) Zeq 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any action against him for off-wiki activities that I can't even confirm actually take place. Try the admins he emailed or WP:ANI. I have asked Homey to respond to allegations on his talk page instead of removing them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Sam

Sam - check Moshe's talk page. I responded to him there prior to removing his offensive allegation from my page. Homey 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam, here are the responses I posted to Moshe's page regarding his allegations. I did so prior to removing them from my page. Do you have a problem if I remove his personal attack from my page now?Homey 21:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

SmartCode Corp.

Hi Samuel, Regarding SmartCode Corp. - there are many articles about them and they Notable according to WP:CORP

RFID Journal (a crediable source in the industry):

http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2296/ https://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2295/1/2/ http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2250/1/1/ http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/670/1/1/ http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1869/1/1/

CNN http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/05/22/rfid.retail.ap/index.html

Information week http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=54201330

Network World http://www.networkworld.com/weblogs/applications/011968.html

DC Velocity http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/rfidww/rfidww20060503/rfid_5centtags.cfm

RFID Gazzete: http://www.rfidgazette.org/2004/11/index.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SC Web (talk • contribs) .

The consensus at AfD was that this was not the case. If it seemed to me that the cleanup job had changed people's minds, I might have given less weight to those editors that argued for deletion before the cleanup. However, in this case several editors argued for deletion even after the cleanup, two of whom explictly showed that they had taken it into account (Savidan and Zaxem). There was a clear consensus for deletion and I had no reason to disregard it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There were also the ones that have changed their vote after the Cleanup - one of them OnPatrol is acctually the one that put the advert tag and he had requested to Keep the page.

Since it's a Notable entry what is the problem to keep it? SC Web 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

At the end, the nominator carries no more weight than the other people who contributed to the discussion. To disregard the supermajority for deletion, I would need to believe that almost everyone who argued for deletion did not read the article after it was cleaned up, and if they had, they would have almost certainly changed their opinion. The editors who came in after the cleanup gave me no reason to believe that this was the case.

The consensus was that the company was not notable enough to merit an entry in an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for unblocking me! TorenC 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

NP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AIV blocking

Thanks for responding to 196.xx.xx.xx; he's been warned before for inserting links to (presumably) his site (see [2] for example, coming form a different host in the same subnet), so I reasoned that test4 would be appropriate. I hope that's in order. dewet|✉ 23:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. In that case I wouldn't even have bothered with a warning myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lithpiperpilot

Works now. Thank you Danl 19:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

Thank you for unblocking 204.8.195.187, the school district's IP address. Now I'll be able to edit Wikipedia when I have access to a computer! The end of term is coming up anyways (around June 16), so after that you don't really have to worry about vandalism. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NP. Ah, end of term... almost as much of a holiday for us as it is for the kids :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Clever rebuttle on User_talk:WoodDaver. Props. --mboverload@ 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Much deeper than you thought --mboverload@ 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, seen it :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I would recommend leaving the troll alone at this point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's all done now. This is the first time I've encountered somethign like this. Wow, Wikipedians are as freaky as the people I meet in real life! =D --mboverload@ 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, nice working with you. I'm on IRC alot and hope to see you in the future. --mboverload@ 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

transwiki - who does it?

Question about the slating procedure transwiki - who is responsible for doing it? Is it an admin thing, or should I do it (as I nominated it for AfD transwiki)? Thanks. Girolamo Savonarola 13:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly do it. See m:Transwiki for instructions on the process. The only thing you can't do is delete the original page - to get that done, once you've moved the page to Wikibooks, add {{Db-transwiki}} to the original article at Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for your vote in overturning and undeleting my recently removed Heinen's article. I don't mean to repeat myself, but I just feel as if very few people have considered what I said fairly or carefully and I thank you for doing so. As a new Wikipedia user (we all have to start somewhere), I did not feel welcomed to the community and this was the reason for my anger (and therefore SHOUTING); I had put so much time into defending something that became somewhat precious to me and it was taken away quickly and unreasonably (something a bit confusing and stressful for a new Wiki user.) But anyways, in regard to the article itself, I left out quite a bit of information that I will be able to fit in correctly if I am given the time. I had some questions about copyrighted images and how to get copyright information/ get the right to use these images in my article, etc (which I can probably find in Wikipedia I guess), but it seems rather complicated. Any help would be great. Thank you again for your suppport. Bluebul1989 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by User:Raphael1

You claim, that I recreated the Wikiethics proposal in my user space is wrong. I copied User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics before User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics got removed. Raphael1 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The second time something gets created, it's been recreated. I never said anything about the deletion of the version in Rgulerdem's space, only the deletion of the version in your space. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Blanning, while your commentary relative to Wikiethics is essentially true, the proxy behavior demonstrated by User:Raphael1 applies moreso to his creation of Wikipedia:OURS on behalf of the banned User:Rgulerdem. Netscott 17:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'm less familiar with OURS, having mainly seen this from the DRV angle. But I still thought the discrepancy between "a few minor edits" and putting something in your userspace interesting. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

Block

Your block on User:Lightoftheworld seems most unfair. Are you suggesting that people can freely come onto Wikipedia, deliberately and provocatively break UK laws even after being constantly told about it, cannot be then told that if they continue to do that it may result in legal action? It is not clear here that Lightoftheworld himself was actually contemplating anything of the sort as he is unaffected. It would appear that he was attempting to make it absolutely clear to the offenders their precarious legal position. That is surely different to a personal threat?. You as an intelligent individual must be able to see the unfairness here. Sussexman 18:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. However, policy and precedent is very clear: those who make legal threats are not allowed to edit the encyclopaedia, to discourage intimidation of users and to prevent those making the threats from harming their case. If he wants to continue editing, he can withdraw his threats and he will be unblocked. If he does not want to withdraw them, and he does believe that illegality is taking place, then it is surely his duty to report it to the authorities. And he cannot possibly expect to participate in collaborative editing with a user that he is trying to get arrested. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thw debateable point is surely whether he himself is trying to get someone arrested or simply warning someone they are breaking the law and so risks that. If I had written something that caused offence or had broken a law I would naturally wish to be told. A legal threat, as such, could only be made by the individual being slandered or whatever. Sussexman 21:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of a post where an editor gave a well-intentioned, if somewhat misguided, warning to a user that he may face legal repercussions for his behaviour on Wikipedia out of concern for his welfare. And this is an example of a post where a user is trying to intimidate an editor through legal means. The difference between the posts that allows me to make that judgement as to motive and severity, and take appropriate action, is that one post contains the terms "evil", "Is this a threat? Yes, it certainly is" and "we will locate you", and the other does not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

I see your comment on Humansdorpie's Talk Page. I would be extemely surprised if any of these entirely anonymous people are intimidated. And from what I can see, you have taken the words etc., out of context here. It seems to me at least that a few Users are acting in an extreme and provocative manner and with absolute malice. Several users have attempted to point out the various points why they should not do so, and they might as well have been banging their heads against a brick wall. Small wonder that some of the advisors have gone overboard. None of us like being ignored, do we? My personal opinion is that none of us are above the law and as Wikimedia are available world-wide they should respect the fundamental laws of the UK concerning internet abuse. My other view is that political demonising obsessions should be left out of Wikipedia (User:Lightoftheworld comes to mind). 81.131.13.57 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Request denied

other half of this conversation is at User talk:Jtdirl
There are four reasons reasons why the template was inserted:

• The block and unblock templates are designed to make a formal request. The two request granted and request denied templates are designed as part of that series to formally answer them and indicate a formal decision to the other formal templates.
• Denied requests on their own were all too often missed in a page where there had been a lot of contributions. One user continually demanded a response not realising that among the hordes of messages, barely seen, was the response. A visual template ensures the decision is clear and visible to all and won't get lost in the scrum of debate.
• In the past users who had their requests denied simply deleted the refusal and re-entered the unblock template. The low visibility of the denied message meant that was easy to achieve, because often many users would not have seen it. Inserting a formal template with a visual impact means that denied request is visible and less easy to delete, while also containing a do not delete message to the user.
• Many users were deciding whether to grant or refuse a request without explanation, even though one was required. The template structures the message to state clearly and unambiguously (a) the decision, (b) the reasoning, and (c) a warning not to delete the decision.

Using the template removes the many deficiencies that were occurring with the non-template responses. As such it is important for the user being responded to and everyone else to be aware of the decision, why it was reached and a warning not to try to circumvent it by deleting the response. On every occasion where the template has been used the message has not been deleted, an improvement that seems to have stopped the earlier ungoing problem of deletions of unwelcome responses and the posting of another unblock me template. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)}

Unlock request of FRCP11

Just as someone who's been continually frustrated by 8BJ as much as he has, the rationales for his unblock request have not been dealt with at all, and the more information coming as time goes on only exaberates the problem. Add to the fact that 8BJ sees this entire situation as a justifiable retaliation on FRCP and it gives me great pause, too. I don't want to open an RfAr on 8BJ, but I certainly don't want to lose another good editor because 8BJ is being coddled in favor of whatever the hell is going on. Please reconsider your thought process on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but if {{unblock}} templates can't be removed until the user is happy that he deserved it - which let's face it, is not going to happen as long as Wikipedia is edited by humans - Category:Requests for unblock would overflow and become utterly useless. Out of respect for your opinion I won't carry out my threat to protect his talk page, but I suggest taking the block up with Drini or William, not with me. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN signature comment

"I'm thinking of adding a notice to the top of my talk page saying "All comments followed by a signature longer than 2 lines of markup (on my 1024x768 screen) will be deleted on sight." Thoughts? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)"

Yes, thought. Seems like a bad idea. If long signatures are going to be treated so harshly as to make a user effectively incommunicado, it would seem like a better idea to just limit the length that you can make a signature - pop up an error if the sig is over, say, 300 characters.

But ignoring or auto-deleting comments from anyone, especially someone who may not have noticed your notice, would be bad. Admins, especially those who are as active as you are (kudos) need to be responsive (as you are). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a serious suggestion, but they could still post, they'd just have to sign manually. And if they found that inconvenient, maybe that would make them more appreciative of the inconvenience of trying to find the right place to insert a threaded comment in the midst of a forest of markup. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

re: restoring of contested speedy-deletions

In a recent DRV conversation, you asked "Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD". I replied on the DRV page but wanted to copy you here as well in case you didn't get a chance to check back on the discussion.

Paragraph 3 of the current header of WP:CSD reads "When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does [fall under a given criterion], discussion is recommended using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy." That wording applies to all speedy-deletion criteria, not merely case A7. The wording has been tweaked over time but in my experience has always been interpreted as a requirement to undelete and use xFD when there is any good-faith objection to speedy-deletion.

Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did see it, and actually replied on WP:DRV. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Appeal

Sure, go ahead. Of course, he'll need to understand we won't tolerate any more of that. NSLE _(T+C) at 15:17 UTC (2006-06-09)

Unblocking...

Sorry to over-react, but I'm sure that it's not beyond wikipedia to somehow sort out whether or not an IP address is shared? Thanks anyway, but someone has unblocked me. Thanks Lofty 15:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, sometimes not. If it's registered to a school or AOL then it's obvious, but often you don't know whether an IP registered to an ISP is static or dynamic. And you never know which IPs a registered account uses when you block it, as that's private information to everyone except the few admins with m:CheckUser. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help with the BNP article - If I knew how to give you an award, I would give you one, you lovely lovely man. xxx HawkerTyphoon

That's more than enough for me :-). (But in case any future editors are lucky enough to win your favour, it sounds like you're looking for Wikipedia:Barnstars and Wikipedia:Award templates.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

advice on 24 pages

On the 24 pages is this being over used? {{24}} Please advise on the situation as it appears on the page of every sigle character and is uneditable please also advie on how to edit it.Lucy-marie 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, to edit it, just go to Template:24. You can edit that like any other page, and your changes will appear on every article that has the template. You can also discuss changes on Template talk:24. All templates are like that - {{test}} is at Template:Test, {{taxobox}} is at Template:Taxobox, etc.

As for whether it's being over-used, I don't think so. Templates like that should really appear on every relevant article. However, in my opinion, it is a damn big template, which is why it looks weird when it's on every single page. Shorter templates like Template:Rammstein fit much more snugly.

Maybe you could suggest on Template talk:24 that instead of linking to all those characters, they could link to the most significant characters directly, and for the rest link to List of characters in 24. Please don't quote me on that, as I'm not really bothered, but it might be something you could put up for discussion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Samuel Blanning, thanks for unblocking me. I thought your comment was pretty funny too:) -Squeak 03:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking my IP

Wow; that was quick! Thanks for that; much appreciated. — JEREMY 10:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

NP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 12th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 24	12 June 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: RSS returns
English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 Featured Articles	Administrator desysopped after sockpuppeting incident
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, 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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Two socks needing blocking

Please take a look at these two users if you didn't.

For Kramden4700 (talk · contribs), see [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and his identical behavior and interests to this user's other sockpuppets, such as uploading numerous screenshots from TV news right after the account was created.

For Tobyvonmeistersinger (talk · contribs), see [8]

Steers got horns kid, you don't (talk · contribs)'s only three edits were to correctly tag Kramden4700 (talk · contribs) and Tobyvonmeistersinger (talk · contribs)'s pages as socks of Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs). Your closing comment was inappropriate and indicates that you didn't really look at the evidence. 70.108.138.47 10:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ANI or WP:RFCU, I'm not familiar with Spotteddogs and the sockpuppetry isn't obvious from the evidence you provide. Accounts should not be created for the sole purpose of putting sockpuppet tags on user pages, it's an extremely common form of harrassment. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively the admin who blocked Spotteddogs originally may be of more help to you. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Newtonmas

I think you made the right call in deletion (even though I voted keep.) Sdedeo (tips) 03:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Laserfiche

At the point of the sockpuppetry enry, there were at least 2 and possibly 3 votes that were suspect. No implied threat on the keep vote here; I just forgot to add to the section after voting a (marginal) keep. Cheers. Alex 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Inflation

RandomP already suggested those reasons for governments to restrict the printing of money. I belive I addressed them, did you miss that part of the disscussion? Should I restate the arguments in a different manner? Carbonate 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Thanks for reverting. I wonder if Curpsbot can add Konob to his list of blockable names? Probably kinda pointless since it's pretty low grade vandalism, but it seems like this guy is counting them up like trophies. Mak (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope I've done what I can to stop him displaying his vandalism as trophies, at least. [9] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tales of the Seventh Fleet on ST Fan Productions page

Could you explain why you removed the listing for Tales of the Seventh Fleet from the ST Fan Productions article? You are, I know, aware that their individual article was deleted since you were the one who closed it off. That result, however has nothing to do with the ST Fan Productions page where TOTSF easily fits in with the criteria that has been agreed upon. Unless you can show reason why not, I shall be reverting your change.

You are most welcome to discuss your thoughts on the discussion page of the article, since your action would mean a major change in inclusion criteria. You do know what the criteria are don't you?--Kirok of L'Stok 10:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I've restored the listings minus the wikilinks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you--Kirok of L'Stok 11:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Flags of English subdivisions

I would like to report that not all of the flags on this page are visible even though in the page edit they all apear please can you assist in fixing this problem.Lucy-marie 18:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

They all look fine to me. Try purging your cache - press Ctrl-F5 if you're using Internet Explorer, Ctrl-Shift-R if you're using Firefox. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject User Page Design Committee

Hello. I am here to inform you that they now have the wikiproject up for mfd here. You thoughts would be appreciated. Thetruthbelow 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation request

Would you be able to integrate the material from the German wiki article on Paul Fagius [10] into the English article. I can read the German, more or less but my German isn't at an encyclopedic level. I ask because I noticed you translated Protestation at Speyer thanks! Sumergocognito 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, let me know what you think. I left the list of his works alone, as I'm not sure on which basis it's currently done - it looks very different from deWiki's version. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! I left a message for the fellow who first started the article to take a look at the differences, hopefully he'll be able to help resolve the issue. Sumergocognito 22:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Drop me a line if you find anything else that needs translation, I haven't had much luck finding anything interesting on WP:GTIE lately :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for. There is much at [[11]] which could be added to Carolina Constitutio Criminalis (I would also suggest moving the English article to Constitutio Criminalis Carolina which I think is the more commonly known name for the criminal law of the Empire). Thanks- Sumergocognito 04:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

60.234.157.64

It seems our old friend User:60.234.157.64 has been acting up on Socialism, among other things. Clearly an address of the puppetmaster's, clearly a vandal. Can the IP be blocked? --Nema Fakei 11:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, looks static. Certainly I'm not seeing any useful contributions, and they all bear the hallmarks of TMECM/Joel/whoever. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject User Page Design Committee

Hi Samuel. I have read your request on the Wikiproject User Page Design Committee's talk page and most of those changes seem reasonable. What people seem to not be getting is the point or focuses of the project, how members were aquired, etc. I think the changes you are proposing are reasonable and Thetruthbelow would agree with them, not sure how he feels about it though. I am also considering moving this to Wikipedia:User page design committee so its not considered a WikiProject anymore, because that also seems to be an issue. I read that you would help with some of these changes with a little endorsement, so here it is. :-) — The King of Kings 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I agree with almost everything you said. My only response though is that I think this should stay as a wikiproject, for when I conceived the idea, I conceived it as a wikiproject. Thanks, Thetruthbelow 21:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe not that idea, but everything else can go. — The King of Kings 22:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One last thing, I think that we should still help the person by going to their page and designing a little, but explaining to them as we do it. I dont want the project to become just a guidline, instead i want it to be a do-it-yourself page with someone to help you if you need it. Thetruthbelow 22:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Questions section, and changed the title from designers to participants. ThetruthbelowThetruthbelow 22:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also changed the Design requests to help, with an explanation that we only help, not design the entire page. Made other changes also. Thetruthbelow 22:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

More changes

We have recently made even more changes to the project. When we created the project, we set out with the only intention being helping other users. We have greatly expanded the do-it-yourself section, changed the "hired gun" aspect of the project, and also listened to all of your suggestions. We want to be able to help all users, new and old, with everything technical about wikipedia, but we can't if we are deleted. So I beg you sir, from the bottom of my heart to reconsider, especially after all of the changes and improvements we have made. Thank you, Thetruthbelow 02:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's like an episode of Brookside

...over on the Merseyside article. Please could you take a look and hand out any semi-protections and sockpuppet blocks you deem necessary ? Many thanks, Aquilina 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the latest IP, though he's probably already on another one. Only one IP has hit that page today so I don't think it merits semi-protection yet. Let me know if there are any other pages or sockpuppets that need attention. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User Undeletion Request

I'm making this request on behalf of Alpinoch...he/she had created the article NameAction, which was initially quite spammy, and I had {{prod}}ed the article as such on June 16. Alpinoch made what I believe to be good faith efforts to remove the promotional-sounding text from the article (which left very little, but...). I added {{business-stub}} to the article later that day, and left a note on Alpinoch's talk page that he/she could add content freely, but without the POV/promotional material. I got a response on Alpinoch's talk page today stating that the article had been deleted (after only 3 days, and the {{prod}} tag had been removed). Any chance of getting the article restored to Alpinoch's user page so that he/she has an opportunity to improve it somewhat? I have no doubt that there is some tie between Alpinoch and the company, but if the claims that were in the article are verifiable, the article may have some value. Thanks! --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Great Job Sam

Samuel, I must say that you are doing an amazing job. When I originally came up with the idea for this project, I never thought it would be this good. You have greatly improved the project, and for that I am grateful. Actually, I was wondering if you would join in on the Esperanza talk page about merging this project with the trading spaces one. Let me know what you think, Thetruthbelow 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I was just about to hit 'save page' on an update at the project's talk page :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 25	19 June 2006	About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director	NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs	News and Notes: Project logo discussions, 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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For dealing with vandals, being a great editor, and helping users. Also for being a great editor! Sunholm(talk) 11:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wolok RfC

As a person who was falsely accused by M. Wolok as mentioned in my RfC, I thought you might be interested. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone Trek again

As you can see, it's a blue link yet again, and doesn't have deleted page on it. It's apparently not a recreation as it establishes "notability" which was missing before. As the sci-fi.com "site of the week" claims of notability were totally shot down in both AFD and DRV, I really think it should be speedied. - Hahnchen 14:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The recreation hinges on an article that mentions the series here. I'm not convinced that it magically makes the series notable, but I'm not prepared to simply ignore it by speedying the article. Maybe renominate it for AfD? As the edit summary of the recreation said, WCityMike was contacted about it, and he's indicated he's not sure whether it suffices either but he's not going to make a second nomination. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RE Question

Sorry 'bout that, I'm having major difficulties on my computer...I think it's being hacked or something. Either way, that wasn't me on the Myspace thing (I don't even have one) and i'm not the one deleting your question. I'm going to contact my ISP tomorrow to see if they can do anything.

User:Flameviper12

Sam, please see [12] for the reason for Flameviper12's indefblock, in particular, edit comments like

"O, I dunno...just imitating the inimitable style of my dear pal Willy. Wonder how long it'll take for me to be banninated. Anyway, I just realized I could move pages...it took AGES to move a page before now...so happy with my newfound power. I must abuse..."

do not inspire confidence in Flameviper12's willingness to be a good-faith editor. Note that this page-move cascade started by moving an article-space page (Goth cartooning), and occurred after Flameviper12 had been unblocked from two previous indefblocks by promising not to be a vandal any more. (See [13] for block log.) I can't see how Flameviper can legitimately complain about this: this comment shows that he clearly knew at the time that being "banninated" again was a likely consequence of misbehavior.

Flameviper12's only response to the block to date has been to blank his user talk page, with the edit comment "I don't think so". -- Karada 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Karada, I don't see what Goth Cartooning had anything to do with User:Flameviper12/Vandal. Note the name of the page, "Vandal". We all need to blow of some steam now and again. I chose to do so within my own userspace. I still don't see the problem. And Karada, the only reason I have not emailed you is because you have no registered email address. I am upholding my pledge not to vandalise. Please get back to me, ~ Flame-viper 12 (16:06, 25.06.06 UTC)

Flameviper12, I think you knew very well what was going to happen, as your edit comment shows, and that you have been enjoying the attention-seeking cycle of repeatedly making a mess then begging for, and getting, forgiveness.

You have now been indefblocked three times. Twice before you have asked to be unblocked, with promises of good behaviour, only to be re-blocked again each time. Now, you have been indefblocked for a third time, this time for a frenzy of WoW-style page moves, complete with all of the characteristic tropes of WoW-style vandalism, and you want to be unblocked yet again. As far as I can tell, you are not "upholding your pledge".

Think about it; if your behaviour consists of taunting edit comments like vandalism, page titles just like vandalism, and the characteristic back-and-forward page moves just like page move vandalism, can't you see that it might just possibly actually be vandalism? Relying on a technicality to excuse it is simply gaming the system. -- Karada 22:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's like trashing your own house. I certainly see no issue. 24.145.222.85 00:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"21"

Does that "21" on your userpage denote your age? Tanager 19:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, so little experience of the world and yet so willing to...shall we say..."project" oneself? Tanager 17:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please check user:Grandmaster he is making unfounded personal attacks

I have a user that is making unfounded accusations and attacks against me. As shown here[14]. I left him a polite warning, but noticed that this has been a discourse of behaviour and that he has been warned for uncivil behaviour in the past. I told him on his talk page to be polite and keep all comments directed towards edits and that he has no right to make such accusations and additionally no grounds; I said I will let it pass as a warning and act in good faith and consider it an honest mistake on his part. But after looking at his talk page and contributions I have noticed he is making accusations to other editors about me. Maybe as an administrator you can talk to him and see what his problem is. I am not here to fight, I am here to edit and have fun. He has accused me of being anti-Azari when I myself am a Azari!? I do not know what makes him an authority to make such attacks? I would like him to stop making uncivil comments about me to other users and on article talk pages. Anyways thank you, best regards 69.196.164.190

Hi. I have a reason to suspect that the above person is 72.57.230.179 (you know him), evading the block. It is enough to check the contributions of both to see that they are absolutely similar and mostly are anti-Azeri statements, posted on the talk pages of articles and other users. A good example can be found here: [15] Do you see much difference between the last two postings? Regards, Grandmaster 06:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is does not lmake your personal attacks legitmate nor does it allow uncivil behaviour. Like I said I will look at it with good faith, but you are clearly mistaken so stop making these accusations. Once again this does not justify you saying negative things about other editors on other users talk pages nor does it justify rude behaviour. Stop! This is turning into harassment. I have never once made an ant-Azari stamtnet. Please provide proof for them comments. I have never made any personal attacks. Please stop trolling. 69.196.164.190

Signpost updated for June 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Quicker deletion of non-compliant images proposed	News and Notes: 100 x 1,000, 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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please review a deletion made contrary to consensus

Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.

The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C

Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat

That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.

The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightoftheworld block

I believe this to be wrong. Tempers may fray sometimes but you cannot accuse everyone of legal threats because they state the obvious to other users who are clearly breaking the law. It appears that no less that three users have been blocked for pointing out that Gregory Lauder-Frost was being defamed on Wikipedia. Had ten or twenty users argued like this would they all be blocked too? 86.139.185.202 11:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)