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)
Thanks for the revert of vandalism on my Sandbox. Cheers. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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).
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)
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)
Thanks - I thought that was just random silliness. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 11:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Xdamrtalk 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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).
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))
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)
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)
I am SamBlacketer on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/SamBlacketer. Thanks. Sam Blacketer 19:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Can you take a look here please, and add anything you feel appropriate. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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.)] 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.
The official Do Anything Nice (D.A.N.) | International website: http://www.doanythingnice.org
Articles:
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)
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)
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. One Night In Hackney303 22:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? EyeSereneTALK 15:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Cheers, Daniel 09:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...to your invisible note on Deaths in 2007. good thinking. tomasz. 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
And here we go again with more sockpuppets: [16] and [17]. ~*Sigh*~ Ariel♥Gold 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Take a look at Special:Contributions/Solidpilot...[18] [19] Appears to be sockpuppetry. --DarkFalls talk 09:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I answered you on my talkpage. Sadly, you protected the article without the tags. YousefSalah 07:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanko Carlos (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
--Allen3 talk 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
--Allen3 talk 01:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 appreciate your diligence in reverting vandalism on my talk page. Thanks. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
Wamker, knob conservative tosser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.1.200 (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
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 [talkcontribstats] 10:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Hi, Sam. I just received the following note from you...
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)
Mr. Blacketer,
Mr. Blacketer,
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)
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)
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)
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)
How can you call something with over 3,000,000 hits non notable? Zanusi 10:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)