Hi there. I was looking through the comments at the Esperanza DRV, and I noticed your comment here. I notice you said "A random sample indicates that a substantial number of the Esperanza subpages do not have any deleted history to undelete." and "Tell us what pages you want undeleted, of which you believe others would benefit from the content, and maybe they'll be considered and undeleted. This DRV as it stands strikes me as so unwieldy as to be pointless...". As I have taken a very strong and principled stand on this issue, I have actually been doing the work necessary to draw up a list of pages, and to work out what happened to the pages. See User:Carcharoth/Esperanza_MfD_review. Hopefully this can be a basis for coming up with the list you requested. I agree that as it stands, the DRV is too imprecise. I should also point out that working out which pages do not have any deleted history, and reviewing the history to decide if there is any benefit to undeletion, is something that non-admins cannot do. That is why the 'undeletion for review' clause exists at WP:DRV. As for the number of pages, well, neither MfD or DRV were ever really designed to handle such massive umbrella nominations. Clearly a more methodical process will be needed next time a massive shut-down like this is carried out, hopefully starting with someone creating a list of all the pages before the deletions/redirects are carried out. Carcharoth05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per RFPP request by the user who you blocked, I have unprotected talk:Mike Mendoza. The user is not blocked anymore, so I felt protection was not justified still. Anyway, I left a note on the user's talk page (he may not see it, since he's under a dynamic IP), and I hope he will continue the discussion in a civilized manner (and won't go past 3RR again). Just thought you might want to know. Nishkid6402:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As information which the subject has objected to found only through muck-raking and unpublished by peer-reviewed sources, I wish I'd just dealt with it as WP:BLP requires for negative unsourced information from the start. But it's too far gone now and protection or no protection, I'm going to settle for not feeding the troll and encouraging others to do the same. --Sam Blanning(talk)02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ofcom website is quite clearly a verifiable source. Had Mendoza just admitted to the fact that he was a councillor, which he has done on many occasions during his shows, we would never have got into this pointless quarrel. 217.134.114.13916:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Award Time!
For withstanding wave after wave of vandalism on your userpage (presumably all by the same person due to the similarity of content), I hereby present you with the 'Abusive Admin Award. Scobell30202:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added to the cabinet :-). Ahh, there's nothing like the start of a new school term for being threatened with physical violence by small boys still wondering which direction their dicks should be pointing. --Sam Blanning(talk)03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just noticed your block - I have no problem with that - what intrigued me was that there was an edit history in a whole range of delete debates - and nothing on the talk page - odd - I would guess a sockpuppet for the purpose of the delete debates from my perspective... I was in the process of adding the most humungous welcome template i have found to date and your block arrived... sigh SatuSuro03:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smokescreen, definitely. Some vandals mistakenly think we won't block them if they spend two minutes editing a load of articles like real users do, then vandalise/wikistalk. I wasn't ignoring the smokescreen, I just don't waste words on obvious cases.
Yeah - the usual subst.welcome that used to use seems inadequate - maybe I'll only use the biggun for what look like long uncaught newbies with genuine edit histories rather than debate inhbitants SatuSuro03:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use my own version, which is basically {{welcome}} with some text telling you what the links actually are. It's been a while since I actually posted it, I think, but I still believe that every single link you add makes it less likely they'll click any of them. --Sam Blanning(talk)03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends - earlier this month I was putting one out a day... for the 4,000 + watchlist I am burdened with at the moment - some show no sign of reading a word ...SatuSuro03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My impression from when I used to leave more welcome templates is that most people don't actually come back to edit once they've made their first edit - in other words, when they've made whatever change they wanted to make. But I find that encouraging in a way, because there's no way we can get them to do more than they want, however warm our welcome, and on any other encyclopaedia they wouldn't have made even that one edit. --Sam Blanning(talk)03:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for drawing this talk item out - but I was about to alert someone else to an edit war at Southern Ocean - you may or not be interested - also Ineed to get off - . I never leave welcomes - or almost never unless they have mde a number of edits - or edits I know the subject enough to know what theyre up to - SatuSuro03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? At an initial glance I see misuse of the word 'vandalism' in edit summaries, but not much of an edit war, and zero on the talk page. Unfortunately I'm about to get off as well. --Sam Blanning(talk)03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHY IS myg0t deleted its a notcible cheating clan that has casued major eruptions over the internet
Notability for encyclopaedia standards requires coverage in multiple reliable sources; Myg0t has been repeatedly reviewed and we haven't found any. Fame among the geek subculture is not sufficient. --Sam Blanning(talk)01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But the criteria for inclusion is not so much notability as it is verifiability. If you can cite it, you can write it. And neccessity is a big factor there, too. So even if it is referenced and formatted, etc, there's no need to have 87 forks of Fire Emblem. ~ FlameviperWho's a Peach?16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notability is necessary and is a higher bar than simple verifiability. Otherwise anyone in the phone book could create an article on themselves. --Sam Blanning(talk)16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be for the article to be renamed Etymology of jazz, because 'Jazz (word origin)' is, I think, slightly the wrong way to use brackets, which generally denote what the thing on the left of the brackets are. E.g. Jazz (novel) is a novel, Jazz (album) is an album, but Jazz (word origin) isn't a 'word origin' - that doesn't make sense. If it was 'etymology of jazz' the title would fit both in the title and the lead. Whether this conforms with the manual of style I'm not sure, but there are quite a few pages named like this - Special:Allpages/Etymology_of.
Ah, someone finally asked about it without threatening to kill me if I didn't. I don't know why I originally blocked it indefinitely, but I'm sure you can understand, especially after a look at my user page's vandalism history, if I say that I won't be the one to unblock it or shorten it.
Three different administrators have responded to {{unblock}} requests and declined to unblock it, shorten it, or even ask me about it, and the pattern of vandalism before and since the block demonstrate that it's clearly used by one persistent vandal. I don't really care if someone does shorten it or lifts it, but it won't be me doing it. --Sam Blanning(talk)13:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they stop threatening to kill me for a few months or so I might assume whoever it is moved on. In any case someone will probably unblock it anyway sooner or later. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Backyard Burial
I've posted the link to a couple of reviews on a German site... Sufficient? Otherwise I can pay for a public notice to be in the Dominion Post (main publication of Wellington, New Zealand) and then refer to that to solve all of this criterion drama... I'm learning how wikipedia works... This site is great and I'm looking forward to being a proper contributor. There's a lot of happenings in the background that people don't see, as I've realised.
