This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tishii(talk | contribs) at 22:47, 3 September 2006(Sorry to bother you....). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:47, 3 September 2006 by Tishii(talk | contribs)(Sorry to bother you....)
The AfD indicated that a merge might be preferable to a standalone article, but in the end AfD does not have any say in whether a merge takes place or not. It's up to those who supported the article being kept so it could be merged, or anyone else, to actually do it.
That said, the content has actually been merged. It's under, for some reason, 'Major landmarks'. I've completed the merge by turning Irish merchant community in 18th century Cadiz into a redirect and adding its reference to Cádiz, but frankly I don't see the relevance of the paragraph as it stands - it's certainly not about a major landmark in the way that the other sub-sections it's with are. Anyone who edits the article can remove it or try to place it somewhere more in context if they like - for that matter anyone can revert the redirect and restore it as a standalone article. The AfD's relevance ended when it was closed and the article, for whatever reason, was kept. --Sam Blanning(talk)00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given his latest edit summary of "Nobody cares about your uninformed opinions on Homelessness. You're talking out of your ass, you're a little punk dirtbag kid who has no discipline in his life." on my talk page, I think you can ban him now. --tjstrf01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thanks very much for that. Of course, now you just have to ban his IP, since he's evading block that way... *rollseyes* --tjstrf01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's the same guy. Not sure enough to block, anyway. As the IP appears static looking at its edit history, and it's been the same for the past few hours, if it was him using that IP it should have been autoblocked. I've warned him about adding too many tags, though. If you'd like solid proof one way or the other you might try a request for Checkuser. --Sam Blanning(talk)01:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... maybe not. But the appearance of one directly after the other, and their tag-team reverting on Interested's talk page, and their similar language (sophisticated wiki-isms with no application to the subject) would suggest otherwise. (or at least meatpuppetry) Either way, if it is the same guy I'm sure he'll be independantly ban-worthy momentarily. --tjstrf01:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to wikipedia but I am learning fast. I think you should review what I have to say and provide any counterpoints if you would like to. Otherwise please help me to develop this into a good article. I think my main point will hold that the alt.binaries.games.xbox360 www.abgx.net group is very reliable as a source. Either they can be the secondary source with the games as the primary source, or they can be the primary source with other websites being the secondary. I have carefully went over the original research page to make sure that this is not in violation. There are also several other sites that have this information and either update it themselves or get the info from abgx.net. I also know people there so if you feel that it is some sort of permissions violation I can get proof that it's not.
Not much to say on this beyond a heartfelt thanks. I was pretty certain this user had no intention of reforming himself. I will be keeping an eye on his favorite subjects as I think there is a fair chance we'll see some sockpuppets, given previous behavior. Anyway, many thanks for the decisive action, Gwernol15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't vandalised in a while - generally we only block if warnings don't stop them (which they usually do). If they do vandalise even after {{test4}} has been posted on their talk page, WP:AIV will generally give you a quicker response than I can. --Sam Blanning(talk)22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anon friendly WHOIS template.. exists now, just thought I'd let you know. Very similar to IPvandal, if you like it, spread it around. Happy editing.--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor}23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note in admiration of your outside view on the Kelly Martin RfC - it was short, pithy and to the point. I also entirely agree with your sentiment that it is unacceptable to have policy decisions made at a gathering of about 500 users. But then, of course, I didn't attend Wikimania, and I'm not even an admin, so obviously my opinions don't matter... David Mestel(Talk)07:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should made this clear sooner at the top of the AFD, but I was close to withdrawing my nomination on the MTD Studios article alone (but not on the movies) because Dodgem4s (talk • contribs) was starting to incorporate it into his series on the Florida Film Industry which I do believe is notable. Could you please undelete it or would I have to send this to WP:DRV despite being the AFD nominator? -- Netsnipe ► 13:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the deletion of MTD Studios overturned. Actually, what are your thoughts on the matter? During nomination I couldn't establish the notability of MTD Studios by itself, but as a part of the Florida Film Industry series it'd be a borderline and I'm a bit wary of biting Dodge4ms who does appear more and more of a genuine writer rather than a self-promoter as I suspected at first. -- Netsnipe ► 14:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that you weren't the only editor arguing for deletion. Numerous other editors argued for deletion, and the fact that you've changed your mind doesn't nullify their opinions. You can take it to deletion review if you like, and they may find it a good enough reason to overturn - certainly I wouldn't mind if that was the case.
I'm glad that you can assume such good faith on the part of Dodge, but personally single-purpose accounts flooding an AfD always leave a very bad taste in my mouth, as did the extensive link farming to other articles - my favourite was this gratuitious paragraph about Black Zone in an article about a car which was going to appear in it - note that Zone is slated to be released in 2007, so I don't see who could have added that detailed information apart from the film's makers. Apart from links like those and wikilinks from lists, the articles, along with Michael Thomas Dunn, had many of the characteristics of a walled garden, and I'm not sure how you think that can be remedied after recreation. --Sam Blanning(talk)14:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, it seems wrong or unethical that you deleted an article in the field that you admittedly have no expertise. I believe that it would have been more appropriate to recuse yourself and allow another senior editor to make this decision, if you know that this is not your field of expertise.
Additionally you deleted the only section in the entire Audio mastering article that had some kind of supprt in the press and you left the unsupported reminder unchanged. Sorry but this simply feels wrong.--R. Watts13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by 'support in the press', but if you're claiming that the paragraph was verified by reliable sources, the only article linked to mentions the Art Mastering studio but does not refer to 'artmastering' as a concept. It uses the term solely to refer to the company, which is, I believe, all it has ever been used to refer to except perhaps by the company itself. (Another external link says "Mastering Your Music Online- Article" but links to the root of a website, so I and everyone else have no idea where the 'article' is, what it's called, what it contains etc, so I don't know if that is meant to be 'support in the press' as well. Without a proper citation, it is definitely not.)
You can ask for a review of my closing of the AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you've obviously read my post to Hankwang you already know that I have no further say at what happens to the paragraph in audio mastering - I had the option of either merely dewikilinking the paragraph, or removing it entirely, and I felt it preferable to remove the paragraph, but I leave further editing up to those that regularly edit the article.
The fact that audio mastering is not my subject area is not relevant. The key to inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and if I read the links presented, and they give me no indication that 'artmastering' is a widely accepted and documented concept in the field of audio mastering (as opposed to a PR buzzword), then I am and anyone else is free to remove paragraphs claiming otherwise. --Sam Blanning(talk)13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw that you fulfilled the block request that I submitted. I noticed that you mentioned in the edit summary that it should have been listed as an IPvandal instead of an account. I just wanted you to know that I had made the request using VandalProof, which is noted as not using the IPvandal template. Do I need to report these manually in the future (to use the right template) or is it OK to keep on as I have? --After Midnight000100:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only reason I mentioned that it was an IP, not an account, was that you described it as a 'vandal only account', which would usually merit an instant indefinite block. As it was an IP I couldn't do this, so I felt it should be pointed out. --Sam Blanning(talk)12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the Enterprise template from the Starbucks talk page? Starbucks is an enterprise, and the template points to guidance on writing articles about enterprises. Why would we as editors want to ignore what little Wiki guidance there is on articles about ongoing enterprises? It is a proposed policy and if you've read that proposed policy you'll note it suggests we can add that template to any enterprise article. So, can you tell me how removing that template and the link to the proposed policy from the talk page will help us improve the article? Thanks! Mr Christopher18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The template describes Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises as a policy, which it isn't. It's as simple as that. Although anyone following the link will see that the policy is currently proposed, the template also summarises the proposed policy, so not everyone will follow the link. Please remove the template until the proposal has actually attained policy status. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can you pleas block User:Gerrado from editing my talk page and discussion page as he has resorted to vandalism and personal atacks.--Lucy-marie19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your userboxes are, er, interesting in regards to how many languages you claim to speak fluently, but Gerrado was over the line in both of his comments. Unfortunately it's not possible to block users from specific pages, but I've warned him that civility isn't optional and if he keeps it up further action may be necessary. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I know that I may have gone over the top on user boxes but I was merley experimenting and as It is my user page I think I have a right to post what ever user box like. Thank you for placing a warning on him I hope It dose the trick. Thanks Sam you are the best.--Lucy-marie20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you watch the show Everybody Loves Raymond? It was one of the best shows during the time it was on. I recently created the page for the character Amy Macdougall-Barone. The problem is, most people know her as Amy Barone. I am not sure what her 'official' name is on the show. The title of the article was gotten from a link on the 'Everybody Loves Raymond' page. It had a link to the 'Amy Macdougall-Barone' page, but there was nothing there so I started it. Here's my problem. I want 'Amy Barone' to link to 'Amy Macdougall-Barone.' So if somebody types in the first phrase, they get the article with the ladder for a title. But right now, the first links to the 'Everybody Loves Raymond' page. I think what I have to do is create an 'Amy Barone' page, and then make the only part of the article a redirect to my original page. But there's got to be a better way. Is there?
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Samuel Blanning! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! ~~~~
Sorry to bother you, but, I noticed that you made a small profile on this website. I would like to knoe how to, I'm not that good on computers. If you feel like responding, could you leave a message on my talk? My username is Tishii.
