User talk:Sam/Archive 11

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Can you please look at this and give a quick opinion? Lara❤Love 06:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured list of the day nomination

FYI, I have nominated List of longest suspension bridge spans as a featured list of the day for March. See User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200803. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yichang bridges

I took an educated guess on which bridge it was when I moved that page. So I could be wrong because the Chinese media tend to be vague on names of lesser known objects. For official names, unless there are photos showing the names, I would not trust the names found on Internet. Here is a quick translation of the table that had the 5 bridges I mentioned. --Voidvector (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Name	Literal Translation	Purpose	Province	City/County	Start of Construction	Completion	Main Span (meters)	Type
宜昌长江大桥	Yichang Changjiang Bridge	Road bridge	Hubei	Yichang	Dec-97	Sep-01	960	Suspension bridge
宜昌长江铁路大桥	Yichang Changjiang Railroad Bridge	Railroad bridge	Hubei	Yichang	Feb-04	Under construction	810	Beam bridge
葛洲坝三江大桥	Gezhouba Dam Three River Bridge	Road bridge	Hubei	Yichang		1981		Beam bridge
夷陵长江大桥	Yiling Changjiang Bridge	Road bridge	Hubei	Yichang	Nov-98	Dec-01	348	Cable-stayed bridge
西陵长江大桥	Xiling Changjiang Bridge	Road bridge	Hubei	Yichang	Dec-93	Aug-96	900	Suspension bridge

Featured sounds

I noticed that you have participated Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 18:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi, I'm not sure where else to put this, so please go ahead and delete it right away, but thanks a lot for your very polite and helpful moderating! I appreciate it very much! Shadowshark (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Sorry for the intrusion but could you look at this article? A series of anon IPs (same person based on comments) has added an unusual addition under popular culture with no attribution other than his/her viewpoint/OR. Of a more serious nature, the editor has also made inappropriate comments on the article's discussion page and my talk page. Thanks for your assistance. FWIW, I may be asking a number of admins for their review of the article. Bzuk (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC).

Copyedit from my talk page: "I'm not sure I fully understand your concerns. If the comment was totally untrue - there were no doodles, you are correct to remove it as nonsense. If you are not sure, and perhaps it was the inspiration for ongoing use of 666 in films, you should not have removed it, but marked it as uncited and added a comment to the talk page. If it turns out to be a correct claim, you've pissed someone off -- not that their subsequent behavior was justified. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"

Sam, I'm going to post you the actual photo. thumb|screenshot This is the contentious frame that the editor has claimed is a satanic image with "666". If you believe that – first of all, it is upside down doodles that look more like "999" and what about the "333" symbol in the hair? FWIW, I didn't think the "666" claim warranted anything other than a removal as it was nonsensical. However, the wholly inappropriate comments left on the talk pages was my real concern. Bzuk (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks Sam, let's hope it is "case closed." FWIW, your assistance in resolving this issue is appreciated. Bzuk (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

WP:LOTD

Congratulations. List of largest suspension bridges was the leading votegetter at WP:LOTD and will be list of the month as well as be featured as list of the day twice. Let me know if you have any date preferences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The 21st was requested by another list and since you got the 4th I am going to give you the 22nd. Is this O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi Sam, I see you are interested in semi-protection. I'm looking at the issue from the point-of-view of an anonymous user and I was wondering if you have any figures concerning the percentage of total articles SPd, and more importantly the percentage of the most viewed (say the top 5%) of articles that are SPd? From my experience it seems that indefinite and long-term, often repeated SP, is a creeping disease that will soon mean virtually all the most popular articles are unavialable to edit for anons. This flies in the face of Jimbo's statement that "you can edit this article, right now" - paraphrased. What are your thoughts? Thanks, 82.20.24.97 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any figures. What are my thoughts? I'm leaning toward requiring user account for ANY edits. It is real easy, you don't give up any personal information, and the level of abuse goes way down. Short of that, I think the current practice of SPing popular targets is alright. After 4 years here, I tend to distrust signatures that are IP numbers. I've had very few positive interactions with anons. Frankly, I don't understand the attraction of not creating an account but becoming an active participand. SP doesn't fly in the face of Jimmy's statement, you can edit any article, you just have to sign up. I understand the value of making it very easy to get people participating. SP seems like a reasonable compromise. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's no reason why people shouldn't sign up. I have an account, I'm an established editor with tens of thousands of edits to my name, but I haven't used the account for many months. But I'd be careful about a general distrust of IP editors. In my experience most of them are what might be called "impulse editors"; they see something that needs changing - a minor edit - and just do it immediately. Maybe they've no real interest in being a full member of the community. My problem with Jimbo's words are the "right now" element of them. This, as I pointed out, is rapidly becoming difficult for popular articles. If it remains the intention that "right now" should prevail, then there's far too much permanent SP. I have found very many articles that have been SPd for the flimsiest of reasons, or no reason at all. On the other hand, if it's no longer the intention that "right now" should prevail, then Jimbo and the community should say so, and stop IP editing all together. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. 82.20.24.97 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't you used your account for many months? Why are you having this conversation with me anonymously instead of logging in? I have to wonder these things when I see those numbers as a signature. The biggest question I have is about anons who are clearly experienced with policy and practice, and have IPs that change their IP address frequently. In these cases (and I include you), I can't help but wonder why you don't want me to see your complete editing history? I am going to assume good faith, and try to treat you with respect and fairly. But that doesn't stop me from being skeptical all the while. If I can't see your complete editing history then I have to consider the possibility that you might be a vandal, a troll and/or a sockpuppet. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 17:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moon/Drum Bridge

Regardless of the technically correct terminology, the common English usage is moon bridge, and so I think it appropriate that the English WP title be such. In my opinion a minor note and a redirect from 'drum bridge to moon bridge would be more appropriate in this case than the other way around. I will also consult with my (non WP) China native resident friend concerning chinese useage. Also, it would seem possible that drum bridge may refer to the wooden type illustrated but perhaps not to the stone type shown. - Leonard G. (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

More on category intersections

Have you seen User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Category_intersects_Real_Soon_Now_maybe? One thing shocked me there. It seems you can intersect categories using the search funtion. For example, like this. Never knew that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam - Thanks for letting me know about this. Any idea how long this has been there? It doesn't quite do what we want (well, at least not what I want), but it's pretty close. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

More on category intersections

Have you seen User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Category_intersects_Real_Soon_Now_maybe? One thing shocked me there. It seems you can intersect categories using the search funtion. For example, like this. Never knew that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam - Thanks for letting me know about this. Any idea how long this has been there? It doesn't quite do what we want (well, at least not what I want), but it's pretty close. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Help requested with closing a discussion

I'm stopping by with a big request for help. There has been a discussion and !vote going on over the last 5 days at WT:Good articles#Good article signs about the possibility of adding a sign like the FA star at the top right of good articles as some other Wikipedias now do. This is a subject that has been raised many times in the past and has often generated heated debate.

By contrast, I believe, the latest discussion has been quite measured, but it is unclear whether any consensus is being established. I think it would be enormously helpful if an uninvolved admin with a lot of experience at evaluating consensus were to look at the discussion and close it in once it has run its course. However, finding such an admin is rather difficult, as most have been actively involved with GA, FA or both. You came to my mind because we overlapped at a controversial CfD over a year ago, and I was extraordinarily impressed by the way you closed it.

Would you be willing to help? And if not, do you have any suggestions whom I could ask? Geometry guy 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me and the kind words. I'd be willing to look at it, but since it will involve quite some time and effort to read through it all and analyze the discussion, I'm wondering if you can answer some questions I have:

1. Has the issue been widely publicized on pages like Village Pump, Request for Comments, etc...
2. Has the volume of discussion settled down? Are issues still getting brought up and discussed or are people just waiting for something to happen and repeating things that have been already said?
3. Is there already an expectation that an admin will come along and close the discussion?

Answers to these will help me decide if I want to jump in. I do think I would be impartial about this, I have had no involvement at all with Good Articles. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Copying over and indenting for convenience.) Yes, I recognise that it will take a lot of time and effort to do it well, and I know you'd do it well!

1. The issue has been publicised at the Community Portal (24th), the Village Pump (26th), and Request for Comments (26th). It's been publicized in a few other minor places, but I'm not aware of any other broad posts.
2. I'm not sure that the volume has settled down, but the number of new !votes has slowed significantly and people are repeating things that have been said, and responding to brief supports/opposes with arguments that have already been discussed elsewhere. There have also been some side threads trying to think outside the box (e.g. the idea of a six month trial). My impression is that the main points have been made, but that it might be wise to give it a little longer before closing.
3. Yes, there's a short thread before the !vote where I suggested the idea, mentioning you as a possibility; another editor replied that the closing admin should be uninvolved with GA or FA to avoid bias. There have been no further additions to this thread, and I have received positive indications that a closing admin would be a good idea, and no negative indications.

I'm very grateful that you are thinking about doing this. Geometry guy 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed your post at WT:GA. Many thanks Sam (and sorry for the typo!). Geometry guy 22:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to voice my opinions a bit. The issue has also been notified at various GA pages (such as WP:GAN, WP:GAR, etc.) The votes are still going on because not everyone logs on everyday. Most opposes were raised because the GA system is not perfect, not because the symbol doesn't look nice. And some cited problems in GA which are also found in FA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to note. I was the admin who set up the voting procedure, made the RfC, promoted the process at Villape Pump (policy) and (proposals), and a number of project pages. Other editors and admins have notified the community portal, and numerous other pages. I'm certain that any editor who cares about this issue will have stumbled upon a notice somewhere. The two week mark will be 07 May. Sam, I hope you do accept 'closing' duties! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your closing, because the proposal should be closed at least after May 7. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been mentioned in at least 2 different sections that it is supposed to be closed after May 7. If the discussion seems to be stalled, then might as well close it early. It's best to announce the change of the closing date because someone's (and not just one individual, but maybe more) probably sitting on the fence waiting for more discussions to pop up before casting their vote. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think now is the time to close. By all means, go ahead. It does seem to stall now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sam, for doing such an excellent and thorough job. I'm sure your objective assessment will be of value to everyone involved in the discussion, no matter how they !voted and for what reason. Geometry guy 10:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Change in categories link

Not sure if you're still checking on Wikipedia talk:Special:Categories, so I'm dropping you a note here... I just had an idea on a possible better solution for the Categories link. How about sending it to the Categories section of Special:Allpages? It's easier to navigate than Special:Categories since there's at least a rudimentary search, and as such I think it's an easier way to find more obscure categories than Portal:Categories/Categorical index. -- SonicAD (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sichuan EQ

Next time you may want to take your own advice and check the discussion page before wiping out work that has been carefully pieced together with consensus. You really screwed things up, without even realizing it, I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.94.131 (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I see any consensus that it made sense to list the countries that felt the earthquake as those that "were affected". Often discussions polarize when what is needed is a totally different tact entirely. In those cases, it is appropriate to be bold. I don't think I screwed anything up. No information has been lost. All the countries that felt the quake are listed in a section down below. Who felt it and when is of relatively minor importance. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost 24 hours have gone by, and all of my changes have remained, and there are comments to support them. So it appears I did not screw anything up, but instead solved a problem. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please join the conversation

Hello Sam. First, I have to offer my apologies for edit warring over the picture that you are trying to add to Marat/Sade. I have self reverted my last change. You will want to join the conversation that I have started here [1] to make your case for the inclusion of this pic. I know that you are trying to improve the page. My interpretation of the current picture policy, which is highly restrictive, is that the picture would be removed now or latter. However, this is just one editors opinion. If the consensus is that it can be included I would only ask that the size of it is reduced. What I really wish is that you had a picture of the actor Ian Richardson recreating David's pose from the film. Again apologies and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 00:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of the policy that you are talking about, but from your own comments above, you contradict your objections to the picture. I think the best reaction to my adding this picture would be additional text which describes how Ian Richardson recreated the pose in the picture. I'd be happy to take a sreenshot of the pose from the film it as it is in my netflix cue. It would qualify as fair use. No doubt that the pose was recreated in several productions. Is this much different (albeit smaller in scale) to Sunday in the Park with George?.. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Marat/Sade#Image --☑ SamuelWantman 07:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo use

Sam, I hope this message finds you well. I work for a New York advertising agency called Korey Kay & Partners and a client of ours would like to use an image you shot of the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge. The link to the image is as follows: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Newburgh-Beacon_Bridge_2.jpg

I would appreciate an email so we may discuss more about how we would like to use it as well as compensation. I can be reached at pwarkolla@koreyaky.com. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.166.235.180 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on reasoning for LGBT Project Articles

A new discussion you may be interested in:Consensus on reasoning for LGBT Project Articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~sql/acc/acc.php

Can you please confirm that you were the one that requested access to the account request tool? Thanks :) Alexfusco⁵ 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, access granted :) Alexfusco⁵ 22:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #6

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 6
	Date: Saturday, June 28th, 2008
	Time:
	Place: Glen Park Branch Library
prev: Meetup 5 - next: Meetup 7

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: ACC

Hi! I'm one of the ACC interface admins/developers, and I will take over for SQL, who is busy negotiating the move to the stable toolserver, in completing your request. All I need to know is what exactly you want added to the similar e-mail message for the interface, and I will make such changes (please reply on my talk page to guarantee that I will see your reply). Cheers, FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 07:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps vandalizing pages

G'day, I am adding this section to report User:Gabrielkat because he is constantly deleting cited (from a reliable source) information, he has been warned that it was vandalism but he keeps doing it. In the 1999 Documentary "From Star Wars to Star Wars: The Story of Industrial Light & Magic" they talked about Amblin and they showed clips from Amblin films, whether it be Who Framed Roger Rabbit, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Back to the Future, they even showed Splash and the first two The Terminator movies, because imdb.com doesn't list Amblin under production companies it can safe to conclude they were uncredited, and they even showed. In the first sentence when they talked about Amblin they talked about directors who directed these films and they mentioned Ron Howard (Splash's director) and James Cameron (the director of the first two Terminator films). They even showed interviews of those two talking about their Amblin films. Now if Amblin didn't produce the three films the documentary wouldn't say they did, or at least wouldn't have gotten away with this. So after sending him a message on his discussion page he came to the conclusion that I was a sockpuppet of banned user DaffyDuck619 and he keeps editing my userpage, you mentioned it before and nothing came of it. I suggest he be blocked, a mere 24 hour block, nothing so serious, I did warn him that if he continued to delete the cited information it'd be regarded as vandalisim, and if he continued to vandalise pages he'd be blocked, but I'll let you decide --AKR619 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your determination is requested

can you determine if Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving has achieved consensus? best, –xenocidic (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned to the users involved in the original dispute(s) that brought the proposal and of course at the help talk page where it now resides. Where else should it be publicized? –xenocidic (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing that discussion Sam. –xenocidic (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this: MOS says a spaced en dash when there's one space or more within either of the items. Needs to be moved. Tony (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FSC director?

Hi, feel like being it? I don't like the chaotic do-it-yourself thing there, and like Featured Lists, which recently made the transition to a directorship, I think the time has come to do it for sounds. Let me know what you think. There'd have to be a gathering of consensus there, and probably a formal appointment by Raul, as at FLC. Tony (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone broke the rule of three

Here's the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AKR619&action=history, User:Gabrielkat who insists on calling me a sockpuppet of a user who was blocked indefinetly for violating the rule of three too many times, has broken the rule of three. So I suggest the normal punishment, a 24 hour block. Oh and for the record I also broke the rule of three here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gabrielkat&action=history so there won't be a fuss here if you block me for 24 hours as my punishment for breaking the rule of three first time, BUT, I suggest you block User:Gabrielkat for 48 hours, because that's the punishment when you violate it twice. --AKR619 (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this user is afraid he's in the wrong, because the user just deleted this section, trying to prevent you from reading this --AKR619 (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot

Thanks again for your great work on the poll at WP:GA: the result has really engaged editors to question many issues and improve process.

The above is another example of a discussion that would benefit from the comments of an uninvolved expert on consensus building with a fantastic ability to interpret a discussion in the light of previous consensus and policy. You are the only person I know who fits that job description, so I'm afraid I'm asking for your help again.

The summary, in case you didn't look into it already, is as follows. A bot was approved to create stubs for places around the world. It had the potential to create 2 million stubs, but also had the goal to address Wikipedia's systemic bias towards the Western World in the area of human settlements. The issue was questioned at WP:VPP, and a debate insued based partly on misunderstanding, but also on genuine problems with the proposal. The bot operator revised the proposals in the light of this, the earlier discussion was archived to WT:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot, and a new discussion was started at WP:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot. The new proposals scaled back the original ones and clarified quality control issues. The resulting discussion has received a lot of comments, and desperately needs an impartial editor to assess them.

I really hope you can help again. My own involvement here is slight. I tentatively questioned the original proposal, but tentatively support the new one. The summary above is intended to help you decide if you want to help, not to influence your view. I hope you can help. Geometry guy 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. xenocidic (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as one of the parties who will be doing a lot on this project, I can tell you that I will do all I can to ensure that only articles that would meet standard notability will be created. Thank you for the work, and let's all hope that this works out soon. I've asked that we maybe start with American Samoa, as some of the setup work is already done there. With any luck, we won't disappoint you or anyone else. John Carter (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nice close - but I have a question ... Would this sentence in your third paragraph Because they have the power to create bad edits as fast as they can create good edits we don't let anyone use them. read better if it added the word *just* as in - Because they have the power to create bad edits as fast as they can create good edits we don't *just* let anyone use them? Not a criticism just a question of clarification. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 07:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, just. Thanks for catching that. Sometimes I think a word and forget to type it. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  My pleasure. Cheers--VS ^talk 07:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sam - the quality of your close exceeded even your own high standards (in my view). Your closing statements often provide a great reminder what Wikipedia is about, and reading them rekindles my enthusiasm for the project. Geometry guy 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam. Thanks for taking the initiative to make the decision on one of the most important decisions in the history of wikipedia when there is a lot of pressure to do so. I believe you have evaluated it exceptionally well and neutrally and shown a solid understanding as to what wikipedia is about. In a project that strives to achieve the "sum of all human knowledge" ignoring 95% of the planet was not a good idea even if the articles begin as stubs. We want to make this website the best reference site imaginable and can at least set it on the right path to achieving what many consider "impossible". Nothing is irreversible, and if it doesn't work out and we are "stuck with zillions of perma substubs" it can always be undone. I'm sure most people can see that a lot of thought will go into each country and we will try to achieve the best initial result possible, and also work at expanding those that can be expanded to make the encyclopedia flourish. I'm certain that once people begin to see it in action and how much content it can add in such a small timeframe under monitoring then people will realise the potential of this new ambitious project. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I should probably let you know that there will be a short (94s) segment on Radio Wikipedia covering this decision. You can preview the segment here. best, xenocidic (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks to you, Sam, not for coming to the "right" decision (although, it is clearly one I am pleased with) but for actually doing what must have been a very difficult piece of closing. Thank you very much for the time and effort you have expended on this. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For closing the huge debate at WP:GEOBOT, LegoK^ontribsT^alkM has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to rain on the parade here, because you so clearly were acting in good faith. :( But, though I participated in that discussion, I do not see a clear consensus. Granted, that means no consensus either way, there is not consensus for the "no" side either. This seems, however, to be under the "fait accompli" that ArbCom ruled on, where if this is allowed, we would be stuck with all these articles. To have consensus, we would have to see far stronger support and far less opposition. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I just read your close and while I personally didn't see a strong consensus, I believe your analysis is/was a good one. —Giggy 10:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My user page

Could you please unblock it for me? Gabrielkat (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions, comments, and issues regarding the unjust deletion of Category:Jewish businesspeople

It is clear that your decision to delete Category:Jewish businesspeople was incorrect/unjust and was riddled with your personal POV, i.e. by all accounts you did not maintain a NPOV regarding this category. I'd like to know how such a large and old category can manage to be deleted by the decision of only ONE PERSON (?!), namely yourself. In closing the CfD discussion you wrote that "The result of the discussion was: Delete" even though 7 users voted to keep the category and only 5 voted to delete it (including the person who nominated it); thus it is clear that the result of the discussion was No consensus just like the previous CfD discussion regarding this category back in 2007, or even "Keep" given that more people voted to keep the category rather than delete it. Also, myself and many others are interested to know if you are ethnically/religiously Jewish; if you are we would like to know how this may have influenced your decision to delete this category despite the fact that, as noted above, more people voted to keep this category than delete it. Myself and others would really appreciate it you could please further explain your actions, reasoning, and background regarding the unjust deletion of this long-established and very well populated category. Thanks, Wassermann (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think my ethnicity or religion has anything to do with the closing. xFDs are not a vote. I never count votes. I read every comment and analyze each to see if it has merit and can be backed up with guidelines and precedents. If our guidelines and precedents are flawed, I am more than willing to consider creating a new precedent on the path to changing the guideline, based on cogent arguments. I closed the discussion based on the arguments brought up by both sides. Most of the arguments in favor of keeping the category were supporting your position, or were made by you. At least one person in favor, it seemed, didn't seem to understand which categories were being discussed, or advocated populating all intersections of religion and occupation without giving reasons why we should abandon our guidelines. I wrote an exceedingly long closing statement to explain my reasoning. I am happy to discuss my reasoning, I think it is inappropriate to discuss me. I do not think my closing was unjust. I had never looked at the category before. I came to the discussion with no POV that I was aware of about the topic. I try to keep things in Wikipedia whenever I can. To test my initial analysis to close the discussion as a "delete", I actually tried to come up with a rationale for keeping it that I could explain based on the discussion, our guidelines and past precedent. I was unable to do so. I tried to find some way to distinguish the category from other similar ones of many different ethnicities that had been deleted. It became clear to me that the arguments and precedents that pointed to deletion were the correct indicator that it should be deleted. But more importantly, I realized that the topic of "the history of Jewish business" would be better served by a new category that was well defined to be directly on that topic. If someone were studying the history of Jews in business and commerce, they would want to find the people who's lives were intimately related to the topic or who were notable historically because of the topic. It would not be helpful to find a complete listing of every Jewish businessperson in Wikipedia. They would more likely be looking for the Rothschilds than the founders of Google. Finding every Jewish businessperson is not helpful for the objective that you have stated for the category. I am not your adversary. I am trying to help you get what you want, and improve the encyclopedia as well. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wassermann, please desist from uncivil interrogations. You speak only for yourself, not "myself and others", Sam made an extremely well reasoned and explained decision here, and his ethnicity and religion are irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I second what User:Jayjg just said. And further will state that what User:Sam said above has been my typical experience when dealing with him. - jc37 04:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Consensus is not vote counting. --Kbdank71 13:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dove DYK

On 23 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Dove (1968 film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Types_of_scientist_by_nationality

Hi Sam, Thought you'd like to know that I like your new proposal and decided to formally change my nomination to support it. I think it could garner concensus from the other folks, but I doubt they're even checking in at this point. How do you suggest we proceed? Cgingold (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Truss bridge reference discussion

Hello. Please review the discussion going on at Talk:Truss bridge#Use of the HAER Publication on Truss Types as a Reference Document. Input from members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges would be appreciated. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Wikipedia

Hi Sam,

I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Arbitrary break to the first mention of Portal:Wikipedia. You said you might support a proposal to move the main page to Portal:Wikipedia. Well, thanks to you, that's what the proposal has become, so would you be willing to come out and support it? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

GA icons

Just want to say I read your arguments regarding putting little GA signs on articles and I now completely agree with you. Your user page seems to talk sense too! Wikipedia can sometimes feel like defending against dark age barbarian hordes. At least someone here is remaining chipper! And infectiously so. Thanks Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #7

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 7
	Date: September 6th, 2008
	Time: 3 PM
	Place: Freebase HQ, San Francisco
prev: Meetup 6 - next: Meetup 8

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review requested

Please take note that a deletion review has been requested for the category Category:Mononymous persons which was recently decided to be deleted. You receive this notification because you took part in the preceding discussion. __meco (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice close

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 8#Category:Jewish businesspeople

Just thought you could use some positive reinforcement. I thought that was rather well-explained.

And incidentally, should this go to DRV, and I miss it, please let me know : ) - jc37 08:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering DRV

This is actually quite a surprise and affront. I cannot imagine why it would be improper to keep a category on Wikipedia of Jewish businesspeople, and having read the very slight discussion and the closing statement, I see no cogent explanations. Categories get deleted without a whole lot of input because nobody gets notified in advance. Yet either the majority, or a substantial minority, of well-reasoned opinions were for keeping. Under the circumstances it is very aggressive, POV, and frankly, disturbing, to deny the ability of Wikipedians to categorize businesspeople by ethnicity, particularly Jewish businesspeople. The subject itself is more than notable[4][5][6][7]. Please reconsider. If you do not the obvious step is DrV or simple recreation. Wikidemo (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are notable Jewish businessmen in the world. However, my closing is based on the guidelines and precedents that were brought up in the discussion. I will be happy to reconsider my closing if you can either convince me that they are in keeping with our guidelines and precedents or give cogent reasons why our guidelines are wrong and need to change. I have no problem with categorizing people by their profession, and no problem with categorizing them by their ethnicity and/or religion. Categorizing them by the intersection of both traits is a different matter. It is now possible to search for category intersections, and it is possible to populate the List of Jewish American businesspeople and create more lists of Jewish businesspeople, so I don't think I have denied anyone anything. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The closing seems to be based partly on the misconception that Jewishness is a religion (or a nationality) unrelated to being in business. In fact, Jewishness is an ethnicity as well, and Jewish history is intimately connected with the merchant class, finance, certain trades and occupations. Being a Jewish businessperson is a strain of Jewishness, much as being a Jewish scholar, or a Jewish religious leader. It is not that the businesspeople are individually notable (certainly, hundreds or thousands are), but that the notion of Jewish businesspeople (Jews in business, or businesspeople being Jewish) is itself a notable phenomenon. It is not a random intersection but a notable topic. The ghits are a shorthand and a way to find the sources - there are many articles about the subject. The actual article would be List of Jewish businesspeople (nationality is more of a random intersection here than the ethnicity or the occupation because historically, notable Jewish businesspeople have operated across national borders). If one created and populated such an article with a few hundred or thousand links, how would that be better than a category with a few hundred or thousand members? Would some people quickly nominate that for deletion so that the content keeps getting the run-around? The whole process seems to be motivated by a desire to get rid of ethnicity as a valid sub-category of anything - which is, however you cut it, a politicized, biased outcome. Classes are taught in academia, books and articles are written, on the subject of ethnicity in various trades and occupations. It's problematic that Wikipedia is trying to stamp that out. I think the effort is flat wrong, but in any event it's controversial. By eliminating a well-populated category against consensus based on taking one side in a major project-wide controversy, you overstepped your bounds as a closing administrator. Wikidemo (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Every ethnicity/religion has historical cultural traits that leads to disproportionate representation in some fields more than others. That isn't a sufficient reason for creating a category. As your own argument above mentions, this is a phenomena of Jewish history. If the category was so defined, and articles about people added because they are historically notable because of their role in that history, that would be a fine reason to have a category. This is the norm of all categories that are the intersection of ethnicity/religion and profession. I was not pulling a rabbit out my hat. If we don't maintain the guidelines we create and look at our past decisions, the project will fall apart. It cannot toss in the wind like a helium balloon moving this way and that, blown by whatever opinions show up for the most recent discussion. As an administrator I feel bound to keep that balloon tied to a string -- the string being our guidelines and precedents. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree on the substance or procedure, and obviously Wikipedians don't either. By your procedural argument we might as well not have deletion discussions if you feel free to disregard the results on the theory that the wrong people showed up. Nevertheless, are you saying that a category would be legitimate in your opinion if as an inclusion criterion the person had to relate somehow to the history of Jews in business? Wikidemo (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't disregard the results. It was a discussion, and not a vote. I analyzed every point brought up in the discussion. I read all the discussions of the linked CFDs. I looked at numerous categories that were similar cases. The people who felt that there were reasons to delete were able to back up their positions with precedent and supporting guidelines. The people who wanted to keep the category did not discuss the guidelines and the examples mentioned did not support their position. If anything, the examples they mentioned were examples of why the category should be deleted.

I am saying that a category might be legitimate if it was clearly defined as the history of Jews in business and the articles put in that category directly discuss the topic. I suspect that such a category would not be challenged as long it did not become a repository for every Jew in business. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm wondering at the aversion of this being a list. If the information is as notable as everyone is saying, why isn't it located at List of Jewish American businesspeople? And better, all such references which indicate "notability" could thus be provided. - jc37 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There were hundreds or thousands of people in the category - a list would be unwieldy and hard to maintain. Categories also make better pivot points for searches and navigation. Wikidemo (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In many ways, a list is easier to maintain than a category. It can be watched for changes, it can be diffed and it can be reverted. You cannot do that with a category. It can be put in the category hierarchy in the same place that category can. A list can be linked to articles where appropriate. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. Under the circumstances, rather than going through a DrV I'll probably create a list article or else a more narrow category for history of Jews in business. Any thoughts on which is a more encyclopedic way to go about it? Wikidemo (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

All seem like good goals. A scholarly article about the history of Jews in business that links to the figures that are an important part of that history seems to me to be the most useful and valuable addition to Wikipedia. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind, an list will have to be properly sourced, per WP:BLP. As an example, List of Jewish American businesspeople has only 7 sourced entries in it. User:Wassermann has, since January 2007, periodically edit-warred to include dozens of other un-sourced names on the list; however, he has never actually made the effort to provide sources for any of them, so the list remains small. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten started but it's a huge undertaking, and after beginning on it I'm not convinced that a list article is the most encyclopedic approach. I'll probably play around with it some more but it would probably be a week's effort for five editors to recreate in list form the useful material removed by the deletion. That user's comment is spot on. The sourcing is in the main articles, making it cumbersome and redundant to copy and paste the cites. It's not a BLP / verifiability issue, which is one of the many problems with using an article for this kind of categorization. One can take the approach I did, which is to look for books and academic papers specifically on the issue of the relation between Judaism and business history, and lift names out of those (on the theory that if a learned scholar thought Jewishness is important to the history that's a reasonable inclusion criterion). But that seems to limit things arbitrarily. Wikidemo (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad you've started on Jews in the history of business. It might be edifying if it explained why each individual was an important figures in the history of business, and also explained the role that Jews in general had in the history of business. I noticed that it is not named "List of Jews in the history of business", so perhaps that was already part of your plan. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure of the best name. I initially chose and added a little text so that people wouldn't automatically assume it's a pointless list. I'm not sure yet how expansive or small it should be - perhaps that's up to other editors. I'm trying to find the most important ones first, and also finding that the historical ones are more useful / edifying than living people who happen to be Jewish. Who knows for now if it is important that Larry Page or Larry Ellison are Jewish? But looking through the lens of history it's easier to see who is of lasting importance, and for whom their culture is somehow related to their business or legacy. That also means no BLP issues in calling someone Jewish. I hope you don't mind the extended discussion. This is helpful. Instead of just talking about deletions, sometimes one gets the hang of how things are best arranged by actually working on things. Wikidemo (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing issue

Hi. This is to alert you that the article was nominated for deletion, sort of, and there has been considerable sentiment to do so. I did a nonadministrative closuse because the nomination was incomplete and seemed to be withdrawn, but it's pretty obvious that people don't understand the purpose of the article and conflate it with lists they do not like. I'm not sure what to do here - the subject is terribly important, and easily satisfies our notability requirement. But some people don't seem to be comfortable with the notion of ethnicity, so the information gets kicked from one place to another. If not a category, and not an article, where can we talk about the subject of Jewishness as it relates to business? Wikidemo (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the short-lived AFD discussion, and it points out some interesting issues. The nominator used WP:OCAT as a justification for deletion. WP:OCAT is specific for categorization and has standards that I believe are much stricter than those for lists. However, the discussion does bring up some good points why the article in its recent incarnation might be problematic. There is a tendency for lists to turn into cruft. Personally, I don't mind if some of these cruft filled lists remain, as long as their deficiencies are transparent to the casual reader. The discussion points out why this sort of listcruft would be problem for this topic. The CFD discussion which I closed made it clear that there could be a thoughtful, well-cited article that could be written about the topic of Jews in the history of business. I suggested above, and I continue to suggest, that the focus of your efforts would be on creating such an article. It will be hard to garner support for a list without a fair amount of cited prose. Even with the prose, the list should be limited to important historical figures, and a representative small set of current businesspeople. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case we may be back to a category. It seems strange - POV, and possibly troubling as a matter of denying cultural identity - to categorically exclude from Wikipedia the grouping of notable Jewish businesspeople. It's definitely POV to deny that there is no meaningful intersection of Jewish culture and business culture - and runs against a considerable body of very serious literature. Wikidemo (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that having the article developed first will make the listing less objectionable. It can later be decided how many people to list and who. Personally, I don't have a problem with a long list, but many feel that they serve little or no encyclopedic purpose. If the prose exists, I don't think there would be any objection to listing important figures in the history. You should really discuss this with IZAK and see if you both can come to some sort of understanding. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I was about to totally rewrite my response because I can tell I misunderstood your point at first. It's just a hard article to write. So I did the easy part first, finding some notable examples. Perhaps it's easier even to see the constellation of examples and then work back from there. Either way, if we establish that a subcategory of people (historical figures whose Jewishness is relevant to their notability as businesspeople) is notable it would be odd not to be able to categorize the examples. If there were many thousands then a long list would be hard to maintain and we would just have to use a few key examples or even work them into the text. However, I suspect that if we set the bar high enough (and some of the people I added may not pass that test) the entire universe of people is probably only several dozen, at most low 100s. The old category only had several hundred entries, but I think it suffered from both overinclusion of non-notable or irrelevant examples, and underinclusion of important examples as well. Any article could potentially turn into cruft and has to be minded to avoid degrading over time. But a strong inclusion criterion could set a reasonable standard for list quality. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Death of Marat from Marat-Sade.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Death of Marat from Marat-Sade.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Drum bridge

I created a redirect to the Moon bridge article - I don't think the reference is common in the US as your note was the first that I have heard of this and I think that Moon bridge is the common term.

- Leonard G. (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the fact tag

I have corrected you edit to Films considered the greatest ever. Please note that when adding the fact tag that the month needs to be spelled out completely. Your edit was {{fact|date=Sept 2008}} it should have been {{fact|date=September 2008}} Using Sept adds the article to the non-existant category Category:Articles with unsourced statements since Sept 2008 instead of the correct category Category:Articles with unsourced statements since September 2008. Just thought you might be interested. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Who do I talk to about getting a category reinstated

I am not in a blue with any of the users, I'm not nagging you to block anyone, recently I have gotten the idea that the Disney Legends category should be reinstated, because there are dozens of categories focusing on various halls of fame, some of which don't even have an actual HALL. So who do I speak to? --AKR619 (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV

In view of your work at Wikipedia:Categorization, please feel free to comment at the National parks category name DRV. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Categorization/rewrite

Wikipedia:Categorization/rewrite, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Categorization/rewrite and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Categorization/rewrite during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- -- Suntag ☼ 07:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspension bridge lengths

I recall you saying that you had trouble verifying the span of various suspension bridges. Obviously it won't work for historical bridges that don't exist anymore, but how close could you come in Google Earth to measuring a bridge? Just a thought. --Dvortygirl (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I operate mostly in projects where original research isn't an issue or is even encouraged, so that didn't even occur to me. At least a bridge length isn't too qualitative a subject. --Dvortygirl (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:FritzpollBot

Hi remember the discussion we had at the village pump ages ago? I'm requesting that we start articles on the adminstrative regions of Nepal, known as Village Development Committees. An example is shown at User:Fritzpoll/Nepal. However Fritz is under the impression the community would not want this and that they are not notable, given that they make up governed areas of Nepal. Is this an adequate start or not? I was sure the argument against was about computer generated sub stubs on hamlets or villages which are barely verifiable. These however have government sources and data and UN map territory verification to boot. SHould we start another pump discussion? The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you create an article that is an example using one of the administrative regions, and see if it survives AFD. If it does, there would be precedent for creating articles for all of the regions. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge FAC

Hi, Sam. I have renamed the section headers for Ellet and Roebling to make it clearer that they were two different structures. Does that allay your concern? Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though the article has been promoted, I would like to hear from you if the changes have improved it. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

unblock edgo article

Dear Sam,

I would like to request to unblock an article titled edgo and one titled Edgo Group. We created both, but it looks like the content was promotional, so we reviewed the policy and were able to create a better article that was accepted by wikipedia.

The new article title is The Edgo Group and now I would like to create a new article titled edgo and one titled Edgo Group to have the same content as the The Edgo Group.

Can you kindly review the blocked and assist us. Also The Edgo Group Account can be deleted.

Thanks.

--Nabil.shalan (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1 M colors

I answered your query on my own talk page - see you there! ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested image now on my talk page. --Janke | Talk 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking the copyright owner before posting ???

Hi Sam, You made a wiki page about my Matthew Shepard photograph. It is not the full photo which is much more powerful than the illegally cropped version. Could you not have written to me to get your facts straight first? like what is my connection to Matt, what is my website rather than my lightstalkers page, where the photograph was taken and when, etc..... Could you edit that with the right info please? email me at gvanhoof@gmail.com - which you could easily have found by googling me and getting my website 1st. And I will send you all the correct details via email. Thanks, Gina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.19.118 (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories discussion

Would you be interested in this discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

concealed links

The problem is that your readers won't know that they're helpful unless they have X-ray vision. MOSLINK says this:

• Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., [[1991 in music|1991]]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see [[1991 in music]])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. However, piped links may be useful:
• in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists); and
• in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as is often the case with sports biographies that link to numerous season articles.

and this: *Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember that there are people who print the articles.

It's not the links themselves but the concealed piping that is the problem. There are several options for dealing with this. One is to simply spell out the pipe. See whether this works; it looks much more likely to attract clicks now. I think you're overestimating the likelihood that readers will click on single year links, which normally lead somewhere very unfocused. Tony (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

PS Why have you got dts in the columns? Removing this would save room from the first column. Tony (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But there are no other concealed year-in-X links in the article—only in that table. Tony (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see your note. The Werdnabot piecemeal archiving process sometimes covers up other edit notifications unless you check carefully. It's a pity that, unlike the last fix to the table (which you don't like, anyway), many edits have occurred; many had occurred even before your previous message, so by then a quick-fix revert had become difficult. You yourself had the option of reverting at any stage. There are two relevant statements at MOSLINK:

Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., [[1991 in music|1991]]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g., ''(see [[1991 in music]])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all.

and

Avoid placing two links next to each other in the text so that they look like one link (such as internal links).

WRT the first statement, there's an inescapable likelihood that most readers won't catch on to the fact that behind what look like trivial links to year-pages are your concealed year-in-film links. I've gone for a more explicit and prominent approach: a "See also" overriding link beneath the two relevant sections, leading straight to the gateway page "List of years in film". This will alert all readers to the facility rather than concealing it. I think it's a significant improvement of the navigational aspect of the article. I do not believe that readers will want to divert from this overview at every turn, but the option is there for them to do so as flagged at the top of these sections. At least they know about it now.

WRT to the second MOSLINK statement, this was indeed a further concealment, since many readers (including me, at first) saw one link, not two in items such as The Godfather (1972). Numerous film articles do indeed include the year in parentheses. Tony (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in Motor Militia article, need help.

Hello, an article that I helped create has recently been vandalized - I tried undoing most of the edits, but I'm told that some of them cannot be reverted due to 'conflicting intermediate edits'. Suffice to say, I need help - can you grant me the Rollback feature? At the very least--if possible, please revert the page back to the state it was in on October 10th, before any of the vandalism occurred. ANY help would be greatly appreciated.

The article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Militia

In A Conundrum (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC).

Sam, thanks. Worked like a charm - although I'm worried that the vandal will try to sabotage the article again, as he tried to revert the edits I made this afternoon when I posted my complaint. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mot%C3%B6r_Militia&limit=500&action=history

It has been traced to two similar IP addresses so far: 137.222.218.140 , and 137.222.218.52. Is it possible that you can lock the article and still allow me to have access to it? What measures do you think are appropriate in this situation? Let me know, thanks.

In A Conundrum (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for RFC analysis

Hi Sam. User:Geometry guy recommended you as a neutral and diligent person who would be able to read through a tough RFC and find common ground. I was hoping you would be willing to in one particular case. It's gonna be tedious, but it's highly important work and will likely have a large impact on Wikipedia content. (Specifically WP:N.) I figure you're busy, but I hope I can convince you to take this on and make it a priority. Let me know how things are going on your end, and if you're open to the idea. Randomran (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise is the RFC you are talking about, you didn't include a link, but I was able to figure it out from your edit history.

I would be interested in taking this on, but with a few conditions:

1. THE PROCESS: I don't think that RFC is a particularly good way to decide difficult issues that will have a big effect on the entire community. I just so happen to be working on a proposal for guidelines for just this sort of thing. The idea is to have a centralized location where these sort of important issues are discussed, and a process to manage the discussion so that is less frustrating, more productive, easier to follow, more engaging and will hopefully lead to higher quality results. I have not yet presented my proposal to the community at large, though I have discussed it with a few very influential Wikipedians. I was planning on proposing it to the broader community in the near future, but perhaps this RFC could be a test case. The (not quite finished) proposal is at User:Sam/Facilitated community discussions. I see the work in the RFC as just part of the first step in a process that I hope we can undertake within the English Wikipedia community.
2. THE GOAL: What does not seem clear to me at first glance is a clear definition of the problem that you are all trying to solve. I don't see a common goal of what the Notability guideline is trying to do, and agreed upon criteria for judging any proposed changes. What the community has generated, which is quite useful, is a broad range of opinions about "Notability". What is needed now is some good analysis and definition of the problem so we can find some commonality about the goals of the "Notability" guidelines. So I'd like to re-frame the discussion more broadly.
3. TIME-LINE: I am really busy right now working full time, seven days a week, but I will have a lot of time after November 4th (you can guess why). If people who have been participating in the RFC think the facilitated community discussion process would be helpful, and want me to facilitate, then I'd be willing to take it on once I have more time after the 4th.
4. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Even if people who have already been involved in the RFC are interested in trying the process, there needs to be enough community involvement so that everyone will go along with the outcome. Since this will be a test case for trying a new process, and the issues are rather large, there needs to be a large amount of publicity. If you (and others) are willing to broadly publicize and discuss the proposed process from now until after November the 4th, I'd be willing to take on the responsibility of facilitating it if there is broad support for trying the process.
5. FLEXIBILITY: I want it to be clear that the process is not set in stone, and part of the objective in doing this is to test it and improve it. I also do not see the facilitators role as the sole closer of controversies. I see the facilitator as the person responsible for keeping the process moving in a productive path towards finding the consensus of the community.

If this all sounds good to you, talk to the other people involved, and we can start the process in November.

--☑ SamuelWantman 07:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your thoughtful and thorough response. From what it sounds like, you have some significant real life experience with this kind of dispute resolution. If I had known you were willing to take this kind of thing on, I would have visited you a lot sooner. I agree with you that an RFC is less than ideal, and your process definitely sounds like it would be a useful way to move some conflicts forward. I'm definitely okay with working on your schedule. You're volunteering, after all.

That said, I'd hate to throw out all the hard work that Wikipedians put into this RFC, both in terms of organization and in terms of participation. This RFC was not the first step. A major reason we tried to structure the discussion around concrete proposals is because abstract discussions about underlying interests and goals were not getting us anywhere. There were a number of other reasons too: polarizing figures kept on dragging the discussion back towards "only notability" or "delete notability". I didn't expect the proposals to be passed, but I'd like to think that structuring the discussion around specific proposals has revealed what an eventual compromise will look like. I have several worries with starting an entirely new dispute resolution process. Besides throwing out that hard work, I think it would frustrate people who have been involved in this dispute for a long time. I also think it would make it hard to attract the wider community participation that we got for this RFC, especially if we simply discarded what we've done thus far. And even if we were to focus on a process that reveals underlying goals and interests, it would reveal a lot of things we already know.

Just for some background, you might want to take a quick look at some of these (starting in May 2008):

• Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 23 - just skim it, to get a feel for how this conversation started to hit a boiling point
• [8] - a sub-discussion at WP:FICT that involved a specific class of editors. Ended in no consensus, and ultimately merged with the controversy over WP:N.
• [9] - the RFC at WP:FICT resulted in even more polarization over WP:N. ("Delete WP:N" versus "HELL NO".)
• [10] - a discussion that reveals the underlying interests and goals: quality control versus wide coverage
• [11] - the first round of proposals that attempt to relax WP:N (or explain how SNGs can relax WP:N) without throwing it out of the window
• These added up to trying to put together an RFC that solicited feedback from all Wikipedians, rather than any specific group. That's the RFC I'm hoping you can read.
• [12] - an interesting side discussion about the purpose of notability. Some people think it's supposed to ensure adequate sourcing, in a way that's both reliable and independent. Some people think it's a way to ensure actual importance, so Wikipedia isn't undermined by "trivial" topics. (And yet others want coverage of everything regardless of quality.)

So if it helps you, there already *is* common ground with the goals. It's quantity versus quality, in essence. Both sides want both. But it's a question of how we get there. Some people think WP:N ensures a level of reliability and objectivity to an article that we can't get from researching fan sites or primary sources. Other people think WP:N gets in the way of wide coverage by being too strict. But there *is* some sympathy between each side, and that can help the compromise go forward.

My hope is to read the RFC with these goals in mind: ensuring some level of quality control (so that subjects can be sourced with reliable research that is independent rather than "vain"), while allowing wider coverage than what would strictly be allowed by WP:N. There's a lot of shades of gray between those two goals, but I think the RFC has already revealed it. We just need someone to read it.

If I have some underlying goals, they are (1) to avoid soliciting feedback from the wider community until we've done everything we can to understand the conflict up until this point, (2) to make sure that the effort on this RFC hasn't been discarded, and that we don't frustrate the hundreds of people who weighed in by ignoring their efforts over the past few months, (3) to avoid retreading old discussions about which goal is more important (quality versus quantity, in essence), (4) to avoid returning to a forum that will empower the most polarizing figures in the dispute, rather than the less passionate majority of Wikipedians, and (5) efficient use of the community's time, which I think requires us to use this RFC in some productive way.

It sounds like your goals are similar. We're fine on the timeline. You want to understand the underlying goals of the sides of the conflict, and I think they have been hashed out repeatedly. The real issue is process. I'm unclear if you think an organized facilitation will be more productive, or if you're looking for a way to prove the new concept. Maybe both. I support both, but then I'd add all my above concerns about using the RFC, because it's a culmination of a lot of effort over many months.

Maybe there is a way for this all to work out. Step one is to read the RFC and summarize it with an independent voice. I'd like to think that this will be tedious but easy. Really, the issue is avoiding the RFC from being read by polarizing figures who might try to spin it. Step two will then involve starting a new process based on whatever we find. It might involve going directly towards drafting a some changes to WP:N. I think using your facilitative process would be highly productive there.

Sorry for the essay. I'm sort of thinking out loud, and I'm on my way out. Let me know. Randomran (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: just to guess, good luck with the election. While there are some people who think it will be a foregone conclusion, we should take nothing for granted. And there are some very important issues being decided at the state level that will have a big impact on equality. That's far more important than Wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your analysis of the problem. What you have done, is very much in line for what I'm thinking about for facilitated group discussions. If the compromise, as you see it forming, is truly going to work, the community needs to know what led to the RFC and the rationale behind it. You've laid much of this out for me. When this is incorporated into the discussion I propose then it will eventually be very clear to many what is being discussed, why, the history and the rationale that leads to whatever conclusion results. People like yourself, who have been involved with this issue for a long time, need to be able to communicate to the the larger community the essence of what is going on. Even for an involved Wikipedian like myself -- who has been here for years and has gotten involved in a number of notability questions -- the big picture has to be presented in a clear and concise form. It should not take anyone hours of reading to get at the crux of an issue. So don't feel like your work is for naught. I think everything that has happened is extremely useful. It very well may be that the process of crystallizing the history that has happened will not change the compromise that you think will emerge. If you are correct, by going through the process you will be able to bring the community to see the emerging consensus in the same clear light that you do. I cannot know if that is the case until we start our work. Right now I see a very, very, long RFC with a huge history behind it that I don't yet understand. We can't expect everyone to pour through all of it. I think we can expect those people who are close to the issue and care deeply about it to work together to educate the larger Wikipedia community about what has happened and why. Hopefully, a very short document with a solution will emerge that will be clear and convincing. Like an article, it will reach a stable version. At that point, I think it will be safe to say that the community has reached a consensus. More in ten days... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You raise an important point. Frequently, throughout the past few months, a new person would show up on the scene and say "come on guys, quit arguing, the easy answer is X" -- without realizing that several other "heroes" had shown up to show us the light before. It's important for people to understand the obstacles that made this RFC necessary. That said, most people think the RFC itself is fair an representative of the broader community, and most people think the RFC yields a useful and important conclusion we can work from. The problem is that there isn't firm agreement about what the RFC means exactly. I think Masem was actually pretty fair in analyzing the results, because he stayed away from any bold or controversial conclusions, and looked for the obvious common ground. But there are a few dissenters who either don't trust his neutrality, or are themselves not neutral and want to spin the results to favor whatever position they are taking. That's why we need a neutral and detached third party to go over it and pull out the common ground... and there is a lot of common ground, even if there isn't total support for a single solution. I know you're too busy to jump on this right away. But how do you propose we use the RFC moving forward? Randomran (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting) I think the RFC is a very appropriate way to gather information to analyze the views of the community. I'd want to use that information to create a list of concerns, a list of criteria, a list of potential solutions, etc... Sorry I can't be more specific now. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds promising. I might also extract from the RFC a "list of principles" that most people agree upon. And if people share a lot of common ideas about where to go, it might be possible for a normal discussion to build off of that and work towards one or two changes to WP:N. But if there's only one or two broad and abstract ideas that people share, it might be the starting point for another "facilitated discussion" or dispute resolution mechanism. Make sense? (Again, knowing that you won't be able to even think of lifting a finger until November.) Randomran (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. The best way to create a positive solution is to build on the broad ideas that people share. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Good luck next week. We'll touch base later. Randomran (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #8

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 8
	Date: November 8th, 2008
	Time: 2PM
	Place: Metacafe, Palo Alto, California
prev: Meetup 7 - next: Meetup 9

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi Sam -

I don't know if you are the right person, but I am very confused and hope you can help.

I have received the following message:

] Speedy deletion of Image:T422 ADN.JPG

A tag has been placed on Image:T422 ADN.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I created the page in the first place, & I don't understand why it has been whisked away to "Commons" (whatever that is), and why it has subsequently been deleted.

Could you enlighten me, please?

GOTV!

Good luck today. Let's preserve equality under the law. Randomran (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. I'm sure you're gonna need time to recover, and they're gonna need time to look at all those absentee, provisional, and challenged ballots. Randomran (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC Analysis

Thanks for jumping on this so soon after what was probably a grueling time. To recap where we left off, I think we agreed that it would be a good idea to analyze the RFC as source of information on the community's views. The problem with the RFC in the form that it is now is that it's damn long. On the other hand, breaking it down into a bunch of ballot with yes/no votes won't reveal the underlying truth. Someone neutral and detached has to read through the whole thing, and avoid getting locked into treating it like a bunch of ballots.

1. We have to look for conditional support and qualified opposition, instead of just yays and nays. "I have to say no, because the proposal lacks X" is the same as "I can say yes, so long as we can figure out a way to address X". This might reveal stronger consensus than initially thought, or weaker as the case may be. But it will be true, whatever it is.
2. We have to keep in mind that participation is not uniform across every proposal -- more than 200 people weighed in on the first proposal, but then participation falls off drastically. We shouldn't expect editors to repeat themselves on every proposal for their opinion to have weight. To the extent that they've explained their rationale, we should look at their single comment and try to determine how they feel about the whole notability issue.
3. Even if there isn't consensus for a specific proposal, hopefully we can find consensus on common concerns. We need to find criteria for a good notability requirement, and general principles about notability. If we can distill the RFC down to a few principles, then it will be much easier for smaller discussions to move forward. e.g.: a new proposal would be measured against those consensus principles.

That's where you come in, hopefully. Your name was recommended by User:Geometry guy. I know it's tedious work. But you can invest as much time as you think is reasonable. The report can be long or short, so long as it helps move the discussion forward. (Again, recall how difficult the discussion has been thus far, but that we've made a lot of progress already. It's just taken a lot of time.)

I mean, I have ideas about how to do it. I might suggest organizing the comments by user, rather than by proposal, in order to get away from the "ballot" structure. ... then trying to organize the users from "left to right" on the issue, and look for the "juicy middle". But you were recommended to me because you have experience with this kind of thing. I figure you might have some ideas about how to best analyze this in a way that's neutral, but thorough. Randomran (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

More vandalism in Motor Militia article.

Hi Sam, there has been continued vandalism in the Motor Militia article since we last spoke - all from the same IP address. I've tried telling him to stop previously, posting comments on another user name with his IP, but he did not respond. At this point, it is simply irritating to have to constantly revert his edits.

Here is the history of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mot%C3%B6r_Militia&action=history

And here is his contributions page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/137.222.218.140

I would appreciate it if you could semi-protect the article. I also believe this is grounds for blocking the IP address in question, as he has been constantly vandalizing the article for the last month.

Please respond when you can, thank you.

In A Conundrum (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

The way User:Aervanth did a non-admin closure of this discussion made it look like you closed the discussion and he had merely appended his signature to endorse your closure of it.

I still strongly disagree with your move, and with Aervanth's non-admin closure. The wikipedia is not solely an American project. And, IMO, the wikipedia's naming should not be structured as if it is.

I agree that Rome and Evolution merit pride of place. Should the local TV show be given pride of place? Given that there had already been a discussion, that proposal had failed, no offense, but I think your action in moving the article without discussion, was an instance of administrator over-reach.

I listed the move back in the "uncontroversial proposals" section of WP:requested moves. The wikipedia's policies are both imperfect and incomplete -- and they have grown to be baroque, convoluted and, at times contradictory.

I have no problem with proposals to give the article a new name. But I think the new naming should follow the wikipedia's established procedures.

The show's fans might think this is an important show. But the claim in the discussion that it was "available worldwide" was flatly untrue. The article cites a couple of reviews from the UK. But there are no reviews from Canada, a big portion of the anglosphere. Popularity is not tied to importance.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I got your reply. Every couple of months I look at the "what links here" for pantograph. When I first looked at it close to half of the links really should have been to pantograph (rail).

No offense, but, without regard to what we think makes sense, I think it is always a mistake to ignore the wikipedia's policy that decisions should be based on consensus, and jump immediately to a unilateral action. I don't think it should matter if, once we comply with policy, and seek consensus, if we end up talking everyone over to our point of view. I don't think this should encourage us to think the next time we can simply forgo seeking consensus. Is this time spent seeking consensus a waste of time? No. Not seeking consensus sets a bad example to new contributors. Not seeking consensus pisses people off. And, I suggest, in the long run, not seeking consensus sometimes takes much more time, because even if the unilateralist is os experienced their unilateral action would have acheived consensus, if they had sought consensus, it gets people's backs up, makes them cross and balky. And then there are the instances where it is wasteful because the unilateralist was mistaken.

I have encountered a handful of administrators who are unilateralists, who, unlike you (thanks) aren't open to discussing their actions. Even though some of these actions were years ago, there are reminders of their actions, and I still don't trust them. It has eroded my satisfaction with the wikipedia. Our actions have consequences. I know some of them were eventually de-sys-opped. But it took way too long.

I think following the rules is important. And, in my opinion, it is even more important for adminstrators, because they should be setting an example, because the community has a right to expect administrators to exercise their authority very carefully, and because it simply isn't fair to engage in power struggles when there is a power imbalance.

Thanks for being willing to discuss this.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

Article was deleted without warning or discussion

Hello Sam--I'm not the original creator of the article in question (which has stood for several years) but I did make a recent edit and the article has now been deleted. The edit I made was to add quotation marks to a quote to avoid the appearance of copyright infringement. The admin who deleted the article cited "blatant advertising" which seems odd as the tone of the article was precisely the same as every other article about similar and related institutions, none of which were flagged for deletion. Would you be willing to help me restore the page and/or understand why the admin would have made the decision he did? The page in question is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God,_an_International_Community. I'm confused as to why my edits would have suddenly led to deletion when the page has stood for so long and seems no different in tone from any of the other pages in this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_god . Thank you for any help you can give. Richard Abrahams (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Sam--I tried to reconcile the issue with the admin who deleted it and am at a loss. He refuses to help further, and I can't help but notice his talk history with others, so am hoping you can give me some advice--what's my next step? Richard Abrahams (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I'll see what I can do to improve it. All the best Richard Abrahams (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay Sam--I think I may have improved it. Would you mind taking a look in my workspace to see if this is better? I really appreciate your help. Richard Abrahams (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added what I could. Unfortunately, major newspapers don't usually mention individual churches by name. They usually just refer to "Christians" in general--or the Pope. :) I have been all through the Wikipedia articles on churches and there are few that have any references from newspapers. Most seem to rest their credibility on their activities--and in comparison to most, the Church of God that produces Vision certainly seems to have met the criteria of being noteworthy--else why would they get interviews with people like Uri Savir or Shimon Peres? I'm not sure what else I can do seeing that Religion pages in newspapers tend to talk in generalities. I would submit that noteworthiness in some walks of life are harder to document. But if this one is deleted for not having a newspaper reference, then I would submit that nearly every other Church should be as well. (The Catholic Church being the exception--they do have the Pope, after all!) :) Richard Abrahams (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks tremendously for the clean-up. I'm very new at this and your patience has been greatly appreciated. I'll give it a little time and see what more I can find before trying to repost. Many thanks again for your help! Richard Abrahams (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bay of Fundy images

Hi Sam,

We are hoping to obtain permission to use your images of the high and low tides in our marine science textbook. The following letter describes our project.

In 2005, Current Publishing Corp. (an affiliate of The Professional Association of Diving Instructors [PADI]) was successful in developing Life on an Ocean Planet, a high school marine science program consisting of a student textbook and accompanying teacher materials. Current Publishing Corp. is excited to inform you that the textbook and instructional materials have achieved leadership status in the high school science marketplace and we are now in the process of producing a second edition.

As the new Media Archivist for Current Publishing Corp., I am contacting you to request the possible use of your image(s) in our latest edition of Life on an Ocean Planet. I have either found the attached images(s) on your website and/or attached a list of images we are seeking. If your submission is chosen, the image(s) may be used in the student textbook, the Teacher Curriculum Guide, the Laboratory and Activity Manual, the Teacher Digital Resources and Assessment Tool, the Teacher Transparency Resource Package, Professional Development Materials, and Current Publishing Corp.’s website. Please review the attached PDF and, if agreeable to being included in the next edition, complete and return the attached Permission Agreement, along with any high resolution image(s) to be considered.

If you have other image(s) you would like us to consider, please submit them as soon as possible. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you in advance for your support!

Cheryl M. Regan Media Archivist Cheryl.regan@padi.com P. 800-729-7234 x 2415

30151 Tomas Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-2155 U.S.A. P. 1-949-267-1232 P. 1-866-348-7234 F. 1-949-267-1233 206.107.76.4 (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Black British expatriates in the United States

Hi there. In a discussion you closed, it was decided that this page is to be upmerged to Category:British expatriates in the United States and Category:British people of Black African descent. I stumbled upon the page today, surprised to see it still there, and discovered that it s deletion nomination tag had been removed. I ve readded the tag. Mayumashu (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bridges

There are 2 bridge-related cfds on the list for 8 Dec. I know that this is an area close to your heart, and that your views on categories are always worth seeking. Occuli (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Sam, Would you take a look at my contributions and tell me whether I would be suitable for Rollback Rights? Only just over 1400 edits so far, (it's quality, not quantity that counts!) but I seem to be doing more and more revertions of vandalism, so rollback would be really useful. Thanks. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 20:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be careful. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 08:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Googie/steampunk architectural dispute

Greetings: Please see Talk:Googie_architecture#Christchurch casino image and weigh in if you have an opinion following detailed examination of the image in dispute. Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Userification?

Exccuse me, is it possible to have a deleted page i recently created userified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AY AY AY AY AY YO (talk • contribs) 00:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User Behavior

Hi! I've been reluctant to bring this up, but for many months now, a certain user has continued to provoke others, add uncited info to pages (or in some cases, citing IMDb; I found out he was adding entries for non-existent Dave the Barbarian episodes and claiming John Cena voiced the character), and in general has been less than cooperative, at one point removing info from several pages to prove a point when irked over this edit on Frank Oz. He has continually returned to old disputes and edit wars. He has undone comments to his talk page with the summary "oh quit you're complaining people," and in a very involved edit war over one page, as seen here, he has used profanity and personal attacks within the article itself when he disagreed with another user's edits (I have no view on the argument itself, but the other party has asked for sources and left talk page notices and so on). I'm only a sporadic user and I don't like to bring these things up in a public talk page, but you're very familiar with his past behavior, and some intervention seems warranted at this point (and not just on one specific talk page). Thanks. -- Aleal (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All-Time

Thank you for fixing the various All-Time pages. I wanted to let you know I re-moved all the "All-Time" pages you fixed to more succinct titles, while still leaving the words "Time magazine's" in the titles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Caryl Churchill

Hi Sam,

Would you please take a look at the edit history of Caryl Churchill over the past 3 days. I am trying to preserve the neutrality of the article but three editors with newly-created accounts seem determined to politicise it. (Possible sock puppets?) I have reverted as far as I can. What do you think? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 12:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for action re: Caryl Churchill. Man vyi (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your block of an edit war waged by an angry sock-puppet. Would it be possible for you to lift the block, and Wikilink to Seven Jewish Children. Thank you.Historicist (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Historicist (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

According to our policy "Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users" and "Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of such for high-trafficked articles does not usually provide a basis for full-protection". On this article, we have seen several incidents of BLP-violating vandalism in a single day by just one editor, all swiftly reverted. This does not seem sufficient to me to justify even temporary semi protection, let alone indefinite full protection. So I request that it be unblocked, to enable constructive editors to continue to improve it. RolandR (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bear Mountain Bridge

Please participate on talk page of Bear Mountain Bridge regarding your restoration of section concerning the mysterious "material" applied to cables.

The section you have restored needs some serious and significant improvement and reasonable justification --- or deletion (again).

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

List of longest suspension bridge spans

I have nominated List of longest suspension bridge spans for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple suspension bridge

Hi. I have been expanding Simple suspension bridge and also cleaning up some related articles, Wikipedia categories, and categories on Commons; take a look? --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspension bridge

Hi, your are listed in WikiProject Bridges and I wondered if you might want to weigh in on a requested move? There is a discussion here Talk:Suspension_bridge_types#Requested_move which results from a previous move. The discussion has major consequences on the content of the main article on suspension bridges? The root question: Is a suspended deck bridge the proper name for a typical suspension bridge? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to userfy CMS Made Simple

Hello Sam,

the article I have written about CMS Made Simple was nominated for speedy deletion and already deleted.

As I understood from talk with DoriSmith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DoriSmith#CMS_Made_Simple_deleted there is a possibility to get the copy of the deleted article. I have made custom translation for it from German http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMS_made_simple and it took time for me to do it, could you please give me a copy of it or recover the translation in any way?

My mistake was choosing the same username as the article itself, but I am not a developer of the project and not involved in the development. I am just an advanced user of CMS Made Simple and had no better idea for username. I am not sure now if I have to register with Wikipedia again and choose another username for new submission through AFD to avoid treating as spam again. Do you think it would be better to register with another username?

CMS Made Simple is not an exotic CMS, it has already won a packt Best PHP Based Open Source Award in 2008 http://www.packtpub.com/article/2008-best-php-open-source-cms-drupal and it's a pity that no information about this CMS can be found in Wikipedia.

Thank you for your reply, Sonya CMS Made Simple (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A doubt about incategory

Hi Sam, I found your name as a contributor of Incategory article. I'm very interested about, but some tests into it.source are disappointing, since +incategory seems to work only with "hard" categories (those written as [[Category:...]] into the code of the page) but not with "soft" categories, coming from the transclusion of a template. If this is true, most of a project I'm working about is to be done from scratch. Is this a known limitation of incategory tool? Are you deep into this matter, or do you know who is? Thanks!

--Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC) (mainly active here: s:it:User talk:Alex brollo )

Thanks for the link to CatScan, but we were thinking about a very bold projecy founded on +incategory plus a neat trick to work with "catwords" (t.i. Category-Keywords). Nevertheless Catscan seems an excellent tool for admin purpouses. We'll study some other trick (probably something with subst: to create "hard" categories). --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 21:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, subst: runs. I can generate a chain of phisical gerarchical categories on a page. To work with +incategory, an item has to be categorized into all ancestor categories too: I can do this, the only trouble is that categories are phisically written into the page, and have to be deleted by a human or a bot user if there's some mistake.

Ok, there's matter to do some tests. Come into it.source if you are interested about! --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Some more detail about my "catwords" idea.

Categories are built as groups and more-and-more detailed subgroups. If you want to use +incategory to obtain a good list of all related objects, you have to categorize any object into the more detailed category and into all its ancestor categories. I.e: an Category:Equitation book has to be listed too into Category:Essays and into Category:Literature into a topic axis, and, if it is written into 1602, is has to be listes into Category:1602 books and into Category:XVII century books into a time axis, if your aim is to find it with +incategory into any intesection of topic axis and time axis. I built a trick to write phisically into the page all the list of the ancestor categories simply mentioning the most detailed one; my previous tests with categories which weren't phisically written into the text, but simply linked "on the fly" by a template didn't run.

I hope, I've been a little bit clearer.... :-( --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 08:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

--Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 08:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:LGBT-related television episodes up for discussion again

You had participated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:LGBT-related_television_episodes which ended five months ago with a strong consensus of keep. The subject is up for discussion again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:LGBT-related television episodes, where you may want to review the matter at hand and express your opinion on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Featured lists

Your "spirit of cooperation" extends as far as people being civil with you. In terms of aiding you in keeping an item of featured content up to task, it's where "spirit of cooperation" ends and "willingness to put in the work and having interest in the subject" comes up. It's up to you to comply with our guidelines and fix the problems with the list, not the people who brought up the issues with the list, many of which were not addressed or simply blown off. It's not your interpretation of our style guidelines that's always right, it's not what you think should be the perfect article or list, it's what consensus dictates and it's why for something to be featured, it needs to comply with what our style guidelines put forth. If you disagree with them, then go to the guidelines and change them. And honestly, your list was a far cry from the current featured list standards, even with the fixes made during the FLRC. If you don't believe me, then submit it for FLC. Barring substantial improvements, it's not going to pass. I'm sorry if you think this is unfair, but it's expected for items of featured content to meet a certain level of quality that is determined by the community. As evinced by the FLRC, that list didn't, despite what you believe. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are operating under two assumptions: that people are obligated to help you maintain the list's featured status out of some "spirit of cooperation" and that the featured list standards shouldn't be as strict. Neither will change and honestly neither should change. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 15:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of gamelan ensembles in the United States

I have nominated List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gamelan ensembles in the United States (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Black Kite 19:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm always open for discussion

I called you out for your comments at ANI then thought the better of it and reverted. I'm hoping they were made in the heat of the moment, and I felt that some damage control was warranted considering that we've not discussed such issues before. I'm always open for discussion. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've chosen not to follow up. I hope it won't happen again. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying

		Tireless Pointer Out of that which they cannot see
		SatuSuro 01:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying :( SatuSuro 08:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

List of gamelan ensembles in the United States

I'm not sure if you haven't seen my edit summaries and talk page comments or not. This is a simple and blatant case of WP:SPAM - links added to an article for promotion rather than as sources. Please join the talk page discussions. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting to discuss the situation. You didn't indicate you'd seen my edit summaries, so I'm emphasizing some of the information in them as a start.

I've edited many such lists this way, and feel very familiar with the applicable policies and guidelines. I'm also very familiar with the reactions that occur when linkspam is removed from such articles, especially for the first time. No offense, but this is all very routine for me. I think consensus on such links is crystal clear - they are not appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:BATTLE concerning, "Please discuss this without throwing Wiki-abbreviations around. It is unreasonable to expect people to read pages and pages of guidelines to understand why you think they apply here. And after all, they are just guidelines and we should ignore all rules when they go against the pillars of Wikipedia. So explain to me how this list, as it is, is harmful and contrary to the pillars of Wikipedia." Instead, it would be helpful if you would demonstrate that you've actually read the relevant policies and guidelines yourself, perhaps quoting or otherwise clarifying your interpretation of them. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the discussion on topic! --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Drawing your attention to these comments again. It's a month later, and I don't see much progress other than you've finally attempted some discussion directly with me.

One thing you might want to try: stop interfering with my attempts at cleaning up the article. I've made it crystal clear what I'm most concerned about and why: the links to official sites are inappropriate for many reasons. Even if you ignored all my arguments for removing them, there's no consensus for keeping them based upon what others have noted. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Need a little Help

Hi sam. Though i've been here on wikipedia for a long while but my interest in contributing to WP caught vigor in last few days. I looked at your user page and was wondering how did you add the boxes that say about you that you're eventualist etc. I found the Wikipedia Babel page. It helped me but cannot find similar page for the boxes above Wiki Babel. I should've searched more but sorry for i cannot find help. One more thing... how do i add link to talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Hamza (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I cited the same reference for two different statements in an article. Is there any way to make the second reference directly point to the first reference instead of creating another entry in reference section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Hamza (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out. Nevermind.Muhammad Hamza (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

At [13] is a discussion on music genre and equipment categories. Viriditas recommends that your contribution be invited. So please do if you can. Thanks - Redheylin (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A Suggestion for "SAM" on your User Page

You have created an unusual, but interesting Name on your user page. But, may I make the following suggestion? if you change the 2nd line from this:

{| style="position:absolute; top:21px; height: 40px; width:100%; padding-bottom:0px; background:#F8FCFF; color:#888;" valign="left"

to this:

{| style="position:absolute; top:15px; height: 60px; width:100%; padding-bottom:0px; background:#F8FCFF; color:#888;" valign="left"

With this change, you won't see the letters underneath (which I don't think you intended to show?).  :)
--stmrlbs|talk 09:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sam.. new fix:

if you change the 2nd line from this:

{| style="position:absolute; top:21px; height: 40px; width:100%; padding-bottom:0px; background:#F8FCFF; color:#888;" valign="left"

to this:

{| style="position:absolute; top:1em; height: 2em; width:100%; padding-bottom:0px; background:#F8FCFF; color:#888;" valign="left"

With this change, you won't see the letters underneath with any font. The problem before was the difference in font sizes, but pixels and points are fixed (for the most part), and I (and you) were defining the absolute position and height of your "overlay" with px (fixed), instead of defining it in terms of the font which is variable. With the new fix, 1em (the height of the letter M in your font) will be 20px for you, and 16px for me.

Try it and let me know.

--stmrlbs|talk 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sam. I just wanted to let you know I sent you a Wiki email about the template. --stmrlbs|talk 21:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Licensing

Sam

I work for a marketing company in Bethlehem, PA and we would like to use your photo of the bear mountain bridge in one of our projects. If you could please call me at 888-641-1215.

Thank you Ashley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.3.93 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute: Thirteenth

With User:87.69.130.159. I'm citing sources, anonymous is not and is accusing me of making invalid contributions and describing those as incivility. Also chord-scale system. Hyacinth (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

None of his sources back up his specific voicing, which I know is wrong. What I was describing as incivil were repeated reverts with empty edit summaries and ignoring my pleads for discussion. Moreover, Hyacinth is wp:canvassing this issue to at least two more users. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Need help

Hi Sam, I need your help to get a copy of a deleted page [Whizbase], and some help to make a page which will not be deleted. Looking forward to hearing from you.

NurAzije (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD pages created

I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:

• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development
• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum

Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.

Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Facilitation

your page on facilitated discussions deserves more attention. I left updates there and a comment for you. +sj+ 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The focus should be on facilitation and discussion, not on forming a council, else you will attract people who want to work on scaffolding rather than idea organization, facilitating, and brainstorming. And the point is to let anyone interested join the project, yes? So I would call it something like Community facilitation, and get to work inviting good people and writing good initial pages. Aside from that, I'd love to work with you on this; and to develop sibling efforts on other Projects. +sj+ 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling good about this project being at least a model for the sort of open process that somehow always gets ignored in these discussions on-wiki. Is it that we've taught all of our community members to think in terms of tranches, terms, and fixed membership rosters? +sj+ 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

MTA disambiguations

Hi, Sam,

We seem to have come via different routes to creating similar disambiguation pages from different redirects (mine from Metropolitan Transit Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority, both of which unhelpfully redirected to MTA rather than to more specific pages).

While I like several things in my own pages, there are many that I very much like in yours. Would there be some agreeable way to collaborate on the eight (2³) combinations of Municipal/Metropolitan Transit/Transportation Agency/Authority that's most complete and helpful to the reader while saving us from tripping over each other or requiring unnecessary work?

• [I'll add your talk page to my watchlist so that any exchanges can stay on this page, rather than ping-ponging back and forth.]

Best wishes, —— Shakescene (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I created a disambiguation page for this? What is it called? I have a very vague recollection of this. I would think that the 8 different combinations each dab a different list of MTAs. Why not have a separate section for each. The 8 combinations could then redirect to the same dab page but different sections. This could also be subsections of MTA if in fact they are all also know by that set of initials. I suspect that most people know a transit authority by one of the combinations. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary people (especially outsiders) often don't know exactly what MTA means in a specific case (e.g. is it Transit or is it Transportation? Authority or Agency?), so it's probably most useful to list all of them in almost all cases.† I was working from getting MTA for (New York) Metropolitan Transit Authority, while you had been working from a redirect to the Montréal Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Agence métropolitaine de transport). I was about to add my own list to what I thought would be either a blank Metro Transportation Agency page or another redirect to MTA, when I saw that you'd already filled in most of the blanks I was planning to fill plus several others. Our styles differed slightly, but I think we're approaching the same end from slightly different angles (one of us is brief where the other is more explicit, and then vice-versa).

† (Municipal Transportation Agency (San Francisco), however, is different enough from the other permutations that it might be better to put a "See also" or "Other uses" disambiguation hatnote at the top than to create a specific disambiguation page for it.)

The thought of distinguishing by formal title (Metro Transit Agency; Metro Transit Authority; Metro Transportation Authority; etc.) did cross my mind, but you'd have to throw out geographical order (e.g. alphabetical by city, state or country) to do so. If you look at the 8 to 12 possible entries from the reader's point of view, which consideration seems most useful?

(P.S. Some disambiguation enthusiast has already tagged one of my disambiguation pages as unclear and non-conforming within hours of its creation without usefully specifying why or what needs fixing. I don't spend my life writing disambiguation pages, so I'm not going to read all those guidelines all the way through to learn the arcane arts of dab-page refinement. MOS talk has already stolen too many of my hours from real editing.) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't let the taggers get to you. Just do what you think is best. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Strategic Planning admins

Hi Sam,

You had expressed interest in being an admin on the Strategic Planning wiki. I've created a process page for that, and wonder if you would look it over and see if you have any suggestions? You can find it on the strategic planning wiki at [[Strategic Planning:Administrators]]

Thanks! - Philippe 12:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you're now +sysop on strategy.wiki. - Philippe 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Call for Proposals

Hey Sam. Quick comment on the strategy:Call for Proposals process. The purpose of that section is not so much to get new ideas (although we're obviously open to that). It's a place where people can articulate and synthesize proposals, including those that have been made before. A proposal that simply summarized something that has already been proposed elsewhere and that then referenced those pages would be tremendously useful.

As for your note on SJ's strategy talk page, I'm curious about the language that you find distasteful. Would love to hear more. --Eekim (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development

There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development#Still viable?. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of Ashkenazi Jews

I have nominated List of Ashkenazi Jews, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ashkenazi Jews (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Ashkenazi Jews

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Ashkenazi Jews. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ashkenazi Jews (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop Tagging=

The page I created at Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions is not an essay. It is a description of a process that has long occurred on Wikipedia. Same as the page I created at Wikipedia:Project namespace. It is not an essay. Bensaccount (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

List of gamelan ensembles in the United States

Please continue participating in discussing the issues rather than edit-warring. As you can see from the discussion on the talk page, there are multiple problems under discussion, any single one of which could warrent the article meeting the criteria for WP:LISTCRUFT [14] --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on the content, rather than the editors. I've pointed you to WP:OWN before. Each time you make your comments personal, about other editors, the more it appears you are taking this all too personally yourself. More importantly, you overlook or ignore the content issues in the process of commenting on others. If you don't like other editors editing this article, if you won't take the time to consider that this article may have problems, then you are obstructing proper editing and maintenance of the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your replacing taking the time to find links that actually verify the information in the article. However, some of the tags you've removed were done without changing any corresponding content. Again, this looks like hiding problems rather than addressing them. I will be restoring the tags. I hope in the future you'll discuss the disputed information, rather than removing the tags once again. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no disputed information, there are only disputed tags. It seems there is nothing that can be done to satisfy you, and I don't think tagging articles in cases such as this serves any constructive purpose at all. I have tried to discuss this with you, but you stick by your interpretation of things. It seems you will only discuss the things that you see as a problem and not the interpretation that leads you to see it as a problem. I am not hiding any problems, I checked every self-published link to see if it did in fact confirm basic information about each group. If it did, I removed the tag because the criteria for acceptable self-published references listed at WP:SELFPUB was met. You don't think this is true, but all the editors who actually work on adding content do. You are in the minority here. At best, we can perhaps say that there is a disagreement on the interpretation of WP:SELFPUB, in which case, I think there is nothing gained by leaving the tag on the page. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"You don't think this is true, but all the editors who actually work on adding content do." Irrelevant, even if it were true.

"You are in the minority here." Again, irrelevant. Consensus is not a vote.

I'm curious. Have you ever looked at WP:CON or WP:DR? Ever look at WP:OWN? --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I helped write WP:CON and have closed some major community disputes. I would be the first to argure that consensus is not a vote. I am happy to discuss the interpretation of WP:SELFPUB and any other relevant guideline or policy. That is different from discussing the editing of the page only using your rigid interpretations. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Then demonstrate some understanding of WP:CON and WP:DR (and WP:NPA) by no longer making comments such as "You don't think this is true, but all the editors who actually work on adding content do. You are in the minority here." --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)