SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Greetings, Samuel Blanning. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to Kylu for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.
If you'd like to participate in the contest again, check by the contest page in a few days and sign up. See you around. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)
User page
So I've managed to recreate my userpage, from your header and many other's user page's parts. I just want to thank you, and probably you could give me a feedback? :P Imoeng15:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering why Church of Reality is protected. Could we move it to semiprotection? Also, why was it deleted? Its a legitimate parady religion. St.isaac19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does an "illegitimate parody religion" look like? But anyway, the article was deleted after an AfD discussion, and I'm pretty sure the decision was endorsed by deletion review. If you want the reason why it was deleted then the AfD and DRV discussions will provide that, but briefly, being a parody religion doesn't automatically make you any more notable than any other website. I protected it because it was recreated numerous times - the point of fully protecting the page is that it can't be recreated again. --Sam Blanning(talk)22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I looked at the AfD discussion and I agree. I still am confused about the protection though. Is it that once an article is deleted it should never be recreated? If it was semiprotection, wouldn't that allow only a responcible recreate and not the countless reverts that you're refering to? Regardless, it should stay deleted for now... St.isaac19:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can create an account and, after a mere four days (I think), they can edit despite the semi-protection. In those circumstances, an article can only be responsibly recreated when a consensus is formed at deletion review that it should be recreated. As all discussions at DRV are closed by admins, if there is a consensus to unprotect the page then they'll do so. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Help expanding a page?
Can you please help me expand the Amanda Dowler page? As there Is a lot of Information about her on the Internet but I am unsure how to put It all into wikipedia so It Is relevant and the page Is conformed to the manual of style.--Lucy-marie20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the case, I'd be glad to have a go at the article, though I can't promise when I'll get round to it. Could you tell me what information you've got off the Internet? --Sam Blanning(talk)22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Mostly all of the current informatiion was gleaned from surrey police and the BBC. i am unsure on what requires refrencing and how to refrence inarticle. the best way i found of finding information was typing her name in to a search engine. Im not sure if that is the corrct way to go about it but it seams to be where the most facts are avaliable on the case. Im not sire if what I have done so far Is In line with wikipedia policies or such but Its how i gleaned my information. any help on this page would be very much apreciated. Also any help on any thing I have done wrong will also be greatly welcomed. Thanks very much for your quick and speedy response. --Lucy-marie22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is much more information on the internet but I'm not sure what is relevant to wikipedia and what constitutes irrelevant information. Also i am unsure how to go about building the page up like other article s have been built up. Any help in any of these area and I will hold you forever greatful. Thanks very much.--23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I referenced and expanded the article. Hope you like what I've done with it. There are two things I'd like you to look at: firstly, I removed the BBC News picture of the place where her body was found. I think a fair use claim is a real stretch, as a) we can't really argue that we're using it to illustrate the BBC News programme and b) it shouldn't be that hard to get our own free-use version of the location. All we need is a Wikipedian or friend of a Wikipedians near Fleet with a camera who fancies a nice walk in the forest. (I passed quite close to Fleet a few times while I was working myself, unfortunately I'm up in Cambridgeshire now.)
Secondly, I couldn't find a source for the statement "It Is believed she was killed and burried shortly afterward". I've left it in with a {{fact}} tag, if you remember where you saw this information, could you add the source, or tell me where it is and I'll fix the citation? Hopefully you can see how the inline citations work, otherwise I'd be happy to explain it.
Thank you for what you have done on expanding the page. I used the image from the BBC as it showed the police oficers at the scene and I thought that It Illustrated where the body was located and that there was a body at the location. I think you have done a great job with the page and have made the page look more professional and wikified. I will try and locate the quote about the body as I can almost swear that I read It In the masses of Internet pages I searched. I am not quite sure what you are on about with the whole did you know thing but It sounds like quite a good Idea. A little explanation of what It Is all about would be handy as well. Thanks very much for your help on this page I'll find some aproriate award for you. Thanks--Lucy-marie22:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you on all counts :-). The "Did you know" section is on the Main Page under today's featured article, and showcases Wikipedia's newest articles. Anything less than five days old, longer than a stub and properly referenced is eligible. You can see my nomination at Template_talk:Did_you_know#August_1. As for the picture of the body's discovery, I just think we need more to be able to claim fair use. With the image of Milly herself, we'll obviously never be able to get a free alternative, so the claim of fair use is very strong. With the picture of the discovery site, we could conceivably get someone to drive out there and take a picture (one that would be a lot higher quality), so our claim is a lot weaker. I've posted a request on Wikipedia:Requested pictures, maybe we'll get lucky. --Sam Blanning(talk)23:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ever so much for yor help. I think It Is now a fitting account of what happend to Amanda and that now the fact are aesily avaliable to the public in one centralised place, rather than being scattered accross the Internet. Thank you for getting the article on the DYK section I think It will now serve as a way for anybody who knew something and is trawling the internet can have their memory jogged. Thanks again for your hard work and taking my original page and turning it into the professional article It Is now.--Lucy-marie13:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seeing as you are a student of economics, and a contributor to the deletion review on lostpedia, i would like to extend an invitation regarding an article there which really needs de-academicisation (if such a clunky term exists!)... i've been involved in trying to make the Economics article there more readable to the average reader... at the moment, i feel, it's way too academic. i don't know if you're a fan of LOST, but this article sorely needs input from people well versed in the discipline. if you're too busy, i fully understand! thanks... (btw, your userpage is really well formatted) --Kaini03:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't watch Lost, so I really have very little I could add - and if you want to make the page less academic, you really want to find someone who isn't studying it academically. It all looks fine to me, but that's because it's in the same style of what I've been reading for the past two years. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I've now made a userpage so am just requesting the original content of the page lostpedia as soon as possible. Sorry to ask again on your userpage, but I really wanna see the page after so long trying and wanting to be able to discuss about it. Thanks very much --Nickb123 II12:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, considering the fuss made I was surprised to see that there was hardly anything there, so I'll just copy it below.
(GFDL notice: content below copied from the Lostpedia article, author attribution is in the deleted edit history of that page)
Lostpedia
[[Image:Lostpedia-website.png|200px|Lostpedia's website on 09 April, 2006]]
Lostpedia wiki was set up in order to keep track of the numerous mysteries, facts, and theories surrounding ABC's series Lost. We would like this wiki to evolve into a free and open directory of knowledge about Lost.
Apart from the categories and an interwiki commented out "pending interwiki configuration" (which will never happen), that was all there was. Obviously if you want to work on it you're still welcome to copy that to a subpage. --Sam Blanning(talk)14:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very interesting that you were one of the users who had a hand is getting rid of the Lostpedia article, and you then show up when I'm looking into it months later. Its almost like you've got a vendetta --Nickb123 II17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice one user:Login has been reverting your revberts of Mtheory. I'm not sure I understood those, but assume that you know what you did and, as an admin, had good reason to do so. You had better see to it. --Svartalf18:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a soxtravaganza over there - see the linked arbitration case for more details. He's already been reverted, I blocked the account. Thanks for letting me know. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I re-reverted and left her (according to the signatures the IP is Ms Schwarz herself) a message on the IP's talk page. A talk page message always works far better than trying to communicate via edit summary, which she may not read. And it isn't vandalism, incidentally, unless she keeps it up it's just a 'newbie error' (if she does keep it up, it's disruption and is indeed blockable, but we don't yet have reason to believe that she will).
Although the links that I added are not primarily commercial or my "private websites" I do understand that this was not the proper way to contribute to Wikipedia so I shan't do it again. Maybe I will discuss things on different talk pages if I find the courage, for this Troy in England discussion is the source of a lot of emotion on the part of many scholars and also non-scholars because it seems so unbelievable at first notice. Thanks for your patience and your encouragement.
212.123.163.10211:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On August 6 2006, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amanda Dowler, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Amanda Dowler), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
To Samuel Blannig for making my day. I herby award Samuel Blannig the ray of sunshine award. He has brightened up my day no end in two ways. i)Fixing of The Amanda Dowler article ii)Getting the article put on the fron page of Wikipedia in the did you know section. You have really made my day and for that you are somebody I will allways come back to with any query or proposal. You found time In you busy admin schedule to fit me In at short notice and to help me out. So for that I award you the ray of sunshine award.--Lucy-marie13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no support in wikipedia policies for contributions of blocked users to be removed. Please review the removal from AN or be so amiable and re-post the contri elsewhere if you decide that AN is not a suitable place for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.70.5.66 (talk • contribs) .
Blocked users may appeal their block through the {{unblock}} template, the unblock mailing list, by emailing administrators or, if their block is long-term, appealing to the Arbcom or Jimbo Wales. Evasion through sockpuppetry is not permitted. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That only means honesty is punished. I could change the IP, I could register another nick and evade that block if I wanted to disrupt. Noone would ever know it's me. Plus I would probably get unblocked if I wanted to, but I don't, as I don't intend to edit wikipedia as an encyclopedia, however, I have 700+ edits and I feel that I should be allowed to post a non-inflammatory, rational comment regarding how things are run on wikipedia on any taklpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.70.5.66 (talk • contribs) .
Well, I just blocked the account and deleted the userpages, assuming they were impersonation. But if it was actually yours then I can't see any problem with creating actual redirects in that userspace under your own account. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin!!!
I would like to become an admin. Could you take me under your wing and teach me t3h 1337 4dm1nsh1p? SoaP20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are four things people at WP:RFA like to see, which are fairly easy to achieve:
Experience. Usually people like at least six months, preferably more unless you are a mindblowingly amazing person. People like a certain amount of edits as well, but if you deliberately try to increase your edit count, that will show up and you'll get negative votes for it, so it's best just to do your own thing and not worry about whether you're maximising your edit count or not.
Varied experience. People like a nice balance between article, Wikipedia:, Talk: and User talk:, because that shows you're involved in the actual writing of the encyclopaedia, the backstage stuff, talking about articles and communicating on a more personal level (respectively). Particularly, most successful candidates will have participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or the other XfDs at the very least. Even better is if you've been closing old AfDs that have resulted in unambiguous 'keep' decisions, as that shows that you have a use for the admin buttons. Vandalism fighting is also valuable experience, as warning vandals will frequently bring you into conflict with them, which will give voters an idea of how you will handle such conflicts as an admin - some will slink away, some will vandalise your userpage, but the trickiest are the ones who will have no idea that they were doing anything wrong.
Edit summaries. Looking at your contributions, you don't use them that often, and when you do they're not... particularly illuminating (e.g. [1][2]). You should almost always use an informative edit summary, even on talk and Wikipedia pages, and even if it's just 'cleanup' or 'reply' or copying the first line of your post. There's a script somewhere at WP:SCRIPTS that forces you to use one before it will let you save your edit.
Don't fuck up.
You won't need to think about RfA for another five months of editing at the least, but hopefully that will give you a general idea of how to prepare for it. Let me know if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to be an admin...however, I'm not feeling to active for Wiki for some strange reason. It feels kind of like I've fallen behind the expectations for vandal-fighters and most of all, standing at the feet of titanic administrators such as yourself has significantly weakened my resolve to even attempt reversion...sorry. I'll still make an attempt to take a bite out of vandalism.SoaP23:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of us are getting any money for this (except for all the donations Jimbo has squirreled away to his Swiss bank accounts), so you shouldn't do one edit more than you actually enjoy doing. --Sam Blanning(talk)23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for sorting that out. I wasn't entirely sure as to what could be done about that guy as he seemed cagey enough to avoid editing frequently enough to avoid both the 3RR and the 'recent vandalism' thing. Much appreciated. Btw, have you also considered blocking User:12.180.244.85? Looking at the edit history, it's obviously the same guy, with the same agenda. --Kurt Shaped Box00:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If more spam edits come from that IP, it can be blocked without warning, and probably for a long period as there are no other edits. Otherwise it's a bit pointless as it hasn't edited (at least without an account) since mid-July. We don't block IPs indefinitely because they're swapped about so often, unless they're open proxies. --Sam Blanning(talk)00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your fast action in restoring the incorrectly deleted article "Miroslaw Vitali".
My faith in Wikipedia has been restored!
Syrenab12:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also, apropos of the same issue, for That's not actually a death threat, she just wants you to die at AN; even as it conveyed an accurate observation, it gave me quite a hearty laugh. :) Joe22:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am user jackbirdsong, and recently i stumbled my way into attempting at a more concise and readable article under the heading of socialism. All was well until a user, apparently a recurring problem, completely edited the article into a holy mess. I noticed you blocked (i'm guessing suspended?) that user, and i wanted to express my thanks for that, along with my hope that you will help me to keep an eye on the page, as i am inexperienced in the ways of wikipedia. Thanks again. --Jackbirdsong00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the first time now I contributed to two articles:
"Iman Wilkens" and "Where troy once stood". Would you check them to see if the're allright and as English is not my native language could you check on that as well?
Iman Wilkens looks ok, though it had some basic style errors which I've tried to correct - pages should not start with sections, only the use of the article title in the lead section should be bolded, references and external links get their own sections, and with people, their categories need to be 'sorted' so they appear under the letter of their surname, not their forname. You can see what I've changed here. Don't worry - the Wikipedia Manual of Style is massive, and best learnt on the go. I've never read any of it. I also expanded your reference - you don't need all the information that I put in there, but there definitely should be an ISBN number or equivalent for any books cited, so readers can go and find the book for themselves.
Where Troy Once Stood, I'm sorry to say, isn't a good encyclopaedia article at the moment, as it suffers from two core problems - verification and neutrality. With verification, I'm talking about sentences like "ridiculed by experts and reviewers" - what experts and reviewers? "On the other hand his books are high on the most-wanted-books list and are sold second hand for high sums of money" - what list, sez who? These are good claims of notability, but must be backed up or they mean nothing. The article should cite print or web articles to back up the claims, e.g. print or references to the reviews that have been ridiculing the book. An example of the citation style to use is in Iman Wilkens, and you can find instructions on how to use at m:Cite.php.
As regards neutrality, it accepts unquestionably that the claims in the book are true: "the false assumption", "in this book it is made clear", etc. Encyclopaedias have to be written from a neutral point of view, and this isn't. While it's perfectly acceptable for an encyclopaedia to repeat an author's claims and how he came to that conclusion, it can't say that they're absolutely true, especially with an idiosyncratic view such as this book's. They can be covered adequately while still not taking sides. It doesn't need too much work to correct it - for instance my first example can be made acceptably neutral just by removing the word 'false'.
I hope that helps and that you can try to correct some of the problems with the second article - if you don't someone else will, and it may not be as much to your liking as if you did it. --Sam Blanning(talk)09:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with your reverting my edit. There is a dispute, the entry I made was as neutral as I knew how to make it, with links to both Wikipedia:NotabilityandWikipedia:Non-notability, not just the former. Your comment that "notability is still an accepted reason" is untrue. While accepted by some, it is by no means accepted by all, which is the point of the dispute. I'd like you to take the initiative to revert to the earlier edit; I'm not interested in starting an edit war.—Chidomtalk21:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that Wikipedia should not have any notability criteria is on the fringes, being generally agreed to violate WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, as well as making WP:V and WP:NPOV in vanity articles impossible to maintain if it ever happened. Your edit made the length of the paragraph in question twice the length of any of the other paragraphs, and is an example of m:instruction creep. On this page in particular, the fringe dispute is not worth going into, just as we don't mention in the paragraph two steps above that the use of bolded 'keep' or 'delete' is condemned by some editors as a violation of 'AfD is not a vote'. Editors reading this page aren't looking for the ins and outs of the various debates surrounding deletion - they want to know how to participate, and the root page of WP:AFD should tell them that and only that. Anyone who wants to know about the arguments surrounding notability will find them at Wikipedia talk:Notability and other forums. I'm not reverting. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I re-edited the paragraphs with an explanation as to why on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for Deletion page; I've tried to present a more balanced view. I still (obviously) disagree with a blanket statement that notability is a good argument; however, I have not said (nor does my edit say) that Wikipedia should not have any notability criteria. I'm also not sure that having a paragraph be longer or shorter than others is a good qualification for its inclusion or deletion. I'm not known for my brevity, however, so if you can come up with a balanced presentation with fewer words, that would be great. —Chidomtalk03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was interested in the comment you left on Kelly Martin's talk page. Can I solicit your participation in the discussion on the RfA's talk page? --Guinnog12:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't using reverse psychology to get the admins to do what I want; I was making a statement about the futility of reporting anything. For too long I've seen admins do absolutely nothing about repeat vandals (always claiming "they haven't done enough yet, so it's not worth doing anything about them", causing me to have to report them 3 more times to get anything done) and even less about the ones who are trying to destroy the neutrality of Ayn Rand related articles. It took over a year just to get one of the people who was making biased edits banned, and he wasn't even the worst offender (Laszlo, the actual worst offender, is still allowed to continue his vandalism). There's no reverse psychology in stating this; there's only the truth about Wikipedia's weaknesses being pointed out. -- LGagnon04:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What dose it mean on a request for deletion when a user writes as per norm? I have never seen It fully explained and seams to be a way of sombody registering a delete (usually) against a page without proper explanation. So plaese can you expalian to me what as per norm means?--Lucy-marie20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "nom" rather than "norm" - it's an abbreviation for "Per nominator". So it's a valid explanation as long as the nominator had a good reason in the first place. --Sam Blanning(talk)22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a full reply on the Wikipedia talk page when I have more time, but I can tell you now that I don't like the idea. The main problem is that if you block 26 users who at any point reach the threshhold, then you're vulnerable. Anyone monitoring WP:AN/3RR or WP:AN/AE would very quickly be subject to pissed-off users calling for blood. "Users in good standing" means nothing. --Sam Blanning(talk)09:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on WT:RECALL. You probably won't believe me when I say that before I set fingers to keys, I was wondering whether I was going to think of anything more to say than the above paragraph :-) --Sam Blanning(talk)23:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Free-Encyclopedia. You might remember me because recently you pointed out to me that my username had been complained about by another Wikipedia user. Anyway, I created the article 'Inkdeath,' about the upcoming Cornelia Funke book. However, that was the working title. The recently released official title is 'Inkdawn.' I want to know how to change the title of the article without changing the content. I would appreciate if you could do it this time. But I would like to know how to change the title of the article, so I can do it in the future. Because since I started writing this entry, P. Diddy has officially changed his name three times. Please reply as soon as possible, please.Free-encyclopedia02:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All you have to do is click the 'move' button at the the top of every page. Incidentally, where did you hear that the title was being changed? I found some forum chatter on Google but no 'official' announcement. With things like this it's a good idea to cite your source in the article if possible. --Sam Blanning(talk)09:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the 'Inkspell' page. It says the title was changed there. In an interview a few months back, Funke said the working title of her book was 'Inkdeath.' So I checked the 'Inkspell' page out of curiousity, and I found the title was different. To double check, Funke said so herself on her website. The German portion of the website; I would assume she makes the same announcement on the English part. January 2008. It says sometime in 2007 on the 'Inkspell' page, but I didn't feel like changing it.Free-encyclopedia21:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see - when I did my Google search I was searching for the English titles, not the German ones. By the way, when you post a reply please edit the current section of the talk page rather than starting a new one - just click 'edit' next to the header. --Sam Blanning(talk)22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We usually try to assume that warnings will do some good. With this user, the instant block was reasonable, but personally I would have given an 'only warning' along the lines of {{test4im}} first. They do work - often a user will indeed know perfectly well what he is doing but will stop once threatened with blocking. They're also almost always required before blocking if the vandalism is coming from an IP address and not an account (to avoid collateral damage).
Also, you might want to consider changing your username if you're going to be helping with problem users. It's quite confrontational in that sort of context. --Sam Blanning(talk)01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fred Bauder already blocked him as a sockpuppet of General Tojo - I've changed the sockpuppet tag and rolled back the rest of his edits. May have caught some good ones as I did, but if there were any that raised an article to FA quality, I'll eat my hat. Certainly I'm not leaving allegations of paedophilia in bios of living people for the sake of some spelling changes. --Sam Blanning(talk)12:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator, I expected you to actually READ my arguments and discuss and debate them with me. Did you do that? No, you went and said "OMG, Look at all the Wikinuubs, lol!", and then completely disregarded all of my comments. As an administrator, I expected you to be above that; apparently I was wrong. I no longer believe that you are administrator material, and will most likely appeal my case. Ameise -- chat03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless, of course, you can give me a reason as to why you completely disregarded mine and several other people's arguments. Ameise -- chat04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review reviews process, not content, as I already said. I read the comments (though as I said, I sympathise if others don't bother) and none were compelling enough to justify another AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk)12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the facts that exactly 4 people voted, no one was notified that an AfD was in process while we were loaded down in development of the software, and that the same 4 people that voted to delete it also are the ones who continually try to keep information about it off of the Star Wars Galaxies article? Ameise -- chat16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should any of that be a reason to overturn? Article subjects don't decide whether their articles are kept on Wikipedia, and I would consider it pretty obvious that if you consider something not worth mentioning in the most directly related article then it doesn't merit its own article. By appearing to say "We weren't told and we were busy so we should be allowed another chance to stuff the ballot" you practically make the case against relisting yourself. --Sam Blanning(talk)16:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who was going to stuff it? I -never- told anyone to register to stuff a ballot, I was referring to myself and the other main article editor; unless you are accusing me of being an SPA. For that matter, when did I -ever- say that I considered it not worth mentioning in the most directly related article; if you actually had read what I had just said, I stated that the ones who voted to delete the article were also the ones who deleted all information about it IN that article. Please read what I say in the future. Ameise -- chat20:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Thanks for updating the DYKes, not to mention using another one of my suggestions and a beautiful photo by Egil Kvaleberg! It's so good to finally see the "European" update taking place! I don't know whether you updated the DYK seeing my comments in the admin notice board, but I am still wondering about the "recent articles" archive the template links to - they are neither recent nor do they contain an archive of DYKes, as those are archived at the bottom of the DYK template talk page. Is that like it should work? Bravada, talk - 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the notice, thanks for that. I think we may be alright for the moment, as there's currently enough items that two updates a day will probably include all of the eligible items - when there are ten or twelve items in one daily section it starts to look daunting, but two updates will take care of all them, and that's assuming they're all eligible. Best to leave the notice up just in case, though.
Samuel Blanning, thanks for signing up for the Esperanza User Page Contest. The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.
