You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isotope, thanks for blocking him for 48 hours. Hopefully he'll come to terms with his uncivility and not do it again. Rockstar (T/C) 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to deletion of Ian Sandercoe on wikipedia. I have updated the information in a biographical context. I am not offended by your deletion however I ask that you read my latest submission and changes I have made. Thank you regardless.
Anna
I didn't delete it, I undeleted it and sent it for a full discussion here, in which my opinion was (and remains) to delete; but the final decision will be made by another admin after reviewing the opinions of all participants. Anyway, I gave my full opinion in the AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samuel,
'If he was the next big thing in 2003, when the article was written, then where are all the more substantial articles in 2007' If you had invested time to read the article it is relative to a notable individual in Australia, and please note we are a small country of less than 19,000,000 people, who is invloved with not self promotion but the promotion of young talent. Further research will show you he is the holder of the first recordings made by the then 14 year old silverchair boys, this being the recording that won them a competition which led to their worldwide success. In this country unless some music related person gives freely their services to encourage young people in music, we in Australia would be listening to more than 85% overseas content on our radio's as we currently do. I will not be responding further to deletion, and I will be happy to include you in my 20 years of an Australian Music Artist documentary, thus proving Wikipedia's uncertain 46% unreliable services. Regardless Anna
Everything we do depends on verification from reliable sources, and it doesn't matter what the claim to notability is; without it being covered in reliable sources he doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. Our goal is to provide verified encyclopaedic content, not to assist the Australian domestic music industry. --Sam Blanning(talk)00:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please advise are you only refering to available online content or are you accessing international microfish style film from the worlds library resources, and if it is only online please feel free to delete Ian Sandercoe as I feel Wikipedia is without question no encyclopedia at all, just an entertaining guise for semi-educated individuals to express their control on available content.. oh you seem a bit like a google.. click..buy..click..buy.. oh that is perhaps some where down the track. Once your membership and desired readership is in place.. good luck.. Hey good idea I'll just start my own encyclopedia.
Hey Sam,
As I live and work as support for an Australian It company.. I don't expect it, this is the first time I've bothered to correspond in relation to anything online, you do a fantastic job, I commend you on it.. and really it doesn't matter, if the facts are not available online.. then hey it's all good..
one last point... your requirements must 1st be met by the catholic churches claims that Jesus assended to heaven on a cloud and with that I can say Wikipedia is 100% accurate
I'd like to agree with your statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QZ_Deletion_dispute#View_by_Samuel_Blanning, but I'm not sure I understand it. Are you saying that we should only have articles on people who got fame intentionally? If so, then, for example, we shouldn't have articles on, oh, Prince William, thousands of others. Are you saying something else?
I like Newyorkbrad's and Tony Sidaway's arguments here that we shouldn't have an article on this guy because it's actively contributing to bullying of a minor - the publicity is the bullying. But that's more of an "ignore all rules"/"don't be evil" argument than anything else. It doesn't set much of a precedent, it doesn't apply to nearly anyone else; few people can say Prince William is being bullied by publicity. What you seem to be saying, as I read it, is not that. So what is it? Can you explain, please? I still treasure your bronzed statement, and want to give you as fair a chance as I can. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful and short, wonderful soundbite, but I'm afraid it still doesn't answer my question. Maybe I'm just dumb, in which case please forgive me, and bear with me. Let me try again. I'm asking what your point is, your complete criteria. In the above statement that should someone decide to give away their fame we should take away their article? For example, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom didn't choose to be born a prince and actively chose not to be a king. Should we delete his article? It's a Wikipedia:featured article, which is supposed to be the best of our best... and, arguably, that very act of stepping down made him more notable not less. But presumably you're not saying that. So what are you saying, please? I'm not trying to be stupid, I genuinely don't understand your point. --AnonEMouse(squeak)19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no comparison between QZ and Edward VIII - not just on the obvious level but also for the purposes of the distinction we need to make. If you read the article, you'll see that he was always a public figure even after his abdication. Before he was King he carried out full royal duties. In the short time he was King he actually disturbed the government with his public pronouncements. When he became King and later abdicated he was about 42, quite a way from being a minor. If he'd never abdicated he'd be less notable, but he would still have been notable. Even after he abdicated he made a public broadcast as to why, and he continued to derive his income from his position. He gave up being King, but did not attempt to slip into complete obscurity. If he had then we'd have all the notable stuff he did up until the age of 42, then the article would peter out for lack of verifiable information, but he didn't. --Sam Blanning(talk)21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
