I'm listed as an assistant to the election process. There has been significant concern at the election talk page that the General Questions, which already number 41, need to be rationalised and significantly reduced. At issue are the usefulness of the GQs for the voters and the need to maximise the quality of candidates' responses.
In attempting to bring the GQs under control, so to speak, we are asking users who have posted questions to consider conflating some with those of other users and/or even to drop some. The questions thus far have been coded into themes and numbered in a sandbox here for easy reference.
User:Manning Bartlett has pointed out that your Question 2.1 and User:Juliancolton's 2.5 are basically the same. Would you be OK about taking Julian as a co-questioner of 2.1, since yours contains useful contextual detail and his is more open-ended. But I wonder whether, if you agree to this, you would consider a wording that might be more straightforward to answer, while still being challenging ... um ... something like:
"Are you satisfied with the balance struck by the current ArbCom between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? (Sam Blacketer, Juliancolton).
I'll write to Julian now proposing this; perhaps you might confer with him? You might have a better wording than my suggestion.
Q2.2 is hard to penetrate, and it's unclear whether "groupthink" refers to some kind of "herd mentality" when voting for motions, or something broader. I wonder what type of responses you envisage. Will you consider dropping this one (we're asking a lot of people to drop at least one question, given the stated limit of one question).
Q2.3 "In writing arbitration opinions, where do you stand on the spectrum between pithiness and verbosity? Where would you prefer to stand?". I think a lot of candidates will dodge the real issue in response. Will you consider co-authoring a more specific, skill-based question with me? "Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear, plain English, and discuss your ability to draft judgments—in particular, the ability to identify potential ambiguities and unintended consequences in text." This seems to be what you're getting at, and I'm not asking it because we are already swamped. What do you think?
I hope you're not offended by my posing these suggestions. I look forward to your response. Tony(talk) 07:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, I'm confused by your comment, which is odd as BrownEyedGirl seems happy and I never intended to be personal and I have never thought "calm" was an asset of value to WP. Can you explain? I cannot see why I got a lesson in sources when BrownEyedGirl had just given such as excellent demonstration. How calm do I need to be? Victuallers (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. 2nd thoughts. If calm means not angry ... then yes we need it. If calm means dull then hopefully not. Victuallers (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I have made a mistake but I detected a tone of bitterness in your remarks that perhaps indicated it was unfair to get the Oxford DNB to change what it said in order to win a dispute on Wikipedia. If this was not what you intended then I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]
The page list them as "social democrats", hence they are socialists. Being that social democracy is a socialist ideology and part of the Socialist movement. Any other questions. --TIAYN (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid this is wrong, and I'll take it up on the article talk page. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are the British Social Democratic Party's (SDP's) social democrats? --TIAYN (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the party of that name founded in 1981, they were social democrats and not socialists. See Talk:Liberal Democrats and also Talk:Social Democratic Party (UK). The previous party of that name which adopted it in 1909 was a socialist party - see Social Democratic Federation. My advice to you is that it's important to look closely at political ideology in the context of the country and the time, rather than looking for linguistic coincidences which are apt to confuse - a case in point being the National Socialist Party. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay just wanted to know... Then they are in the aim of the socialist project... --TIAYN (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam, I saw you editing the BNP and I wanted to ask you opinion as regards this, I have added this to the lede... In the 2006 English local elections the party doubled its number of seats in England and took 11 seats on the Barking and Dagenham council. there is a claim that it is excessive in the lede, do you think it is? Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I have to chomp on my teeth to do this, I'm asking for your help ... in the sense they do need to be guided more than , I think, than I can do at this time. It is important to the students ...
and, having taken admonishonments from you in the past, including from Hiding and Kieffer-Skunk it is clear that they need more of the type of guidance than you can give over me ... if you would check the history ... I've tried to do a bit of initial straightening out, but the rest would take some weeks ... and sorry to pull sympathy ... but my Mum died ... and I don't have much energy right now.
They are making the elementary mistakes ... such as OR ... the platitudes ... and all the rest ... I've made what corrections, I can , simple as they are, right now, but ... I'm out for a while ... thanks, whatever.
Lomcevak (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming to me and I'm sorry to hear of your bereavement. You're right that the article is in a mess with a great deal of original research. It seems largely to be the work of one editor at the start until it ballooned up in size this month. I notice it survived a deletion debate early on, although only with a 'no consensus' call. I count two mentions in published books and there are several newspaper references, so there may be something to work on. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any more detailed feedback you could provide on article's talk would be of much help to the students working on that article. Thanks :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sam (especially you - thanks mate, I learn'd a lot from you ... even if I didn't like it at the time) and thank you Piotr ... the very best wishes to all ... to the Group 8 students ... what can I say ? Lomcevak (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Farewell ... much care to all ... and thanks ... Lomcevak (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better I pass it on to another editor to do, since I participated in the discussion, arguably have a conflict of interest and also my adminship is currently awaiting reconfirmation. But thanks for contacting me. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and put the close templates on it. It's an MFD, not an AFD, for whatever that's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just seen your redesign suggestions and discussion on the UKPP project page. The proposed design looks very promising, and perhaps in the run up to 2010 there could be reason to run with it ? Maybe a poll on the changover could be got out there on a number of UK projects (not just politics, the regional project editors could do with a heads up as well, just in case). Then a quick poll maybe to suggest the constituencies we could use as a test-run? I would be more than happy to spend time converting the Election boxes to the new model for my local constituencies if it all works out well. doktorbwordsdeeds 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sam. I've played with another alternative box and posted it on the project page. doktorbwordsdeeds 15:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at it tonight. Got to go out to a meeting just now. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On December 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rate-capping rebellion, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, could you please have a look at the DYK nomination for History of Parliament? There are a few problems. Thanks, Ucucha 12:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created a stub on Frederick Messer, a former Labour MP listed on your user page. You may be able to expand it. - Eastmain (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On December 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Oldfield, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Both Debrett's Guide to the Commons and Judicial Bench from 1886 and 1918 state that the parish Wapping was in the former; therefore Limehouse loses its snaky bit.
On January 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anna Mendelssohn, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The Did you know? project 17:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me begin by saying that I have not reviewed and do not recall the matter that led to your de-sysoping, and have not formed an opinion as to whether you should become and admin once again. That being said, it seems clear there is very strong opposition to your RFA, and I would ask that in the interest of reducing drama that you withdraw your nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have removed your RfA from the page. Could you possibly 'close' it properly as withdrawn? It just makes things nice and tidy! I am sorry that I could not support you at this time - hopefully in the future, the situation will be different and I will be able to consider supporting you. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I'm looking for the right template. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I see that WJBscribe has done it! It wasn't a major thing, but I wasn't sure if maybe you'd just forgotten to do it! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sam, I hope you will not take some of those comments to heart, what you need here is one of those ex admin pirate flags, fly it with pride. The flag of the former admin!I don't think there is any point in your applying again, and to be honest Sam, imo you are better off out of it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that things turned out this way. I do hope that you won't be leaving us as a result of the RfA: it would be regretful if the internal shenanigans of the project were to impede or upset your contributions to the encyclopedia. My best, AGK 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's an interesting comment. History tells us many things: one of them is, I think, that my track record of keeping coming back to Wikipedia to write articles ignoring all "internal shenanigans" (nice phrase) is strong to a fault. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The level of grudge holding and vendetta type activity here is pretty disturbing. I thought there were some legitimate questions and issues brought up about transparency. I think it's unfortunate that we as a community are so vindictive. Oh well. Take care and have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On January 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denis Shipwright, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
telling this now retired Admin that he shouldn't have blocked on an article he'd been editing, see [1]. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CTC to become a one charitable organisation.[edit]
Sam
Is it OK to say the following
CTC AGM
At Anural General Meeting (AGM) on Saturday 15th May 2010 at University of Loughborough, there is a proposal for the CTC to become a one charitable organisation.
If you are interested in the issues concerning this, please go to
Hi Sam Blacketer/Archive 501-550!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Received - will reply this evening. Thanks. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, didn't think you'd be able to reply straight away anyway. Ignore the fact I said page 8 at the end, I meant 22! 2 lines of K303 14:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title[edit]
Hi Sam. I'm attempting to bring this rather poor article up to standard, in terms of NPOV, citations and introduction. I'm particularly concerned about expenses, see Talk:Andy Reed but note you thought User talk:Lufbrawatch had removed too much. If you have any comments for the user page, I'd be grateful. For the record I've met most of the local MPs including AJR. JRPG (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, I've removed the Refimprove|date=November 2009 as I believe this now meets the standards required. NPOV and BLP is healthier too! Please let me know if you disagree. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh whoops, I messed my dates up there, I've got slightly ahead of myself there haven't I? Well thank you for pointing it out, I'll refrain from doing any more for now then, I think I can wait the few hours! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.177 (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wereon suggests your encyclopedic knowledge of the Labour Rule Book could be of help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Shadow Cabinet. We're trying to figure out whether we can verify that the old Cabinet is the new Shadow Cabinet and what the deal with Shadow Cabinet elections is anyway. Please help if you can! -Rrius (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another user detected a recently published book written by Elvis’s personal physician including a new theory about the cause of Elvis’s death not previously mentioned in the Elvis article, and this user thought it should be added to the Wikipedia article. As this user was an IP and the Elvis article is semi-protected, I added a short quote from this book to the section dealing with Elvis’s death. This edit was immediately removed by another user who argued that this book is not a reliable source, because Elvis’s doctor was exonerated of over-prescription of drugs (which may have contributed to Elvis’s death) and his license was revoked in the 1990s. After some heated discussions containing different opinions about the relevance of the source, I re-included the quote in the Elvis article and it was again removed. Then a participant in the heated discussion took the matter to the administrators’ noticeboard (see [2]) accusing me of trying to post fringe theories about Elvis into the singer's article, thereby bringing up again all the old arbcom cases of 2005 that led to my probation which reads as follows:
Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. See [3].
Now administrator(?) TFOWR argues that I have violated this probation, as "Onefortyone should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever Onefortyone's justification." Therefore TFOWR likes to propose the following: "OneFortyOne is indefinitely blocked. This block will be lifted if OneFortyOne consents to a topic ban covering those articles covered by OneFortyOne's current probation." However, I do not think that I have violated my probation, as I have not inserted poorly sourced information or original research . What is your opinion? Did I actually violate my probation, as has been claimed by TFOWR? Onefortyone (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't revert without consensus.--Severino (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether that's an instruction or an assertion but either way I can't accept it, particularly in the circumstances which have prompted it. Your introduction of pejorative terms in the Gaza flotilla article clearly introduced a point of view. Whether the activists on the ship genuinely wanted peace is a matter of debate, as is whether the Israeli boarding forces were deliberately violent. WP:NPOV is absolute and can't be overridden by appealing to a consensus, even if there was one here (which there isn't). Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have studied your complete rewrite of 2nd paragraph, Widgery Tribunal. What you rewrote had been worked on intensively over recent days by many. Consensus had been more or less arrived at, on a very sensitive subject, until you chose to rewrite the para in a very sanitised manner.
Your language in that rewrite is majorly passive - sanitising the issue, grossly understating the import of the issue. I do of course accept that the page ought reflect the man, but how better understand any man than by his legacy? He is, after all, dead. I will rollback your page and ask you to reconsider. Markdask (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you forget, or do not notice, that I originally wrote this article. The original point made about the contemporary reaction to the Widgery Tribunal report was that his report had completely failed to be accepted by any opinion on the Nationalist side, and had simply added to their sense of grievance - such that it had to be unofficially 'set aside' and a new inquiry ordered 26 years later. The article as it is doesn't mention the contemporary reaction but skips 26 years forward and I don't like some of the fomulations in it: what point is being made by saying "Labour politician Tony Blair" for example? He was Prime Minister by that time, and he was still at school when Widgery reported. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the catch on the date of death of Berkeley Levett. I looked back through the history, and indeed I put that there. At the same time I was inserting bio information from events in 1912 and 1914, as described by the New York Times, so I knew the man hadn't died in 1899. So I'm not really sure how in world I made that error, as it was nonsensical. In any case, thank you for catching and correcting it. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want your comment on "National Labour" to be considered a formal objection to the speedy rename? If so, I will remove it from the speedy queue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you got dragged into that. A certain elevated party said something about how the requirements to flash a driving licence at Phillipe to prove one is of full age would have prevented the issue with Sam Blacketer. Since I don't think anyone ever thought you were a teenager, and Phillipe has confirmed he keeps no record of who the driving license belongs to (which is odd in itself), I have really no idea why Mr Wales said that. Other than that people who are losing an argument often say "if you don't agree with me, x will happen", with there being limited connection between what the person is saying and the events necessary for x to happen. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam. I don't necessarily disagree with you. The point is that the practice of starting biographies in this way (and not just on Wikipedia) is commonplace and could be argued to be a defacto standard. I don't think mere tradition should be a reason for continuing to do thing wrong, but it's a reason to go through a discussion about it first, preferably on the talk page for the article. See Bill Clinton or for someone slightly more obscure outside Australia Bob Katter. Donama (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to add any insight to the disagreement on Talk:Andrew Mitchell? I think the issue is pretty clear, myself, but perhaps you can think of a resource that would settle the question for good. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have pitched in and hope this solves the problem. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have a look at this page please ...I am having trouble with vandalism by user Mike Young who seems to be deleting all mentions of plain english campaign on other pages ...Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.94.121 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for help on article on Miriam O'Reilly[edit]
Thank you for putting in the date of birth for Miriam O'Reilly. I know some Wikipedians, myself included, will be pleased. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors[edit]
Hi Sam! I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.
However, there's one small grammatical glitch in the final paragraph. The sentence "Carr is now involved in part-time promotions manager for Bacup Borough Football Club" doesn't quite work, and you may want to fix that. It's not a show-stopper, but needs clarification.
As an aside, it's a bit of a sad story. Election to Parliament seems to have given Carr a brief time in the spotlight, but messed up his career. That's not unusual, but it's a long way from the image of MPs conveyed by the expenses scandal. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I've edited the Bacup FC sentence and added some more about his early career which appears in his Who's Who entry. It's always been said that byelection winners who don't hang on at the next general election tend to disappear from public consciousness very quickly. With Mike Carr he was happy enough to fight the seat twice with no prospect of victory, so when he was gifted a winnable byelection he could hardly pass it up even if it meant interrupting his career. Though I confess I was mainly prompted to do him after expanding the article about the other Mike Carr who was a short-lived MP in the north west in the early 1990s and is a much more obscure figure. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:National Labour politicians[edit]
I was unaware of this when I made a new proposal to rename that category, but now that I know of your objection, I think it's fair to notify you of the discussion at CfD 2011 February 12. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. Duplicate notification. Twinkle had notified you automatically. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
