User talk:Road Wizard

This is the talk page for leaving messages for User:Road Wizard.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

Archives
April 2006 — June 2006 July 2006 — September 2007 October 2007 — October 2008

Jan-Willem Breure

User Simoen has removed some links to dutch pages, i always thought it was possible to link wiki dutch pages, what is your opinion?

How do I delete

Excuse me Wizard, but that farce of a template needs to be deleted. How do I delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harperson123 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I replied to the user on their talk page and explained the WP:TFD process. However the acount was later blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock-puppet of a blocked user. Road Wizard (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and Representation of the People Act advice

Thanks for your help so far Road Wizard. One think I'd like your help with though, is the Representation of the People Act. It's about to become a live issue, and the general level of knowledge of it is pretty poor. The last time an MP was prosecuted under a similar act was in 1911. I have a piece of paper with information on it that I am totally satisfied is accurate. I wish to put some of this information on the internet. Unfortunately, all the case law bar the Grell and Jack Straw cases predate the internet. All the legislation predates the internet. Nowhere on the internet is this information held. Incorrect information has been published by local newspapers and is available online. Where would you go from here? Chronos2010 (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Chronos2010

The key point to always remember is that we can only publish verified fact, not truth. While it is possible that newspapers have printed untrue statements (either intentionally or through lack of understanding) we cannot discount them unless we have evidence from reliable sources that shows they are wrong.

If you have a paper that you have written yourself then currently it is considered original research as there is no evidence that it has been examined by an independent expert or publisher. If you publish your own work on the internet then it becomes a self published source and has some of the same problems as original research as there is no evidence of independent scrutiny.

If there is published material in paper form, such as in a book, journal or newspaper, then we can cite that publication as the source of the statement. However just because something is on paper does not make it reliable; for example, very few people would believe everything they read in the Daily Sport. In cases where there is no reliably published material available then it is best that Wikipedia avoids mentioning the information at all. Road Wizard (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay. I view the face of the Act as saying one thing. You say I misinterpret it. Nobody has published an interpretation of the bill, but it my view of it is supported by what happened in the Miranda Grell case. And Wikipedia must remain silent. Oh well. Wikipedia is still a wonderful invention, and I value the time volunteers such as yourself put into it. Thank you for taking the time to go through it with me. 17:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Chronos2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronos2010 (talk • contribs)

For the issue about interpretation of the Act, section 106 says people who make false statements will be guilty of an "illegal practice". From the section of the Act you linked to about penalties a "corrupt practice" can trigger a prison sentence while an "illegal practice" seems to have a fine as the maximum penalty. Neither practice appears to mention barring from public office, so that may be triggered by another piece of legislation.

Some of what you said in the article may very well be true, but we need a reliable source to make the interpretation for us. Road Wizard (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have updated this again as more details have been published. The quotes from PM are direct and verifiable on BBC iPlayer. I am keen to see Wikipedia remain up to date on this issue as it is of national importance and there is so little published in the public domain. What is out there must be collected! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronos2010 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Deputy Leader of Labour

I'm a little mystified about this right now. Is Harriet Harman simultaneously Acting Leader, Deputy Leader and Party Chair right now (if so, that seems ridiculous as her husband is Party Treasurer too)? Or is Jack Straw Acting Deputy Leader? I'm wondering this because I just found out about his Shadow Cabinet post of "Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" which places him directly under Harman here and seems to be the same as calling him "Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition" or William Hague's "Senior Member". If Harman remains Deputy Leader as of now, does that mean she'll retain this after the leadership election later this month or will she have to renew her mandate too? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure. Jack Straw's title of "Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" may just be an indication that he is shadowing Nick Clegg and perhaps has no bearing on his status in the Labour party. As a comparison the people shadowing Prescott (DPM & FSoS) and Mandelson (FSoS) weren't automatically the second most senior people in the Conservative party. Straw would be the obvious choice for shadowing Clegg's constitutional reform brief as that was part of his Justice Minister portfolio.

I am unclear about the Labour party rules for leadership elections. There are some sources online that say Harman is planning to stay on as Deputy Leader once the new leader is appointed, but an election could be forced if enough MPs want to rock the boat by nominating an opponent. Unfortunately the best sources I can locate at the moment are blogs. Road Wizard (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can say Hague was his predecessor as Hague was never Shadow DPM.[1] There is also not normally a "deputy leader of the opposition" (and as far as I know there never has been) so there is no succession between "possible 2nd in command of the Labour Party in opposition" and "semi-official 2nd in command of the Conservative party in opposition". Road Wizard (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

But weren't Prescott and Mandelson's only shadows for their ETR and business briefs (respectively)? Another thing that makes me think that Straw's deputy-ship is more than just because of his judicial/constitutional expertise is that he isn't the outright Shadow Deputy Prime Minister like the other opposition ministers but the Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the source simply lists a title and we have to speculate the motivations behind that title. For example we could speculate that the Conservative's "Shadow secretary for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister" title was an attempt to show who was shadowing Prescott while still distancing the party from the attitude of the public to a DPM role at that time. You may agree or disagree with my speculation, but we could never include it in the articles as it is my personal analysis of source material.

If we have a source that says Straw is the current official or unofficial deputy leader of the Labour Party then we could repeat that statement. We can't take a title (however intriguingly phrased) and draw a conclusion from it without supporting context. Road Wizard (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Is there a way to get in contact with the party? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Convention Parliament of 1399

Having added a comment on the discussion you may, or may not, like to know that I have added this article to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Convention_Parliament_of_1399--Utinomen (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Labour Party (part II)

I've just got off the phone with the party's headquarters and was told that Straw is indeed Harman's acting deputy until she resumes her role as deputy leader after the leadership election. Is this official enough for me to insert this information on the relevant pages? Or is it possible to exude something more official from them? If so, I'll be unable to get it--I can only make international calls so many times before they become a major headache. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A phone conversation is not verifiable and cannot form the basis of any content in Wikipedia. If the statement has been published somewhere then we can consider the quality of the publication and decide if can support a statement in an article. Road Wizard (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw again

Sorry for a further pestering about this old topic, but does Jack Straw's appearance at PMQs today opposite Nick Clegg give any credence toward calling him the acting deputy leader of the Labour Party? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly. I have taken a look at some of the coverage of today's session and there is nothing I can find to support that statement. In fact the BBC goes the opposite way by saying, "Jack Straw will do the honours for the opposition as Labour does not currently have a deputy leader."[2] It is possible that there is a reliable source out there that states Straw's role as being Harman's unofficial deputy, but we can't include that view point until we find it. Road Wizard (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sharing banners?

Hi Road Wizard

I have just been going back through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, and noticed a very interesting proposal by you about the project banner in Nov/Dec 2009, viz merging it to the banner of the UK Politics project. It seemed to be supported by all who commented, and if I had been watching at the time I'd have added my support too.

As far as I can see, this didn't actually happen, so I was wondering if you might still be interested in implementing it?

If you've moved on and now have other priorities, then that's fine and I'm sorry to disturb you .... but if perchance you could be persuaded to revisit this idea, it'd be great to have it done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)