User talk:Frogsprog

{{unblock|I acknowledge and apologise for my previous behaviour. Why don't you just give me forty-eight hours to prove myself and perform some simple housekeeping such as monitoring recent changes rather than editing for content. It is not a case of belief - anyone can reform as Jimbo and policies alike have said. Please - I want to prove myself --Frogsprog (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)}}

Show that you can contribute positively and substantively in the following way:

1. Choose an article or section thereof which you feel needs improvement.
2. Copy the article or section to your talk page (please remove any category links)
3. Demonstrate a substantive improvement over the current text, including references
4. Indicate when you believe this task has been sufficiently completed

I will monitor your talk page and, if your work is satisfactory, will consider unblocking you.

I'd advise against posting another unblock notice, as this page is likely to be protected if you continue. - Revolving Bugbear 14:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) As can be seen below, the current section (below) is a stub, Revolving Bugbear - and doesn't illustrate adequately the complex problems arising from the existence of "safe seats" in the United Kingdom specifically. My version (underneath) contains a hypothetical situation backed up by references in order to brief the reader in full on the concept of safe seats in the UK ==United Kingdom==

Current Version

Examples of safe seats are in the Labour Party heartlands of urban northeast England and those of the Conservative Party in the shires. An example of a safe Labour seat is Houghton & Washington East, where in the 2005 general election Labour received 64.3% of the vote, giving them a 46.3% majority over the second-placed Liberal Democrats (at 18.0%). An example of a safe Conservative seat is Richmond (North Yorkshire). In the 2005 general election, the Conservatives gathered 59.1% of the vote, giving a 39.4% majority over Labour (at 19.7%). Even in the safest of seats upsets can, and sometimes do, occur. Whilst it is rare for the opposition to take such seats, outside candidates may be able to. Recent examples include the election of Peter Law and George Galloway to very safe Labour seats in 2005, and Martin Bell to the safe Conservative seat of Tatton in 1997. These often occur as protest votes, and particularly in by-elections.

Version by Frogsprog

In the United Kingdom, the concept of safe seats is often cited as a major disadvantaged of that country's first past the post system - in other words, because the United Kingdom works on the concept of a constituency based First Past The Post (or single relative majority) electoral sytstem there are many seats where a vote for the second place party is considered a wasted vote.. Conversely the system in the United Kingdom is often attributed to the occurence of "marginals" - seats where the sitting MP wins his or her election by a matter of a couple of dozen votes.

This curious mix of safe and marginal seats can result in such scenarios as:

Seat one

Labour - 300 votes

Conservative - 299 votes

Liberal Democrat - 250 votes

note here that the majority of the population votes against labour - this is a marginal

Seat two

Conservative - 950 votes

Labour - 30 votes

Liberal Democrat- 20 votes

note here that although the Conservatives have 900 votes more than everyone else put together - the victory is still the same as in the above marginal

Seat three

Labour - 250

Conservative - 245

Liberal Democrat - 10

another marginal

Overall

Labour - two seats (580 votes)

Conservative - one seat (1494 votes)

Liberal Democrat - no seats ( 280 votes)

Although an exaggerated result this shows how the existence of safe seats (such as seat two) can theoretically result in the government winning less votes overall that the opposition - simply because many opposition votes are concentrated in one area.

It was mainly owing to the "safe seats" situation that Lord Jenkins advised a new system AV Plus or Alternative vote top up in the Jenkins report in order to eliminate the consitutional injustice many feel is the result of the existence of safe seats in the UK

References

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Frogsprog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

MONGO has now been de-sysoped so there is no need for his indefblocks to be allowed to remain WP:AGF. Everyone is capable of reform aren't they? I'm willing to be on probation--Frogsprog (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Considering this edit [1], your second most recent, I see no reason to overturn this block. —- B (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Frogsprog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

That's true B but like I said. Everyone is capable of reform. And plus - that edit was a revert, and plus again that edit was way over a year ago. Why can't I be unblocked and monitored? Time's the greatest healer right? From WP:INDEF "the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and – if unblocked – to refrain from the problematic conduct in future."

--Frogsprog (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your blatant and deliberate attack, and your refusal to acknowledge how absolutely inappropriate it was, I simply do not believe that you have reformed. — Yamla (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.