User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 501-550

Archived material has been removed to User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 1-50 (09:41, 13 March 2007), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 51-100 (10:48, 28 April 2007), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 101-200 (18:42, 13 October 2007), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 201-300 (00:07, 6 January 2008), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 301-400 (09:43, 11 October 2008), and User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 401-500 (10:48, 12 October 2009). Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your ArbCom General Questions

Dear Sam

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)

Personal?, Calm?

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)

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)

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)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Liberal Democrats

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)

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)

Are the British Social Democratic Party's (SDP's) social democrats? --TIAYN (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Okay just wanted to know... Then they are in the aim of the socialist project... --TIAYN (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Barking

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)

Guidance

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 ...

There's a student project at

http://en.wikipeida.org/wiki/Politico-media_complex

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)