User talk:Sam Blacketer

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), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 401-500 (10:48, 12 October 2009), and User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 501-550 (00:26, 14 February 2011). Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Carr (Lib Dem politician)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

O Fenian's semi-protect action on the Gerry Adams article was not necessary. She could have called for a broader debate. The WP:BLP guideline makes clear that whilst a wiki-article must not engage in libel, it is appropriate to include publicised allegations of a public figure, quoting source (in this case the Evening Herald) and abiding by NPOV.

Her "O Fenian" identity only adds grist to the mill in observing of her that her intervention to semi-protect the Gerry Adams article can only be understood as a clear political manipulation of his biography consistent with Irish hard-line republican (i.e. IRA) sympathisers. I regret that I am not using my wiki-identity on this article, precisely out of fear of IRA retribution for reporting controversy on the credibility of their "hero", Gerry Adams, but Ms. O Fenian would have been wiser to let the inclusion stand, modified as it has been subsequently by other editors to trim it down and balance it with Adams' own rebuttal of the allegations. Instead she seem to be protecting him which now renders the article biased. My sympathy to you for your efforts, and to all the victims of extremist atrocities 86.42.95.31 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It was actually Template:Userlinks5 who semi-protected Gerry Adams but it was a reasonable decision given the history of revert wars on the article. Let us decide whether the content should be included on the talk page, but the fact that an editor has known views on a subject is no proof in itself that their editing is biased. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sean Hughes (politician)

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I agree with you on the subject of Joanna Yeates. Maybe you could take a look at my latest request on that some discussion page about the Armenia-Azerbaijan Eurovision issue. I dont appreciate huge parts of an article removed on very possible political or anti-Armenian grounds personally. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Joan Ryan

I have moved a section to the talk page as biased, inaccurate, uninformative and weasel Talk:Joan Ryan#Section removed under BLP. I thought this might be an area you'd be interested in helping with.--Scott Mac 21:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pleasant surprise

I probably should have checked the history first [1]. It's nice to see a reputable and competent editor is overseeing the page - such pages, in my experience, can often be quite the reverse. I came acrosss a descendent of his the other day - nice person; that's why I was idly driving by - I suppose all our families' have their skeletons. Giacomo Returned 18:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Telemachus

See Talk:Tim Hetherington#Telemachus for background on why I reverted your inaccurate and offline-referenced change to Tim Hetherington. Feel free to cite an online reference if you have one.67.101.7.246 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate? I went directly from the source. A printed source is no less value than an online one. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Llyr Huws Gruffydd

Thanks for the spelling fixes! Gurt Posh (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

NY-26

Do you remember what source(s?) you used to update the election results for the NY-26 special election? You didn't cite a source, I can't find any news sources online with full results, while searching for the vote totals finds only Wikipedia and a few sites that reference it. Thanks! Seleucus (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I went to the individual websites for the county boards of elections which made up the 26th district and added up the individual totals of election night returns. There are seven counties which are in the district in whole or in part: Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Orleans, and Wyoming. I think this is allowed per WP:PRIMARY and if not, WP:PRIMARY should be changed. (Of course it would be easier if the US followed the UK practice which I am familiar with, and the result declared on the night was actually the final result. The current figures will have to be altered when the result is finally certified.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be OK; I just wanted to add a citation so people know where the #s come from. Seleucus (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

List of British politicians who have crossed the floor

Given the repeated fiddling with this article by multiple now-banned sockpuppet accounts of the same person e.g. Iamundone98, Jack Wills It, and I Attempt From Loves Sickness, are you confident that what is in the article following a month of his disruption is actually correct? Would it not be better to roll the whole article back to a known good point? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr Kelly

Hi Sam - I see you've removed my link to my work, 'the fuss about Kelly?' I'm not wedded to my link being there, but I do believe my work is unique. Also, my viewpoint, I believe, relies on common sense. Regards Mark McIvor. Please see my other work, the fuss about Sutch? at mcivor.me also. Perhaps that might show my credentials also. Your call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.127.206 (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of criteria on List of sovereign states

Thank you for your response! Could you answer either "yes" or "no" in the survey section? This is for the reference of participants to identify whether or not there is a problem with the arrangement of Kosovo in the list. Thanks, Nightw 16:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion lede

Please visit the abortion lede.71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mis-spelling the mis-speller

The libel which Wilde took action over described him as a 'somdomite' (Queenberry mis-spelling 'sodomite' due to his anger), and that was the usual term.

I feel tempted to insert, after Queenberry: "(Sam Blacketer mis-spelling Queensberry)". Tee hee :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"santorum" consensus

Sam Blacketer, I've instituted a process to, hopefully and credibly, NPOV resolve remnant hotbutton issues. As a prior participant in that discussion, I would appreciate any consideration you might care to offer. Any credible resolution will require significant editor input and your observations would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest...

...Which part of the MoS proscribes the use the "MP" postnom, as ou suggest in this edit summary? I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just curious. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's implicit in WP:POSTNOM (part of WP:MOSBIO) which states which postnominal initials should be used and discourages use of post nominal letters which are not honours. The problem with 'MP' is that it lasts only as long as the subject's Parliamentary career does; it's not permanent. There's a longstanding consensus view among editors of current Parliamentarians that it is best avoided; it is in the style at the top of the infobox. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I know POSTNOM (I created the shortcut, actually!), but I've never read it that way. I actually agree with your rationale for removal, I just can't find a mention of it in the MoS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be as well to add an explicit reference. Other countries seem to have the same general rule, although I often find Northern Ireland politicians with 'MLA' in the lede. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I guess different groups of editors move around the Northern Irish politicians to those who move around mainlanders. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Citing Hansard

Unfinished business... Any input would be appreciated. Waltham, The Duke of 10:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of RfC pertaining to List of sovereign states

Since you contributed to the previous one, please join a preference survey on how to divide our List of sovereign states. All responses are appreciated. Thanks, Nightw 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

sockpuppet editing

There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed. Yonmei (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Lord Maelor

OK, thanks for the info. What about Lord McIntosh of Haringey? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

His title was indeed 'Lord McIntosh of Haringey', although unusually there do not seem to have been any previous peers with a title of Lord McIntosh from whom he needed to be distinguished. If you check Leigh Rayment's pages, he is faultless at divining the correct title. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Times rogue compositor.png

Thanks for uploading File:Times rogue compositor.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Harriet Harman

Would you please consider adding your thoughts to the highly overwrought discussion at Talk:Harriet Harman#RfC:Shadow Deputy Prime Minister? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Sam Blacketer! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

LCC aldermen

Hello. You may remember I took up your offer two and a bit years ago to send me the list of LCC election results. I have been VERY SLOWLY building the "List of members of the London County Council" articles. The latest installment User:Lozleader/lcc which will become List of members of London County Council 1949–1965. I have the councillors done and a good few of them identified, but am stuck on the aldermen. I notice you said you had "a list of all the county Alderman and their dates of service", but this doesn't sem to have arrived in my mail. If you still have such a thing and are willing to send it I would be eternally in your debt/deeply grateful! Lozleader (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you check your email now you will find it. Thanks for reminding me, as I had forgotten to write this list up. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Stephen Lawrence

Hi! I'm looking for a 2nd opinion on the section that keeps being removed from this page. I originally added a CN which I feel is better than just removing the material since it keeps getting added back. I checked the link that the user provided in the discussion page but it is rather vague. Any thoughts? As a side note, WP:BLP does not apply here since the individual concerned is deceased, but of course there are several other policies you could point to as grounds for removal anyway. Markleci (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP does apply. The additions refer to actions by Stephen Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks. Stephen Lawrence was murdered but Duwayne Brooks was not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that and was on my way over to apologise, since I saw you mentioned that in your edit note! Thanks. Markleci (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

the_blacklist

Good luck... :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshtan (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Frothy mixture listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Frothy mixture. Since you had some involvement with the Frothy mixture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Josh Parris 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ramsay MacDonald

Hi Sam. I made a relatively small contribution to this article so it comes up on my radar. You mentioned that MacDonald and Snowden hated each other after 1924 but I haven't been able to find a reference for that. Could you point me to one please? Many thanks, --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a fascinating subject which is dealt with, usually in incidental terms, in several books covering the period. Reading through Colin Cross' biography of Snowden, he seems to see the circumstances of the end of the first Labour government in October 1924 as the occasion on which Snowden seriously fell out with MacDonald. Snowden thought MacDonald had grossly mismanaged the Campbell case and thrown away the chance of government, and Snowden being the man that he was, he was relatively open about his criticism (p. 213). Ethel Snowden openly blamed MacDonald; MacDonald's biographer David Marquand wrote "Her husband was more vindictive and only slightly more discreet" (p 391). When Labour did return to government, their dislike continued throughout. Andrew Thorpe in "The British General Election of 1931" notes the acrimonious Cabinet: "MacDonald and Snowden had, for many years, cordially despised each other" and references Shinwell's "Conflict without Malice" (1955) at pages 112-113.

MacDonald's formation of the National Government and offer of the Exchequer to Snowden came as a surprise to Snowden, and he agreed to serve almost immediately; he had already decided to stand down at the next election and he was told by MacDonald that the Government would only last for a matter of weeks. He did not think he was separating himself from the Labour Party in doing so (Snowden, Autobiography, p 956). However, the big issue of the time for Snowden was in perserving free trade and opposing a tariff. MacDonald had come to favour a revenue tariff from 1930 (Thorpe p 13). After the election, when a majority of Conservatives supporting a tariff were elected, Snowden allied himself with the Samuelite Liberals in opposing it. It was probably inevitable that tariffs were going to be agreed and that Snowden would resign over it.

After his resignation Snowden bitterly attacked MacDonald: it was Snowden's autobiography which damagingly told of MacDonald's remark "Tomorrow every Duchess in London will be wanting to kiss me!" (p 957). Snowden initiated a House of Lords debate criticising MacDonald and wrote many newspaper articles along the same lines - a series in the Sunday Express in June and July 1935 particularly notable: "During the years we were in the National Cabinet together, I can remember no occasion on which he put up a forceful fight for his own side in the Coalition". For his part, MacDonald refused to renew Ethel Snowden's post as Director of the BBC at the end of 1932, which was the Snowdens' only regular income at the time; his move was interpreted as personal spite. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that. Seems that something along the lines of your reply could be incorporated into the article? Regards, --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Name changers

Greetings Sam, I posted on MoS/Bio - How should we treat people who appear in someone else's BLP who later change their name after they have no association with the subject of the BLP? I agree with you that we should use the name that was being used at the time as introducing a new name that was not used at the time can confusion. But MoS/Bio isn't clear. Now someone I am editing with has added "(currently known as ABCDE)" after the name they were using at the time. I don't like the idea as it adds irrelevant info to someone else's article. If they have their own Wiki article a link from their old name is sufficient. I suggest adding something to MoS/B like - "If someone mentioned in another person's BLP changes their name after their mention in the BLP, still continue to use the name they were using at the time of their mention. If they have their own Wiki article under their new name, link to that article from the name they were using at the time". Regards Momento (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Sam Blacketer. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Opinion poll for London elections

I think you need to do it by voting intention for each party because that is what the columns are based on. Having a masters degree in statistics I can tell you you're doing it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.28.88 (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It even says on the link that you sent me 46 for labour, and 35 for conservative. Get it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.28.88 (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

WT:BLP

Sorry I missed inviting you among the 110 who commented on diacritic/Icelandic related RMs in the last month to a discussion on WT:BLP. It's dead dodo now. But I just want to note there wasn't any reason why you didn't get the pointless invite :), just missed. Apologies. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

National Labour colour

You changed the meta colour for the National Labour Organisation to green. On the discussion on the template page, you state that green was used on letterheads etc. - I have never seen this. Could you point me towards any evidence for this? I thought that pink was the conventional colour used to represent National Labour, although I have to admit that I'm not sure where I've seen it other than on wikipedia. BartBassist (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)