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)

Still interested? I'm trying to think of ways to draw attention to that matter. Waltham, The Duke of 11:19, 27 February 2013 (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)

I doubt there is any convention as no-one else seems to have produced coloured election maps back to the 1930s. Wherever was pink used for National Labour outside of Wikipedia? If you can find any source for that I would be grateful. But if you want to see National Labour printed letterheads in green, go to The National Archives and request relevant files like PRO 30/69/1321, PRO 30/69/1323 etc. If you look in (I think) PRO 30/69/1748 you will find MacDonald's 1935 election address and poster in resplendent green. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification

WikiThanks

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#How many messages can one leave? by DracoEssentialis, though I did not mention you in my statement as claimed. If you wish to comment please take note of the guidelines at the top of the page and either the same page or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop may be suitable. Fæ (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Referendum plural again

As your past comments have been quoted in another round of this, you may want to contribute your linguistic explanations at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Referendum vs Referenda or Template talk:British Columbia elections#Referendums/Referenda. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Bate

Anthony Bate wasn't in the recent 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' film. He was in the BBC TV adaptation from 1979 playing Oliver Lacon. This adaptation is described in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy not in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (film). Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry, my bad. I was wondering why it kept getting reverted. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, Sam. Good pick up. I'll modify my hook and Europa Point Lighthouse as well. Anne (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Cardiff South and Penarth page amendments

Hello Sam

I would like to try to understand your reasons for the amendments to edits of the Cardiff South and Penarth constituency page today

I am particularly concerned about the sentence :- "Michael felt unable to identify his affiliation with the Co-operative Party in his nomination for the most recent election" .

1. Firstly I believe we should use the appellation "Mr" - and call him "Mr Michael" (particularly in this case as he has a surname which reads like a Christian name when used in isolation). (He is actually, of course, a "Right Honourable" - although I am not suggesting we use that prefix!)

2. Can you cite any evidence to support your contention that "Michael felt unable to identify his affiliation with the Co-operative Party in his nomination for the most recent election"? I am not aware of any material which bears this out. As I understand it Alun Michael had no idea that he would be described simply as a "Labour" candidate on the ballot papers until the day of the election when the ballot papers were issued to voters. The fact that he was elected using these ballot papers means that he was elected purely as a Labour MP - not a "Labour and Co-operative Party" MP - as there was no reference to the Co-operative Party on the ballot paper.

3. As Alun Michael's brief sojourn as Secretary of State for Wales has been mentioned in the entry there seems no reason why his other ministerial appointments - including Minister of State at the Home Office, Deputy Home Secretary and Minister for Rural Affairs should not also be mentioned. By the same token, in the interests of consistency, James Callaghan's ministerial appointments should also be included.

4. The Parliamentary Expenses scandal was a major issue in the 2010 Cardiff South and Penarth General Election campaign and, as the decline of Mr Michael's vote can be partially attributed to this, there seems no reason to excise this relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsnet (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a settled matter of Wikipedia style that subjects of biographies are not referred to as 'Mr' or 'Mrs' or 'Miss' within the text. See WP:SURNAME: 'After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms".' The problem with Labour/Co-op candidates and their ballot paper descriptions and logos wasn't specific to Cardiff; it was a national problem. I added a Manchester Evening News reference which referred to the Electoral Commission guidelines; there was also coverage in Cambridge, Preston, Stoke etc. The fact that he appeared on the ballot paper only as The Labour Party Candidate does not, however, mean that he wasn't fully a Labour/Co-operative candidate; he was actually jointly sponsored by the Co-operative Party, and is a member of the Co-operative Party group of MPs: [2].

This is an article about the constituency so I don't think we need to go into great detail about the full careers of the MPs; they are adequately covered in the biographies of the MPs which are linked at several points in the article.

On the expenses scandal, I think we need a good source to establish whether it was a major issue. Alun Michael had already repayed the amount recommended by Sir Thomas Legg by the time the Legg report was published. His expenses are not mentioned in his biography. Are there any reliable sources that attribute the result to the expenses claim specifically? If so then it's may be appropriate to quote their view and attribute it to the source. But I have to doubt that the result was very significantly affected by the expenses scandal. The swing in Cardiff South and Penarth was 6.0%, only slightly higher than 5.3% in broadly similar Cardiff West, where Kevin Brennan had a repayment of under £200. The swing in Vale of Glamorgan was slightly higher (6.1%) though John Smith had to repay just under £700. And the result in Cardiff South and Penarth was basically in line with the overall swing in Wales of 5.6%. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sam

With due respect - I think you have to do better than that.

I see you have not been able to cite any provenance for this curious phrase "Michael felt unable to identify his affiliation with the Co-operative Party in his nomination for the most recent election". Where did this phrase come from ? Did you write it or are you quoting someone else - if so who? What is your evidence for what Alun Michael felt? This issue was never raised by him at the time of his nomination. (It only cropped up after the election was over). Where is your evidence that he even knew of this rule at the time of his nomination?

Your contention that it does not alter the basis on which he was elected is plainly wrong. Any person casting their votes that day who had not bothered to read election literature (and many people don't) would have cast their vote in the justifiable belief that they were voting (or not voting) for a Labour candidate pure and simple. Labour is what it said on the tin.

Did you REALLY think Alun Michael was going to mention his Parliamentary Expenses claims in his biography? Come on! On the importance of the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal as a factor in the election you should know that Alun Michael claimed more in expenses than any other MP in Wales and also had to repay more than any other MP in Wales. The extent of the press coverage of Mr Michael's expenses in the two years leading up to the General Election in local papers, particularly the "Western Mail", and in local broadcast media should leave no one in any doubt about the public prominence of this issue. It's all on the record. Newsnet (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission guidance note is here [3]. Note the date: 16 April 2010. This was after nominations closed for the local elections but very shortly before nominations closed for the general election). When the Electoral Commission guidance came out, the Co-operative Party sent its candidates and their agents guidance indicating that they should simply go down on ballot papers as 'The Labour Party Candidate' in order to preserve the party logo. In point of fact he was registered as a joint candidate for the purposes of his return of election expenses. See links at the bottom of this page: [4]. I can't help thinking you're making a mountain out of a molehill with this. Alun Michael had always run as a Lab/Co-op candidate in previous elections and his not doing so in 2010 was entirely down to a sudden unexpected ruling on an abstruse issue of election law and plainly not out of any wish to hide anything. I doubt it had any effect on the result. There's no evidence that Lab/Co-op candidates do significantly differently from straight Labour candidates in elections. Lab/Co-op MPs receive the Labour whip and behave basically just like other Labour MPs do.

When I refer to 'his biography' I mean his biography on Wikipedia. It's here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

Nixon WAS Impeached

Nixon WAS in fact impeached on August 7, 1973. Here is a link to read about it. Nixon resigned before the impeachment could be referred for trial, but in 1973 the Judiciary Committee had been given authority to act for the full House, and consequently Nixon WAS impeached. Read about it here. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm The Moody Blue (Talk) 23:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe this to be true. The House of Representatives still had to endorse the Judiciary Committee's report, and it in fact did so on 20 August 1974 (after Nixon's resignation, so it had no practical effect). Source: Fred Emery, "Watergate" (Jonathan Cape, 1994), p. 482. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you don't believe it to be true, but if you research it you will see that it IS in fact true. Four articles were passed. But you win; I am tired of arguing with wikipeople who just go back and change articles whether they are right or not. The article is back to being inaccurate. You win, I lose. That's the real point after all, isn't it? 23:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch

--The Olive Branch 19:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spen Valley (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urban district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move for Ireland

• (Discuss) Should Republic of Ireland be moved to Ireland? Kauffner (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Government Chief Whip

Please stop editing. If that language is acceptable, I can just get everyone with AWB, and use pipelinks so it looks better. -Rrius (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like you've got them all; I'll just change the "Government Chief Whip to Government Chief Whip. -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Re the Chief Whip, I'm not particularly bothered as long as they are all consistent. Lexstraviex (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It should be linked to Chief_Whip#United_Kingdom not simply Chief_Whip. Leaky Caldron 19:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Since everyone is already here... If anyone wants the phrase "Government Chief Whip in the House of Commons" to break somewhere other than after "of", let me know, though it may be a few hours before I get to it. -Rrius (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paddington (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Wheeler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lambeth Central (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Tilley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Kingdom by-election records, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Waterford (UK Parliament constituency) and Michael Collins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Harvard College Democrats

I was unsure why you deleted this page, given precedent for major political organizations (including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_College_Democrats and their listing on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_College), and barring any specific objections, I would like to rewrite the page. Would this be okay with you? Please let me know of any specific objections or guidelines you would recommend I consult in regards to writing the page. Thanks!

Billsfan114 (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It was nearly six years ago; I can't remember a thing about it. The deletion log says A1, which means a very short article giving no proper context; presumably the page as it existed at the time was not an actual attempt to write an article about the subject. I don't have access to deleted pages so I can't check. A1 isn't an assertion of lack of notability in itself. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Boyd

Hi Sam. Christopher Boyd who is on your surviving MPs List is dead. Kind Regards --Dangermouse600 (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding source for ARA Belgrano

Hi Sam, could you drop by the talk page of the article so we can discuss this source? I've left a message there and I don't want the discussion to fragment so I'd appreciate if you could stop by. Thank you! Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Baker (British politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Haines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Jane Cobden

Interesting story about Jane Cobden's experiences as an LCC councillor, and amazing that until just a few hours ago Wikipedia had almost nothing about her at all, except for a few passing mentions in other articles. I wonder how many other suffragists have been similarly neglected here? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the suffragists have been overshadowed by the more radical and interesting suffragettes. I did contribute to Ethel Snowden who was one of the leading suffragist public speakers, although there is little on her suffragist activities. Note that there was also Emma Cons, who was a County Alderman on the LCC at the same time as Jane Cobden and has a reasonable article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Lloyd MP

Hello there,

I noticed that you are just as passionate as I am to ensure that justice is done to Stephen Lloyd's Wikipedia page! Instead of countering one another's efforts, shall we come up with a compromise together?

Best,

GPS89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPS89 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but use the article talk page so that everyone can join in. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Qnap

I'd like to create a new page for Qnap, since it apparently was deleted. (There was also a QNAP which was deleted as spam/advertising.) The message said to contact the administrator who deleted it prior to re-recreating the page.

I'm not a QNAP employee and I have no interest in creating advertising for them. I'd just like to create a general, neutral information page about the company, similar to ones on its rivals like Synology Inc. I'd also like a re-direct from QNAP to Qnap. It wouldn't be press-release-ish, and I'd include proper cites.

Can you allow this? Thanks.

Shelbystripes (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spare the Rod, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Norman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Fulsome

Good luck with combating this word. It actually derives from "foul" and strictly means sickening, but it has been misused so many times that it has come to mean full and generous. This is a legitimate evolution of an English word, and can't be stopped. But I don't like it either, so like I said: Good luck! Rumiton (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Serra Sabanci

According to the logs, you deleted the Serra Sabanci page -- 16:23, 29 April 2007 Sam Blacketer (talk | contribs) deleted page Serra Sabanci (A7). Your reason was that simply being one of many members of a board deos not make someone notable. While I agree that simply being one of many members of a board deos not make someone notable, Serra Sabanci is other things than a member of a board. She is member of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabanc%C4%B1_family, and on Forbes 2013 list of youngest billionaires: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eimh45gjid/no-16-serra-sabanci/. Also, simply deleting the page leaves all the broken links on other pages. I think we should reinstate the page. ErikHedberg (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Six years ago. Ancient history of which I have no memory. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Gouriet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• on every seat.<ref name="TFA earliest days">John Gouriet, "TFA - earliest days and winning ways]", 'Freedom Today, March/April 2005, p. 10-11; also included in John Gouriet, "Hear Hear!",

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible additions to your prosopography target list?

As a consequence of expanding the article William McFadzean, Baron McFadzean I came across another similarly-named life peer, Francis McFadzean, Baron McFadzean of Kelvinside (1915-1992), who does not have an article. There are in fact a number of life peers in the 1979–1997 list and 1958–1979 list lacking articles, and one in the 1997–2010 list. As you are likely to have access to better sources than me (I had to rely for McFadzean on the single source present in the article) and you already have a prosopography target list, I thought you would be a good person to fill in these gaps. 217.155.59.204 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Alan Whicker

Thanks for digging out Alan Whicker's service record in the London Gazette. This pretty much debunks the theory that he was 87 when he died, which most journalists accepted happily after a quick trip to the archive. The implication that he was a teenage army officer and journalist at Anzio in 1944 is almost certainly wrong. Unfortunately, I could not find anything further about the age controversy, although it has been mentioned previously in the media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Both The Times and the Financial Times this morning have 1921 and not 1925 in their obituaries, and the FT comments that "Whicker was born in Cairo on what he claimed in Who’s Who was August 2 1925 – but school records show otherwise. He was sensitive when challenged about his age. Even a BBC radio profile in 2005 celebrated his '80th' birthday when he was by other accounts 84, with a birth year of 1921." But it might be best to get consensus on the talk page for 1921. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the Times and FT refs in this edit. It did occur to me that Haberdashers' Aske's Boys' School must have a clear record of when he was a pupil there. It is something of a mystery why Alan Whicker was sensitive over this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Lee Hamilton

Hello, Sam Blacketer. You have new messages at WP:RDH.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2001:18E8:2:1020:3851:4713:742B:BDCC (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great find and research on a very difficult search. Editors like you make Wikipedia a very unique place for all of us! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 11:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Capital punishment in the United Kingdom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Police Federation and Edward Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Paddington

Hi Sam. I noticed in passing that the Boundary Commission for England's website is starting to throw up a lot of 404 errors and blank pages, so clearly they're shutting down the site and removing direct links to maps etc. Given this, the Paddington paragraph we fought over earlier is even less necessary than before. No direct link to an abandoned review really does lend itself to a full removal. Can't have historic clutter messing up the place. doktorb _words^deeds 07:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Abandoned proposals are still worthy of note; they are mentioned earlier in the article. I replaced the dead link with a live one; you don't appear to have noticed. Nor did you bother to examine the rest of the article which mentions the proposal for Paddington in the abandoned 2013 review in context of abandoned proposals in previous reviews; removing the 2013 review therefore makes the article inconsistent. Please drop the stick and back away from the dead horse's carcass. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)