User talk:Frogsprog
Show that you can contribute positively and substantively in the following way:
- Choose an article or section thereof which you feel needs improvement.
- Copy the article or section to your talk page (please remove any category links)
- Demonstrate a substantive improvement over the current text, including references
- 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)
Revolving Bugbear - As can be seen below, the current section (below) is a stub - and doesn't illustrate adequately the complex problems arising from the existence of "safe seats" in the United Kingdom specifically (it gives no mention of the contrasting "marginals" which exacerbate the situation and should be mentioned in order to put the situation into context). 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 by way of a simple example. The original also gives nothing in the way of references making it an impossibility to verify it's accuracy or for the reader to conduct further reading by looking at the (non-existant) references. My work includes references from the BBC's college revision website and the Dept. for Constitutional Affairs --Frogsprog (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
==United Kingdom==
Current Version[edit]
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[edit]
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.[1]. 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. [2]
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 [3]
References[edit]
- ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/higher/modern/uk_gov_politics/elect_vote1_rev.shtml First Past The Post (Highers revision)
- ^ http://demochoice.ca/distorted_outcomes.htm A Canadian site illustrates the possibility of safe seats in the Westminster system
- ^ www.dca.gov.uk/rights/dca/voting/qa.pdf DCA paper on the proposed conversion to AV+
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.
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.
{{helpme|Could someone inform user:Revolving Bugbear that I have followed his criteria to prove that I deserve to be unblocked to the best of my ability and please ask that he review it --Frogsprog (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)}}
{{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)}}
- I have informed him of your request.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 20:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
unblock[edit]
As it stands now, I would unblock you. I do have a few reservations about what you've laid out above -- your example may qualify as WP:OR -- but it seems to me you have a desire to contribute constructively.
I am going to consult with the admins who declined your previous requests, and possibly with some others.
In the event of an unblock, I would recommend thoroughly reading over Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and discussing changes on the talk pages of articles. - Revolving Bugbear 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly. I have been doing already. I am sure for the information classed as OR I could find a source to make it no longer OR --Frogsprog (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that "B" has his reservations about my unblock. I would like to reassure him (or her) that my statement about MONGO's desysop was not intended as an insult to that contributor - merely a way to illustrate how much has happened since back then --Frogsprog (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Liverpool Anti american Demo.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Liverpool Anti american Demo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Anti-bush riot.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Anti-bush riot.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en
wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Antigun.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Antigun.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Londondemo.JPG[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Londondemo.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:PadiBasic.jpg[edit]
A tag has been placed on File:PadiBasic.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Template:User NK[edit]
Template:User NK, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User NK and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User NK during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)