User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 401-500

Page Removal

Dear Mr Blacketer if I read the information correct, if not please correct me. Why at 10:27, 30 April 2007 did you remove page for the 18th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division "Horst Wessel". The information for this page had come http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1936. A site which had in the past provided information that Wikipedia had found acceptable to use. Reference other divisions of the Waffen-SS for which it was used for.

Yours Respectfully —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.80.61 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The page was deleted because it had been copied wholesale from the Axis History site. Wikipedia can use information provided on other sites but if the page is just a complete copy, it violates the copyright of the site owner. Site owners can decide to release their writing to the public domain, or license it to Wikipedia, but in this case there is no indication that it was done. The site has a frequently asked question "Can I use text/images from your site?" to which the answer is "If you want to use any images or text from this site, please ask me for permission before taking them!"; this indicates that their copyright is reserved. Sam Blacketer (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Sarah Palin protection wheel war

Having thought about, I think we're at the end of this case. 2 moves to close have been made here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

4 moves have been made, but James F. has made one oppose, and has asked you, and 2 other arbitrators to review your comments/vote for Fof7 for reasons I don't quite understand, I don't see what makes this case unique that it needs to review votes for a particular finding, but anyway.... Whether you're reviewing your vote/comments, or making the final move to close, would like to see the case come to a conclusion soon - your input would be appreciated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Done

DYK for William Hacket Pain

On 15 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Hacket Pain, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Tech and the massacre

Good eye. No one else seems to have caught the anonymous redaction of the History subsection on the massacre. I've restored most of it, reducing it a bit from the original to make it more concise. --Dynaflow babble 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginger Jolie deletion

I urge you to reconsider your stance. Your comments regarding DRV are particularly inapposite. Since the Committee has established the policy committing a decision to the discretion of a single, self-selected adminstrator when the community is divided (and, in theory, even if it is not), the decision in a matter like this is procedurally correct, whatever its outcome. This is a problem created by the Arbitration Committee, and only it can resolve it. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand you. If you are disputing the close of a deletion debate, the appropriate forum is still deletion review no matter what other policies were brought in during the course of the debate. No wikipedia procedure, not even deletion review, is bound only to consider the procedure followed; it can look at the merits of the case, and bring in other considerations not previously mentioned. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a more detailed explanation of my reasoning on the request page, pointing out why the terms of the deletion review policy exclude this case. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Case needs intervention

I request some urgent arbitrator's intervention into the pages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 and I am leaving this same note to all four Arbitrators who commented on the case so far.

The pages of the case have deteriorated beyond reasonable due to the conduct of some of the case participants. Please take a look at this new section of evidence for details. Yes, many bitter cases are filled with nonsense claims but there must be a limit to how much outright crankery can be tolerated at the ArbCom cases without any action taken.

Case' pages being turned into a total mess adversely affects the chances of the cohesive outcome. Too much nonsense in the cases pages buries the constructive entries and make the whole pages unreadable or incomprehensible. This leads to the arbitrators' non-participation in the discussions, which, in turn, brings, and I am not going to sugar-coat this, the case's outcomes being often too disconnected from actual concerns raised at its pages. This is why, I am calling for a rather unusual remedy to be applied to a case itself.

I would like to request that some aggressive clerk-like work is applied to the pages of the case: the workshop and the evidence. This cannot be left to clerks since this requires application of the discretion on the cases merits beyond the freedom given to clerks. If you could go over the current evidence and workshop pages and aggressively remove the patent nonsense and senseless rants (including my own entries if they are perceived as such), the benefit would be two-fold. First, it would make case pages more readable and, thus, more useful. Second, it would send a strong message to all parties that their conduct in the case is being monitored and may have consequences that would, hopefully, switch everyone to a more constructive mode. When looking at the pages you would see at once that the nonsense there is abundant and its presence disrupts the case.

I am not requesting any sanctions against anyone at this point. All I am asking is to return some normalcy to the case' pages.

Thank you in advance. --Irpen 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

After requesting "ethical_conduct" from ArbCom, Irpen found my evidence so important that he decided to intervene, contrary to his own request. I replied here (please see "bare facts").Biophys (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on proposal posted

I am leaving this note at the talk pages of four arbitrators who so far commented on the Piotrus_2 arbcom. Just letting you know that I posted a general comment on the workshop proposal by Kirill Lokshin to the workshop's talk page. Regards, --Irpen 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Abtract-Collectonian

This case is going to be 2 weeks old in another couple of days. Evidence/workshop is complete, and all proposals made on the pd page have been supported by 3 arbitrators. As an arbitrator who voted to accept this case, if you could kindly hop on over to this page to vote, that'd be great. Hopefully this case will be ready to close by 29 Oct. :) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)  Done

Clarification / Amending / Whatever

Sam-- yes, I was very uncertain of the proper venue for that request. It could be a brand new case, it could be at SV-LAR, it could be at the C68-FM-SV case page, it could be a clarification.

I ultimately decided to list it where I did for a couple of reasons. For one, it seemed like SV-LAR was very near closing, and I didn't want to raise whole new issues at the last minute. For two, the focus of the SV-LAR case are events that occurred in March and July, whereas my concerns all involve behavior since September. Lastly, SV-LAR has a lot of privacy issues that are unrelated to the public, on-wiki behavior; I thought it might be best to get as far away from the private information, the innocent bystanders, etc, and make a separate request that focuses on the public behavior exhibited in Sept and October.

But, as I said, I totally don't know what I'm doing, so please, feel free to move this request to wherever you and the other arbs & clerks feel is the proper venue. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Sam Blacketer/Archive 401-500's Day!

User:Sam Blacketer/Archive 401-500 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Sam Blacketer/Archive 401-500's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Sam Blacketer/Archive 401-500! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Privatemusings

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Privatemusings (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Privatemusings. -- MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Eton's prestige

I know Eton is probably the most prestigious school of its kind in the world, and that that background is important to understanding Cameron's background, but "prestigious" is an opinion, not a fact; I think most readers are aware of Eton's reputation, and you can always cite a source that says "so and so says Eton is prestigious and exclusive." LaszloWalrus (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a perception, and it is the perception that is the key to its importance. As it is practically unchallenged perception I see no need to go running round for a source that just happens to echo these words. This sort of defensive writing is extraordinarily distracting. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

November Arb stuff - RFArb page -

Motion - Tobias case

Would like to request that you vote (to oppose) so this may be archived sooner, before the RFArb page gets too much longer. I make this request given that the active current case (Kuban) has similar proposals - I expect they can be tweaked in such a way that it will eliminate the need for amending the Tobias case, while providing any necessary clarification. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)  Done

Motion - Bharatveer case

Also requesting your votes here. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Done

• Just to let you know that Newyorkbrad had proposed one more motion-alternative shortly after you voted on the others. If you wish to vote on this alternative as well or wish to revise preferences, request that you do so. Hopefully, a motion can come into effect as soon as possible. Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)  Done

I hope you had taken enough time to read the case in toto. If not, I request you to take a re- look.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A comment you need to read

You don't seem to have responded to my concerns regarding Hoffman. I hope you will read this one and say something about it. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerard

[1] For whom? Giano (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For everyone involved individually and for the project collectively. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz's significant improvement

On proposed decision page, in findings about Lokyz, you wrote "With regret, because I detect a significant improvement recently". What are those improvements? We should distinguish improved behavior from inactivity, both of which can cause lack of offenses. See my post to NYB here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of disruptive activity is in itself an improvement, but Lokyz has continued to be active (he took October off). I noted this together with a trend away from reverting and to more talk page discussion, and also a change in his main editing interests. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthead and Molobo

Another question: you wrote about Matthead: "Was once true, but is no longer so." Wouldn't the same qualifier apply to Molobo? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in his case the original poor behaviour was worse. Molobo's improvement took place because of the voluntary agreement and because of that agreement, no restrictions are proposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. Some editors have often accused me of being blind to Molobo's actions, but I always found him (with the exception of his early revert warring days back in 2005-6) rather civil and reasonable. Based on the evidence about his current activities, would you say that in 2008, and in particular in the past few months, he was really disruptive enough to justify those findings? I am simply curious, because if you think so, I may need to think more carefully about whether I really have "blind spots" (but please, look at the evidence before replying).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with Piotrus judgement of Molobo, but I agree with Piotrus that you please review the evidence against Molobo carefully. For example [2] and [3] and [4] and [5]. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Finding 25.6

Please see my short comments to NYB at his talk here, before the discussion veered to Lokyz. Bottom line. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable comment

How is this unacceptable? Or how is his discussing a possible failing of our governance different from this essay of mine, and countless other critiques of Wikipedia out there? I don't see any personal attacks, BLP or battleground creation in that diff...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to his likening other editors to an Einsatzgruppen. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, as bad as it is, as long as it is general, is this really bad? If I were to say there are some editors who are likely trolls, for example, is it bad, as long as I don't target anybody (groups or individuals)? There is a line between personal attacks, and criticizing the system. I am very much against the first, but I think that the second one falls under freedom of speech. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg

Wouldn't some form of restriction/parole be enough? Greg did not have any history of blocks, bans or warnings before his interactions with Boodlesthecat, and even now his block record is clean. I'd think that a stern warning should be at least tried before a permban, and I also don't think he has been doing anything wrong in the past weeks - further, this post indicates he is now taking BLP into consideration. Wouldn't you agree? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Very busy, very stressed, and need time to think things over and go over the diffs. Rest assured that I won't support closing the case until I am confident I have responded to all inquiries here and on the talk page of the proposed decision. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; see also this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A permanent ban does seem an excessive sanction to apply to a contributor whose indiscretions cannot compare with the incivility, intemperance and point-of-view-pushing of some of his critics. Nihil novi (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• I made mistakes, I recognize them, pledge not to so again and I am ready to work with arbcoms regarding appopriate restrictions/mentorship that would allow me to continue to productively contribute to non-controversial aspects of this project. greg park avenue (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus Arb 2 additional evidence

Directly overwhelmingly supporting the findings against Tymek. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about the SV/Giano debacle

I have made my disagreement with the policy created by Motion 1 known in my statement. However, I have a further question regarding your comment in your note of abstention. It has always been my impression (misapprehension though it may be) that an arbitrator's block carried no more weight than a "plain" administrator. Your note directly contradicts this. Would you mind clarifying why you feel an Arb's block at AE carries more weight than a simple admin block? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 15:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it ought to be obvious that a block by a sitting arbitrator (probably one by a former arbitrator too) in pursuance of an arbitration enforcement case is something much more substantial than a block by an administrator with no additional function. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I swear I'm not trying to be obstinate, but this does not seem self-evident. Such a view seems to set up tiers of administrators/editors, which seems almost anti-Wiki. I can say that if I ever gain the extra buttons, I will treat all administrative actions, no matter the experience level of the administrator enacting them, with equal respect. I would personally never do what SV did, but find it a bit disconcerting that it seems that FT2's initial block seems to be treated as something other than what it was: a 55-hour block by an administrator in pursuance of Arbitration Enforcement. It seems from the comment I referenced in my previous post that if the block had been made by any one of the hundreds of non-arbitrator admins, SV wouldn't be in the same kind of hot water. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus and BLP violations--what the evidence actually shows

Sam--In the current Arbcom, you wrote that reminding Piotrus to comply with BLP was "Unnecessary; Piotrus acknowledges he momentarily overlooked the BLP implications of Greg park avenue's edit. Normally removing other user's comments would be blockable as vandalism."

In fact, this wasn't at all "momentary," and the ignoring of BLP was part of a sustained and aggressive defense of Greg Park Avenue's adding a series of nasty commentary that was not only in complete violation of WP:TALK, but was agreed by multiple observers to be clearly both vioaltions of BLP and anti-semitic. If you review that extended period, it is clear that rather than being "momentary," Piotrus is intervening agressively on behlaf of an editor who had engaged in days and days of off topic and offensive rants. The synopsis below clearly establishes that this was neither monetary nor benign, but rather, an inexcusable, days long exercise in admin bullying and abuse of authority:

On May 14, Greg opens the hostilities (his first talk page post) with this uncivil post and heading] (and note by "Disruptive activity" Greg is referring to my edits--all of which have been upheld, while all of greg's have been deemed improper.)

I reply

Greg responds with an absolutely clear BLP violation.

I remove Greg's antisemitic and BLP-violating rant (with an unequivocally clear edit summary).

Piotrus restores the violation, amazingly claiming it was "censored for BLP purposes."

I remove it again.

Piotrus restores the clear violation AGAIN, amazingly claiming I had violated WP:TALK by removing (rather than "refactoring" it (as if such a venomous rant with no relevant content for TALK could be "refactored"!)

I refactor, noting it was an anti-semitic rant (which numerous thrid parties agreed with subsequently)

Piotrus accuses me of violating NPA and amazingly demands I respond to greg's rants "in a constructive manner" (as if removing anti-semitic BLP violations wasnt constructive)

I note that antisemitic posting are more serious violation of WP policy.

I reply to another absurd post by Greg (in which he describes reliably sourced major newspaper reviews as "trash" and calls his use of a university press promotional website "a scholarly source").

Tag team member xx236 chimes in

I reply to the rant.

After more intervening pointless ranting, Greg posts yet another antisemitic, BLP-violating rant. (Two days AFTER Piotrus intervened in his defense the first time.)

I reply to an xx236 rant, with it's clearly false accusations.

I remove Greg's second antisemitic BLP violation.

Greg restores it, claiming "vandalism".

I remove it again.

greg restores it again, complete with bizarre edit summary.

I remove it again, complete with a CLEAR EDIT SUMMARY: "delete per WP:BLP Per BLP, do not revert"

despite my clear indication of the BLP issue (not to mention the clear BLP violation easily noted by reading Greg's post) Piotrus restores it with a bullying threat. This is three days after his first intervention on behalf of greg, with numerous violations and rants in the record clearly visible, on a page Piotrus is clearly monitoring and is indeed editing himself in league with Greg. (See edit history of the article during this period).

I reply

another editor removes the BLP violation.

I reply to another Jew-baiting rant by Greg.

greg responds with a personal anti-semitic attack.

I warn Greg.

Greg adds YET ANOTHER anti-semitic BLP violation (and note the laughable example he dredged up from the web).

Piotrus responds 3 minutes later in support of Greg.

On May 19, Gamaliel removes the BLP violation. It stays removed. On May 17, I had brought the BLP to the attention of another admin.)

Greg continues ranting and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fear:_Anti-Semitism_in_Poland_after_Auschwitz&diff=next&oldid=213517939 I reply].

Gamaliel replies to greg.

Poeticbent amazingly restores Greg's violation.

Gamaliel gets attacked by an IP

Note: The article talk page is still littered with BLP violations (word search "Thane" to see.

Note that the above chronology not only demonstrates clearly that Piotrus' intervention was not a "momentary" lapse, but was indeed a sustained and belligerent effort, but it also establishes that Greg initiated the hostilities, and utterly puts the lie to the fabricated claims by Piotrus that I "harassed greg", that greg's "attitude" is "much less problematic from the bad faithed attitude Boody displays" (note the content of Greg's posts!). As well, the above demonstrates that the following "evidence" supplied by Piotrus (link) is a complete lie:

There is an important issue of whether greg was baited (as I believe he was) into his more emotional statements by Boody's confrontational attitude over the past few months of their interaction (analysis of Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, where I believe those editors first met, should provide relevant evidence to address that).

And who does Piotrus cite in "support" of my supposed "slandering accusations of antisemitism"? Poeticbent! Case closed.

Forgive the length of this posting, but I believe it is necessary to clear up the endless obfuscations Piotrus creates with his endless series of little white lies, which have a tendency to culminate in a big lie. The evidence should speak for itself. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another "final warning" of SV?

Sam, hopefully I'm not sticking my nose in and being a bother. Obviously, I don't have to deal with all the stress that Arbcom membership clearly holds, and you probably have far more sagacious advice coming at you from all directions. But, I'm going to offer one more opinion.

In your abstention about desysopping SV, you said:

Per FloNight. This is a very serious single incident. It ought to have been obvious that an arbitrator who blocks in pursuance of an arbitration remedy should not be overturned. If SlimVirgin is to keep admin tools this must be an absolute final warning. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

By my admittedly amateurish count, SV has received three different 'final warnings' in recent times:

* The C6M-FM-SV decision

* The SV-LAR decision

* The edit-warring on the arbcom SV-LAR page.

And now, another incident in an alarmingly short amount of time. Doesn't it seem like warnings through just saying "we warn you" has been tried and failed? If "we are warning you" was a message she was able to receive, wouldn't she have received it before now?

If you (collectively) genuinely want her to change her behavior, it seems to me you're going to have to try escalating Arbcom's behavior. That doesn't mean you have to go nuclear and ban her from the project, but it does mean you can't just keep saying "we're warning you". Desysop her. Desysop her for just a month. Desysop her for 24 hours. Ya know?

Just my annoying two cents. I honestly don't have any ax against SV whatsoever-- I worry you (collectively) are making it harder for her by perpetually not escalating the consequences in any way. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous case

Hi Sam, the evidence page that Ryan linked to suggests that FT2 thought it would be OK to entertain consideration of this case. Maybe he didn't, and I'm confused. If so I'll gladly withdraw my statement. Personally I think that cases brought in such an egregiously out-of-process (not to mention patently unfair) manner shouldn't even be presented to the community; nothing can come of it other than divisiveness and rancor. I know that arbcom isn't a law court but the right to be confronted by one's accuser is a basic social principle, not just a legal one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2 and David Gerard

Now that the Arbcom has finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly [6]), it will doubtless want to show the same speedy diligence in other worrying matters. Could you outline the time scale and agenda for the investigation of David Gerard's suspected misuse of oversight rights in regard to the election of FT2 to the Arbitration committee. Obviously FT2 will need to be suspended from the Arbcom and its list during this investigation, can you give the community an approximated date for the conclusion of the investigation and the names of those carrying it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe in indulging in a trip around the wilder reaches of conspiracy theories. At the moment nothing has been presented which gives reason to suspect a misuse of oversight. I can't speculate on what might happen should such evidence be presented. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, no one really expected the Arbcom to be bothered about their own friends' abuses of power. Just par for the course with the current Arbcom. Giano (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want an investigation, you should really make a proper request. You may not have to, since Jimbo appears to be planning to look into it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does restore confidence doesn't it? There is no reason to make a request, 2 elite editors with oversight right have confirmed the abuse took place. Giano (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What happened has been (mostly) confirmed, but not whether is was an abuse or a reasonable application of IAR. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sam, if what Giano alleges is untrue, could we at least have the committee deny it? I think that request is far from unreasonable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Identity

Hello Sam,

One of the Arbitrators who accepted the Cold fusion case, where I just presented evidence, has been informed of my other user ID. Please also see my user page, for requests as to how this sock be treated. Durga's Trident (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome

Sam Blacketer, you are pretty cool :) Cratwhoring (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? Pretty dodgy contribs, anyway. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith, Tommy :) Cratwhoring (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitals in job titles

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that User:jagdfeld has returned to his habit of editing job titles to lower case. See this summary for his recent effort. User:Star Garnet and I reverted the changes, but it may not end there. Your monitoring of this situation would be appreciated. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You said "although obligate recused, I think...." and I parse this as "Although I am obligate-recused, I think..." but could you clarify that? I take it that you are recused because you are obliged to be. Is that right? -- Evertype·✆ 15:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What it means is that I consider there is an obligation on me to recuse on that case because I expressed a clear view in the naming debate and about the outcome of it; it's not a borderline case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- Evertype·✆ 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Account recovery

Hi Sam, I noticed your comment about old account recovery. At a technical level it is impossible to recover an old account password as it is hashed and salted. However, a sysadmin can reset the email address associated with an account, thereby enabling the person to recover the password. In practice, every time I have been involved in a situation involving a lost password, the sysadmins have declined to reset the email address. Just an FYI. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ignoring myself

On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys at Piotrus arbcom

At the Piotrus ARBCOM, you have opposed or abstained on a finding that Biophys has engaged in unhelpful speculation and fear-mongering (I call it nuttery). It has also been mentioned that he has said he will not do it again. If you refer to User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_19#Inappropriate_use_of_account.3F, it is plain to see that he has gone against this, and had openly accused myself of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. This accusation was raised after he and User:Grey_Fox-9589 gamed the system, and reported me for violating WP:3RR. Whilst I admitted that I breached 3RR, I also raised further information at the [3RR report, in particular that I would not sit by and allow BLP information to be introduced into the article; note it is Biophys who has accused me of doing so (it is a laughable claim); additionally he somehow managed to worm his way out of getting a block also for breaching 3RR, something that I quite clearly pointed out to the THREE admins. Due these repeated accusations on Tiptoey's talk page, whilst I was blocked (how convenient for Biophys that I couldn't respond), I demanded that a check user be done in order to stop these outrageous accusations. It was confirmed that I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet (for the second time mind you), and as you can see from that link, even afterwards Biophys continued to harrass and engage in speculative nuttery; it was even mentioned by 2 other editors. I have written to the Arbcom privately on 8 November with information pertaining to myself, and how such accusations can be possibly damaging, but I didn't get a response to that one either.

Also possibly not looked at on the Piotrus arbcom is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Russavia. In particular the BLP violations committed by Biophys. I addressed this at the 3RR report, in which THREE admins saw what I posted, but refused to do anything about.

Is this Arbcom responsible for this particular case?

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Biographies_of_living_persons
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Problems_with_biographies_of_living_persons
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons

Why after pointing this out on several occasions has not a single word about BLP been said to Biophys?

Or is it acceptable to have:

In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile.[44] He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,[45].

in articles, which are sourced to Chechen terrorist websites?

Would it be acceptable to have a similar sourced claim about Gandhi in an article? Or what if it were on the Jimbo Wales article?

Compare that to the NPOV version which I inserted into the article:

In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile,[49] and compared Putin to Andrei Chikatilo.[50] Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia.[50] The claims have been called "wild",[51] and "sensational and unsubstantiated"[52] in the British media. Litvinenko made the allegation after Putin kissed a boy on his belly whilst stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds on 28 June 2006.[52] The incident was recalled in a webcast organised by the BBC and Yandex, in which over 11,000 people asked Putin to explain the act, to which he responded, "He seemed very independent and serious... I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice...There is nothing behind it."[53] It has been suggested that the incident was a "clumsy attempt" to soften Putin's image in the lead-up the 32nd G8 Summit which was held in Saint Petersburg in July 2006.[52]

Which was removed several times by Biophys and replaced with the statement of fact that Putin is a paedophile.

Why has this not been addressed by the Arbcom, after being presented into evidence? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have looked into the problems you raise. First, I consider that Biophys was acting reasonably when he contacted Tiptoety with his concern; I see no evidence that it was a bad faith report, and even if his suspicions turned out to be without foundation, editors ought not to be intimidated out of reporting genuine possible policy violations by the prospect of adverse findings later. Second, you admit that you did breach the three revert rule, and evidently the enforcing administrator considered that the exemption for material breaching WP:BLP did not apply to these edits.

Vladimir Putin is clearly subject to WP:BLP. However it is not the same thing to add a controversial claim to the article on Vladimir Putin, as to add to the article on Alexander Litvinenko the fact that Litvinenko had made highly speculative claims about Putin. So far as I can tell Biophys has never attempted to add Litvinenko's claim to the Putin article. The fact that Litvinenko made the claim is attested to in reliable sources, and is arguably significant to anyone who wants to assess his credibility on some of the other claims he made. Editors need to be careful about how this episode is written up, but I see no reason to hold it a violation of BLP to mention it at all. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the report was justified or not (I say it is not, and so have others), the continued harrassment and attempts of WP:OWN of articles afterwards tends to take away from WP:AGF; you did read my talk page where even after very clearly telling Biophys that it is none of his business, he continued to WP:HOUND? But what was most telling is the fact that Biophys did not get a block for also breaching WP:3RR, as I clearly demonstrated, but which was ignored by the three admins, and was later said it was because Biophys said he wouldn't do it again....something he seems to have a history of saying but renegging on. Also note his own refusal to acknowledge that he did indeed breach 3RR, yet it is clearly told to him that he did! As I have said on my talk page, that was not harmonious in terms of result, and what the hell happened to one rule for all, not "one rule for some"

In regards to BLP, nowhere at WP:BLP does it say anything about BLP information on the article of the subject being able to be treated any differently to BLP information about that person on another article. For example, it would be a BLP violation to state on Jimbo Wales, "people who knew about Wales' paedophilia" in the same way it would be a BLP violation to state on paedophilia, "people who knew about Wales' paedophilia". English is my second language (Strine being my first), and when I see "people who knew about X's paedophilia", it is not being presented as an accusation, but rather as a statement of fact. When that statement is sourced to a terrorist (or separatist if you swing that way) website (which is not a reliable source of information, except to prove the existence of the claim), and that it has been called unsubstantiated and wild by the British press, and which prompted a comment in a report by the Defence Academy of the UK to state that Litvinenko is a "one man disinformation bureau", then yes, it is actually BLP information, and it was why I started the discussion and attempted to have the claim included, albeit in an NPOV way. The reversal of information by Biophys to re-include "people who knew about Putin's paedophilia" is a blatant breach of WP:BLP, both by the word, and by the SPIRIT of what WP stands for.

But further on WP:BLP, Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source states:

Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

I would bring Point 2 in conjunction with "These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses" into light here. The article was written by Litvinenko, and published in what is not a reliable source for statements of fact. His claim in this source is definitely against Point 2 ("it does not involve claims about third parties"). Whilst we have 2 editors attempting to WP:GAME the system in order to exclude this source as a source of opinion (not fact, as the paedophile claim was made out to be in the article).

So, could you please state your opinion, very clearly, whether having a statement in any article which reads "people who knew about Putin's paedophilia" is a breach of WP:BLP?

Additionally, no sooner was I blocked the other day for breaching WP:3RR, which again I acknowledge I was guilty of (but will know for future that even replacing NPOV templates is counted for such a thing), and Biophys acted in what I can only say was WP:DISRUPTive, and somewhat WP:POINT, with his removal of claims that this person made; removal of information into footnotes, whilst giving WP:UNDUE presence to speculation (something which you will note on the talk page, he has been avoiding answering for some 2 months), and perhaps most telling, this revision on the Russia-NATO relations article; a source was removed by myself because it is a wikinews-type source, other sources had no mention of the assertions made in the article (so I removed them and placed them with fact tags), and because of the way the general article looked I also added OR template to the top of the page.....even removing the reference to the Tupolev Tu-95 doing the patrols.....Biophys had not previously edited this article, and I had not recently linked to it in any other articles, so the only way he would have found it was by WP:STALK/WP:HOUND (something I have been accused by said editor of doing, and something which he denies doing to myself!). You will even find comment from another editor here advising Biophys that he has restored info referenced to a blog/wikinews-type source, and he responds that they aren't his sources and that he will check it later. Why was information restored in the first place, unless there is a WP:POINT to be made, whilst not WP:AGF that the reasons I gave in the edit summaries are not to be believed. It's actually quite unnacceptable.

Anyway, I'd appreciate a response on the question above. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reply. Sorry, but I simply do not understand what Russavia wants. He complained at several noticeboards about me as an alleged violator of BLP, citing information that was placed by other users in 2006 [7]. Fine, I removed the defamatory material even though it was sourced: [8]. But Russavia reinserted it again and again. Fine, then I made a shorter compromise version. No, Russavia reverted me to have precisely his version: [9]. Fine, now he has "his" version. But he continue his campaign, no matter what, as explained here.Biophys (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Open Verdict

On 15 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Open Verdict, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi

Hi there Sam, I see your active so I figuered I'd ping you a note. As normal with blocked users who are participating in an RfArb, we unblock them and keep them confined to their RfArb pages. Normally I'd simply do this and drop the blocking admin a note, but I'm rather reluctant to do this here given the block was done by an arbitrator. Could you give me a bit of guidance please? It's really wouldn't be a big deal letting Moreschi edit the main RfArb page, and I'd keep an eye on things to make sure he didn't step away. FT2 appears to be away from the keyboard, hence why I'm coming here. Hope you're well by the way. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally agree and have taken it up on the mailing list; hopefully there will be action from a member of the committee without much delay. However I have had my fill of drama for today. More than enough. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually managed to get in contact with FT2 - he's away from the keyboard but was perfectly fine with an unblock with a restriction to his talk page and RfArb. He agreed that I could do it for him - I'm sure he'll back this up when he's back if required. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting

On your reply to User_talk:Sam_Blacketer#Finding_25.6. You may also want to read this. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail

in your inbox, from me, I hope. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Of motions and so forth

Thanks for the explanation! Very helpful ) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Sam Blacketer, Merry Christmas!

Sam Blacketer,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees

Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Quackwatch motion

Hi, I just noticed the first motion on Quackwatch which you proposed on the requests for arbitration page the other day. I've made some comments about some problems of infelicitous wording. Although I agree with the notion that Quackwatch doesn't always do a good job of presenting the facts, I think your motion can be read as going further than that, and saying something ambigous about the nature of balance. In the context of this field where arbitration rulings have often been misunderstood and misapplied, I think it's worth taking the time to consider clarifying. --TS 06:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Iain Lee

Can you knock down the protection to semi? If not, you'd still need to revert to this. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Already onto it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Table52

Related to the Ian Lee nonsense, Table52 (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock, claiming he was not warned enough. I agree with your assessment, and in looking at the history of the account I have extended the length of your block. Please let me know if you disagree, and we can review. Kuru ^talk 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly no disagreement here; I was thinking of giving him an indefinite block myself but held back only because of the age of the account. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Chad.

Beat me to both the block and the block extension :P Sorry for being slow on the draw.--Tznkai (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking-a comment

Hi Sam, I don't know if this is allowed or not; I wasn't sure if parties in the RFAR were allowed to make comments to the Arbs themselves in their statement sections. I just wanted to address something in your comment. You said: "That being said, I am concerned at the time spent by a small number of editors who have been mass delinking - which cannot truly, I think, be regarded as writing an encyclopaedia. Removing links while doing other necessary changes on individual articles could not be disruptive, but systematically delinking for aesthetic reasons strikes me as a waste of server time." Although aesthetics is part of it, there are multiple reasons for the date delinkings; the most prominent of those are at User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA#The disadvantages of DA. While I have spent a significant amount of time delinking dates, to say that the "mass delinkings" has kept me from contributing to other aspects of Wikipedia would be far from the truth. It takes all kinds of editors and edits to build and maintain a credible encyclopedia; improving formatting, visual appearance and Wikipedia's linking system are just a few of those categories. I don't expect you to respond or even change your view about anything, I just wanted to clarify the matter. Regards (and thanks for all the work you do), Dabomb87 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Feel free to move, refactor or delete this comment. Dabomb87 (talk)

Deletion of Sheep Page

Hi Sam,

Why did you delete the Sheep page? Sheep had two albums, one on a major label; they had notable musicians; they played in the largest music festival of their genre; they had an international tour in multiple countries; and they had non-trivial coverage in a reliable source.

Please note, I don't have the sourcing to create a new article for them, or don't know how to load up the files to provide those sources, so it's unfortunate that this article, now deleted, can't be recreated.

--Abdul Muhib (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This was some time ago - October 2007. Sheep (band) was deleted under criteria A7. At the time it was deleted, the article accepted they were "a local band" and reported only that they were "working on" releasing an EP. That does not amount to an assertion of notability under our guidelines. Now, of course, everything starts small and it is possible (I do not know) that the band has since signed on a major label and played in an established music festival.

If so then you could simply rewrite the article from scratch, since the title is not protected from recreation, and include the justifications for its notability. Another user could propose its deletion if they think the band is not notable, so it would be best to justify its significance using reliable sources that others can verify. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah- then you were right to delete it. The band I described above had it's hay-day in the early 70s, touring mostly in Europe. I'll see, but I'm not sure if I have enough information and sources to create an article.

--Abdul Muhib (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Your clerk

Don't let your clerk try and get clever with me [10]. Giano (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jude Law

Jude Law is Academy Award "nominated" not a "winner". He is also a C-list actor and there are 500,000+ of them on SAG. Notability based on U.S. box office revenue (See articles on Brad Pitt.) Please mark article for speedy deletion, otherwise we will be taking up precious server space for unknown British actors (there are so many of them nowadays!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanWeir (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Duncan Weir

Thanks - I saw the block. I thought it was better to ignore the nonsense myself, really. Call me cynical if you like, but I wouldn't be astounded if User:86.168.167.246 were the same person, possibly even going by the name of Kai Wong...

Ian Dalziel (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lo and behold, we have a brand new editor, User:86.167.112.73, with a remarkably similar turn of phrase - and abuse. Coincidence? Or reincarnation? Perish the thought that it could be sockpuppetry... -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kai Wong

Sam,

Thanks for helping maintain sanity at Kai Wong by protecting. I really stepped in a hornets nest there! I mean yikes! I didn't expect that kind of respsonse to an AfD when no one even seemed to notice my comment on the talk page... I don't expect the fire to be out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Wong (2nd nomination) yet but as far as I'm concerned it's in the hands of the community. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Giles Hattersley

The history seems far from complete. On whose instructions is the page protected? Giano (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The history doesn't include the first version up to the time it was deleted by Jimbo. As for protections, I simply restored a protection put in place by ChrisO which was cancelled during the move process. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that we have one misguided editor controllng a page [11] this is an unacceptable status. Giano (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Magic Donkey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Magic Donkey. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TimL (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Rajmohan Pillai

Thanks for adding a source for the appeal of Rajmohan Pillai. Do you also have a source for the sentence being suspended? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have sent you an email about this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Received, thanks. I'll remove the tag from the article. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Cox

I am concerned that sourced material is repeatedly being removed by non-registered users. I am referring material regarding Caroline Cox's involvement with the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, Burma, The World Committee on Disability, The Franklin Delano Roosevelt International Disability Award and other sourced material. One should be permitted to introduce positive information about a subject and not just controversial entries. There is a clear bias in reporting matters relating to a 50 year career. Justif2 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you just protect the edits of the non-registered user who admitted that his edits were based on subjective opinion on the discussion page. In doing so you have contradicted your fellow administrator. Please see discussions.96.231.95.250 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is customary for administrators when protecting pages, to make sure they protect the wrong version. Anyway I have tried to distill the main subjects of dispute on the talk page where opinions and sources are welcome. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new policy

As a recent contributor to Deaths in 2009, you may be able to help decide on a proposed new policy. It is proposed that:

A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends.

Please opine at Talk:Deaths_in_2009#Proposed new policy. Don't just say

• Support.

or

• Oppose.

Also state your reasons and participate in the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Stirling and Clackamman Western

Hi Sam

Please can you undo the merge of Stirling and Clackmannan Western (UK Parliament constituency) into West Stirlingshire (UK Parliament constituency)?

The articles were badly constructed, with overlap, but the practice agreed long ago at WP:UKPC has been to have one article per constituency name. the solution should be to remove the overlap, not to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand; it is the same constituency name. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, the constituency known from 1918 to 1950 as "Stirling and Clackmannan Western" was renamed in 1950 as "West Stirlingshire", without boundary changes. That's two names, isn't it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride RfAr

Just wanted to let you know that you voted twice on remedy 1.2 . Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please answer my question

This was a simple enough request to answer. You cannot use the excuse that your e-mail address does not work, because as an administrator, it is against the rules to have an inactive e-mail address assigned to your account. It's time to not be evasive anymore, Sam. Unless you happen to be a minor, which, if so, you should not be an arbitrator anyway, you have no reason to hide. --Jonas Rand 68.96.209.19 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonas, I'm sorry for not answering you sooner but I have been extremely busy at work recently. I will answer your email but I can assure you that I'm far more likely to want to take years off my age than add them on. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry if it appeared a bit rude and invasive, I was merely wondering...

I'm a minor myself, I just believe that minors should not be arbitrators, and if they are, I wouldn't want to pry further. I just dont think they should be trusted. I wouldn't trust myself to be one. Jonas 68.96.209.19 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

replied. 68.96.209.19 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Norman Coates

Just wanted to say thanks for your work on fleshing out the article on this shadowy MP, also your earlier work on Reginald Moss (UK politician). I suspect these Wikipedia articles may be the first attempts to create biographies for these individuals. Well, I'd better get back to searching out more redlinks needing articles... Lozleader (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I discovered a lot more about Norman Coates today, including the reason why he became obscure after 1942. I'll explain more later. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... in a sort of prurient way. Explains why he dissappeared off the radar! 22:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the plot is thickening, or the fog is lifting, or some such. It would seem a little accountancy training is a dangerous thing! Lozleader (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The J&S case

Hi Sam,

I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pages from the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I will make sure I read and critically examine all the evidence - including the discussion pages attached to the evidence. Thanks for the tip. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for your work as an arbitrator. Although your contributions in that position will be missed, I can appreciate the reasons for your resignation. All the best, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would echo that comment. I respect your decision to step down, and thank you for your (sadly brief) time serving. Best, AGK 17:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry about all that has been going on recently. Your work as an arbitrator was commendable, and I wish you the best. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) Sam, I'm deeply saddened to see this. I am of the opinion that you were an outstandingly great arbitrator; your resignation is certainly a great loss. Also, it's a shame that there are already claims for your desysop — I truly hope this won't pass. I wish you all the very best. — Aitias // discussion 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work on Arbcom and all the time and effort you have spent on it. Last year you were one of those whose votes and I opinions I could always respect, even when I didn't always see things the same way. (This year it's still true, but no longer worth mentioning.) It's a funny world and a funny website... --Hans Adler (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins open to recall

I am indeed open to recall. Under the circumstances I don't think it's necessary to quibble about the criteria or to distract however many users from work elsewhere on the project in order to sign a petition; it would get approved anyway. I will initiate a reconfirmation RFA beginning on 15 June, to allow some time for users to assess contributions made when my time was not taken over by arbitration matters; in the meantime the tools will not be used. This approach has the agreement of the committee. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened?

This might have been lost at the noticeboard, which quickly got a lot more posts. How about giving us an explanation of what happened? In your own words, the full story. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I decided I was heartily sick of causing problems, so I forgave and forgot all previous disagreements and started again as a new, wholly constructive user. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And Tango? Why didn't you recuse from that case? Surely, if the background ever came out (and it has) that would carry a very strong appearance of impropriety. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I did recuse. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies; in situations like this memes often gain traction because someone overstates the problem and others fail to double check. Having been on the short end of that myself, it's inexcusable to repeat the error. Would you like to talk? Either here onsite or via email/chat? It might be possible to clear up these confusions by posting a succinct and prompt statement in userspace. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cade Metz is not a responsible journalist. The final flourish to his article ("On May 15, Boothroyd changed the photo on the David Cameron entry, preferring one "not carrying saintly overtones.") makes it sound as though Sam Blacketer had inserted a less flattering picture of Cameron. In fact, all Sam Blacketer did was revert vandalism in Cameron's article: New Canadian (talk · contribs) inserts a picture designed to mock Cameron: [12]. It is a picture that shows Cameron, making a stupid face, in front of something in the background that makes him look as though he has a halo. Sam Blacketer then reverted that edit, restoring the normal picture, showing Cameron smiling in his suit: [13], with the edit summary "(Undid revision 290191421 by New Canadian (talk): Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones.)" His crime was to have a sense of humour. It illustrates why The Register is not a reliable source for controversial statements. JN466 11:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucky thing I watchlist this page; after two weeks many people would have missed that reply. Thank you for a chuckle that brightens my morning: it is refreshing to start the day by seeing someone suppose I need to be told that El Reg isn't perfect. Every publication prints errors sometimes. The New Yorker once described one of our administrators as a professor of theology. That individual also resigned from the arbitration committee. If there's a lesson to be learned, it's that it's good to be forthcoming. Durova^Charge! 14:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, it is no use trying to jump on the bandwagon. I read all about you in the Register. ;) Seriously, I am quite aware that you don't need to be told this. I just thought that a few more people might amble by here, and I was gripped by righteous indignation. What is funny is how uncritically stuff like this gets repeated by one paper, and the next, and so forth. Chinese whispers in action. May your day continue as merry as it has begun. :) JN466 14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam, I noticed this statement that with Sam Blacketer you "forgave and forgot all previous disagreements" and started wholly anew. It's been noted that nevertheless you went on making personal attacks with the Fys account several months after Sam Blacketer was started.[14][15] Sam was sysopped in April 2007, but five months later the fight with JzG, via Fys, seemed to continue.[16] That doesn't look like forgiving and forgetting to me, with all due respect, but more like good hand and bad hand accounts. Given your statement that you intend to go through RfA again, I wonder if this is something you will clarify. Mackan79 (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I also have another question: If I recall correctly, you had a link to the (now-deleted) Wikipedia article about yourself when you used your previous identity. When you were asked to identify yourself to the Committee/Foundation, did you give them that identity, or did you give them another one? TML (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Basically, a statement in userspace that anticipates and answers these sorts of questions, as well as addresses existing memes, would be a very good thing to post today. A suggested approach: take ownership of your actual mistakes, whatever they are. And respectfully suggesting you resign from all ops. People will call for that until you do, and the quicker it happens the less drama will occur. A quiet and dignified response will increase the chances that people will remember the good work that got you to ArbCom, and balance that good side against the negatives that are the subject of interest today. It's not easy to be in the eye of the storm. Durova^Charge! 19:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with you and fully understand the reasons why you abandoned anything associated with the real life you to became anonymous. Wikipedia has a bias rewarding anonymity. People who edit using their real names become the targets of flak if they ever gain notability. Worst still, if they are in anyway related to politics.

I am under enormous pressure to quit my real life username and start editing pseudonymously. I am however unwilling to do that. Maybe we “real people” should start supporting each other. You too might consider renaming your account name to your real life name. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• As much as I'm disappointed at this entire matter, I remain sorry that we've lost your services as an arbitrator, Sam. Thanks for everything you've done for the project and for handling yourself professionally when everything came to light. Best wishes for your future editing. Regards, AGK 20:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Seconded. You were an awesome arb. Sorry to see things go like this. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Derek Senior

On May 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Derek Senior, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election, 1923

On June 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election, 1923, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 09:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Financial News (1884-1945)

On June 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Financial News (1884-1945), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 21:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Requests_for_comment_Is_Skinwalkers_evidence_acceptable_and_can_I_be_allowed_additional_space_to_respond_to_the_accusations.3F--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail

[17] If you had any self-respect, you would resign your admin status. 86.149.60.230 (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's just note that the "less saintly picture" edit removed vandalism (the "saintly" picture was an attack picture, since deleted; it had a blurred round object in the background of the photo that appeared to give a distinctly dim-looking Cameron a halo).

Apart from that, Sam had not done any content edits to the article for over two years. Look at the edit history. All his edits, going back to 2007, are reversions of the type of vandalism this sort of page attracts. [18][19] There's a few hundred of those in there. And even if he did edit the article in early 2007, are we now saying only Tories are allowed to edit Cameron's article? JN466 11:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the edits you have highlighted, but for an admin to post under a deceptive identity is something no admin should be doing. I understand the reasoning behind having a different account once his real-life story was discovered, but wouldn't it have been better if he had just stayed away from areas where it could be suggested he has a conflict of interest, like the Labour Party article, and left admin jobs in those areas to other uninvolved admins? 86.149.60.230 (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But as far as I am aware, the last time he operated another account was some time in 2007. As for the Labour Party article, he does not appear to have contributed to it at all: enter "Labour Party (UK)" in the search field. I don't think the way Sam Blacketer's editing has been described in this article and the one in the Independent (both of whom blindly copied the "saintly" soundbite from the Register article) bears a very close resemblance to the actual editing that took place here at all. The "regular alterations" were regular vandalism reverts – I checked, the journalists didn't. Why let the truth get in the way of a good story? And besides, almost everyone here edits under a "false name" ... and as an arbitrator, he did not "settle hundreds of disputes every day". Reporting like this, even in reputable papers like the Independent, is just unreliable. It illustrates why journalistic sources are far inferior to scholarly studies. JN466 12:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I said "like the Labour Party", I meant like as in for example. As for everyone operating under a false name, of course most people do that and I believe that proper, and I don't advocate Mr Boothroyd goes around screaming "I'm Labour, and I'm proud of it" (not the best of times right now to do that anyway :)). What the problem is is he operated under several identities, and did not declare what he had done. If he hadn't done anything wrong, the ArbCom wouldn't have poked him to the door. 86.149.60.230 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sam Blacketer controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sam Blacketer controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. OpenSeven (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:DCameron320wi.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:DCameron320wi.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you would hold off with deleting it until the last person has recanted any claim that that image is in some way a reasonable one to use for a prominent politician. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It has the usual two days that any non-free image of a living person gets. I will not delete it before then; I can't speak for the other 1650 or so sysops. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

J&S application - status?

Hi Sam,

Regarding my application to take part in the J&S guidelines discussion per this decision, it appears that the deadline has passed. According to FloNight, discussion of the application has taken place but the outcome was not disclosed [20], apparently through clerical error. Could you look into this? The most recent official status request is here. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, something odd which may play a role in your decision to do the RFA on the 15th

Do you know what this is in reference to? rootology (C)(T) 13:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Afraid I can shed no light on this matter at all. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will post to the AC noticeboard. It was probably the second-oddest email I've ever gotten in regards to WP. The first, oddly, coming from Joshua himself, when he was caught by the AC last year--I'm sure you recall, I think you saw the thread, when he was busted by the Checkusers and AC for sockpuppetry in regards to Daniel Brandt's AFDs and DRVs, and I provided some light circumstantial evidence. rootology (C)(T) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Email

You have mail. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Two, in fact. JN466 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Three now. Acalamari 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pelion on Ossa

It seems that the Wikipedia tendency to prolonged debate about internal matters has again manifested itself. Therefore I have decided to hold over the reconfirmation RFA until the winter, and in order to avoid misunderstanding I will request that my admin bit be suspended until such time as an RFA is passed. To reiterate and avoid any doubt, my pledge to go through RFA (and not simply ask a bureaucrat for resysop) is binding and absolute. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you need a steward to turn your bit off for you? Most stewards, including myself, will accept mailed requests if you don't want to go to Meta. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Per your request on meta i have removed your sysop flag --Mardetanha ^talk 23:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You, my friend, can wait till hell freezes over and it won't make a halfpenny of difference. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Well. That's that I guess. Having given this matter some thought I had decided to support you in that event. I find it unfortunate that we will be waiting until some later date to once again take advantage of your adminning and am deeply sorry to both you and the project if my actions have had any part in this delay of your reconfirmation. I look forward to supporting you when winter comes. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes, Sam. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes from me as well. A few months of content creation is good for the soul. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please message me when you do stand. I didn't support you in the first place but this is ridiculous. On the scale of wikinaughtiness, this isn't even troutworthy.Grace Note (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Northstead Manor box

I noticed that you recently removed the box that I recently I added. I added it (regardless whether that office is fiction) based on his predecessors and (some) Chiltern Hundreds holders have the same infobox. If you remove this from Michael Martin, then I would say you should remove the rest of them. Please let me know what you think. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to remove the Northstead and Chiltern Hundreds succession boxes whenever I find them. They are only there on the more recent holders of the office. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would think the fictional office rather useless, but I am not in habit of removing anything without consensus, and was just following his immediate predecessors' style. There is one for David marshall, Tony Blair (the last time I checked the page, it was still there)w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Newsam

On June 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frank Newsam, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Beryl Grimble

I thought this new article might interest you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Sam thanks for the advice. I have registered a username, now milk76, and i will invite the tories editing the jeremy browne page into a dialogue.

It has to be said that i have my doubts. User Oldtauntonian must work for the local tory party. There had been basically no updates to our page until a month ago. Now there is local tory campaign literature in the constituency advising people to look at the wiki page. I love wiki and do not want to be banned but it just cannot become a tool for propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milk76 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Surviving MPs

Hi - I was just looking to see who would be the MP who would now take the tenth place on your list, and I noticed a couple who appear to be missing: Donald Chapman, Baron Northfield and Edward Short, Baron Glenamara, both first elected in 1951. Incidentally, I'm very pleased to see that you're continuing to contribute here. Have you got any plans to resurrect your UK Election Results pages at http://www.election.demon.co.uk/? It was a very useful resource. Warofdreams talk 20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Frogs

Thanks Sam - it was some tongue in cheek levity - probably not needed really in an RfC? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Cameron notes.

Thank you for commenting. Your opinions are respected and I agree. I will consider them and do a little sorting later. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Articles for deletion nomination of List of British bingo nicknames

I have nominated List of British bingo nicknames, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British bingo nicknames. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes of no confidence

I've just passed your DYK. I thought I'd mention that I am not sure whether every successful vote of no confidence is in the navigation box. Please add others if you find them in Hansard. Sadly even Parliamentary sources only seem to focus on Callaghan and the two in 1924.  Francium12  22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan Exclaves

Hello.

Hackney South in the Metropolitan area, showing boundaries used from 1885 to 1918.

Very impressed with the maps you have been adding such as this one. Question for you regarding the exclaves/enclaves. I take the pink exclave to the north is "Clerkenwell detached", and the white bits are South Hornsey. Just wondering what the bit to the west of Hammersmith/Fulham is?

Lozleader (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see it now. It was a detached bit of Putney parish. Very likely the same bit that was transferred to Barnes under the London Government Act 1899 [21]. Lozleader (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 1892 vote of no confidence against the government of the Marquess of Salisbury

On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1892 vote of no confidence against the government of the Marquess of Salisbury, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

please can you allow me to edit "the sunday night show"

I would like to contribute to the Sunday night show page as i am intellectually adequate to improve it. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwan345 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

LCC results

Well, I've been ploughing through that stuff you sent. I do believe that List of members of London County Council 1889 - 1919 is treble-checked for accuracy now. There were some errors alright, sometimes caused by two bi-elections in the same year in the same division, some by eyes slipping down the page to the wrong line of The Times results.

Having now moved on to List of members of London County Council 1919 - 1945 I've come up with an oddity. I had Powell and Lapthorn elected on the basis of a report in The Times' of 6 March 1922

• Powell (Lab) 3,019
• Lapthorn (Prog) 3,015
• Myer (Prog) 3,015
• Bessell (Lab) 2,838
• Sharpe (MR) 2,802
• Page (MR) 2,793
• Allen (Ind) 581

Lots were drawn for second place and according to the report Lapthorn (which it calls Napthorn!) was declared elected.

Apparently the 2nd count had Myer in first place and Powell and Lapthorn tied for 2nd place, which "reversed" the first count.

What I hadn't spotted was a report in the 7 March 1922 edition which gives Lapthorn's name correctly, and says that it was Myer who was declared the winner.

Lozleader (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

'Twentieth Century Local Election Results' has it exactly as you quote, with Lapthorn as 'Napthorn'. But neither names appear in the official index of Members in Appendix II of 'Achievement' whereas Reginald Myer does, which is proof that he took the seat. Lapthorn is correctly included also when The Times published the full list of Progressive candidates on 1 February 1922 (p. 12). Frank Dawson Lapthorn, educated at Mill Hill School, was apparently a tea and coffee merchant in partnership with members of the Pigott family. He fought Norwood in the 1923 election as a Liberal as well as trying again for the LCC in Lambeth North in 1925. During the Norwood byelection in 1935 while still a Liberal he sent a letter of support to Duncan Sandys, the Conservative and National candidate.

Incidentally I've been carrying on looking into Lt Col Norman Coates and more information has come to light which explains the situation in Ely. I did not think it possible for him to outdo his previous exploits of stealing from prisoners of war, but the old rogue has managed it. I should be getting some newspaper copies delivered from Colindale later in the week which will be OK as sources. Also a 1901 Census search sheds some light on his "landowner" father. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can hardly wait. Starting to think he died under an assumed name outside the jurisdiction... Is it Thomas Coates, Mason & Joiner, of 15 & 16 Mount Joy, Durham you are referring to? 23:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Iain Lee

I've proposed that this article and its talk page, which you semiprotected early this year, might be unprotected and watched with great vigilance to see if the problem has gone away. --TS 22:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Pat Hastings

Thanks for your expansion work here. Think we should try and get it to FA? Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Norman Coates RIP

Hello, I located Norman Coates' grave by chance 10 days ago while I was in Europe. I understand your point, but there is a reason for mentioning the fact the grave is unmarked : it's based on fact, and if people visit the graveyard they won't at present find his grave unless they know where it is, and know the fact it is unmarked. I know what happened to Norman Coates after 1942. However, Wikipedia requires information to be verifiable. I can't do that, but I'm his Great Grandson, so I just know... Reuben Los

Hello. Are you sure about the date of death? I have had a look in the death indexes of the General Register Office for both Q2 1966 (April-May-June) and Q3 1966 (July-August-September) and his death is not listed.Lozleader (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a Norman Coates, age 76, in that for Q1 1966 and the place of death is Carmarthen. It may be that June 1966 is correct and for some reason the entry has been added to the wrong quarter. It's unlikely that 'Jun' has been misread for 'Jan' because Norman Coates wouldn't have been 76 until April 1966. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(NB I've removed email addresses; it's generally not a good idea to leave valid email addresses on any page in Wikipedia as they get spammed, but thanks very much for the contact details)

Without shelling out for a copy of the death cert, that's as close as we can get! Incidentally his WWI medal card is up at ancestry.com and it would seem to confirm what we have for his service in that war. Lozleader (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally the 4th Welsh were the territorial infantry unit for Carmarthenshire, which suggests that Coates may have been resident in the county by then.Lozleader (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On the outbreak of the Great War, Norman Coates was living at 'Pinehurst', Sully, near Cardiff, Glamorganshire, and working as an accountant for Glamorgan County Council. (Perhaps I'm disclosing a little too much personal information here but as it's 95 years out of date, I don't think it will do too much harm) I'm still not sure about the 'Welsh' v 'Welch' issue though, the Regimental History uses 'Welch' throughout. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The spelling of "Welsh" was changed to "Welch" in the tiltles of both the Welsh Regiment and the Royal Welsh Fusiliers in 1920 by Army Order 56/1920, reported in The Times: (The "Welch" Fusiliers and Regiment, 5 March 1920, p. 17, col.E.). It may well be that within the regiment (i.e. unofficially) the "Welch" spelling was used previous to this. The Welsh were also the county regiment for Glamorgan (although the 5th and 6th Battalions covered the county rather than the 4th).

As another example of the difference between official and regimental nomenclature, The Cheshire Regiment always called themselves the 22nd (Cheshire) Regiment right up to their recent amalgamation into the Mercian Regiment, although the name was expressly changed on 1 July 1881. Lozleader (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Bonar Law

Note that if you're planning on working on this article (I appreciate that so far you've just added a link) I'm currently working on a rewrite. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Natscha Engel

Good restructuring Sam ... I was always thinking your original restructing was 'groaning' but of course you're known to be in admin in Wiki.

Problem is in your restructing, you've introduced counterfactuals (again: reading the history of this article you've been engaded with this before).

That's called 'whishfull thinking' in common paralance.

BTW ... I'm intrigued ... where is the documention on the 'Hoon' (Geoff hoon) turning up to any local meeting (NE Derbyshire) in local democracy, where Natascha Engel is at the samwe time. Please enlight me ... with a reference.

Lomcevak (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The 'next day' (Engel)

You write:

As the expenses scandal broke, in May 2009 Engel undertook to "publish everything as soon as possible".[38] She revealed her claims the next day, ...

What's the 'next day' after May 2009 ? Sam ... ? Do tell, you charlatan ...

Lomcevak (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lomcevak (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dictators

List of Dictators which you commented on in the last AFD is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Sam ... I've shouldn't been so sharp

Sam ... stuff goes ... I'm sorry ... I shouldn't have reacted as I did.

Be well ...

Lomcevak (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No warfare, Sam .... Collaboration ... best we can make it friend... Dave

Let's make it the best we can ... and for all the world to see :-)

Lomcevak (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll start to re-establish the orphanied links (failure on hotlinks.com ... but your contributions are great. Thanks.

Lomcevak (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Natascha Engel

I've added my comments to the discussion pages. Lomcevak (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)