Archived material has been removed to User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 1-50 (09:41, 13 March 2007), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 51-100 (10:48, 28 April 2007), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 101-200 (18:42, 13 October 2007), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 201-300 (00:07, 6 January 2008), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 301-400 (09:43, 11 October 2008), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 401-500 (10:48, 12 October 2009), and User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 501-550 (00:26, 14 February 2011). Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Carr (Lib Dem politician), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in Michael Carr's successful by-election campaign, he issued a leaflet mentioning 26 times that he was local to the constituency? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) 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.

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

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

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

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

On 24 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sean Hughes (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sean Hughes MP got Scottish MPs to give him their free tickets to the 1986 English FA Cup Final so his constituents could watch the Everton–Liverpool Merseyside derby? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Sam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello there,

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

Best,

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

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

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

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

Can you allow this? Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Please can you explain this? GiantSnowman 11:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed you about it at 10:56; happy to forward the email again if you did not get it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do not have access to my e-mails during the day. GiantSnowman 11:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad because it's something that shouldn't be discussed onwiki. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review as soon as I can. GiantSnowman 12:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• known professionally as '''DLT''', '''The Hairy Monster''' and from 1978 '''The Hairy Cornflake'''), is a British [[radio presenter]], best known for his career on [[BBC Radio 1]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam: In your undoing of my undoing of the undoing of part of my edit, you refer to talk. The talk on that page doesn't seem to refer to my edit, and I'm not sure which part of the edit you deem to be synth. Can we go into it with a bit more detail? Which bit is synth, which bit is a misunderstanding?

thanks, Gravuritas (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just seen your contribution on the talk page- will consider it and revert Gravuritas (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noted earlier you offered source material related to the removal of non-contentious material. By chance, I saw in the talk archive a very long discussion on an attempt to remove reference to Gilligan's alleged sockpuppeting, where at more than one point your tried to moderate. The outcome was that the material was retained. 'Sandler151' was later replaced by 'Craig142', seemingly another SPA, who tried to remove the same. There have been other attempts; there seems to be a history of efforts to sanitize the enry. In the last few days there has been a flurry of removals by two editors seemingly new to the Gilligan entry: 'John', and an anonymous user. They have removed the sockpuppeting material yet again. I started a new discussion on the talk page (unaware until today of the long archived entry). I tried to restore the material, but twice more John has removed it. If this were the first dicussion on the matter, then perhaps temporary removal would be appropriate whilst it was under discussion. But in my view, given the past discussion, there should not be any further removal; the onus is on those who wish to remove it to bring something new or compelling to the discussion. Far from doing so, I note today that FreeRangeFrog found another secondary source, this time from the New Statesman (see his contribution on talk page). The cycle of removal then reinstatement cannot continue. Given your familiarity with the issue, I wondered if you could have a look and attempt an objective intervention? UsamahWard (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deaths in 2013 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of [[Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff|APEX]] (1971–89).<ref>[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/10412867/Roy-Grantham.html Roy

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to feature a lot. You may want to comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natascha_Engel#Engel_and_the_Middle_East_.28Weasel_Words.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.252.104 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't. Comment period up.

94.72.252.103 (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've written some content on Jim Dowd regarding Hendogate that I hope you'll find to be better sauced... *ahem* sorry sourced. =)

You Must Join The WikiClub! SANTABABES (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sam! What can I say, except - thank you very much! I want to make list of Rhodesian opposition leaders for quite some time, and now its possible, thanks to your awesome help! I only have three questions for you:

1) I see that list of opposition leaders you posted on my talk page begin in 1928, but I know that Rhodesia had responsible government and the Legislative Assembly from 1923. Can you shed some light on who was the opposition leader in those first five years (1923-1928)?

2) I'm very glad to see that you posted the names of the books about internal policies of (Southern) Rhodesia on my talk page. Can I use that books as a source when I create the article about opposition leaders, in the "Sources" section?

3) Do you have any info about the opposition leaders of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, since 1979/1980? My original plan was to create an article which would contain opposition leaders of Rhodesia, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and Zimbabwe in the same place (in the same fashion as List of Speakers of the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe contain parliamentary speakers of all three entities).

Again, I can't even express how grateful I'm to you because of your help! If you can shed some more light over my three questions, I'd be grateful to you even more. Cheers, Sam! --Sundostund (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, one more thing - can you find something about speakers of the Legislative Assembly and their party affiliations? As you can see at List of Speakers of the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe, the period from 1923 to 1964 lacks party affiliations of speakers, and there's a gap in the list from 1952 to 1959. --Sundostund (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I truly hope, Sam, that I'm not asking too much. It certainly wasn't my intention to do that... But, I really need the data which I mentioned above, in order to have enough information to do work on Rhodesian articles in a proper way. When you manage to find the data, please let me know. I'm really eager to create the list of opposition leaders of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, and to correct gaps in the list of speakers of the House of Assembly. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a catchphrase of Pointless (game show) that "by country, we mean a sovereign state that's recognised by the UN in its own right", see [5]. Thus, I can't agree with you changing the redirect to sovereign state.--Launchballer 19:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know perfectly well where it comes from, and I think it may be that it should be a redirect to Pointless (game show). But the point is, it shouldn't be a redirect to Country because that is the point being made by giving a more specific definition: it's not the same thing as a 'country' in common parlance. Wales is a country but it's not a sovereign state and it's not a member of the UN. Kosovo would presumably be unacceptable because although it is to all intents and purposes sovereign, it isn't a member of the UN. But Kosovo would likewise be referred to as a country. And what about more difficult cases? Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic? Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ken Livingstone may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk_politics/2000/london_mayor/736460.stm Ken Livingstone : Rebel Mayor] (5 May
• {{s-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H Sam, thanks for your edits to that article. May I ask what your source was for this edit? You didn't cite one, and it contradicts this source. If you've got a better source and we're sure it's talking about the same man, I'll happily defer to yours and stick it in the article. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's like this. I spotted that the locomotive was called "T.C.B. Miller MBE" so he must have had middle names. Having (eventually) found the MBE award and confirmed what they were, I searched the register of births and deaths and turned up an entry in the record of England and Wales deaths of the death of 'Terence Charles B. Miller' in Elstree and Potters Bar district of Hertfordshire in the second quarter of 1990 - the date of birth being 21 August 1911. There was also record of the birth of Terence C.B. Miller in Barnet, Middlesex in the third quarter of 1911. There was no other Terence Miller born in 1909. I also noted that this precise name and an 1911 birth year matched with the index entry for the archives of the Council of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers of which Miller was apparently President at some point between 1967 and 1973. (See ILE 1/14) This is all primary source but limited use of primary source to confirm facts is allowed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering whether you are indeed intending to revise the article, as you have access to the relevant sources. Davidships (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, You recently reverted my edit at Paddington South (UK Parliament constituency) with the comment "This is not 'standard' and it looks terrible" in response to my edit comment of "convert to standard election template". You also recently edited Richmond (Surrey) (UK Parliament constituency) with the comment "Convert to compact election box" which I have just reverted with the comment "This is not the most common format and it looks terrible". You and I clearly have different views on what looks terrible which we probably can't do much about. However, I think we can at least agree that the boxes I prefer are standard templates, despite your comment. In addition, I'm sure you are aware that these boxes are also far more commonly used than the boxes you prefer. I'm not sure if raising this difference on the UK politics project page will resolve this difference, but we could try. We could resolve this difference ourselves by agreeing with each other not to change any page from one format to another. I'd be interested in your view. Graemp (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The compact election box was developed on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 7#Compact election box. The full election box is extremely large on the page, especially when there are more than a small number of candidates. Having space between two successive election boxes has no justification. Any long series of election results in a single constituency uses up pages of space to give very little information. The compact election box solves those problems, does not omit any information. The fact that many people default to the sort of box which was the first to be set up as a template is not surprising but that's because editors that care about election results haven't been as energetic as we might in converting things over. It is not because there is a rule to use the larger box. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your explanation but I still prefer the stand alone boxes. I offered two ways forward. I think we need to reach some sort of agreement rather than ignoring the situation as I note that while I chose not to revert your edit you chose to revert mine. Graemp (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that you revertion of my Paddington edit also deleted additional information. Graemp (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, I wanted to check the language used to describe the recent Rahman ruling, I've started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:Lutfur_Rahman_(politician)#Reported_guilty_or_found_guilty.3F. Thanks, Paulbrock (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where you got the information that the term of an MP starts on election day. They cannot possibly assume office when they don't know if they've been elected and that happens after the count. Technically they are not MPs until they take the oath. I have therefore taken the liberty to restore my version, which is properly referenced. Nasnema  Chat  22:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it is a convention on Wikipedia that any MPs' term is shown as beginning on the day they were elected. Check other MPs' biographies to see it, and please don't go changing other pages because you'll have a hell of a job. You are quite wrong in your assertion that a person elected to Parliament does not become an MP until they take the oath - quite wrong. And some never take the oath and yet still sit in Parliament (how can that be?) Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedea pages have shown members starting on the day of the election, but that does not mean it's right. For instance, the current MPs start getting paid on the 8th of May, the day after the election. I take your point about the oath, but technically Parliament and therefore MPs do not start their term until the first sitting, in this case May 18th. I'm going with the payday. Nasnema  Chat  19:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer is correct, not least because "payday" has got nothing to do with being elected to serve as a constituency's MP. Were User:Nasnema's reckoning to be correct, Sinn Féin MPs could not be recognised by Wiki, just by way of example, and moreover no MP received any remuneration for his service until the 20c, thereby erasing all previous MPs from Wiki's databanks. Fellow Wikipedians, please understand that not everything can be rewritten according to present-day whims - I don't know what next year's fashion will be, do you? M Mabelina (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start another edit war on the subject list with your various "rubbish" or "reliable source" rhetoric circulating around a single source. If you have any more specific issues about this article, let me know up front rather than waste the community's time (once again) for some petty verbiage. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the last race before the First World War from 1913 to 1914! What on earth is your problem with that? Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your edit, I have a problem with your hysterical outburst last time round I nominated this list. Remember? The bit where you declared part of it "rubbish" because you had assumed I'd based it on a Boat Race programme, then a while later claimed that a Boat Race programme was a reliable source? That, on earth, is my problem with your interventions and behavioural issues. Clear enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you bringing it up now? Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

thank you for finding and adding the full name and birth date of Caspar Bowden! Do you have a source we could find to back the information, or any idea to find a confirmation?

Thank you again and cheers! Rama (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sam Thank you for your observation that "David Cameron has had a grant of arms (I believe he hasn't)." This is true. A coat of arms granted to an ancestor of his, is not the same as his coat of arms. Again correct. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we go from here under the Law of heraldic arms? M Mabelina (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that tag I forgot to remove on Elizabeth Cass. Samuel Tarling (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Must have Prime Numbers? OK -- this is not a serious comment, but just popped into my weak ming <g>. Collect (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you reverted a recent edit I made to Jeremy Corbyn without explanation. I'm wondering why that is. I had added them in accordance with WP:POSTNOM which states, "Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated." Cheers, Graham (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By very long consensus, the postnominal 'MP' is never used in the lede section for current Parliamentarians. Essentially this is because it isn't an honour, nor a degree, nor really a professional body (like the Royal Institute of British Architects), so it's not really "issued by" anyone. It is given in any infobox, as part of the usual style, but not in the lede. Look at almost all biographical articles on current Parliamentarians and you should not see it, unless someone else has made a mistake. Examples of previous discussions on the topic are here and here and note Frinton100's comment here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Major W. Martin.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, I notice that you have reverted my last three edits to Spen Valley (UK Parliament constituency) commenting that it looks better. I don't agree but I'm not sure we could get anywhere trying to assess which edit looks better. Leaving that issue aside, your reverts have also removed links, forenames, images and references that I had added which unquestionably improve the article. If your only objection to my edits are style-based, then I think you should restore the other improvements I made. Better still, we could agree that regardless of how the compact list looks, it is easily not the preferred option among wikipedia editors and should be discontinued. Graemp (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your banner here [6] I've updated the page. It had a lot of promotional content and so I suggest you keep an eye on the article because it was being edited for that by someone who might be back to revert any changes. The name headline needs to be changed from (journalist) to (film maker) in keeping with the sources, and I'm not sure how to do that so maybe you could? You also have a creative commons pic to use here [7]. -Applefall (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure you've noticed that you're up to 3 reverts on Tony Blair. I suggest moving the discussion to the talkpage instead of trying to negotiate through edit summaries. WJBscribe (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sam Blacketer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I'm being dismissive, mate. In fact I applaud your diligence. Just saying those sources still classify (at least upon face value) as reputable. I have always leaned with suspicion toward the ambiguity regarding the sources surrounding Nodder's early years. Best regards and kudos. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, you're quick off the mark! :-) [8] Prioryman (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Indyref. Since you had some involvement with the Indyref redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. feminist 17:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sam Blacketer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you can remember all the other SPAs that have been doing it? I know I've warned off a couple before today. DuncanHill (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand where you're coming from re: my name on the City of York Council election, 2015 page and what it was at the time of the election. However I would strongly argue that this is not appropriate practice with regards to trans people. Perhaps this needs discussing in another forum (involving trans people in the discussion), but I'm not an expert Wikipedia editor so I'm not sure where and can only respond here.

Consider these points:

1. while I'm privileged enough to be able to be out as trans in all parts of my life, for some trans people being outed can be (very) dangerous - this practice has the potential to do that
2. deadnaming can contribute to gender dysphoria, a form or mental distress - best practice would avoid this
3. it is accurate - I am and always have been Ynda Jas, I simply hadn't adopted this name when I ran for election. The record should surely be of who ran for election not simply what names were on the list? It was Ynda Jas (me) who ran for election, regardless of what name Ynda Jas went by in 2015. Take celebrity stage names, for instance. While unlike most trans people in that these do not generally represent the entirety of a person - often just a public persona - they offer an example of where we might not stick to exactly what is shown on paper. For instance, Wikipedia tells me "Bono is married to activist and businesswoman Alison Hewson" - Bono, not "Paul David Hewson" as I'm sure it would have said on the marriage certificate at the time. This is perfectly reasonable. For trans people the stakes are often higher, so the same if not a greater level of flexibility on names should be practised.

Much more discussion of best practice regarding citing/naming/referring to trans people can be found in resources such as:

• The Radical Copyeditor's Style Guide for Writing About Transgender People, particularly section 2.4.2: "Using a trans person’s birth name or former pronouns without permission (even when talking about them in the past) is a form of violence"
• the recent academic article How do you wish to be cited? Citation practices and a scholarly community of care in trans studies research articles - this is behind a paywall, but there may be presentation slides available from the authors

For now, I would be okay with an footnote stating that my name was "Andy Law" on the ballot (or perhaps "Andrew James Law", but I think not), but this should absolutely not set a precedent for all trans people, since as I noted in point (1) it's not safe for many to have their deadname in circulation/attached to their public history/record.

For information, I have contacted the City of York Council asking them to update their records.

I'm happy to discuss this further in another forum if appropriate, but I simply can't accept that we have a duty to deadname and put trans people at risk for what is only ostensibly greater historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yndajas (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with deadnaming trans people but this simply isn't an occasion on which it can be avoided. If it was your biography page then the situation would be different but it is a page about the election in 2015 and it is what happened in 2015 which is to be recorded. This is an approach supported by the Manual of Style which says the following in the case of transgender people referred to in other articles: "Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." (my emphasis) Retrospectively changing in this case would be tampering with history. We have not always been at war with Eastasia and Margaret Roberts was the Conservative candidate in Dartford in 1950.

I am just one editor; if you wish to take it further then it might be appropriate for discussion at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that quote can be interpreted to be in support of deadnaming with any level of confidence, and the key context here is that a trans person has asked not to be deadnamed. Given that all it says is take account of context and make a decision on a case-by-case basis (and in this case, the change has been requested by the trans person), it's worth referring back to the Manual of Style's guidance on main biographical articles. This indicates a clear preference for "self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources". Sources in support of using Ynda Jas to refer to me in all cases include a web page on my name change on my old website and a note on citation on my new website. With regard to language more broadly, it advises "reflect[ing] that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise" (my emphasis).

It is not tampering with history to say Ynda Jas was the candidate - I am Ynda Jas and I was the candidate. It would be more accurate to say that the way it was recorded in 2015 was inaccurate (to no one's knowledge) - now we have the capacity to be (more) accurate, and we should take it. But regardless of whether you class this as tampering with history (it really isn't), deadnaming is still not okay and the Manual of Style suggests a strong preference for going with latest self-expressed identity/name/pronouns etc even when talking about the past. If you're still not happy to accept such a change, I'll take it up elsewhere. Ynda Jas (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please do take it up as it's likely to be an increasing issue. But it has happened in the past. Much though I hesitate to do so, I would draw your attention to the fact that the SNP candidate in Edinburgh Pentlands in 1970 and Glasgow Provan in 1992 were the same person. The Manual of Style distinguishes between biographical articles and others; as I pointed out above, had you a biography I would support a statement that "They stood for the Green Party in Guildhall ward in York in 2015" and revert anyone who tried to make reference to a name change. But this is an article about the election. And it is the reliable secondary sources about the election, including Rallings and Thrasher, and the primary source Statement of Persons Nominated from the council, which govern what to write.

There is also an important aspect about trans identity which I would say argues against a change. The electors of Guildhall ward in 2015 had a cis male candidate on their ballot papers and cast their votes accordingly. Personal attributes of candidates are an issue that affects elections and it would be wrong to assume that the outcome must have been precisely the same had they instead had a nonbinary candidate. It would also be apt to mislead anyone looking for precedents of elections featuring a nonbinary candidate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are speaking incorrectly here Sam: the Guildhall ward in 2015 did have a non-binary candidate. Perhaps you mean they did not have an /openly/ non-binary candidate. Wikipedia should have some way of identifying that these people are the same (as other political archives such as Democracy Club do): the most obvious way of doing that would be to use the person's current and preferred name. - Ronald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.102.78 (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean using the name as given in 2015 and their current name, which I understand is precisely what was being objected to. I do my research and I notice here that in 2015 the pronouns used are 'he'. Incidentally, I note they have left the Green Party since the election - but do not request that their party allegiance be changed. There really is no difference between the two so far as recording an election result is concerned: the name is the one before the electors at the time, the party allegiance the one that the candidate had in the actual election. There are people who, for example, would like a previous electoral candidacy for a party they no longer support to be erased. History cannot be rewritten. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely not analogous. As I have repeatedly stated, the person who ran was Ynda Jas, simply by a different name. That person ran for the Green Party in that election, which is what the web page suggests. A historical affiliation to a party (at least a relatively mainstream one) is also not a matter of respecting a person's current identity, or a threat to mental or physical safety. There's very little at stake in comparison. It's not an act of violence in the way that deadnaming is.

Further, the web page lists "candidates" not "names on the ballot". The candidate was me, Ynda Jas. I'm not trying to change history - that would be saying a different person ran. In fact, as I said above currently it's in a way less accurate than it would be if it used my correct name, since it is saying a person named [deadname] ran in 2015, which they didn't. There is no person named [deadname] who ran in that election. A person once named [deadname] did, but that person is Ynda Jas. Therefore it is wholly accurate to say Ynda Jas ran in that election, and it is wholly inaccurate to say [deadname] ran. As I keep asking, why would people want to know what was on the ballot more than they'd want to know who ran? That who is me, Ynda Jas, not anyone called [deadname].

To say I ran for a different party would be changing the record, but simply to update the label of the person who ran to make it accurate to 2018 is not to change history. It's not saying someone else ran, it's simply updating a label out of respect (in other people's cases, it might be as a matter of safety). Why is that such a problem? Yndajas (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been the case that a record of election results records the facts at the time of the election. Candidates changing their names is not new: have a look at Hendon (UK Parliament constituency) in the 1920s and note how Philip Lloyd-Greame becomes Philip Cunliffe-Lister after the 1924 election. The Conservative in Dartford in 1950 is Margaret Roberts. A record of election results in 2015 has to be accurate to 2015 including names. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sam. Quite some time ago, you gave me advice about the content and sources needed to create Leader of the Opposition (Rhodesia). As you can see, recently I created that article. You can review it, and if you find something which needs correction, change etc feel free to do it. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am sorry to contact you out of the blue, but last year you found the precise birth date for Mona Tinsley, and added it to Wikipedia. If you don't mind me asking, can you find the precise birth date for Harold Jones, born I assume in late 1905 or early 1906 (quite possibly in Monmouthshire, Wales)? I don't have the exact date in any of the printed literature I have, and it would be greatly beneficial to me to finish populating this article. Many thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sam Blacketer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To that I say, "Harvard beats Yale, 29-29" pbp 13:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Topic bans. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 22#Wikipedia:Topic bans until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam Blacketer! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatestWikiEditorEver (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Tokens albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]