User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 51-100

Did you know

On 13 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Otho Prior-Palmer, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 15 March, 2007, a fact from the article Killing of David Wilkie, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you do Wikipedia?

How do you do Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Achtung juden (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Let the Force guide you. Oh yes. Paki U Like 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

JADE GOODY

Dear Sam

Whilst I realise that you have to monitor changes that are made to Wikipedia, can I please ask exactly why my recent changes to the JADE GOODY page were removed. As far as I am aware, Wikipedia is there to provide factual information to the user community, and in my view, the information I entered into that particular page was indeed factual & informative.

I apologise if my addition was deemed offensive, however the JADE GOODY information as it stood did not provide a true picture of the individual concerned.

I am not a "vandal", I am a right minded person who speaks their mind when I see fit.

Kind Regards

Wikipedia User —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.224.234 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I have replied on User talk:86.135.224.234. Sam Blacketer 11:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jade is a nice lady.KiddiFiddler 18:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed my user name as requested. Khidiphydla 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Troll account

I noticed your WP:AIV post, guess I don't watch the news often enough... Seems a pretty obvious troll account, so I've blocked. You can tag the page and image with speedy G3 (vandalism) when they are that obvious... --pgk 10:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of it came while I was doing just that! Sam Blacketer 10:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much! I especially like the design. Timrollpickering 15:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Surviving MPs

Out of interst is there any source for the order in which Foot, Freeman & Renton and later Carr, Deedes & Harris took the oath in? The earliest surviving former MP is occassionally called the "Grandfather of the House" and I'd guess the order of taking the oath would settle between claimaints elected at the same time, as it does for the Father of the House. Timrollpickering 15:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Naturally there is a source - the Hansards for the beginning of the 1945 Parliament. I hadn't heard of the "Grandfather of the House" before but I might be able to check the order tomorrow. Sam Blacketer 16:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks very much Sam!!! It's really nice to get one of these and I'm very grateful. You may have noticed my contributions have become scarcer recently, partly because I've been busy and I'm slowly working on a list of all living former British MPs (in fact I'm not even sure Wikipedia would accept such an article). Incidentally, I've not heard Grandfather of the House either but, I believe the the oldest former MP (rather than the time he was first elected) is Bert Hazell, who is just one month away from his 100th birthday. Dovea 20:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the barnstar; I will wear it with pride! I'm continuing work on various UK Parliament-related articles, although I've recently become a bit sidetracked into Northern Ireland Assembly and Parliament stuff. Warofdreams talk 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Hello. I am not Brian Peppers, OK? Brine Pepaz 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Brian Peppers and neither is my wife, Ramadanadingdong 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chester Wilmot, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia's Comment

In regard to Cascadia's comment about my age, plese keep that a secret between you, me, and Cascadia. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am trying to. I hope you understand that I wanted to mention it in your defence. Sam Blacketer 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norman Hulbert, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On March 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Robertson (UK politician), 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.

Keep up the great work! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Message from "A. Vandal"

Hey,

As much as you might hate vandalism, if you have ever seen or heard Jade Goody then you will understand why her page gets continually vandalised and moreover the vandalism is thoroughly warranted as it reflects the utter hatred for this putrid woman amongst the general public. So it totally bewilders me why anyone in their right mind would want to protect this woman’s page, she deserves everything that comes to her.

Regards,

A. Vandal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.78.103.235 (talk • contribs) 08:28, March 21, 2007 (UTC)

Jade Goody

Hey,

As much as you might hate vandalism, if you have ever seen or heard Jade Goody then you will understand why her page gets continually vandalised and moreover the vandalism is thoroughly warranted as it reflects the utter hatred for this putrid woman amongst the general public. So it totally bewilders me why anyone in their right mind would want to protect this woman’s page, she deserves everything that comes to her.

If you dont know who Jade Goody is i suggest you read her article on wikipedia, in short she is arguably the most hated woman in the UK at the moment. I suggest you think twice before defending her page in the future.

Regards,

A. Vandal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.78.103.235 (talk • contribs) 09:20, March 21, 2007 (UTC)

David Cameron

Hi Sam, I actually think Vernon Bogdanor and Michael Green are quite well known figures in their field and many members of the British public may be aware of them. Tim Rathbone was also a noted anti apartheid activist and pro european. It's surprising that Michael Green doesn't have an article at all- I'll try and start one some time this week. I think also that a reference is needed for the statement at the end of the intro:

"after presenting himself as a young and moderate candidate who would appeal to young voters. His leadership has seen the Conservative party establish a clear lead in opinion polls." Forbear 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Italian

I would prefer that you don't make similar corrections also in talk pages. --Checco 11:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your preference is noted but I disagree with it. Some people doing disambiguation link repair also go into user space. Sam Blacketer 11:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. ~ UBeR 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An assumption is something which should be dropped when circumstances indicate the contrary. I'm sorry if you were offended but reporting a long-established user who had not edited the page in question for over 12 hours is definitely a bad faith report. Sam Blacketer 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sam, Please stop with the fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam (appealing to authority); it makes my eyes bleed. Plus it's contrary to what Wikipedia policy tells us to do. Don't look at the editor, look at the edits. It's naive to think administrators, regardless of their tenure, cannot possibly break a rule or are exempt from the same rules that apply to other users. His actions of erroneously removing a bona fide template is vandalism. I've discussed it on the article talk page and warned William, but he ignores it. If this isn't vandalism, Sam, I don't know what it. My report was in good faith, so please assume so. You ought to know better. ~ UBeR 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It was the edits I looked at. WP:AIV is for urgent action for vandalism that is going on now. William M. Connolley last edited the page you reported him over a full 13 hours 36 minutes before you made the report. Your report was in clear bad faith. In any case I have now looked at the article and I do not regard his edits as vandalism at all. It looks like a straightforward dispute over a template addition. It would only be vandalism if William was not making a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, and there is no reason to cast doubt on his intentions in this matter. Sam Blacketer 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you aren't looking at his authority, despite your appeals to his tenure ("a long-established user"). As for the time gap, I am not available on Wikipedia 24 hours a day, even if I wish I could be. I inserted the bona fide template. After leaving, he reverted, and I did not come back for quite some time. I mean, just look at what Wikipedia has wrote. Ignore, if you must, what I'm writing and just look at the rules: "Do not remove [templates] unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period." I don't think it gets any clearer! Given his edit warring behavior and past misbehavior in other articles, I think it is reasonable to consider his actions as vandalism and reoccurring, making it necessary for action to be taken against his behavior. ~ UBeR 23:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A "general rule" is not an "absolute one". The article History of the Yosemite area does cite sources both generally and inline, which makes a template asserting it to be unreferenced, prima facie unwarranted. In such circumstances I would have struggle to regard the addition of the template to be a good faith addition to the encyclopaedia. Sorry that I am not going to see eye to eye with you on this one, but I am now going to bed. Sam Blacketer 23:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What template do you suggest then, for articles that are made up primarily of unattributable statements? WP:ATT clearly suggests the {{unreferenced}}, precisely what I have done. ~ 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Canister of Death

Seriously, what good will this ridiculous username policy do to Wikipedia? What about this? I am in doubt that other users will find my name "morbid and threatening" and I will leave it this way until otherwise. --Canister of Death 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm afraid I am not in agreement with you and will seek the views of the wider Wikipedia community. Sam Blacketer 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you stop addressing your message in a greeting like a robot, and it appears you are projecting your message as if I'm unaware about the usernname policy. I am not a buffoon. I am unable to brainstorm a username that could surpass my current name. --Canister of Death 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't like the standard templates and I do appreciate how they look somewhat impersonal. However, I use them because they provide the links to all the pages which are relevant. I hope you appreciate that I had a duty to inform you of the discussion of your username. If the discussion results in the name being allowed, you will not have to change it, of course. Sam Blacketer 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shaun Woodward

The information about Woodward was sourced and therefore relevant. His voting record can be located here (as I have said once before): www.theyworkforyou.com. I will display this information as it is relevant to the public. ~~Rgp1~~30 March

Donald McIntosh Johnson

On 31 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donald McIntosh Johnson, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cameron

Hi I think it is important that someone so close to Cameron was a Conservative M.P. and that David had experience of working with the Conservatives at such a young age. I see CityGuy agrees with me. Forbear 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi to point out that he has "been involved in British politics for much of his adult life" and the fact he worked for a Conservative M.P. before even going to University underlines that. Forbear 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales

Bit puzzled as I removed three obvious fomatting erors (footnotes and below)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.194.71 (talk • contribs)

You are right and I was wrong. Sorry. Sam Blacketer 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimmothyjimbo

I am sorry that my username happens to include "jimbo" but I had no intention of impersonating Jimbo Wales. I always thought that "jimbo" was quite common as a name and as a username. In fact, I had no idea that Jimbo Wales even existed on Wikipedia (until now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmothyjimbo (talk • contribs)

Thanks for getting back. Having read what you wrote I don't think there's any danger of people confusing you with Jimbo Wales, so my doubts are entirely resolved. Happy editing! Sam Blacketer 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you/Correction

Thank you for your support. As I pointed out on the RfA, I was never the lawyer for the Foundation. I simply worked in the office. Danny 22:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, knew it was something like that, and fortunately it doesn't touch my !voting rationale. Sam Blacketer 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

Why have you put a test 3 warning on my talk page like I've vandalised about 4 times when I have only done it once? 81.154.213.123 10:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the page you chose was User:Jimbo Wales, because the tags you added were seriously disruptive, and because they demonstrate a knowledge of the working of Wikipedia which is clearly beyond that of a very new user. There is no requirement for you actually to have three incidents of vandalism before you get the third level warning. Indeed I was considering giving you a "once and final warning". Sam Blacketer 10:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm Sorry, it won't happen again, I'll contribute nicely. 81.154.213.123 10:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trollish username

Kick his limey white ass Sammy! ROFLZ!!!11 Bumrape 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User now blocked. Sam Blacketer 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

good man! Breien Pfeffers 22:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Elections 1964 - 2005

Thanks to the wonderful rescource called BBC Parliament, I am able to compile information on every general election since 1964 (namely votes cast, share of votes, change on previous elections, seats won, seats changing hands and by-elections). May I be permitted to e-mail this information to you (so that you can combine it with your knowledge of MP's to produce a comprehensive enclyopedia on Wikipedia of the General Elections from 1964 - 2005? Harry Hayfield 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Neil McLean (politician)

On 9 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neil McLean (politician), 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.

--howcheng {chat} 23:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Natascha Engel

I've been offline over Easter, but have got around to replying to your stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dsmith1usa#Natascha_Engel.

I was trying to stay out of extended discussions with you - it's always hard to know where to start on your analyses - and leave a sufficiency in the article history, but this last is so 'up' to your usual priceless standards that it's too tempting not to have a go.

Stay well (away from bridges and goats - look what's happened to our dear friend Block ;-)

BSY Dsmith1usa 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look when my current job (disambiguating South Pacific) is finished. In the meantime you may wish to read policy on criticising other editors. Sam Blacketer 10:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More replies to your stuff. Dsmith1usa 10:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you a moderator here?

How do I find one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kill Chegwin (talk • contribs) 11:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

OK, right I got your message. Can I post an mp3 of my band on my homepage here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Chegwin (talk • contribs) OK, how do I make an mp3 into an EGG VUBIS? Is it like a Zip file? The band is good, so I think it should be here.

Hugh Linstead

On 11 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hugh Linstead, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Natascha Engel again

Note: I'm refactoring this to make it less confusing. Sam Blacketer 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

wonder why it is that whenever you respond, at least half of your response seems to be taken up with utter irrelevancies.

Perhaps it's because I have to spend half my time pointing out mistakes that *you* are making ... which then, when pointed out, naturally, fall into your 'utter irrelevancies' (rather like the hypothetical on Engel's war stance) category. Which is no suprize to me at all.

I cannot go to the library and request them to check that what they say is what you report them as saying.

Look, let me put it simply. When I was wondering about how to put the relevant correspondence into the public domain, I had a trawl around Wikipedia to see if there was some sort of on-line facility, (some sort of certification procedure) where documents could be uploaded to. I saw something of the sort but wasn't sure how to use it or indeed, if it was the appropriate facility. viz. My turning up at the Pump and asking for advice. Only Night Gyr suggested an immediate practical way forward. You, Block and Gallowglass (the other respondents) went off on your objectivity/subjectivity binge.

So, I'll ask you a direct questions: Are there upload/certification procedures? What about Night Gyr's suggestion?

While you may feel that the connection between Gordon Brown and Natascha Engel is "unwarranted", we know newspaper sources which take a different view.

I'm aware of Engel being a Brownian and the newspaper article which *I* made reference to. I'm talking about the first of your POV mistakes:

13:26, 8 February 2007 Sam Blacketer (Talk | contribs) (I'm reverting back to my version, but changing the opening sentence. Dsmith is right that she has not been mentioned as future minister)

...the general approach that biographical articles describing the history of notable people normally stay in the *past* tense.

Oh, yeah? From Natascha Engel[emphases added]:

Natascha Engel (born April 9, 1967) *is* a British politician.

...she *speaks* German, Spanish, and Portugese. She *is* married to David Salisbury Jones, a veterinary surgeon who fought Uxbridge in the 2001 General Election for the Labour Party. They *have* two sons.

She *is* a supporter of electoral reform[citation needed].

It's on stuff like this, when you come over all absolute, like the business of 'candidacy' that your position falls apart, and when it gets pointed out to you, it is swiftly moved over into your 'irrelevant' class, while it is, in fact, perfectly reasonable to draw attention to it.

To connect Engel's support for electoral reform (if it can be included) with her dissidence would first need to establish that the vote would be whipped, which is speculative, and that the Labour whip would be to oppose.

Quite. Which is why, once again, I go back to my original question about uploads etc. Anyway, I may just drop the Q/A set into a discussion entry (since I have been given permission to freely distribute) and you can make of the whole business what you will. Frankly, my dear Sam, I no longer give a damn (with apologies to Margaret Mitchell). Dsmith1usa 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 13 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir James Henderson-Stewart, 1st Baronet, 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tense and Aspect (Natascha Engel)

These 'mistakes' which you claim I am making are really nothing of the sort. They are your misunderstandings which you don't seem inclined to want to think about in any other than a very simplistic way.

Yes, I do try to keep things simple, especially with folks like you, Sam, but if you insist ... say ten times, Sam, 'I must understand the difference between tense and ASPECT:'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect#Aspect_vs._tense

Your examples of present tense usage from the article are all ongoing situations: Engel's political career is ongoing, she can still speak foreign languages, her marriage is continuing etc. Her inclusion on a list is something that happened at a set point in the past. Sam Blacketer 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and being 'on the list' is an 'ongoing' situation unless you can show me a counterexample. Otherwise you are engaging in 'default reasoning' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monotonic_logic#Default_reasoning) which, put in 'simple' terms, can be highly subjective. Understanding aspect helps. You don't appear to or are unwilling to recognize that is precisely what you are groping towards in the previous paragraph.

As far as the other matter is concerned, I've put Engel's Q/A series in the discussion are. Some indicator of the gap the likes of you must bridge between an article written down to mediocrity and the truth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natascha_Engel#Seven_Questions_to_Natascha_Engel

And this is where we say goodbye. As I said to Block as he trotted-off with his pet goat, 'Don't waste the keystrokes and be gentle with yourself.) I will definitely not be back this way, apart from I'll probably post the photograph of Engel.

Vale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs)

Bye bye (Vale being beyond you, it seems)

Breaking my pledge, for the last time, Sam, do you enjoy being obtuse? You write:

Being placed on a list is something that happened at a set point in the past,...

Right, we're with you so far. May we offer, in response, (say)getting married and being issued with a wedding certificate happens at a 'set point in the past.'

...unless it was the case that the list was continually updated.

Mmmnnn ... now I think you're losing us, Sam. If the list, as you posit, is being continually updated, then the updates, surely, are happening at a 'set point in the past?'

In this case, there is no indication that this was the case.

Well, I think most are all at sea right now, but I'll chuck a lifebelt. I presume you mean that there is no indication that Murdoch's list was being updated? Are you trying to say that the existence and applicability of a document is dependent on some sense of being 'continually updated?' Is the Magna Carta, say, no longer applicable (I'll hurry to add, btw. US lawyers have made appeal to Magna Carta - in the limit - on the issue of detention without trial particularly wrt Guantanamo Bay).

So, in your world, Sam, what does a married couple do to extend 'set point in the past' of their signing their certificate and the sense it carries itself forward. How is *this* document continually updated? I posit, 'By it's mere *existence*.'

None of your arguments withstand serious scrutiny, Sam. I'm sorry.

Again I encourage you to study 'aspect' and 'default reasoning.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect#Aspect_vs._tense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monotonic_logic#Default_reasoning

As to the other matter:

All of the above is original research and has not been published; it is therefore not verifiable. I'm afraid I do not see how it can be used in writing the article. Sam Blacketer 13:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And what did I write?

This question and answer series is reproduced with Engel's written permission to distribute. In the absence, apparently, of any means to render this material, through any Wikipedia machinery, citable and free of conflict of interest from contributors, me, Dsmith1usa 11:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC), particularly, it can serve, at least, as comparator for 'verifiable' references that may be brought in to resolve 'citations needed.'

So why, Sam, do you have to repeat what has already been said? Yet it still stands as a reminder of the bridges that you've got to find ways over, from Engel to your representation of her.

I offered collaboration, and you well know it. You took the path, in your 'Wiki Wisdom' of confrontation. You write:

Meanwhile, please read and understand the no personal attacks policy as you are breaking it.

I don't believe I am at all. I don't attack *you* personally. But I will not stand by and be force fed some of the nonsense you come out with. You've been around Wiki too long, I suspect. We must all live with the consequences of our actions. You're probably a really good guy. Personally, I don't care. I'm criticizing your ideas and the arguments you advance - not you PERSONALLY. If you choose to identify yourself, so strongly, with a certain fixed understanding, then you're a menace to Wikipedia and, probably, to yourself.

Now, at the risk of being turned-off Wikipedia (even though I would like to post a nice [publicly available picture - it's mine] of Engel), Sam ... please GO AWAY and bother other people with fairy stories about 'candidacy,' 'tense' and your misrepresentations of hypotheticals. For all of the 'Did you know's' I see you accumulating, I smell a distinct whiff of charlatanism.

Again, Vale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs)

No personal attacks

Note that a {{uw-npa2}} was left here by Dsmith1usa 12:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC). I am removing it as a bad faith report, an abuse of process by leaving a purely retaliatory warning. Dsmith1usa has not identified any personal attacks which I have made. I have, on the contrary, tried to be and been patient with him beyond the time which I would normally have given up. Sam Blacketer 16:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to censorship

Why did you censor out of here ? Anyway, you write:

Wary as I am to intrude, firstly I should say that you have been editing since October 2006, and I since December 2006, so it is slightly odd that you should claim the protection due to a new editor.

Did you read the small print? I was engaging in what we called, years ago, 'netiquette.' To try to be polite. Ask advice in a new development. With respect to you, Sam, I think the old-time flamethrowers on Net newsgroups would long since been fired-up.

I will identify some personal attacks from you: "do you enjoy being obtuse?",

Well, once again, verbs with tense and aspect don't cut it, do they? I'm *not* saying that's in *your being*. I'm talking about how you ACT. Now."

On this one , Sam, see above. After the fact you tried to make it up. Indeed, I want no more controversy with you. Live in whatever beliefs you want to have. If you want to believe politicos on 'gentelmen's' agreements on candidacy - feel free. I don't care. So, again: please GO AWAY and bother other people with fairy stories.

That's why I said, "I smell a distinct whiff of charlatanism". Not calling you a charlatan, but merely what I see.

Post-justification on any (in this world) hypothesis on the things that folks hold themselves together with, yet can call no empricism in its support is degenerate (btw. I'm NOT calling *you* degenerate -get it).

I do not believe that you can identify any edits from me that comment on you as a person. Sam Blacketer 11:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, heavens, I did it a lot earlier, Sam. Double standards, see ...

Sam, I'm gone ... I think, regardless of all, you're OK (probably). Take care.

Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007

Hi,

I'd appreciate your comments on how best to deal with the attempts of User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 to persistently override the views of other editors who see nothing wrong with including the results of Republican Sinn Féin in the list of results of the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007.

In addition, I believe User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 is a sockpuppet of User:Weggie (evidence here.

Many thanks.--Damac 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Roy Hattersley

My apologies for replacing File:90190.jpg on Roy Hattersley. I was unaware of the licensing issues and assumed the image had been removed accidentally. Freedomlinux 00:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir Martin Lindsay, 1st Baronet

On 19 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir Martin Lindsay, 1st Baronet, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 05:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Creech Jones, 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.

--Carabinieri 13:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

re:robdurbar article

I've read the article for the Signpost and I think it needs a bit more about what happened a wiktionary so the readers can get a good view of the entire situation. Circeus 15:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly - the article is not yet finished. Sam Blacketer 17:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SandyToksvig

Hi there, you've probably seen, but the above user is a sockpuppet of user:Graham Heavy. The socks have been used to vandalise Torrisholme and related pages with nonsense for several months. Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sam Blacketer 17:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

So what? - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it was non-notable in my opinion. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Maybe you should tell us a little more about yourself, and oh, link to your archive. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My talk page archive is linked above; I don't see any need to link it from my user page as well. And I would prefer not to disclose too much personal information. Thank you for asking. Sam Blacketer 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Castles in France

To User:Angusmclellan, User:Cool Cat, User:Jamie Mercer, User:Bluap, User:Postlebury, User:LukeHoC, User:Johnbod, User:Sam Blacketer

I'm writing to you because you contributed to the discussion on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, or redirected articles in that category. This decision, as I hope to show, was wrong and needs to be reversed. Please take the time to read the following and respond.

Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.

2. Similarly, no mention was made on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles page.

It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.

3. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.

4. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.

5. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France (see original). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).

6. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!

7. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.

I would be interested in your comments, particularly on how to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. Emeraude 10:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response (and I would have replied sooner but the PC crashed!). I suspect Angus McLellan and you are right about recreating the catgeory, but this suggests it might not be so easy User talk:Jamie Mercer#Category:Castles in France. And thanks for the technical hint. Having been away for three weeks, you tend to forget all the little Wiki tricks!!! Emeraude 11:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:username

hi, Prettyvacunt is a general username i use for most things myspace, msn etc. and isnt meant to cause any offence. It comes, unsurprisingly from the Sex Pistols song, Pretty Vacant. The spelling change was to differentiate myself from other people on myspace who used the name Pretty Vacant and was taken from the way johnny rotten sings the lyrics "were pretty, pretty vacant" on some of the live performances.

Robdurbar article in Signpost

An accurate summary, except that Rob's logs actually show him blocking Secretlondon and Raul654 before getting Lost and myself. :) – Riana ^ऋ 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out - I've made a minor change which I think takes care of it. Sam Blacketer 08:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Does NPA extend to offensive remarks concerning dead people? If not, should it not? RSVP here please - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"No personal attacks" is a Wikipedia policy which refers to commenting in debates on Wikipedia, and says that comments should always be about contributions and not about people. It's intended to stop disputes escalating and becoming personal. I suppose if a participant in a debate died, then the policy would continue to apply.

I suspect that what you are thinking about is not strictly relevant to Wikipedia policy but concerns Wikipedians making personal attacks on people who are featured in Wikipedia articles. That is a slightly different issue because these people (even if alive) are not here making their own contributions. Attacks made in article texts would fall foul of several policies including neutral point of view. Attacks in talk pages are something of a grey area, although civility should always be maintained. Sam Blacketer 11:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your !vote

Very surprised by your !vote of the AfD given your comments at to the notability of 2nd and subequent Baronets in the discussion I post that you were a part of.--Vintagekits 15:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reflected on some of the comments in that discussion. I consider the situation to some extent not yet settled, in that there is no clear consensus on whether "all Baronets are notable" or "some Baronets are notable if they meet conditions x, y, z". Until this consensus becomes apparent, or perhaps I should say develops, nominating individual articles for deletion creates a sticky situation and my instinct is to default to keep.

In this particular case because the subject of the article is also a Wikipedian, without in any way casting doubt on the reasons for the nomination, I am wary of setting what may be seen as a precedent. We will have to see what the closer of the debate says. Sam Blacketer 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I have to some extent "gone into the lions den" and tried to discuss it on the Baronet Project but dont get replied to.--Vintagekits 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It may not be my place to suggest it, but if you want to argue that Baronets are not worth writing about, then about the least receptive group to this argument will be a group of people dedicated to writing about Baronets. Sam Blacketer 22:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)