Dear Mr Blacketer if I read the information correct, if not please correct me. Why at 10:27, 30 April 2007 did you remove page for the 18th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division "Horst Wessel". The information for this page had come http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1936. A site which had in the past provided information that Wikipedia had found acceptable to use. Reference other divisions of the Waffen-SS for which it was used for.
Yours Respectfully —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.80.61 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Having thought about, I think we're at the end of this case. 2 moves to close have been made here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Royalbroil 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Good eye. No one else seems to have caught the anonymous redaction of the History subsection on the massacre. I've restored most of it, reducing it a bit from the original to make it more concise. --Dynaflow babble 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I urge you to reconsider your stance. Your comments regarding DRV are particularly inapposite. Since the Committee has established the policy committing a decision to the discretion of a single, self-selected adminstrator when the community is divided (and, in theory, even if it is not), the decision in a matter like this is procedurally correct, whatever its outcome. This is a problem created by the Arbitration Committee, and only it can resolve it. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I request some urgent arbitrator's intervention into the pages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 and I am leaving this same note to all four Arbitrators who commented on the case so far.
The pages of the case have deteriorated beyond reasonable due to the conduct of some of the case participants. Please take a look at this new section of evidence for details. Yes, many bitter cases are filled with nonsense claims but there must be a limit to how much outright crankery can be tolerated at the ArbCom cases without any action taken.
Case' pages being turned into a total mess adversely affects the chances of the cohesive outcome. Too much nonsense in the cases pages buries the constructive entries and make the whole pages unreadable or incomprehensible. This leads to the arbitrators' non-participation in the discussions, which, in turn, brings, and I am not going to sugar-coat this, the case's outcomes being often too disconnected from actual concerns raised at its pages. This is why, I am calling for a rather unusual remedy to be applied to a case itself.
I would like to request that some aggressive clerk-like work is applied to the pages of the case: the workshop and the evidence. This cannot be left to clerks since this requires application of the discretion on the cases merits beyond the freedom given to clerks. If you could go over the current evidence and workshop pages and aggressively remove the patent nonsense and senseless rants (including my own entries if they are perceived as such), the benefit would be two-fold. First, it would make case pages more readable and, thus, more useful. Second, it would send a strong message to all parties that their conduct in the case is being monitored and may have consequences that would, hopefully, switch everyone to a more constructive mode. When looking at the pages you would see at once that the nonsense there is abundant and its presence disrupts the case.
I am not requesting any sanctions against anyone at this point. All I am asking is to return some normalcy to the case' pages.
Thank you in advance. --Irpen 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I am leaving this note at the talk pages of four arbitrators who so far commented on the Piotrus_2 arbcom. Just letting you know that I posted a general comment on the workshop proposal by Kirill Lokshin to the workshop's talk page. Regards, --Irpen 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This case is going to be 2 weeks old in another couple of days. Evidence/workshop is complete, and all proposals made on the pd page have been supported by 3 arbitrators. As an arbitrator who voted to accept this case, if you could kindly hop on over to this page to vote, that'd be great. Hopefully this case will be ready to close by 29 Oct. :) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Done
Sam-- yes, I was very uncertain of the proper venue for that request. It could be a brand new case, it could be at SV-LAR, it could be at the C68-FM-SV case page, it could be a clarification.
I ultimately decided to list it where I did for a couple of reasons. For one, it seemed like SV-LAR was very near closing, and I didn't want to raise whole new issues at the last minute. For two, the focus of the SV-LAR case are events that occurred in March and July, whereas my concerns all involve behavior since September. Lastly, SV-LAR has a lot of privacy issues that are unrelated to the public, on-wiki behavior; I thought it might be best to get as far away from the private information, the innocent bystanders, etc, and make a separate request that focuses on the public behavior exhibited in Sept and October.
But, as I said, I totally don't know what I'm doing, so please, feel free to move this request to wherever you and the other arbs & clerks feel is the proper venue. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Sam Blacketer/Archive 401-500 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Privatemusings (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Privatemusings. -- MBisanz talk 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I know Eton is probably the most prestigious school of its kind in the world, and that that background is important to understanding Cameron's background, but "prestigious" is an opinion, not a fact; I think most readers are aware of Eton's reputation, and you can always cite a source that says "so and so says Eton is prestigious and exclusive." LaszloWalrus (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Would like to request that you vote (to oppose) so this may be archived sooner, before the RFArb page gets too much longer. I make this request given that the active current case (Kuban) has similar proposals - I expect they can be tweaked in such a way that it will eliminate the need for amending the Tobias case, while providing any necessary clarification. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Done
Also requesting your votes here. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Done
You don't seem to have responded to my concerns regarding Hoffman. I hope you will read this one and say something about it. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
[1] For whom? Giano (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
On proposed decision page, in findings about Lokyz, you wrote "With regret, because I detect a significant improvement recently". What are those improvements? We should distinguish improved behavior from inactivity, both of which can cause lack of offenses. See my post to NYB here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Another question: you wrote about Matthead: "Was once true, but is no longer so." Wouldn't the same qualifier apply to Molobo? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with Piotrus judgement of Molobo, but I agree with Piotrus that you please review the evidence against Molobo carefully. For example [2] and [3] and [4] and [5]. --Stor stark7 Speak 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see my short comments to NYB at his talk here, before the discussion veered to Lokyz. Bottom line. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
How is this unacceptable? Or how is his discussing a possible failing of our governance different from this essay of mine, and countless other critiques of Wikipedia out there? I don't see any personal attacks, BLP or battleground creation in that diff...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't some form of restriction/parole be enough? Greg did not have any history of blocks, bans or warnings before his interactions with Boodlesthecat, and even now his block record is clean. I'd think that a stern warning should be at least tried before a permban, and I also don't think he has been doing anything wrong in the past weeks - further, this post indicates he is now taking BLP into consideration. Wouldn't you agree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
A permanent ban does seem an excessive sanction to apply to a contributor whose indiscretions cannot compare with the incivility, intemperance and point-of-view-pushing of some of his critics. Nihil novi (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Directly overwhelmingly supporting the findings against Tymek. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I have made my disagreement with the policy created by Motion 1 known in my statement. However, I have a further question regarding your comment in your note of abstention. It has always been my impression (misapprehension though it may be) that an arbitrator's block carried no more weight than a "plain" administrator. Your note directly contradicts this. Would you mind clarifying why you feel an Arb's block at AE carries more weight than a simple admin block? S.D.D.J.Jameson 15:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sam--In the current Arbcom, you wrote that reminding Piotrus to comply with BLP was "Unnecessary; Piotrus acknowledges he momentarily overlooked the BLP implications of Greg park avenue's edit. Normally removing other user's comments would be blockable as vandalism."
In fact, this wasn't at all "momentary," and the ignoring of BLP was part of a sustained and aggressive defense of Greg Park Avenue's adding a series of nasty commentary that was not only in complete violation of WP:TALK, but was agreed by multiple observers to be clearly both vioaltions of BLP and anti-semitic. If you review that extended period, it is clear that rather than being "momentary," Piotrus is intervening agressively on behlaf of an editor who had engaged in days and days of off topic and offensive rants. The synopsis below clearly establishes that this was neither monetary nor benign, but rather, an inexcusable, days long exercise in admin bullying and abuse of authority:
On May 14, Greg opens the hostilities (his first talk page post) with this uncivil post and heading] (and note by "Disruptive activity" Greg is referring to my edits--all of which have been upheld, while all of greg's have been deemed improper.)
Greg responds with an absolutely clear BLP violation.
I remove Greg's antisemitic and BLP-violating rant (with an unequivocally clear edit summary).
Piotrus restores the violation, amazingly claiming it was "censored for BLP purposes."
I remove it again.
Piotrus restores the clear violation AGAIN, amazingly claiming I had violated WP:TALK by removing (rather than "refactoring" it (as if such a venomous rant with no relevant content for TALK could be "refactored"!)
I refactor, noting it was an anti-semitic rant (which numerous thrid parties agreed with subsequently)
Piotrus accuses me of violating NPA and amazingly demands I respond to greg's rants "in a constructive manner" (as if removing anti-semitic BLP violations wasnt constructive)
I note that antisemitic posting are more serious violation of WP policy.
I reply to another absurd post by Greg (in which he describes reliably sourced major newspaper reviews as "trash" and calls his use of a university press promotional website "a scholarly source").
Tag team member xx236 chimes in
I reply to the rant.
After more intervening pointless ranting, Greg posts yet another antisemitic, BLP-violating rant. (Two days AFTER Piotrus intervened in his defense the first time.)
I reply to an xx236 rant, with it's clearly false accusations.
I remove Greg's second antisemitic BLP violation.
Greg restores it, claiming "vandalism".
greg restores it again, complete with bizarre edit summary.
I remove it again, complete with a CLEAR EDIT SUMMARY: "delete per WP:BLP Per BLP, do not revert"
despite my clear indication of the BLP issue (not to mention the clear BLP violation easily noted by reading Greg's post) Piotrus restores it with a bullying threat. This is three days after his first intervention on behalf of greg, with numerous violations and rants in the record clearly visible, on a page Piotrus is clearly monitoring and is indeed editing himself in league with Greg. (See edit history of the article during this period).
another editor removes the BLP violation.
I reply to another Jew-baiting rant by Greg.
greg responds with a personal anti-semitic attack.
I warn Greg.
Greg adds YET ANOTHER anti-semitic BLP violation (and note the laughable example he dredged up from the web).
Piotrus responds 3 minutes later in support of Greg.
On May 19, Gamaliel removes the BLP violation. It stays removed. On May 17, I had brought the BLP to the attention of another admin.)
Greg continues ranting and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fear:_Anti-Semitism_in_Poland_after_Auschwitz&diff=next&oldid=213517939 I reply].
Gamaliel replies to greg.
Poeticbent amazingly restores Greg's violation.
Gamaliel gets attacked by an IP
Note: The article talk page is still littered with BLP violations (word search "Thane" to see.
Note that the above chronology not only demonstrates clearly that Piotrus' intervention was not a "momentary" lapse, but was indeed a sustained and belligerent effort, but it also establishes that Greg initiated the hostilities, and utterly puts the lie to the fabricated claims by Piotrus that I "harassed greg", that greg's "attitude" is "much less problematic from the bad faithed attitude Boody displays" (note the content of Greg's posts!). As well, the above demonstrates that the following "evidence" supplied by Piotrus (link) is a complete lie:
There is an important issue of whether greg was baited (as I believe he was) into his more emotional statements by Boody's confrontational attitude over the past few months of their interaction (analysis of Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, where I believe those editors first met, should provide relevant evidence to address that).
And who does Piotrus cite in "support" of my supposed "slandering accusations of antisemitism"? Poeticbent! Case closed.
Forgive the length of this posting, but I believe it is necessary to clear up the endless obfuscations Piotrus creates with his endless series of little white lies, which have a tendency to culminate in a big lie. The evidence should speak for itself. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam, the evidence page that Ryan linked to suggests that FT2 thought it would be OK to entertain consideration of this case. Maybe he didn't, and I'm confused. If so I'll gladly withdraw my statement. Personally I think that cases brought in such an egregiously out-of-process (not to mention patently unfair) manner shouldn't even be presented to the community; nothing can come of it other than divisiveness and rancor. I know that arbcom isn't a law court but the right to be confronted by one's accuser is a basic social principle, not just a legal one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that the Arbcom has finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly [6]), it will doubtless want to show the same speedy diligence in other worrying matters. Could you outline the time scale and agenda for the investigation of David Gerard's suspected misuse of oversight rights in regard to the election of FT2 to the Arbitration committee. Obviously FT2 will need to be suspended from the Arbcom and its list during this investigation, can you give the community an approximated date for the conclusion of the investigation and the names of those carrying it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sam,
One of the Arbitrators who accepted the Cold fusion case, where I just presented evidence, has been informed of my other user ID. Please also see my user page, for requests as to how this sock be treated. Durga's Trident (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Sam Blacketer, you are pretty cool :) Cratwhoring (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Just wanted to let you know that User:jagdfeld has returned to his habit of editing job titles to lower case. See this summary for his recent effort. User:Star Garnet and I reverted the changes, but it may not end there. Your monitoring of this situation would be appreciated. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam, I noticed your comment about old account recovery. At a technical level it is impossible to recover an old account password as it is hashed and salted. However, a sysadmin can reset the email address associated with an account, thereby enabling the person to recover the password. In practice, every time I have been involved in a situation involving a lost password, the sysadmins have declined to reset the email address. Just an FYI. MBisanz talk 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
At the Piotrus ARBCOM, you have opposed or abstained on a finding that Biophys has engaged in unhelpful speculation and fear-mongering (I call it nuttery). It has also been mentioned that he has said he will not do it again. If you refer to User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_19#Inappropriate_use_of_account.3F, it is plain to see that he has gone against this, and had openly accused myself of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. This accusation was raised after he and User:Grey_Fox-9589 gamed the system, and reported me for violating WP:3RR. Whilst I admitted that I breached 3RR, I also raised further information at the [3RR report, in particular that I would not sit by and allow BLP information to be introduced into the article; note it is Biophys who has accused me of doing so (it is a laughable claim); additionally he somehow managed to worm his way out of getting a block also for breaching 3RR, something that I quite clearly pointed out to the THREE admins. Due these repeated accusations on Tiptoey's talk page, whilst I was blocked (how convenient for Biophys that I couldn't respond), I demanded that a check user be done in order to stop these outrageous accusations. It was confirmed that I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet (for the second time mind you), and as you can see from that link, even afterwards Biophys continued to harrass and engage in speculative nuttery; it was even mentioned by 2 other editors. I have written to the Arbcom privately on 8 November with information pertaining to myself, and how such accusations can be possibly damaging, but I didn't get a response to that one either.
Also possibly not looked at on the Piotrus arbcom is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Russavia. In particular the BLP violations committed by Biophys. I addressed this at the 3RR report, in which THREE admins saw what I posted, but refused to do anything about.
Is this Arbcom responsible for this particular case?
Why after pointing this out on several occasions has not a single word about BLP been said to Biophys?
Or is it acceptable to have:
In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile.[44] He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,[45].
in articles, which are sourced to Chechen terrorist websites?
Would it be acceptable to have a similar sourced claim about Gandhi in an article? Or what if it were on the Jimbo Wales article?
Compare that to the NPOV version which I inserted into the article:
In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile,[49] and compared Putin to Andrei Chikatilo.[50] Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia.[50] The claims have been called "wild",[51] and "sensational and unsubstantiated"[52] in the British media. Litvinenko made the allegation after Putin kissed a boy on his belly whilst stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds on 28 June 2006.[52] The incident was recalled in a webcast organised by the BBC and Yandex, in which over 11,000 people asked Putin to explain the act, to which he responded, "He seemed very independent and serious... I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice...There is nothing behind it."[53] It has been suggested that the incident was a "clumsy attempt" to soften Putin's image in the lead-up the 32nd G8 Summit which was held in Saint Petersburg in July 2006.[52]
Which was removed several times by Biophys and replaced with the statement of fact that Putin is a paedophile.
Why has this not been addressed by the Arbcom, after being presented into evidence? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.
BorgQueen (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Sam, I see your active so I figuered I'd ping you a note. As normal with blocked users who are participating in an RfArb, we unblock them and keep them confined to their RfArb pages. Normally I'd simply do this and drop the blocking admin a note, but I'm rather reluctant to do this here given the block was done by an arbitrator. Could you give me a bit of guidance please? It's really wouldn't be a big deal letting Moreschi edit the main RfArb page, and I'd keep an eye on things to make sure he didn't step away. FT2 appears to be away from the keyboard, hence why I'm coming here. Hope you're well by the way. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
On your reply to User_talk:Sam_Blacketer#Finding_25.6. You may also want to read this. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
in your inbox, from me, I hope. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! Very helpful ) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Sam Blacketer,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)
Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed the first motion on Quackwatch which you proposed on the requests for arbitration page the other day. I've made some comments about some problems of infelicitous wording. Although I agree with the notion that Quackwatch doesn't always do a good job of presenting the facts, I think your motion can be read as going further than that, and saying something ambigous about the nature of balance. In the context of this field where arbitration rulings have often been misunderstood and misapplied, I think it's worth taking the time to consider clarifying. --TS 06:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you knock down the protection to semi? If not, you'd still need to revert to this. Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Related to the Ian Lee nonsense, Table52 (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock, claiming he was not warned enough. I agree with your assessment, and in looking at the history of the account I have extended the length of your block. Please let me know if you disagree, and we can review. Kuru talk 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Beat me to both the block and the block extension :P Sorry for being slow on the draw.--Tznkai (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sam, I don't know if this is allowed or not; I wasn't sure if parties in the RFAR were allowed to make comments to the Arbs themselves in their statement sections. I just wanted to address something in your comment. You said: "That being said, I am concerned at the time spent by a small number of editors who have been mass delinking - which cannot truly, I think, be regarded as writing an encyclopaedia. Removing links while doing other necessary changes on individual articles could not be disruptive, but systematically delinking for aesthetic reasons strikes me as a waste of server time." Although aesthetics is part of it, there are multiple reasons for the date delinkings; the most prominent of those are at User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA#The disadvantages of DA. While I have spent a significant amount of time delinking dates, to say that the "mass delinkings" has kept me from contributing to other aspects of Wikipedia would be far from the truth. It takes all kinds of editors and edits to build and maintain a credible encyclopedia; improving formatting, visual appearance and Wikipedia's linking system are just a few of those categories. I don't expect you to respond or even change your view about anything, I just wanted to clarify the matter. Regards (and thanks for all the work you do), Dabomb87 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Feel free to move, refactor or delete this comment. Dabomb87 (talk)
Hi Sam,
Why did you delete the Sheep page? Sheep had two albums, one on a major label; they had notable musicians; they played in the largest music festival of their genre; they had an international tour in multiple countries; and they had non-trivial coverage in a reliable source.
Please note, I don't have the sourcing to create a new article for them, or don't know how to load up the files to provide those sources, so it's unfortunate that this article, now deleted, can't be recreated.
--Abdul Muhib (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't let your clerk try and get clever with me [10]. Giano (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Jude Law is Academy Award "nominated" not a "winner". He is also a C-list actor and there are 500,000+ of them on SAG. Notability based on U.S. box office revenue (See articles on Brad Pitt.) Please mark article for speedy deletion, otherwise we will be taking up precious server space for unknown British actors (there are so many of them nowadays!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanWeir (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I saw the block. I thought it was better to ignore the nonsense myself, really. Call me cynical if you like, but I wouldn't be astounded if User:86.168.167.246 were the same person, possibly even going by the name of Kai Wong...
Ian Dalziel (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Sam,
Thanks for helping maintain sanity at Kai Wong by protecting. I really stepped in a hornets nest there! I mean yikes! I didn't expect that kind of respsonse to an AfD when no one even seemed to notice my comment on the talk page... I don't expect the fire to be out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Wong (2nd nomination) yet but as far as I'm concerned it's in the hands of the community. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The history seems far from complete. On whose instructions is the page protected? Giano (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Magic Donkey. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TimL (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a source for the appeal of Rajmohan Pillai. Do you also have a source for the sentence being suspended? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that sourced material is repeatedly being removed by non-registered users. I am referring material regarding Caroline Cox's involvement with the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, Burma, The World Committee on Disability, The Franklin Delano Roosevelt International Disability Award and other sourced material. One should be permitted to introduce positive information about a subject and not just controversial entries. There is a clear bias in reporting matters relating to a 50 year career. Justif2 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
As a recent contributor to Deaths in 2009, you may be able to help decide on a proposed new policy. It is proposed that:
Please opine at Talk:Deaths_in_2009#Proposed new policy. Don't just say
or
Also state your reasons and participate in the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sam
Please can you undo the merge of Stirling and Clackmannan Western (UK Parliament constituency) into West Stirlingshire (UK Parliament constituency)?
The articles were badly constructed, with overlap, but the practice agreed long ago at WP:UKPC has been to have one article per constituency name. the solution should be to remove the overlap, not to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that you voted twice on remedy 1.2 . Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This was a simple enough request to answer. You cannot use the excuse that your e-mail address does not work, because as an administrator, it is against the rules to have an inactive e-mail address assigned to your account. It's time to not be evasive anymore, Sam. Unless you happen to be a minor, which, if so, you should not be an arbitrator anyway, you have no reason to hide. --Jonas Rand 68.96.209.19 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for your work on fleshing out the article on this shadowy MP, also your earlier work on Reginald Moss (UK politician). I suspect these Wikipedia articles may be the first attempts to create biographies for these individuals. Well, I'd better get back to searching out more redlinks needing articles... Lozleader (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sam,
I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pages from the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
for your work as an arbitrator. Although your contributions in that position will be missed, I can appreciate the reasons for your resignation. All the best, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
(←) Sam, I'm deeply saddened to see this. I am of the opinion that you were an outstandingly great arbitrator; your resignation is certainly a great loss. Also, it's a shame that there are already claims for your desysop — I truly hope this won't pass. I wish you all the very best. — Aitias // discussion 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work on Arbcom and all the time and effort you have spent on it. Last year you were one of those whose votes and I opinions I could always respect, even when I didn't always see things the same way. (This year it's still true, but no longer worth mentioning.) It's a funny world and a funny website... --Hans Adler (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I am indeed open to recall. Under the circumstances I don't think it's necessary to quibble about the criteria or to distract however many users from work elsewhere on the project in order to sign a petition; it would get approved anyway. I will initiate a reconfirmation RFA beginning on 15 June, to allow some time for users to assess contributions made when my time was not taken over by arbitration matters; in the meantime the tools will not be used. This approach has the agreement of the committee. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This might have been lost at the noticeboard, which quickly got a lot more posts. How about giving us an explanation of what happened? In your own words, the full story. DurovaCharge! 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I also have another question: If I recall correctly, you had a link to the (now-deleted) Wikipedia article about yourself when you used your previous identity. When you were asked to identify yourself to the Committee/Foundation, did you give them that identity, or did you give them another one? TML (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I sympathize with you and fully understand the reasons why you abandoned anything associated with the real life you to became anonymous. Wikipedia has a bias rewarding anonymity. People who edit using their real names become the targets of flak if they ever gain notability. Worst still, if they are in anyway related to politics.
I am under enormous pressure to quit my real life username and start editing pseudonymously. I am however unwilling to do that. Maybe we “real people” should start supporting each other. You too might consider renaming your account name to your real life name. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Giants27 09:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants27 21:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Requests_for_comment_Is_Skinwalkers_evidence_acceptable_and_can_I_be_allowed_additional_space_to_respond_to_the_accusations.3F--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
[17] If you had any self-respect, you would resign your admin status. 86.149.60.230 (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sam Blacketer controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. OpenSeven (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:DCameron320wi.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you would hold off with deleting it until the last person has recanted any claim that that image is in some way a reasonable one to use for a prominent politician. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sam,
Regarding my application to take part in the J&S guidelines discussion per this decision, it appears that the deadline has passed. According to FloNight, discussion of the application has taken place but the outcome was not disclosed [20], apparently through clerical error. Could you look into this? The most recent official status request is here. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you know what this is in reference to? rootology (C)(T) 13:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You have mail. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Two, in fact. JN466 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Three now. Acalamari 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the Wikipedia tendency to prolonged debate about internal matters has again manifested itself. Therefore I have decided to hold over the reconfirmation RFA until the winter, and in order to avoid misunderstanding I will request that my admin bit be suspended until such time as an RFA is passed. To reiterate and avoid any doubt, my pledge to go through RFA (and not simply ask a bureaucrat for resysop) is binding and absolute. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please message me when you do stand. I didn't support you in the first place but this is ridiculous. On the scale of wikinaughtiness, this isn't even troutworthy.Grace Note (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you recently removed the box that I recently I added. I added it (regardless whether that office is fiction) based on his predecessors and (some) Chiltern Hundreds holders have the same infobox. If you remove this from Michael Martin, then I would say you should remove the rest of them. Please let me know what you think. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Royalbroil 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought this new article might interest you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sam thanks for the advice. I have registered a username, now milk76, and i will invite the tories editing the jeremy browne page into a dialogue.
It has to be said that i have my doubts. User Oldtauntonian must work for the local tory party. There had been basically no updates to our page until a month ago. Now there is local tory campaign literature in the constituency advising people to look at the wiki page. I love wiki and do not want to be banned but it just cannot become a tool for propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milk76 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I was just looking to see who would be the MP who would now take the tenth place on your list, and I noticed a couple who appear to be missing: Donald Chapman, Baron Northfield and Edward Short, Baron Glenamara, both first elected in 1951. Incidentally, I'm very pleased to see that you're continuing to contribute here. Have you got any plans to resurrect your UK Election Results pages at http://www.election.demon.co.uk/? It was a very useful resource. Warofdreams talk 20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Sam - it was some tongue in cheek levity - probably not needed really in an RfC? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting. Your opinions are respected and I agree. I will consider them and do a little sorting later. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC))
I have nominated List of British bingo nicknames, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British bingo nicknames. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just passed your DYK. I thought I'd mention that I am not sure whether every successful vote of no confidence is in the navigation box. Please add others if you find them in Hansard. Sadly even Parliamentary sources only seem to focus on Callaghan and the two in 1924. Francium12 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
Very impressed with the maps you have been adding such as this one. Question for you regarding the exclaves/enclaves. I take the pink exclave to the north is "Clerkenwell detached", and the white bits are South Hornsey. Just wondering what the bit to the west of Hammersmith/Fulham is?
Lozleader (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to contribute to the Sunday night show page as i am intellectually adequate to improve it. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwan345 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've been ploughing through that stuff you sent. I do believe that List of members of London County Council 1889 - 1919 is treble-checked for accuracy now. There were some errors alright, sometimes caused by two bi-elections in the same year in the same division, some by eyes slipping down the page to the wrong line of The Times results.
Having now moved on to List of members of London County Council 1919 - 1945 I've come up with an oddity. I had Powell and Lapthorn elected on the basis of a report in The Times' of 6 March 1922
Lots were drawn for second place and according to the report Lapthorn (which it calls Napthorn!) was declared elected.
Apparently the 2nd count had Myer in first place and Powell and Lapthorn tied for 2nd place, which "reversed" the first count.
What I hadn't spotted was a report in the 7 March 1922 edition which gives Lapthorn's name correctly, and says that it was Myer who was declared the winner.
Lozleader (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed that this article and its talk page, which you semiprotected early this year, might be unprotected and watched with great vigilance to see if the problem has gone away. --TS 22:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your expansion work here. Think we should try and get it to FA? Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I located Norman Coates' grave by chance 10 days ago while I was in Europe. I understand your point, but there is a reason for mentioning the fact the grave is unmarked : it's based on fact, and if people visit the graveyard they won't at present find his grave unless they know where it is, and know the fact it is unmarked. I know what happened to Norman Coates after 1942. However, Wikipedia requires information to be verifiable. I can't do that, but I'm his Great Grandson, so I just know... Reuben Los
Note that if you're planning on working on this article (I appreciate that so far you've just added a link) I'm currently working on a rewrite. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Good restructuring Sam ... I was always thinking your original restructing was 'groaning' but of course you're known to be in admin in Wiki.
Problem is in your restructing, you've introduced counterfactuals (again: reading the history of this article you've been engaded with this before).
That's called 'whishfull thinking' in common paralance.
BTW ... I'm intrigued ... where is the documention on the 'Hoon' (Geoff hoon) turning up to any local meeting (NE Derbyshire) in local democracy, where Natascha Engel is at the samwe time. Please enlight me ... with a reference.
Lomcevak (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You write:
What's the 'next day' after May 2009 ? Sam ... ? Do tell, you charlatan ...
Lomcevak (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Lomcevak (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
List of Dictators which you commented on in the last AFD is up for deletion again.
You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sam ... stuff goes ... I'm sorry ... I shouldn't have reacted as I did.
Be well ...
Lomcevak (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's make it the best we can ... and for all the world to see :-)
Lomcevak (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Lomcevak (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added my comments to the discussion pages. Lomcevak (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)