User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 1-50

Summer Wine
Do you have a source for the meaning of "Compo"? Bluap 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Roy Clarke said it in an interview for one of the clipshows but I can't remember which one it was - does that help?

Metropolitan Borough statistics
Hi. I see you've added population for the County of London Met Boroughs back to 1801. Not sure if this is the right place, as the boroughs were only created in 1900. I presume this is the population of single or grouped parishes? If this is the case, then we can probably move them to pages such as Hackney (parish) or Stoke Newington (parish). Also, we could do with a citation: Vision of Britain doesn't go back that far, AFAIK, so it must be out of a book or document? Thanks. Lozleader 08:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also there were considerable boundary changes in 1900: do the Hackney figures include South Hornsey for example? Lozleader 08:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's from (fx ruffles papers on desk to find old red covered book he got the figures from) the Statistical Abstract for London, 1901, compiled by the Statistical Officer of the London County Council, Vol. IV. Part IV on page 47 is headed "Statistics relating to Metropolitan Boroughs". The table is a bit complicated because it tries to take account of the minor boundary changes in 1900 in terms of 1891 and 1901 censuses, but beforehand, there is a note on the top of the table which says "The figures .. are approximate only, the population of the fringes, transferred from one parish to another under the London Government Act of 1899, not being taken into account". Then there are notes at the bottom for various larger bits: Battersea included Penge (which is actually miles away) in 1801 and 1811, Holborn includes Furnival's Inn from the City. The 1891/1901 figures which take account of the boundary changes are usually quite small. Only Paddington has a big difference, due largely to Kensal Town (this wasn't the only change though): 117,846 on old boundaries, 135,955 on new ones. It gets a bit more complicated in 1821 when there were 526 "local militia" not assigned to any borough, and in 1841 when there were 3,090 "police on duty" not assigned to any borough.

On Stoke Newington and South Hornsey, I'm reading through the other bits of the book and there are different statistics for the parish of Stoke Newington: In 1891 the Parish, on its actual boundaries under the 1855 Metropolis Management Act, had 30,936 people, while the statistic given for the Borough is 47,828. The figures for Hackney in 1891 are identical (198,606), but I think South Hornsey was actually administratively outside the County of London and the Metropolitan Board area and under the control of Middlesex. It was, of course, an exclave between Hackney and Stoke Newington parishes which was transferred to Stoke Newington Borough in 1900.


 * Re: South Hornsey (second paragraph). We should put in Statistical Abstract for London, 1901 as a ref for these figures, of course. Lozleader 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thought so - looking at these old maps, it's not always easy to tell where later boundaries intersect with earlier ones! What is the best way to reference the source of the population figures? Sam Blacketer 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be the tags, I guess. Have a look at WP:FN. Lozleader 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've put the data in wiki tables on Metropolitan Borough of Hackney and Metropolitan Borough of Islington, I also added the area and population figures for the modern boroughs (converting the km2 back to acres!) for comparison. (look at the km page for conversion, on UK pages, there should be SI units). I think that provides an interesting comparison, as it shows the desperate overcrowding in 1901.

By adding these stats, you are adding a rod to beat your back with, as some bright spark will ask for the figures from 1901 to 1965! In these contexts, these are interesting figures. Cheers. Kbthompson 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you're right with the enlarged figure for Islington? Is that not the area for the London Borough of Islington, the 1965 creation which amalgamated the Metropolitan Borough of Islington and the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury? The 'Vision of Britain' website seems to be a good source for 1901-1965 figures, although I think I've seen them in 'London Statistics' published by the LCC. Sam Blacketer 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right, after all Vision of Britain should be == LCC fiqures. The enlarged area of the boroughs is caused by the amalgamation; perhaps someone wants to work out the population density per sq km (for comparison)? My brain imploded after doing the acres to km sq calcs. If we had the modern equivalent, I think that should probably go in, but it'd have to be worked out from adding up the modern wards (I think).
 * With the complete stats 1801-1965 it provides a wonderful picture of both the overcrowding circa 1900; and the massive depopulation of London after the war.Kbthompson 00:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed - I often think the most interesting statistic is when the boroughs peak in population. The City is in the 1860s as commuter rail comes in, the inner boroughs are around the turn of the century, whereas the outer areas it's not until the 1930s. Sam Blacketer 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikolaus Pevsner, in the introduction to his volume of the Buildings of England for the county of London (1952) divided the county into "rings":


 * The Central Area (City, Westminster, Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Finsbury, Holborn, St Marylebone, St Pancras, Shoreditch, Southwark and Stepney ) which peaked at the 1881 census
 * Inner Ring: (Battersea, Chelsea, Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, Paddington) peaked in 1901
 * Second Ring: (Camberwell, Deptford, Fulham, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith, Hampstead, Lewisham, Poplar, Stoke Newington, Wandsworth and Woolwich) peaking in 1921

He also divided the rest of the Metropolitan Police District into an Inner Third Ring (including places like Croydon, West Ham, Tottenham, Bromley and Richmond) and an Outer Third Ring (inclued places like Hampton, Staines, Barnet, Cheshunt, Orpington, Epsom & Ewell) By 1931 he notes that more Londoners lived in the outer rings (and thus outside the county) than in it. Lozleader 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vestries and Districts
Dunno, it depends on the amount of material. How much can be said about the Strand or Plumstead District Board of Works? No point creating a lot of stubs; the single parish vestries can be served by pages such as Hackney (parish) or Stoke Newington (parish).

Lozleader 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wyn Roberts, Baron Roberts of Conwy
Heya, when moving an article, you should also correct its redirects to avoid double redirects. You can see the redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/Wyn Roberts, Baron Roberts of Conwy. Thanks and greetings - PS.: For this time I have done it for you Phoe  talk 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm getting round to it. I assume the 'What links here' thing on the left gives all pages that link to the page, including through redirected articles? Sam Blacketer 23:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye then it seems I was too fast. The 'What links here' thing takes you to Special:Whatlinkshere/Wyn Roberts, Baron Roberts of Conwy, it was only too circumstantially to me to explain it :-) - forgive me. Best wishes and thanks for your work. Phoe  talk 23:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

MPs by Parliament categories
Hi Sam, well done adding MPs by Parliament categories to a whole lot of MPs. I just thought I should point out that there is also a category for the parliament which was elected in 2005: Category:UK MPs 2005-, which is also needed for some of the articles you edited.

There is no problem adding that category later; I just thought that you might not be aware of its existence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that I've not been adding it. I'm debating with myself whether it's got a strong reason to be there as a separate category from the Category for Current MPs. There are only the five MPs who have died in this Parliament which differ between the two. (In three or four years time, it's going to have to be renamed, of course). Do you see this as a problem?


 * Incidentally, the reason why I'm adding the categories is because I want to be sure that there is one (and only one) article for each person to have sat in Parliament. Some links from the "Members elected at general elections" pages show up blue but actually link to pages about someone else with the same name. It seems to be working, as I've found the d'Avigdor-Goldsmid brothers who sat in the 1970 Parliament were confused, and that the William Thomas Wells link went to 'Bombardier' Billy Wells of Rank Films fame. So we can now be certain that the MPs of the 1970s are all there present and correct. I'm currently doing articles on those MPs whose last Parliament was that of 1966-70. Sam Blacketer 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ipswich murder suspect
Thanks for your link and information on the spelling of Steven Wright's name on my Talk page. I agree that since there is now a statement from Suffolk Constabulary that includes the "Steven" spelling then that is the one we should stick with. Until now I thought it best to go with the version as stated in more reliable media sources, but perhaps they are just as fallible as any other source. I know my brother (Steven) has spent a lifetime pointing out the correct spelling of his name to anyone who dares get it wrong. Fanx 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pffft
'Twas hardly gross vandalism. Indeed the context *anything* could be put there and still make sense *nod* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.94.217 (talk • contribs)


 * I wouldn't say "gross vandalism", but it was a way of slipping in a bit of language which seemed a bit dodgy. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - even in its examples, readers and would-be editors should be shown the types of things which might appear in an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 12:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi, I'm here to thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page. So thanks! Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

explanation
I explained on the talk pages, and with the edits.--E tac 12:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and look on the talk pages, most people seem to agree, it is just a minority of people hellbent on having pictures of dicks and vaginas in there for whatever there own sick reasons may be. I am not advocating censorship, but for the purpose of an encyclopedia, an illustartion could provide the exact same info, without the need to be as graphic or potentially offensive. --E tac 12:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose my point is that there is a policy involved, and you seem to want to change the policy. I don't think it is going to be very effective to get into a 'revert war' with opponents on the articles; you are more likely to be successful by making a proposal to change the policy. Sam Blacketer 12:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not changing the policy. Just stating that there is no need to have graphic photos when an illustration would be as equally informative, but because some guy took some pics of his penis and gets off by having people view it, especially the possibility of middleschool girls seeing it and using "policy" to justify it.  I am sorry but that is just wrong.  An illustration would be provide the same amount of information without giving some pedophile a loophole to expose himself to the world. --E tac 13:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't, I'll have to look into it. I am sorry but it is stuff like this that will prevent Wikipedia from being as respected as it intends to be.  Also if it isn't censored for minors, shouldn't it contain warnings that people under 18 cannot view certain articles, and use some sort of age check system.  It is just ridiculous that people are basically using this site for their own personal amateur pornography distributor. --E tac 13:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't believe that anyone would be proud of the images which Wikipedia provides (especially not the .. ahem.. infections). But it does seem to be the case that policy supports relevant images, even if obscene: see the statement from founder Jimbo Wales relayed at Pornography. Sam Blacketer 13:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I stated a different reason for removing the one image with the infection. My point isn't that the images shouldn't be allowed, but when a perfectly fine alternative is available and it would make it less offensive, then that should be used instead.  Also about my talk page, why would it matter if I clear my talk page?  It is my talk page after all. --E tac 13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And if Jimbo considers a pic of a blowjob way far over the line, he would probably would consider pictures of erections and spread eagles at least borderline. --E tac 13:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to complain anymore. I am just making a point that it isn't neccesary and I seriously do think that things such as this are part of what is keeping wikipedia from being a considered a well respected and reliable source. --E tac 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remember it's not me you've got to convince. I am just another regular editor, and I didn't want to get into reverting your changes, just to get some discussion going. I don't think it will get anywhere on my talk page but if you can make a convincing argument, then you will win consensus on your side and establish a better policy. Sam Blacketer 13:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the policy alread does state that illustrations should be used over pictures when possible. --E tac 13:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Will Owen, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Anthony Courtney, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:TFD
Thanks for the update, I'm not really interested in that cocktail debate, just didn't want to deal with it in MFD ;) — xaosflux  Talk  03:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Goldacre-Holford
Thanks for the write-up; I'll publish it tomorrow. Feel free to write other articles for the Signpost in future weeks if you see something that you think should be covered; occasionally if there's something I feel should be covered, I'll make a note of it in the newsroom. Again, thanks for the help. Ral315 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I like your headline! (Old journalistic tradition of the journalist letting the subs and editors write the headlines, of course). Sam Blacketer 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination)
You contributed to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (second nomination). This was closed as speedy keep under criterion for speedy deletion G5 as a page created by a banned user, and its content deleted. You may or may not want to contribute to the new discussion, at Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination). This message is being given to all users - except proven sockpuppets and those who have already appeared at the new Afd- who contributed in the original discussion. --Robdurbar 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Esurnir
Sorry, in my reverting of User:Arserapist's vandalism on User talk:Esurnir I reverted your edit; there was no way to manipulate Undo or anything. You may want to go back and repost it for him to see. :-) --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I've seen it and understand why; hopefully this disruptive vandal will be blocked soon. Sam Blacketer 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW thanks for cleaning my page ;). I think arserapist is the same guy that vandalised you. -- Esurnir 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would guess so. Meanwhile, where are the admins tonight? Sam Blacketer 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

MPs by Parl and so on
I have replied on my talk to your note abour Rolf Dudley-Williams, but forgot to say what I really meant to say: cograts on the great work that your are checking the MP by Parl categories.

Trying to complete them (as you are doing) was one of the uses I had in mind when I created those categories, partly so that they could be used for checking the accuracy of the MPs by Parliament lists. I did that for some of the later lists of MPs: parse the list, feed it into WP:AWB, and ask it to skip any articles already categorised by that parliament, then it howls when it finds one which isn't. That was very useful in identifying glitches (some missing articles, other disambiguation problems).

Do you use WP:AWB? It has all sorts of intersting applications for this sort of task. I'd love a dedicated bot to do this cross-checking and report any glitches, but I'm not a good enough programmer to contemplate trying to make one :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Warner
Upps, it seems I have contributed to an earlier version, this wasn't thought so. Thanks for the revert. Greetings Phoe  talk 23:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!
Thank you for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  00:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Edward Thomas Bishop, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Chris 73 | Talk 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Edward Thomas Bishop
Sorry, you probably added the AfD notice while i was deleting the page. If you want, I can restore it, but otherwise I just mark it as speedy delete on the AfD. Hope this is OK -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:86.128.47.20
This user has continued vandalizing Marston's article even after your last warning.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 22:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure - he may not have seen the last warning until after his edit went through. In any case he seems to have stopped now. If he starts up again then put him on Administrator intervention against vandalism and the admins will consider whether to block him. Sam Blacketer 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

suppy
nice cat maaaaaaaaaaaaaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzy rick (talk • contribs)


 * Windle thanks you for your compliment. Sam Blacketer 18:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Frederick Gough, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Maitland, 17th Earl of Lauderdale
Hi Sam, you might want to add this guy to your top 10 list of earliest serving MPs. He became an MP in 1951. Best wishes. Dovea 15:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this - yes, he fits in the list. Sam Blacketer 17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Scott Wilson Group
How am I supposed to add information about Scott Wilson to Wikipedia? Can I request that someone else adds it? Many other civili engineering consultancies have a presence on Wikipedia detailing them, how are they able to gain a presence on the site, yet I can put up information on Scott Wilson. Everything that I wrote this time round was completely factual and in no way advertising, endorsing etc.....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottwilsonplc (talk • contribs)


 * Sam - the page still seems to be present on Wikipedia - but there seems to have been an addition to the top in the form of an Introduction that someone else has written. Do I take it that the page has been accepted now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottwilsonplc (talk • contribs)


 * Many thanks for your help and advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottwilsonplc (talk • contribs)

DYK!
--Savidan 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba and the Parliament of the United Kingdom
Former MP Tony Colman of the Parliament of the United Kingdom May be I have to file a warning at talk:Parliament of the United Kingdom for possible violation of the arbcom decision. Andries 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony Colman SAI BABA AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN Early day motion //edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=21147 EDM 886 Sai Baba and sexual abuse of children 26.02.2002 Colman, Tony


 * I would strongly advise you not to. If the Arbitration Committee did enact a remedy which could be interpreted in the way you chose to interpret it, then I think you'll find they did not mean to. Sam Blacketer 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They did interpret and enfored it in such a way at Robert Priddy. Andries 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have already pointed out, Robert Priddy's notability is intimately connected with Sathya Sai Baba; you are trying to apply this ruling to areas where it patently has no application whatsoever. I wonder if you are trying to support it "as the rope supports the hanging man", as Lenin once wrote. Sam Blacketer 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see much difference between James Randi and the James_Randi_Educational_Foundation versus Robert Priddy. Randi has even published my comments on Sathya Sai Baba on his homepage. I wrote there and here under my real name. Randi published my comments regarding Sathya Sai Baba on his homepage Andries 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither the Wikipedia article on James Randi nor that on the James Randi Educational Foundation contain any reference at all to Sathya Sai Baba. The Wikipedia article on Robert Priddy does. That is the difference. Sam Blacketer 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The formulation of the arbcom decision does not make this difference, so I do not understand why you consider it relevant. Andries 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I expect they thought it was so blindingly obvious it did not need to be stated. Sam Blacketer 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right, though I do not believe it. Your reasoning means that a link to the Indian Skeptic website (that contains trenchant criticism of Sathya Sai Baba) is okay in an article that does not mention Sathya Sai Baba, but is forbidden as soon as the article mentions Sathya Sai Baba. Sounds implausible to me. Andries 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. Having first made an assumption that the Indian Skeptic website (which I have never visited) passes WP:EL, my interpretation is this: that the link is acceptable anywhere it's relevant, except where it is used as the source for a criticism of Sathya Sai Baba. If this happens, the criticism and the link alike should be removed as poorly sourced negative material. Sam Blacketer 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: London Gazette
I would like to inform you that the London Gazette does in fact own the .org.uk domain as well as the .co.uk domain names as far as I know. I certainly can see no difference. ! Mduparte 14:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I leave the job of comparing and contrasting http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=www.gazettes-online.org.uk and http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=www.gazettes-online.co.uk as an exercise for the reader. Sam Blacketer 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ken Thompson
Ah I thought it was after he left the Commons. As a rule we only put them on if they actually fight an election as a knight. If they are actually a bt. when they're in the commons then its a 50/50 call, so quite happy if you want to reverse :) Cheers Galloglass 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think he did fight (and lose) in 1964 as a Baronet. No doubt the hereditary title was mentioned by Eric Heffer a few times. Sam Blacketer 22:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost story
You're certainly welcome to write the story, it would be good to have coverage of that. --Michael Snow 18:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll get to work. Sam Blacketer 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Beverley Baxter
I was aware that Baxter died some time before the general election, but it is still useful to link to the general election as this is when his successor was elected. The article states clearly he didn't live to see it so I don't think anyone would be confused. --Berks105 16:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost story
Hi Sam,

May I offer a suggestion on your Signpost story? My edits were not made to reverse the essay; instead, they were made in good faith, fixing grammatical errors, clarifying the essay's assumptions (a feature that User:Worldtraveller has incorporated into the present version) and pointing out mitigating factors that, yes, limited/qualified the conclusions of the essay but at the same time made them more NPOV and scholarly. None of User:Worldtraveller's conclusions were reversed, and none of his data or arguments were removed, as you may check by comparing the versions. Many editors, such as User:Alabamaboy and User:Ta bu shi da yu, felt that my version made User:Worldtraveller's point stronger by being more balanced and less polemic. Unfortunately, User:Worldtraveller did not view my edits as an improvement and did not want to allow any mitigation of his arguments, which provoked the subsequent fight over WP:OWN and WP:SOAPBOX from which I've abstained since my blocking. I think that User:Worldtraveller might agree with this description of the events. I've tried to set up a neutral, good-faith evaluation essay at WP:EVAL. Much of the material at WP:WINF was also written by me, however not with the purpose of that counter-polemic; it was moved there by User:Worldtraveller himself. Willow 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is largely true. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

One last point, I'm a "she", not a "he". Thanks for fixing that! :) Willow 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're quite right to point that out, and I've corrected it. Sam Blacketer 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm, "her own essay"? I'm really sorry to be a bother. Willow 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost article on essays
I think you've done a fair and good job on that article. I've added a note to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Internet terminology
Regarding this edit, it's important to, when referring to the Internet, capitalize it as such. There are many internets out there, but the internet you and I are talking on right now is the Internet, hence the capitalization. An internet is a generic term describing any large inter-networked net. The capitalization matters. I know it's a very minor nitpick, but I just thought you might want to know the distinction. -- Cyde Weys 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mc and Mac
Hi, I reverted your change to Categorization of people. See Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people for recent discussion of this. I'm not saying I object to the idea, just that it needs more consensus. Regards, jnestorius(talk) 02:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

MMMM tea
Thanks for recomending my "a nice cup of tea and a sit down". I have taken many blows from vandals, i have had everybody and there brother complain about deleted pages and I am ok with that! I guess I just felt like people were assuming bad faith, when I myself was probably assuming bad faith in the assumoption that they were (If that makes any sense). After my cup of delicious tea, all is well! Thanks again, it is much aprpeciated.


 * Feel free to. I used to put them there but thought it was more courteous to put on the talk page and leave up to the editor to do what they please with. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Synthetic disambig
Hi, thanks for your work on disambiguating synthetic. Please note that I've added one item that had been forgotten: Synthetic language. That's the intended target in most linguistics pages, like Modern Greek grammar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - it does explain a few of the odd links that didn't seem to go anywhere. Sam Blacketer 11:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN
Hi Sam. I noticed that you submitted Geekbot2000 to RFCN... you do realise that you're supposed to give them a chance to agree to change it without going through RFCN? Proto  ►  07:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see that, but it occurs to me that it's a bit 'unilateral'. The template unc suggests that the user with a questionable username should satisfy the user placing the template that their username is acceptable, or change it. This, in effect, elevates my views about usernames, and I'm quite aware that as an ordinary user it is not my decision to block an unacceptable one. It seems better to raise a concern which the wider community, or at least the section of it that visits WP:RFCN, could debate. However, given that you've pointed me to this, I will use the suggested procedure in future when dealing with problematic usernames. Thanks for bringing this here. Sam Blacketer 11:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * I have reverted further changes by User:4kinnel twice. I don't understand the objection to a fact supported by quotations from such mainstream sources as UK broadsheet newspapers.


 * The more I look at it, the more I think that that username is inappropriate. (Four candles?) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do now see what you mean, although given that I'm effectively in an editing dispute with him I wonder whether it should be me to ask for a name change. An approach from another user might be more likely to give a constructive response. Sam Blacketer 11:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

East London -> East London, England
Under what auspices is this being done? Pls see WP:London discussion, Cybersquaters? Cheers Kbthompson 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Dav3j
Ah, a Labour Fanboy. I should have known one of you would come crawling out from underneath your rock as soon as I posted that bit about Paul Clark. Still, you didn't vote against him, and I take it you don't actually know an awful lot about him, or what a waste of oxygen he really is. Still, next election he'll be out of a job anyway! Happy days.

TTFN, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dav3j (talk • contribs)


 * Please don't presume to guess my politics based on the fact that I reverted your edit. Sam Blacketer 12:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, am I wrong? I'm sure the world isn't that eager to know anything about him, hence the article bears little practical value. Dav3j 12:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All Members of Parliament are 'notable', that is, worthy of an article. I have been writing articles about former MPs who left the House of Commons in the early 1960s, in an attempt to build up Wikipedia's contribution to the prosopography of Parliament. In my experience people are very interested to know about current members of Parliament. Wikipedia articles should tell them the facts, and leave the reader to make their own mind up. They should not attempt to lead the reader to a particular opinion, whether negative or positive. Sam Blacketer 13:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very interested to read that, which policy says that 'all members of parliament are notable'? 195.172.215.82 10:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is part of the Notability guidelines: See Notability (people) where the following is included: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures". While each article should stand and fall on its own merits, every Member of the United Kingdom Parliament is automatically the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable works simply by virtue of their position. Perhaps the most convincing way of demonstrating this, though I don't encourage it because it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, might be to nominate an article on an obscure former Member of Parliament for deletion, and watch the debate get speedily closed as a keep. Sam Blacketer 10:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - if these articles get up to 1,500 characters, please would you consider nominating them for the Main Page at T:TDYK? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been nominating many of the articles I write for DYK, although not all - generally only if they have a particularly interesting 'hook'. Sam Blacketer 11:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

East London move
I was just wondering, well, see section for small note (as usual on EL,SA talk page). Simply south 12:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right to ask - I have answered on Talk:East London, South Africa. Sam Blacketer 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Another thing is confusing me right now. I thought moves over redirects could only be done by admins. Simply south 13:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance or information
Hello :) I'm fairly new to editing, and recently noticed a dispute between two users (ElenaZam and citylightsgirl), specifically regarding subjects Neil Clark and Oliver Kamm.  I noticed a message you had placed on the talk page for Neil Clark stating that the issue was raised on the Administrator Noticeboard (incidents), however, I can not seem to find it.  I'm sure that this is a navigational error on my part.  I have no involvement in this issue whatsoever, I'm just curious to see how content disputes are handled, and thought that this might be a good example to "watch and learn" from.  If you would not be able to help me understand the issue at hand and process for any reason, can you direct me to someone that can? Thank you. Vendetta 11:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm a bit busy right now but I can point you to the archive of the report: SeeAdministrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive184. Sam Blacketer 11:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Otho Prior-Palmer
A tag has been placed on Otho Prior-Palmer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. PatricknoddyTALK (reply here) | HISTORY 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is evidently a mistake. I have left you a note on your talk page. Sam Blacketer 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is NOT a mistake, sorry. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here) | HISTORY 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Remarked for deletion, do NOT remove deletion templates. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here) | HISTORY 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has been remarked for speedy deletion again, do NOT remove deletion templates. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here) | HISTORY 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have reported your constant speedy deletion template removals on the Administrators noticeboard. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here) | HISTORY 23:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that shortly after this, Freakofnurture removed the tag from Otho Prior-Palmer, and Patricknoddy was blocked from editing by Zscout370 due to questionable use of the Newpageswatcher tool. I do not know what was driving him to tag plainly notable subjects for "not asserting notability", and regret that due to the block he has not been able to explain it. Sam Blacketer 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sam, I've worked with this young lad a little on editing wikipedia, and I think that it comes down to maturity. Patrick, from what I've read, is a youth editor (under 10). Unfortunately for Patrick, there are too many lessions not yet learned that only come with age. I regret seeing the lad get blocked, he has the potential for being a skilled editor. Just thought I'd pass that bit of intel along, perhaps it will explain a lot. Cascadia<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">TALK <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">| <sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#2F4F2F;">HISTORY 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, George Oliver (politician), was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A tag has been placed on George Oliver (politician), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, .... no, just kidding. ;) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)