| Revision as of 08:20, 12 February 2008 editRelata refero (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers8,630 edits →Your cheery and polite note: clarity← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:59, 8 April 2008 edit undo193.201.64.33 (talk) Sorry | ||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User EX-WP}} | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |{{{message|'''{{{1|This user}}}''' is very busy in ] and may not respond swiftly to queries.}}} | |||
| |} | |||
| ] | |||
| == Your cheery and polite note == | |||
| Two things. | |||
| ===Blocked=== | |||
| First, I can't for the life of me understand why you'd think I'd know nothing about it. Rushing to judgment in these matters is a terrible thing, and so embarrassing later. | |||
| Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman, I have indefinitely blocked this account due to sockpuppetry ] (]) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{Unblock reviewed|this can only be some kind of joke, surely? I have supported, at a distance, Sussexman, because we share similar interests. Thats all. I don't know the other guys.|Please read ] - the evidence at CheckUser goes far beyond simply "supporting Sussexman at a distance" and SirFozzie's block is quite appropriate. If you want to seriously dispute the evidence at CheckUser you are welome to, but you will need a far more compelling case than simply describing this as a joke. ] 11:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| Second, dawdle over to the main page when you've time. It says there, right on top "Misplaced Pages! The free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit." Not "the free encyclopaedia that only those with personal acquaintance of the subject can edit" or, for that matter - tragically - "the free encyclopaedia only those that are not cretins can edit". | |||
| As far as I am concerned it is a joke. Reading the theories is laughable. It seems to me that anyone supporting Gregory Lauder-Frost (whose article page is long deleted), and anything he was involved in means we are all him. Sussexman from what I can see was a good contributor, and his block should long ago been lifted according to established policies. I always wondered just how much time I had available for this project. I made a serious attempt to fill out articles which were wanting or inaccurate and for groups which once had thousands of members. I now see that I should not have wasted my time on you sad mediocrities whose prime task in life appears to be feuding. I just feel a bit sorry for the others who are supposed to me be. ] (]) 11:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| So, I suggest you moderate your tone just a smidgen. I might be a little lost lamb in these matters - in your opinion formed in such unfortunate haste - but nevertheless I can edit that damned article. | |||
| *Sorry you've gone. It is now open day for the opposition.] (]) 14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| About the facts of this particular matter: we use the most 'mainstream' view of the matter in our text, and, as the title of the associated article suggests, the mainstream view is that the House was reformed, not that the hereditary peers were 'expelled'. And about the other matter, you may or may not be right. I certainly hasten to point out that we have a reliable source ''specifically saying'' editor and one, less reliable, saying patron. Under such circs., best to use a formulation that doesn't come down on one side or another. | |||
| ] (]) 08:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:59, 8 April 2008
.svg){kind=logo} | This editor has decided to leave Misplaced Pages. |
Blocked
Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman, I have indefinitely blocked this account due to sockpuppetry SirFozzie (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Chelsea Tory (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
this can only be some kind of joke, surely? I have supported, at a distance, Sussexman, because we share similar interests. Thats all. I don't know the other guys.
Decline reason:
Please read Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman - the evidence at CheckUser goes far beyond simply "supporting Sussexman at a distance" and SirFozzie's block is quite appropriate. If you want to seriously dispute the evidence at CheckUser you are welome to, but you will need a far more compelling case than simply describing this as a joke. Gwernol 11:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
As far as I am concerned it is a joke. Reading the theories is laughable. It seems to me that anyone supporting Gregory Lauder-Frost (whose article page is long deleted), and anything he was involved in means we are all him. Sussexman from what I can see was a good contributor, and his block should long ago been lifted according to established policies. I always wondered just how much time I had available for this project. I made a serious attempt to fill out articles which were wanting or inaccurate and for groups which once had thousands of members. I now see that I should not have wasted my time on you sad mediocrities whose prime task in life appears to be feuding. I just feel a bit sorry for the others who are supposed to me be. Chelsea Tory (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry you've gone. It is now open day for the opposition.193.201.64.33 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)