Misplaced Pages

User talk:Chelsea Tory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:51, 14 February 2008 editGwernol (talk | contribs)94,742 edits →Blocked: Unblock declined← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:59, 8 April 2008 edit undo193.201.64.33 (talk) Sorry 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 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.
::::Simple. Your edits demonstrated it. ] (]) 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman, I have indefinitely blocked this account due to sockpuppetry ] (]) 17:29, 13 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".


⚫ {{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)}}
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.


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)
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) *Sorry you've gone. It is now open day for the opposition.] (]) 14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
:You are editing things you clearly have no knowledge of and from an obvious political perspective. Yes, the main page says anyone can edit but I wouldn't edit something about which I had no knowledge or simple didn't like. You are making edits which are both wrong and which you obviously don't like. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for that. The House of Lords was not reformed at all. Reforms were proposed but nothing happened. The hereditary peerage were expelled from ''their house''. Its really that simple. Lets stick to the brazen facts. ] (]) 08:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
::And that in itself was considered a reform by many. Actually, most. The relevant article is ]; if you succeed in changing the terminology used there, the main article, over the protests of the -er- socialists and neo-Lloyd Georgians who police it to ensure it stays in line with the mainstream view, I'll be happy to let you change the text in the Sudeley article.
::And believe me, you haven't the vaguest idea what my political - and actual - perspective on the Lords is. ] (]) 08:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

:::What? You'll be happy to let me change something?? And pray tell, just who are you to speak on behalf of "many" or "most"? And you speak of "good faith"! The simple fact of the matter is NO reforms have ever taken place. I couldn't care less what has been placed in another Wikiepdia article. Misplaced Pages's policy is that other articles on WP are not satisfactory references. The constitutional situation is that the Hereditary Peers were expelled from their own House (and are preparing a constitutional legal battle at this moment). It is a simple matter. And by the way, not one single Liberal giovernment ever had such a measure in one of their manifestos (although the ''talked'' about 'reform'. Total abolition was a socialist objective. ] (]) 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

⚫ ==Blocked==
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)}}

Latest revision as of 14:59, 8 April 2008

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)