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 19:18, 29 June 2006 editChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits Some thoughts on the Monday Club-related articles← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:59, 8 April 2008 edit undo193.201.64.33 (talk) Sorry 
(117 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User EX-WP}}
Now that's just absurd. 15:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC).


Chelsea Tory hello! You're more than right. ] 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)



I think your claims that a Marxist/leftist conspiracy is out to nobble the biographies of right-wingers are a bit misplaced. As an experienced Wikipedian and an administrator who's not been involved in any of the Monday Club-related articles before now, I've had a look at them with what I hope you'll accept are unprejudiced eyes. And I have to say that many of the articles are problematic - many of the subjects don't meet Misplaced Pages's biographical notability criteria (]), the articles are stuffed with trivia such as who went to which dinner, they aren't referenced and they're not particularly neutral. Please bear in mind that ]. -- ] 19:18, 29 June 2006 (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)}}

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)

*Sorry you've gone. It is now open day for the opposition.] (]) 14:59, 8 April 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)