Misplaced Pages

James Chichester-Clark

I have removed the term 'only' in the sentence "only 1,500 troops" for the very reason that you condemned me for, because it is a claim that expresses that the number of troops offered was not high enough.

The quote may very well be a quote, but it is also a subjective analysis of a person's character, it is biased, many people would not describe him as "ever the gentlemen".

Furthermore, it is incorrect to use the postnominals 'MP' if the individual is not currently a sitting MP. The individuals named in the table are deceased and thus are no longer entitled to use the post nominals, that is standard policy in wikipedia.

Perhaps in future if you really disagree with my edits you could discuss them before engaging in a petty edit war? As I did regarding the appropriateness of using noble titles, before conceding. Thankyou! AJMW (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are correct on the MP point. I still disagree with regards to the quote, given that it is referenced by a reliable source. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just back, and a newly blanked page - just like the good old days! Anyway, when you get your mojo back, why not take a look at Misplaced Pages:User Page Design Center? You might find something that appeals. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Dodds

Really? Why?Traditional unionist (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dodd's is a clever chap, seems much more capable than Robinson (even though he doesn't seem too bad a politician, whatever else he might be!) Thing is, if Dodds were it, I think he could beat the UUP. With Paisley gone, and Robinson in power, Stormont belongs to them once more. Hopefully.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you just don't like estate agents!Traditional unionist (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is he an estate agent, hahah, I didn't know that. You're probably right... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at his shoes: if they're dirty, he's an estate agent. (An infallible test). --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I missed it

I thought ONIH retired? GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:3rd Lord Lurgan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:3rd Lord Lurgan.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Tomislav II

Hi, I saw some of your comments on the Mindaugas II of Lithuania talk page and was wondering if you would be interested in commenting on the request move for King Tomislav II of Croatia. - dwc lr (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't suppose you know anyone else who might be interested in commenting. - dwc lr (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find a few.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonexistent throne

Would you care to comment here as you have been the "reverter" with whom I have mainly come into contact = ). Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Command

Northern Command

Please stop disrupting this article by adding incorrect information to the lead or removing sourced content, your edits are unconstructive and are rapidly approaching borderline vandalism. Domer48 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Irish People redirect

Come now, that was most certainly not a "minor edit" as you indicated. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of that article. Please join us and help to work towards consensus. Windyjarhead (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Ross Tomb Pics

Hi, the pics are here: Tomb Pics --Spankr (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not really sure how to work Wikimedia though.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Dweeb's Question

User: Political Dweeb here wants to ask if User:Counter-revolutionary can look at the question I put on the Conservative Monday Club article's discussion page called Political position? I wanted you to clarify if what I said about the CMC in that question is true or not.

If you do not know do you know of anyone esle who can answer my question. Political Dweeb (talk)

Edward Carson

Hi, please do not revert me on this again, else I will resort to searching WP:Mediation with a neutral admin. I have plenty of citations that make both the cat and entry in the article Notable. With kind regards Keysstep (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Contacted the administrator

Hi Counter-revolutionary! Since you reverted me again and I do not wish an edit war, I refrained from reverting you and contacted an administrator on the issue. With kind regards, Keysstep (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord Carson was no more a hurler than I am a cricketer. I have reverted you once, so far as I can see. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bolding "sir"

I was not aware that this had become a de facto convention. I regard it as bizarre in the majority of cases, but there you go. The text you refer me to does not state that "Sir" should be bolded, although it does give an example where it is. I hope that in future you will be able to assume good faith and leave more positive talk page comments.

While I am commenting here, could I ask you to look over Help:Minor edit? At present, you seem to be marking almost every edit as minor, even those which change text - albeit usually a small amount - or could be controversial. The guideline states that a minor edit should be used for "...rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute". Thanks, Warofdreams talk 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quid pro quo, very good. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord Faulkner

If Lord Faulkner should be listed at List of teetotalers, please add a citation. I see nothing about this in his article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Michele Renouf

Please note that "lady" should not be at the beginning of the article per Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_Titles --Faith (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Note, lady is not an honourific title. I'm happy to take you on over this. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Senators

Never heard of him! Not too bad, keeping busy. Yourself?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You should check with the likes of Bill Henderson, he's almost certain to have known him. If you call party HQ they would give him your number and I'm sure he would call you back.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vyner Brooke

9 out of the 17 references are from the 1 website, really it should have a variety of reliable sources Michellecrisp (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also noted you marked your comment on my talk page and removal of a tag as minor. Thought it was not minor? Michellecrisp (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly major. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hely-Hutchinsons

I've just created a disambiguation page for Hely-Hutchinson. As I see you've been involved with a number of the articles about the earls with this name, could I ask you to have a quick look and make sure the descriptions for each are correct. In particular, whether I have correctly described them as Irish, Anglo-Irish or British - obviously this has been a sensitive issue over history, and I don't want to tread on anyone's toes. Many thanks. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

• I wish to state categorically that I have never ever used David Lauder's computer nor has he ever used mine. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish to state categorically that there's checkuser evidence that one or the other has happened, to vote-stack in an ArbCom election. This has been confirmed by multiple checkusers. SirFozzie (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple=two. However there is another possible explanation which makes Fozzie just plain wrong. I have written to an Arbcom checkuser to verify. Berks911 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Two (2)? You do seem to have some specialised knowledge Berks911, so where you fit in (as you like a mathematical analogy) to the equation. Exactly whose sock are you? As I see it, the main obstacle to Sussexman et al returning is an abject failure to come clean and stop deceiving the community. Perhaps Sussexman is more than one person - who knows? Perhaps, lots of people take a turn at being Lauder/Sussexman/Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. The only thing known for certain is that as long as he/they is banned he is fooling nobody. Giano (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Two = Alison and Thatcher. David Lauder has agreed that he has known and used Sussexman’s password; that does not make him the same person. Sussexman has retired. Lauder hopes to return and vehemently denies being Sussexman. I assume good faith on his part and Counter-rev’s. As Bonkers put it, I hope Lauder is not being left in limbo by Arbcom. Berks911 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems accurate. Giano, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post here again. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:

• I'd like to point out that it was actually significantly more than two checkusers - Alison 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Following the findings of 2 checkuser: Alison and Thatcher discussed here, I have concluded that you operated an account now renamed to Renamed user 20 (talk · contribs) to make threats against other users in the name of a living person. This is supported by the technical evidence, similarity in your areas of editing and past conduct, and by the timing of your edits and those that account. Given your previous blocks for sockpuppetry and harassing behaviour, I have decided to block you indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages. You may contest this blocks by placing the template {{unblock|Your reason}} on this page. WjBscribe 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I thought I best give you my side. The accusations against me have come as a complete, and unwelcome, surprise. When the Sussexman/Lauder case arose it was noted I edited other accounts, non-abusively, and was asked to stop this as a condition of my continuing to edit; I complied with this (as could be seen by a checkuser). Those accounts have since not been used in any way, nor have I edited any other account.

One must ask several questions: 1. Why would I choose the name User:Nick_Corsellis_QC? 2. Why would I risk such trolling knowing full well it could be discovered? 3. When have I ever in the past used crude language, swear words, etc (something I detest) such as "F**k you" and "Me gonna stab you"!? 4. What grudge would I hold against Alison and the other user to make such comments? Further to this I have never even heard of User:Centrx. 5. Take a look at User:Giano II's post concerning User:Nick_Crosellis_QC on User:Alison's page. He says he "knows" who the account belongs to, certainly a bold claim for an account with 2 edits. User: Giano II then demands a checkuser, which draws the conclusion that its a "generic British Telecom IP address with no other users on it." I'll be the first one to admit about knowing nothing about IP addresses but I wonder how the checkuser has reached the conclusions it did, given there were "no other users on it." Clearly, however, it has reached this conclusion. This leads me to one of several conclusions; 1. the checkuser system is entirely flawed, 2. the checkusers have "set me up" (I think this is most doubtful and do not advance it as a serious proposal), 3. some other editor(s) have "set me up", I don't know how, but it seems to me a plausible explanation if at all possible.

Finally, on the charges against me it is said:

• supported by the technical evidence, similarity in your areas of editing and past conduct, and by the timing of your edits and those that account. Given your previous blocks for sockpuppetry and harassing behaviour

• To this my reply is:

• Similarity of areas of editing: there is similarity of only one edit (out of two), User:Alison's talk page, on which I have never been abusive.
• Past conduct? I have never used such crude and abusive language on the WP.
• The timing? From what I can see the timing is within an hour of my edits, not a few seconds.

I attempted to contact Alison regarding her initial enigmatic message on my talk page but to no avail. I assure you that this account has nothing to do with me.

Best wishes, Counter-revolutionary (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC).

Counter-rev. I've had email from one respected admin that I need to check over. Also, one from you. I'm actually somewhat on break right now but I will address this further tomorrow. I'll likely email you about it tomorrow, my time, and will give this whatever time is needed to see it to conclusion, whatever that may be. Bear in mind that during the Lauder/Sussexman case, I was campaigning against your indefinite block. There was also the matter of other accounts under your IP that I never talked about. And they were legitimate other editors on your computer, and not abusive socks (right?) More tomorrow, but you have my word that I will be as fair and as honest as I can possible be, and I trust you will be likewise - Alison 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, I appreciate your reply, there is no rush as I don't have a great deal of time to devote to this either. You have my word that the abusive user (N.C.QC) has nothing to do with me. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Let's try sort this out tomorrow. I have some questions relating to private information I need to ask, hence it will not be on-wiki. It's 1am here, so I have to sleep. Talk to you tomorrow - Alison 07:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that a completely uninvolved Admin deals with any appeal in this case? Frankly, Alison, you're already involved heavily in David Lauder and Vintagekits, and you're the one who has come up with this rather unusual-looking check-user. I really do think that it would be best for all concerned if someone completely neutral dealt with it. Major Bonkers (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO Alison is as good if not better Admin to deal with this than any other. I have every faith that she is impartial, also from what I have seen of CR the posts don't seem to be the type of comments that they would leave on another users page. Me and CR have very different views on a lot if not all articles we edit, but I feel it is unhelpful to start calling for completely uninvolved admins to deal with it as it gives the impression that Alison is in some way biased. Also Bonkers what is a rather unusual-looking check-user? BigDunc 16:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am completely misunderstanding Dunc, I'm delighted to see what he says, and completely agree. The offending comments do not strike me as anything CR would say. It would be utterly out of character. Unlike Dunc however, I have very similar views to CR, and I would imagine have a much more agreeable relationship!Traditional unionist (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In answer, I'd simply refer you to the article on natural justice. There's something particularly disturbing to me about issuing a block without giving the subject any notice or allowing him to make any representations. The evidence, so far as I understand it, seems to be entirely circumstantial and is based on Counter-revolutionary and the vandal operating in the same broad geographical area, on the one hand, and the vandal operating when C-R was off-line, on the other. That latter point is completely spurious; had they operated at the same time, that would also, no doubt, be taken as evidence to link the two cases. Personally, I wouldn't describe this as a 'likely' case of sock-puppetry, as Alison has; I'd describe it as a 'theoretical possibility', but I daresay that there isn't a pretty tag for that! I response to BigDunc, I have never said that Alison was biased; what I do say is that it would be sensible for any appearance of bias to be avoided: it's entirely a matter for her. Major Bonkers (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bonkers, in all seriousness, this isn't helping matters at all. My goal here is to determine the truth, and I'd like to also point out that two checkusers have now commented on this case and have basically concurred. If you need a neutral, third opinion, it will have to be a checkuser opinion, as nobody else is privy to the checkuser data. In the meantime, I'll try to resolve this issue with CR in email - Alison 08:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

C-r. This Alison woman is totally implacable and hard. The funny thing is that her face looks really kind. Sussexman (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) oh no!, I mean Christchurch (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC). Sod it!, I mean BScar23625 (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BScar23625, personalised commentary aside, you're not totally innocent in all this. I kicked the above case up to ArbCom myself as I had privacy concerns regarding one of the accounts mentioned. You know which one, and you know what the connection is between all these socks, Isabela84 and yourself. So please - spare us the ironic humour - Alison 17:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Alison. You say "you're not totally innocent in all this". What do you mean by that?. Are you suggesting that I am one of the Sussexman group of editors?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Answering that question would be an unnecessary invasion of your privacy, and Isabella's. That's why I refused to run the checkuser. Please request clarification from ArbCom. You know your connection here - Alison 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest Alison that you drop this conversation, and leave them having verbal intercourse with themselves. Giano (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Alison. Given that I display my name, address and telephone number on my user page - how could any answer from you invade my privacy?. Giano. Who is "them" and "themselves"?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend blocking this talk-page, as was done with David Lauder Userpage. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Every opportunity has already been provided at this stage and the Arbitration Committee have been made fully aware of the situation. Counter-rev. - you still have the opportunity to email the Arbitration Committee directly. I'm also aware that you're petitioning various others, so you still have many avenues open to you - Alison 06:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Order promotions and post-nominals

Hello. Please don't add a lower grade post-nominal after a higher one, i.e. this edit. The two are mutually exclusive in the sense that the lower grade (in this case OBE) does not appear after a higher one (in this case DBE). Thanks Craigy (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No chance of that happening again - for a while (see above)! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)