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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:27, 16 September 2006 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,086 edits Warning← Previous edit Revision as of 06:55, 18 September 2006 edit undoChelsea Tory (talk | contribs)404 edits WarningNext edit →
Line 9: Line 9:
== Warning == == Warning ==


Wholesale deletion is not the way to deal with one fact you dislike within a biography. And accusing everyone who disagrees with you of bias is known locally as ], the polar opposite of the ] required by policy. Blanking articles is considered vandalism, and can get you ]. <b>]</b> 21:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Wholesale deletion is not the way to deal with one fact you dislike within a biography. And accusing everyone who disagrees with you of bias is known locally as ], the polar opposite of the ] required by policy. Blanking articles is considered vandalism, and can get you ]. <b>]</b> 21:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC).

How dare you threaten me. You are referring, of course, to the GLF article which I merely reverted to the previous position because of the directions of the Misplaced Pages Legal Team. I have been unable to find where that team have given the go-ahead for restoration of the illegal materials within it and so I correctly reverted the article. No "vandalism" was involved and you are out of order. ] 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:55, 18 September 2006

Chelsea Tory hello! You're more than right. 81.129.155.181 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 (WP:BIO), 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 Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- ChrisO 19:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

I have examined some of your comments on umpteen pages and I would say you were not neutral. It appears to me that there are umpteen, often cotnradictory, rules on Misplaced Pages which, at the end of the day, are used to suit almost any occasion. Reading them I would say that in real terms it is almost impossible to do anything right. Chelsea Tory 09:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

A further trawl just reinforced what I've said here. I wanted to make some article contributions and contribute to others but when hagiographers of Marxists and Communists (in Canada of all places!) have free reign, and call traditional Tories in Britain "Xenophobics", "race-baiters", and attack perfectly legitimate articles which they call "right-wing propaganda" (even when they are about people or groups wno are no longer active) I am dissuaded. I have even seen comments that several users use the same grammar or similar ISP numbers and so they must be the same person. Quite pathetic. Chelsea Tory 10:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Wholesale deletion is not the way to deal with one fact you dislike within a biography. And accusing everyone who disagrees with you of bias is known locally as MPOV, the polar opposite of the neutral point of view required by policy. Blanking articles is considered vandalism, and can get you blocked. Guy 21:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC).

How dare you threaten me. You are referring, of course, to the GLF article which I merely reverted to the previous position because of the directions of the Misplaced Pages Legal Team. I have been unable to find where that team have given the go-ahead for restoration of the illegal materials within it and so I correctly reverted the article. No "vandalism" was involved and you are out of order. Chelsea Tory 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)