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 [unsubstantiated in the context] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia'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
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, Warofdreamstalk18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This seems accurate. Giano, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post here again. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:
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 Wikipedia. You may contest this blocks by placing the template {{unblock|Your reason}} on this page. WjBscribe18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? BigDuncTalk16:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BobBScar23625 (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BobBScar23625 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:King leka.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 Wikipedia'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
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Geraldinealbania.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Geraldinealbania.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Image copyright problem with Image:Prince LekaII.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Prince LekaII.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 Wikipedia'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
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:3rd Lord Lurgan.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've uploaded File:Rockport school.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Alan Clark.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Lady Brookeborough.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Reasons: Abusing multiple accounts denied; threatening behaviour denied (and unlikely givern editor's editing patterns); the block was not appropriate in the first place, was excessive and is not in any event any longer serving a purpose; natural justice; time served
Accept reason:
Per discussion with the blocking admin / there are questions over the connection between the vandalizing account and C-R / the Lauder affair is very much over and had previously been dealt with by ArbCom / editor was never formally community-banned / editor is not, and to my knowledge has never been, engaging in sock-puppeteering in the interim / two and a half years is more than enough / also applying WP:AGF here / block can be re-applied by other admins if necessary after unblocking Alison❤20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He can't counter checkuser "likely" with evidence. He is not a computer geek and doesnt know how ip addresses work. He has said (above)
* 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 assure you that this account has nothing to do with me.
Is more needed? What? Why?
Admins - let's not decline this too quickly, please? I'd like to address this in depth, myself. I have a lot of technical data from when the Lauder checkuser was run & I know exactly what part Counter-rev played in all that. However, I've never yet heard from C-R on how he could explain certain matters. On the Corsellis issue above, my leaning may be somewhat towards option 3. - I've seen it happen before & it's really not C-R's style - but right now, my main concern lies with what happened over the Lauder incident and how a significant number of accounts all voted from the same IP to attempt to bring down Giano's ArbCom attempt, back in the day. On the whole, I'm not opposed to unblock - not at all - but there are unanswered questions. I'd also like to hear from User:WJBScribe, the blocking admin. It's been over two years ago now ....
I've been in contact via e-mail with User:Carcharoth regarding the unblock, I understood he was liaising with the relevant committee. In the wake of the Lauder/Sussexman debacle, it was decided I could continue to edit. From what I can remember, I was blocked following a comment made on Alison's page, which was somehow attributed to me. I did not write this and have no idea about the circumstances in which it was written; it it wholly unconnected to me, Given that years have now passed, I'd be grateful if I could edit once more. Thanks. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just also point out that, to my knowledge, C-R has never actually been formally banned from WP, and that a block, though indefinite, does not necessarily imply infinite - Alison❤09:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, as I understand it the Sussexman/Lauder issue was dealt with previously and the result was that I was allowed to continue editing. As I see it, I was blocked solely on the basis of the remark made on your user page by Corsellis. This was not me. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if ArbCom clarify that with you (FloNight should certainly know, as will Fozzie) then that's great. I know you had been editing since the Lauder debacle, then the Corsellis edits occurred. If we're just down to the Corsellis edits, given that over two years have elapsed, I'm sure something can be sorted. Don't want to pre-emp ArbCom or anything, but .... - Alison❤11:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no insight into the Lauder/Sussexman debacle, or the technical evidence, but I would support the argument that it is extremely illogical, from a behavioural point of view, that Counter-revolutionary would be responsible for the renamed user edits. If these are the only basis for the continuing block then I would support a, perhaps conditional, unblock. If there are other confounding issues relating to Lauder/Sussexman sockpuppetry, I would suggest an appeal to ArbCom. Rockpocket13:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Considering the level of abuse here, including canvassing, logged out editing, and legal threats, I see no reason to be coy about accounts that currently appear to be well-behaved but are obviously the same individual. Thatcher 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)" The CU came back as:
You're correct, you cannot add anything. This is all widely know, agreed and acknowledged; the action taken on foot of this was, however, that I could continue to edit. I was blocked for an unrelated incident. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your conduct which preceded the block, justified it. Your previous conduct, "Considering the level of abuse" and the reason for your block cannot be considered to be an "unrelated incident."--Domer48'fenian'15:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kittybrewster is saying CR isn't Sussexman, perhaps they could explain this ? Specifically the post by Alison at 20:52, 9 July 2008 where she states the the unblock request from Sussexman came from the exact same IP address and the exact same computer as an edit by CR 7 minutes later, and that is just "one tiny example" and there are "many, many more". Another issue needing explanation is FloNight's post at 21:08, 9 July 2008 saying "The independent checkuser that I did in April showed similar patterns to the one Alison describes. Another arbitrator reviewed account contributions on specific dates and saw obvious links WITHOUT checkuser evidence. These accounts have been looked at independently repeatedly and every time the same conclusion, these accounts are linked and have been used abusively. With each review the evidence of a link gets stronger" --Domer48'fenian'16:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is that sussexman and counter both gave their passwords to David Lauder. The point is 1 this was over two years ago and 2 that Alison recognises that the abuse by Counter rev was minimal. Kittybrewster ☎16:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, Good Day and welcome to the fray! I understand your concern regarding the multiple accounts, etc. however, following the discovery of this I was not blocked - it was decided that I could continue editing (whereas David Lauder, etc. were blocked). I continued editing until a user made some rude comments on Alison's page. Somehow, it was concluded that this was me. It was not. In any event, it has been two years since this event. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My advice (though not good advice) to the individual using this indef-blocked account, is to evade the block with a new account (but only 1 new account) & dissassociate him/herself from his/herself's Wiki past. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not know if an unblock here is appropriate; I would be happy to accept Alison's advice either way, were she to give it. I would point out, as you may well know, that creating a new account may well be defined as block evasion, which would be seriously counter-productive if discovered.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I do think that a natural justice appeal is worthy of consideration. After two years what is being achieved by continuing the block? It is also with asking, if this guy is a serial and disruptive sock-puppeteer, why is he not just setting up a new account and being disruptive? Anyway, give the guy a break and see what happens. Also, C-R, drop me an email, been a long time.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good question, and perhaps I might pose it differently. Why not start up a new account, disassociate from the negative elements tainting this one, and edit constructively? I can think of only one good reason, that is if the editor intends to contribute in the same area's and the same manner as this one and does not wish to have claims of sock/meatpuppetry made when the two are linked. This would be legitimate, except that there are elements of partisanship and disruptive behaviour in this editing area. This is clearly evidenced by the editors, generally, commentating here for anyone with even a passing knowledge of these issues. Personally, I cannot see how the area might be improved by the return of this editor. I oppose an unblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, part of the reason there may be opposing editors stacking up here is that very reason of editing in a contentious area. It's not so much 'disruptive editing' as 'having the wrong POV'. Jes' sayin' .. - Alison❤23:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The person behind the account-in-question, was dishonest with the community, by not admitting he/she had multiple accounts. He/she gets a thumbs down from me. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not deny I used multiple accounts. I deny I wrote the comment in question on Alison's page. I'm happy to use a new account, but would wish to make edits to areas which I edited in the past, albeit to a lesser extent. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite Alison's suggestion of bad faith on editors reasons for commenting here, the fact remains and she ignores is that this editor is a confirmed sock abusing and disruptive editor. That Kittybrewster offers a ridiculous explanation for the socking, and CR feels that the block was uncalled for shows a level of disassociation from realty that is astounding. --Domer48'fenian'17:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the aftermath of the sock-puppeteering I was allowed to continue editing. The block was due to a one comment made on Alison's page. I have attempted to assure you that this was not made by me; Alison seems to be of this opinion herself. In any event, this occurred two years ago. Surely one should be able to return to Wikipedia and continue editing during good behaviour. I would imagine this would be preferable to, as you've suggested, starting a new account and evading the block. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to clarify further; C-R was proven to have colluded with David Lauder and co., about two years ago. While technically not a 'sock', per se, he gave access to his account to the LauderHorde and they used it to try to sink Giano's ArbCom bid. That much has been established, C-R has already copped to it and ArbCom are fully aware of it. Subsequent to this, C-R was allowed to go back to editing and that was that. It was a pretty heinous thing to do & nobody denies that. I'm sure C-R even sees this now.
However, that's done and dusted. This block relates to an account that made a total of twoedits ever. The main issue re. this account was not the edits, but its original name in which it abused the name of a prominent barrister. I think even you'll agree, Domer, that the edits made were so out of character for C-R as to cast serious doubt on the claim that it was him. Frankly, and I've said this already, it looks like a classic Joe job or setup. Even that notwithstanding, two and a half years for a block is more than enough, IMO - Alison❤18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will oppose the unblocking of this account. If the community 'however' decides to allow its unblocking, then so be it. I recommend that a proposal of 'unblocking' be put to the community. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that C-R has never been formally banned, I don't see a need for a long-winded, drama-fueled community proposal. That's not how unblocks are done. In fact, I'm going to followup with the blocking admin & request his opinion on the matter - Alison❤18:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocks mean "No fixed duration", they do not, and should not mean forever - WP:INDEF - unless the editor just wants to vandalise, in which case the block is always quickly re-applied - such unblocked editors are often added to the watch list of many others. Ronhjones (Talk)23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked
Hi Counter-revolutionary. Per discussion with the blocking admin, and per checkuser, you are now unblocked. You've been around here long enough now and know the rules, so I'll not go into a long rant here. Just please treat others, on all sides, with kindness and respect and everything will be fine. Be aware too, that some of the articles come under the auspices of the Troubles ArbCom sanctions and may be subject to 1RR rules, etc. Please read the unblock notice carefully, too.
Fine, but Shane was an apparently self-chosen nickname. It is not appropriate to refer to him as "Sir Shane". He was Sir John Leslie, but not Sir Shane Leslie, I would think. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
Thanks for uploading File:David ingalls.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.
For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MC Flag.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free rationale for File:MC Facts.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MC Facts.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Toad map.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Poor quality article which says very little about its subject, one of the two external links is dead, the other does not put forward the line of succession.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi, Counter-revolutionary! I'm looking through some images on Wikipedia, and noted that you claim to be the copyright holder on that image. I was wondering if you could elucidate? It looks like it's a newspaper scan... is it from a pamphlet you published? Hopefully you can clear up the confusion regarding its source and authorship. Thanks for your time, Storkk (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't edit war at Ken Maginnis mate. I know you're right and I've told Gavin you're right. That article is related to The Troubles and as such is under a WP:1RR sanction which means you can only make one revert in any 24 hour period. So don't be tempted to go back there and revert Gavin again because that would make you both guilty of edit warring. I'll get him to self revert, which is the correct thing to do in this case. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched for an answer and most pages including the Collins dictionary insist the title should be used for Barons, see here [1]. I have found a UK government archive though here [2] which agrees with you. If you do a page search for Baron or Peers you will get to a section called "Peers" which explains it this way, "Peers - There are five ranks or degrees in the Peerage. These are in descending order of dignity: dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons. "The Right Honourable" should be applied only where the peer is a member of the Privy Council." So you may be right. I've also posted this guidance to Gavin's talk page. I hope it helps you sort it out. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
Thanks for uploading File:Rockport school.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Buladelah.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)14:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:3rdAbercorn.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:3rdAbercorn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:OMosley.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 5th Baronet until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ivanvector (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Hon.ed.carson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:John Amery.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Brookeborough1.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Brookeborough1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Moyola.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Moyola.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Thanks for uploading File:BrianF.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hello, you edited Leka, Crown Prince of Albania (born 1939) to remove information about Leka having attended Phillips Academy, stating that he instead studied at Aiglon College. Could you please provide a source to this claim. Charles Fenyvesi's book Splendor in Exile, which I have in front of me, states the following:
"Leka had gone to high school in Alexandria, Egypt, and at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. He had studied economics at the University of Geneva in Switzerland at the Sorbonne, and had attended the British military academy Sandhurst." (page 235)
That's simply not right. Jason Tomes' book, at p 282, states 'Prince Leka...had completed his schooling in Switzerland...'. Further, the Zogu family's own website (https://albanianroyalcourt.al/leka-i-king-of-the-albanians/) says so: "After the war King Zog, Queen Geraldine and Prince Leka moved to Egypt, where they lived at the behest of King Farouk I. Leka was educated at Parmoor House. In 1946 he attended the British Boys School, where he continued until 1954. In Alexandria, Egypt, he attended Victoria College and then went to Aiglon College, Villars-sur-Ollon, Switzerland, where he graduated in 1956." Countless results on Google reveal Aiglon college as his school, including school photographs! I have never before heard this nonsense about him attending Phillips Academy, Mass. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Lady Katherine Crichton.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
.svg)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
