User talk:Sussexman

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).

Sussexman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to appeal against this twisted injustice. But I seem unable to access anything other than this page. So could I be advised as to how I may appeal. Sussexman 09:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:ANI supports block so far. No unblock at this time. pschemp

---

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.

Regarding banning

Hi, the Robert I case can be partially resolved by resolving the legal dispute which he is involved in. This could be by withdrawal of the threat of litigation, settlement, or judicial resolution. Beyond that the Arbitration Committee could reconsider the matter or an appeal could be made to User talk:Jimbo Wales Fred Bauder 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

It is not our intention to ban everyone who edits from a Tory perspective using British Telecom as a provider. This is under discussion among the arbitrators. I will drop HOTR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) a note regarding this matter. Fred Bauder 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Egging on

It's more a matter of egging him on, see [1] Fred Bauder 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Support, it would appear to me. But only support for what he feels is correct. Is that "egging him on"? Not certain of that. But is he "involved" in legal threats, in real terms? Sussexman 19:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't revolve around parsing of the meaning of "involvement". He was certainly both encouraging him to take legal action and attempting to use the legal threat to effect a change in Wikipedia content. Fred Bauder 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see that. My reading of that page is that Lauder-Frost made a legal threat because of things being said about him which he said were against UK law. When he was ignored Robert has obviously reverted to him to advise him. Wouldn't you advise a friend if you were in the same position? Sussexman 19:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, I find stirring up trouble is a bad practice (although I will admit I learned from experience). One problem, we are not sure Lauder-Frost ever made a treat or an edit, as all we have is a signature made by an anonymous editor. While we think we know who Robert I is, we do not actually know. What we do know is that someone, or a few someones, made a bunch of tendentious edits, most of which involved around the role of Lauder-Frost and the Monday Club and made legal threats. Fred Bauder 02:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Given Lauder-Frost's long involvement with the Club how would you detach him from it? Sussexman 19:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We would not want to. We just don't want the legal threats and tendentious editing. Fred Bauder 02:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you direct me to some of these tendentious edits? Were they pretty grim? Sussexman 21:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Eric Pickles

The edits made to the Eric Pickles article appeared to be unbalanced, and there is a sense of POV-pushing. It made an article that read as if the most important and noteworthy thing that Eric Pickles did in Bradford was arrange for Anthony Murphy to be expelled after getting upset at a leaflet. Whilst that may be important to you personally, I suspect that the average Bradfordian (let alone the average Englishman) wouldn't recall the Murphy incident today, whereas many of the other changes made in Bradford by Pickles are still remembered, and he is nationally notable now for his Parliamentary work.

This is not an article about Anthony Murphy, it is an article about Eric Pickles. Furthermore the reason stated for the edit ('Extremely important to show all of Pickles machinations and his victims') does not suggest this is being added to promote a neutral point of view. As it currently stands the article is neither praising Pickles nor condeming him, merely listing notable biographical events. The Guardian's biography of Pickles, for example, doesn't think Murphy relevant enough to mention. (Note that The Pickles Papers is not a biography, but an account of events during a specific time-frame written from one-side. Pickles is on record as contesting many of the claims made in that publication. It also references many, many other events in Bradford during those years that aren't of much biographical account now - they are there to tell that particular story).

Mauls 17:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We shall have to agree to disagree. An account of an individual should not necessarily be all peaches and cream, as you would possibly prefer. You appear to be saying that because it happened some time ago we should forget how appallingly he treated a loyal Conservative Partyy activist, in so far as he had him expelled not from one Tory Association but two, regardless of the years of hard work put in by that party activist to achieve Conservative Party victories. You feel that this should be kept out of his rosy little biography which, I would argue, glosses over Pickles unpleasant side and so makes it POV anyway. Sussexman 20:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent concerns

Having taken an initial interest in other activities of old stalwarts on the Right in the Conservative Party, I am disappointed to see that there are administrators here with an agenda. Sad but true. It appears some of the complaints I have been reading about on the several pages are confirmed. Sussexman 09:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not be surprised, but a few examples would help to illustrate the problem. Neutral point of view applies to old stalwarts on the right in the Conservative party too. Fred Bauder 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Court Circulars

Articles have to be readable. There is nothing more unreadable and boring than a list of names. I'm sorry but while who attended a particular dinner may be fascinating to a small group of people it's not of great interest to most readers and to post the exact same list of names to half a dozen articles is not justifiable. Homey 14:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I do thank you, at least, for resisting the temptation to include the menu for each course.Homey 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"I thought Wikipedia was open to all to edit"

Wikipedia is open to all to edit but it's not open to all edits. Homey 14:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

• Thanks for your reply. I take on board your first paragraph, above. My only response would be to say that these were political events, and the individual links were important because they tied all these people together. By removing them the function loses much of its importance/notoriety. If I were an overtly political animal and read the simple mention, one of the first question I would be asking is 'who else was at this'? You mention "most readers", but my answer would be than most people taking an interest in all these individuals and events would be fairly political or have some interest in politics. When things all tie together it makes it easier. Sussexman 09:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Hervey

For the record, I am concerned and offended that you referred to my Nicholas Hervey revision as "demanatory" (I presume a typo for defamatory?). Putting that he majored in the History of Art above the fact he "studied economics" (ie, took some courses, amongst loads of others), whilst fixing a typo (degree for degreee, which you reverted), is nowhere near defamatory (and interesting you chose to revert that), and adding factual detail to substitute for the vague statement someone listed that his brother was "dissolute", is not defamatory to either of them. Removing the tag to Marquess of Bristol seemed ill-conceived as well, as Nicholas was "a traditionalist," very connected in his life to his family history and title. I had the distinct pleasure of knowing Nicholas in college, and considering him a friend, as you apparently did through the Conservative Monday Club. I didn't post/start the definition of him, but it should be inclusive of all of him to an extent (for example, Nicholas was close to his "dissolute brother"). It is, in all circumstances, most unfortunate what happened to him, but I want to make it clear my attitude toward him is not what you appear to be assuming. I would, in fact, be interested in discussing your memories of Nicholas, and sharing mine if you'd like. Feel free to contact me, or at least know I have his best interests at heart as well, if only more broadly defined than your take on it. Suze1 Suze1 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I knew Nicholas very well indeed and attended his funeral in Suffolk. We all know that his brother was a disgrace to the family through his drug addiction. But I think it unfortunate, to say the least, that his dissolute shadow be cast over every member of the family, especially Nicholas, who loathed drug-taking. I am sorry for the typos (I'm not a brilliant typist!). (Not sure I made all the reversions you mentioned - its possible that one revert carried all with it). But I think that all the rot about the half-brother John should be reserved for his page (does he deserve a page?). I also think that the father's misdemeanor as a youth and whilst totally drunk is not relevant to any other page other than his, unless people are attempting to put the boot in to the family by saying they are somehow all dreadful, which would be a travesty. Sussexman 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be leaving messages for Suze1 on my talkpage; I don't see how this helps produce an encyclopedia. Regards. Septentrionalis 16:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Sincere apologies for that error.Sussexman 10:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You raise very interesting issues relating to ancestry. Sometimes, people like to boast of and publicly connect themselves with laudable aspects of their relatives. This of course is a two-edged sword, as all people, and especially all ancestors, are mixed. No one reasonable would let the actions of the family "taint" an individual. And indeed Nicholas' brother's drug use was an illness (his noted "lack of soul"(compassion) a different issue). But you are right to suspect some readers do do this. It's an interesting issue to highlight.

The brother has his own page b/c there are pages for Marquess' of Bristol, and b/c he was often in the press. He highlighted issues of ancestral homes and inherited wealth, amongst others.

I have only recently looked into the family, but it appears the father had engaged in two separate incidences of theft, both of which involved forethought. And neither of which involve Nicholas, Nicholas' character.

Nicholas is partly of interest to people publicly b/c of his family background. I'd like to discuss these and some other things further, but would prefer to do some of it privately (don't worry, I won't overwhelm you, but there is something I want to ask). I would greatly appreciate it if you would send me an email via the toolbox (it allows private email exchange)[-your username is apparently disabled in this regard]. Best, Suze1 23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Suze1

Your apology is of course accepted.

I have no problem reaching Suze1's talk page. My sig does appear on it, but that should not lead to my talk page. If this problem persists, you really should report it (I'm not sure exactly where, but Wikipedia:Help desk should be able to tell you.) Septentrionalis 16:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I realize the cause of the problem; aside from Sept's signature, Sept. put a "you can contact me HERE" line, that a casual reader would have thought was a contact link for me. I just deleted that line, so it shouldn't be a future problem (I hadn't received Sussexm's original post to me but had already been moved to address that topic). Suze1 23:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Tim Janman

No problem - I was fixing the links to Marlow (a disambiguation page), because I know the area. CarolGray 16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback

However, I have no interest in mocking anyone. My goal was only to complete the partially done categorization of suicide cases by occupation (as I did with murder victims and others). AT the end of that were several people who, if they were alive, would be in the socialites category. So I completed that categorization. If you have a method that's more to your taste, feel free to suggest it.--Mike Selinker 20:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Suicide is a very tragic event for anyone. Imagine how low those people must have felt. Its indescribable. I therefore felt that to deliberately bring such things to people's attention was unwarranted and in bad taste. Sussexman 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Shelford

Sussexman, well done for your work on the Great Shelford article - it's very impressive. As a resident of Great Shelford I felt that the sheer amount of information you'd added made the village seem like one with a large history and very little going for it in the 'present' (this isn't a criticism of your work but a testament to your contribution!) so I've added a little more information on the village's current local services and will endeavour to add to this.

One quick comment though - I'm new to wikipedia so may be wrong, but is it NPOV to refer to aspects of the church architecture as 'splendid' - and your phrase "Much of Great Shelford's beauty is half hidden from the eye. One of its byways, close to a low gabled house with a plaster front, leads to an old mill and cottages like a picture by Samuel Prout.", whilst elegant prose, might not be suitably neutral? I'm happy to be told I'm wrong on this! Thefamousgeoff 08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at a great many articles on Wikipedia, I would say that many might be NPOV by those standards. I don't think anyone would dispute that, say, Westminster Abbey was 'splendid', and I do think that NPOV should be, to some degree, elastic. In the case you speak of, the description is not of an individual, but of a sleepy village. The thing is, do you feel upset by those descriptions? If so, it may be that any description which gives us any idea of what these places might look like would be outlawed and we really would have no idea at all. Where draweth the line? Sussexman 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Western Goals Institute

I spent some time going over Western Goals Institute, its editing history and talk page. I googled it and read a bit. I don't know the British personalities but I do know a bit about Roberto D'Aubuisson whose activities received considerable coverage in the United States. I don't think "right wing" quite describes him, nor does it describe leaders of the Conservative Party of South Africa. "Fascist" is little more than name calling, but far-right would certainly seem appropriate. I doubt British supporters of this political orientation have looked closely enough at what they have gotten in bed with. Really, outside of Northern Ireland, this sort of political struggle seems very alien to British political life.

I guess, thinking of NPOV, there ought to be a paragraph discussing the question of what political label in appropriate, with Western Goals Institute's self description contrasted with published impressions such as that of the Guardian and other British political observers. This is much preferable to sprinkling "far-right" and "neo-fascist" throughout the article and edit warring over such labels. Fred Bauder 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

D'Aubuisson was employed by his legal world-recognised government to root out communists and deal with them. I am the first to agree that he may have been brutal (of course, we only have left-wing sources to go by in this respect). That said, is there anything more brutal than communism? The British came in for a very considerable deal of criticism from the world-wide Left over the way they crushed the communist insurgency in Malaya (we are possibly the first Western country to actually defeat communism). Could we therefore describe the UK government as "hard-right"? Western Goals wished to promote the defeat of communism. D'Aubuisson was doing that in central America, where Cuban weapons and "advisors" were very much in evidence. You see, Western Goals got much of its information from Members of Parliament, and the CIA through Major-General Singlaub. So I think its reasonable to say that WGI was better informed than most. That doesn;t make them "hard-right", it makes them crusaders against Marxism which had enslaved half of Europe. Sussexman 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Conservative Party of South Africa were utterly opposed to the Marxist and the communist controlled ANC. They did not want their country to come under the control of that lot, nor did they want their country to go the way that the rest of Africa had gone. I cannot see that makes them fascist or even "hard-right". No pre-Second World War Conservative Party in Great Britain would have even considered giving blacks the vote in Africa. It therefore is surely no surprise that a vast army of similarly-minded British Conservatives still feel like that, especially given the evidence of current "progress" there placed before them today. Most would argue that colonialism and rule by Europeans was far more beneficial. I appreciate that such Imperialist views may be considered shocking across the Atlantic.

What people are objecting to at the WGI article is that left-wingers are doing their best to portray it as they want it to be seen, and not as it was seen or, indeed, was. Naturally newspapers such as The Guardian group were opposed to the WGI (Beaverbrook called The Guardian a communist newspaper, and even today it has a number of openly Marxist journalists such as Francis Wheen and David Rose) and in this respect they cannot be seen to have been in any way objective in their treatment of the WGI. Sussexman 13:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is becoming increasing difficult to communicate or appreciate the political atmosphere generated by fear of Communist expansionism, see The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World, Basic Books (2005), hardcover, 677, ISBN 0465003117 [2]. Fred Bauder 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. Sussexman 14:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Avon River

Whoa, how did you get so much information on the Avon River, New South Wales? I lived on this river for ten years, and never thought it would get an article. It is a pretty sad river, it has been silted up since farming has moved in and is now a trickle in most places (although it is quite huge during floods). Good work. --liquidGhoul 11:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied on your talk page.Sussexman 10:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Help please

I am truly sorry to bother you further, but I feel that after reviewing the comments of CJ Currie and the reverts he has made to my edits on Western Goals (UK) that I would like to make a formal complaint. But I have not the faintest idea of how to go about that. Could you possibly point me in the right direction? I simply loathe disputes but I feel he goes too far. Sussexman 09:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Be unfailingly courteous. Fred Bauder 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a jot to thank you for your very many contributions, political and otherwise. I see you are annoyed with CJCurrie. I have crossed with him in the past. I don't know why he is sometimes so pompous. Maybe he is young, I note no-one of our ilk from Britain has ever attacked his articles. Maybe you should try approaching him again. 86.137.204.101 11:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Help

I am not sure that we have met but you seem to know something of Gregory Lauder-Frost and the old Tory Right generally. His article page has been seriously vandalised (now reverted) by a fairly new User:Edchilvers. The comments on both Talk Pages give the story. I have made complaints to the administrators because he is immune to intelligent discussion and just continues in his quest. Could you keep an eye on this fellow's vandalism please? 86.129.77.169 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am very busy at the moment but I will have a look and give my opinion. Sussexman 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now done that. I hope it is of some assistance. Sussexman 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

W. Denis Walker

I know W. Denis Walker was a Minister (not merely a Junior one) in Rhodesia and then in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia - if you look at my recent editing history you'll see that I've been doing quite a bit on Rhodesia and Zimbabwe topics. However it is not normal for such a style to carry over after their term in office - have a look at both Ian Smith and Winston Field neither of whom have honorifics even though they were Prime Minister; in any case, the Manual of Style now deprecates the use of such honorifics in articles.

I only have one page as a Wikipedian which is User:Dbiv. In addition, someone, without my knowledge, created a biographical article about me at David Boothroyd which I tried to get deleted. It was kept. Please don't put communications about my Wikipedia editing on the Talk:David Boothroyd because it's not relevant there. David | Talk 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, I am here to tell you the same, that Dennis Walker is not connected to David Boothroyd, and the latter definitely should not be called "The Honourable", SqueakBox 23:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

Thank you both. I shall check. Sussexman 08:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Keith Smith

No problem! I'm just trying to do my part to fight vandles. :) SirGrant 08:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Sussexman for the clarity in this and Sir Grant for the policing. Lightoftheworld 10:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected Fred Bauder 12:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr.Bauder. Unfortunately Mr Chilvers has now a very pro-active supporter in User:HOTR. There is a great gap between natural and English justice, and Wikipedia justice, it would seem. Sussexman 15:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Real mafia

David, I have only just been told by John Stean that you are Sussexman. I had not heard anything of you since about 1990 and thought you lived in Wimbledon. What news of the other David? I am appalled by these concerted attacks on Gregory Lauder-Frost's page (not to mention the others). I have scoured Wikipedia articles and I cannot find any which have so many sources cited. Yet they want more. Its just a ploy. I suppose we could organise a dozen or so to come onto Wiki daily and do exactly the same things to the adulatory articles on Marx, Trotsky, and countless communists and terrorists, but that would not be British or decent. GLF always said that the Left were far more aggressive and dangerous than the Right. As always, he was Right: Wiki is the evidence. I rarely get to London now but I am at the same address. Please do get in touch. If you've lost the address Walker might give it to you. Lightoftheworld 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Simon. Funny you using that designation. I remember its origins. The other David is now in Lincoln's Inn. This business with the GLF and other articles really is just typical of the Left, isn't it. There is no 'playing the game' with them, no fairness, no balance. And because of that, they cannot understand that others can still be impartial. As for the conspiracy theories, I give up. Presumably the only way they'll be happy is if we all distance ourselves in every conceivable way from GLF, and, indeed, anything he is remotely concerned with. Its rot, of course. And almost certainly they wouldn't be happy then. I'll see if I can find your address. Not sure Walker would co-operate, but I'll advise. Sussexman 17:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

Although I'm incredibly busy I shall give what support I can against this demonisation campaign. In London today and will make a point of going into the HCJ to check on dates etc. Lightoftheworld 09:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

Thank you but it should not be mentioned at all. Its all very tiresome and malicious. I've just been told by Sarah-Jane that he arrives back in London tonight. Sussexman 17:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I hope we can all continue to try and make the article (and the rest of Wikipedia) accurate and reasonable - neither hatchet job nor hagiography. I look forward to working with you to do that as time permits! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

Sadly, it appears that particularly nasty people have the upper hand on Wikipedia. Sussexman 13:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sussexman: your valiant efforts in attempting to instill a note of common decency in the demonization of GLF are duly recorded. I am sorry that I have been on the continent so could not help. 86.129.79.148 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

• For values of demonisation which may include accurate reporting of matters of public record. Just zis Guy you know? 12:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. My efforts were fruitless, so determined are this band. Sussexman 15:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Gregory Lauder-Frost. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. . Just zis Guy you know? 12:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

what I meant

is that while wikipedia is good at enforcing minor rules (such as 3RR) it is not doing what it's own policy is saying about preventing wikipedia from becomeing a place for distributing propeganda (usually political one) Zeq 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends: somebody has to care. In the case of GLF, several people now seem to care about the neutrality and quality of the article, and it is improving as a result. Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your questions at User talk:Bookofjude#David Rowell

I have answered your questions at the above user talkpage regarding the Admin's actions. Please take the time to review the answers and associated policy pages, and if you still have questions, feel free to ask on either that Admin's talkpage or my own, as I will not be monitoring your talkpage. Thank you. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A Wikipedia problem

If you will look at the last paragraph of Joe_Scarborough#Congressional_career you will see the remnants of another battle. The man was in Washington, his aide dies in his office in Florida and Michael Moore and others try to make something of it. There is a definite eagerness to score political points in this way. That paragraph has been the subject of considerable editing and is now probably about as NPOV as we can get it. But the question was always, what on earth does that event have to do with the subject of the article? Fred Bauder 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

As you say, its just political smearing and point-scoring. The exersize on GLF's page is demonstrable of that. All references to anything he ever wrote - wiped, even though all have been published in well-circulated and recorded journals etc. Over the years he commented on a wide range of subjects on the Conservative Right. All comments now wiped except for immigration. I could go on; but the deliberate dredging up of the 1992 affair (must have taken these folk some time, eh?) shows how determined they are, not just to break the laws here, but to forever attack those they hate. One administrator (!) has clearly stated that he is pleased with the way this "extremist" is being treated. But they also seek to bring into disrepute all those who have had anything to do with him, and obviously to get him dismissed from anything he is involved in. I had quite forgotten how The Left operated being rather out of things for a while. Its shocking. Sussexman 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

David Rowell deletion

I note at the top of this page you say deletions are nothing to do with you and that you are not an administrator, so I am baffled as to why you replied to my query about this page's deletion. Maybe you can point me to the AfD/discussion page where this article was deleted. I thought that when I left my message it was on the Talk Page of the person who deleted. Has deletion become arbitrary? Sussexman 20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (This section moved to your talk page, Sussexman. Please reply on this page if you need to. I will monitor this page for 48 hours.) ~Kylu (u|t) 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied because Jude was busy with other administration tasks and, as a friend of some of the admins, I take care of some of the more mundane explanations, which anyone can assist with, as opposed to the more arcane administrative arts, of which I'm afraid I'm ignorant. Deletion, however, is straightforeward. Technically, by the way, my talkpage says to contact the admin who performed the deletion first. While I do not perform the actual deletions myself, I'm fairly active in tagging articles to be deleted and voicing my opinion on proposed deletions of all sorts, plus willing to talk to those admins I know if there is an issue I need assistance with, such as deletions. :)

In my original explanation, I pointed to the Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (aka WP:PROD), which states that discussion of the deletion is to take place on the talkpage of the article in question. In the case of the David Rowell article, the talkpage would have been Talk:David Rowell. As talkpages are attached to the articles in question, the orphaned talkpage has also been removed, though there was no conversation regarding the deletion anyway.

If you are unfamiliar with deletion policy on Wikipedia, there are basic methods of deleting a page (mind you, this is greatly simplified):

1. The page can be speedy-deleted if it falls under one of the Categories for Speedy Deletion. For instance, if I created a page on my non-notable next door neighbor, stating he's an insurance salesman, the page would be tagged {{nn-bio}} and the next admin that visited the page would determine if this was correct, and if so, delete the page. Typically, there is little or no talk regarding CSD deletions, but contested CSD's may be moved to AfD (such as, if the page does not actually qualify for CSD)
2. The page can be labeled with the {{prod}} tag, which is a PROposal for Deletion, and if there are no objections (including removal of the PROD tag) within five days, the article is deleted. This is what happened to the articles you asked about. Typically, the discussion of a PROD tag is on the talk page for that article. If the PROD tag is removed or there is conversation about the article, it's considered to be contested and may be moved to AfD, if not, the next passerby admin deletes the page and it vanishes (similar to CSD)
3. The most vocal discussion on the deletion of an article is AfD (there are others such as TfD for templates, CfD for categories, IfD for images, and MfD for miscellaneous). Opinions on the page in question are taken, then an administrator closes the discussion after a certain length of time and acts on the consensus regarding the deletion.

You may also find Wikipedia:Deletion process useful, since the deletion process can at times be rather complex to understand.

Hope that helps clarify things a bit. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I supported the deletion as I think that the pages are appropriate to be deleted, as they're about people who haven't done enough of note to, in my opinion, warrant an article here. I also supported the deletion in as much as it followed process correctly, which Kylu seems to have explained fairly well. Hope that helps... let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers! Snoutwood (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I came here from Snoutwood's page. Personally I think it is OK to delete people in private politics clubs. Generally unless they become an MP, or create a large stir, they will not get an article. As for the article length, I have seen "X was a cyclist from Y country who won the 19GG Tour de France", so the quality of the article is not the determining factor, as it has established strong notbailty in the first line. REgards. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Indeed, that is well-said. Snoutwood (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's what happened. The articles you're concerned about (David Rowell and Richard Stallabrass) are both about people that weren't considered very notable by at least two people: the person who put on the {{prod}} tag, and User:Bookofjude, the deleting admin. Additionally, since the template stayed on the article for five days and no-one removed it, that means that by default everyone who saw the page at least didn't disagree with the deletion enough to remove the tag. Thus, it was deleted. However, since the purpose of prod is to delete things that are uncontested, if you wish to contest the deletion I can undelete it and list it on AfD to see what community consensus says. Snoutwood (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

David Rowell

I did not actually nominate these articles for deletion, nor were they in fact nominated. They were proposed for deletion in line with WP:PROD, with the following concerns outlined by the person who proposed them:

For Richard Stallabrass: Non-notable vanity? bio of retired insurance executive and minor political activist who has never held elected office even at local level. Only position of influence appears to have been Chair of one club committee for 2 yrs. Stallabrass appears to have done nothing of any note for following 20 yrs. Just 7 unique Google hits

For David Rowell: non-notable bio - vanity? - of barrister who used to be a member of a British political club but left nearly 15 years ago. Just 28 unique Google hits for "David Rowell"+barrister - some of which refer to a stonemason's firm! (these both taken from the deleted revisions)

The articles were deleted in accord with procedure. If you have issues with articles that you have editer or that you are interested in being deleted, you can add them to your watchlist and thereby monitor them with great ease for the addition of any form of deletion template. In Special:Preferences, you can select "Add pages I create to my Watchlist" and "Add pages I edit to my Watchlist" to do this automatically, instead of having to select "add to my watchlist" when editing an article.

If you're still concerned about these articles being deleted, please feel free to list them on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Jude (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles were proposed for deletion by an editor who has since left the project, User:Humansdorpie. As I said above, please feel free to list these on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Jude (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Something you should consider

We are not in the business of 'outing' people, and we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies. ---Jimbo Wales 14:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The article does not discuss GLF's sexual orientation. Homey 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

• Nevertheless, the message is very clear: we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies. Sussexman 14:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I don't trust your interpretation of the Act. Please provide the actual text. Homey 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am not in the slightest bit interested that someone of your calibre does not trust me. In fact I would regard it as a plus. Sussexman 15:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Should I speculate as to the reason you refuse to post the actual text of the Act?Homey15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The legalities are not an issue for me personally. It's pointless trying to advise you on anything anyway because you always think you know best. Sussexman 14:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely for legal threat against another user

Blocked - legal or personal threat against another user

---

As a result of your comments made to User:Edchilvers—namely in a dispute with Mr Chilvers threatening that he would "soon discover" why he was wrong, followed by the receipt of a solicitor's letter threatening legal action—you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, for posting what could be seen as a threat against another user on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not tolerate such threats. Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or professional, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user, are immediately blocked.

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No legal threats for more information.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

It would appear that there is quite a gap between my suggesting that anyone breaking the law would soon discover the consequences, and the letter the Mr Chilvers says he has just received. To me its rather outside of a "soon" basis. It is unfortunate that proper and correct advice cannot be given without it being construed as a "legal threat" and good excuse to ban an editor who a few had had enough of. I have done quite a bit of work on Wikipedia (obviously unappreciated) and felt obliged to withdraw from it to defend an old friend who was being defamed all over the WWW. Sussexman 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong

You were wrong to ban Sussexman (who is not Lauder-Frost - Preposterous). Sussexman has valiantly defended the vitriolic attacks made by a very small group upon someone he knew years ago, liked, and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Wikipedia which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman can be unblocked, provided he gives a satisfactory explanation and undertakes not to repeat the behaviour (including violating WP:NPOV and defending provably factually incorrect content). As to Lauder-Frost's attempts to have his article censored, his criminal record is in the public domain and as long as it is stated in neutral terms (which it is) it is clearly not covered either by convicium or by the Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act. Do you think that in a few years time people will stop discussing Archer's criminal record in biographies? Or Aitken's? It's absurd to even suggest it. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog or Myspace. Just zis Guy you know? 08:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have said and done nothing wrong. This is not a Court of Law and I am not on trial or beholden to such arrogance. I have correctly attempted to demonstrate to the little clique of deliberate demonisers that they are wrong. They have constistantly acted provocatively and have convinced themselves, without, as far as can be seen, any legal training, that they are right. Their cracking lack of knowledge is evident in the paragraph above which mentions Archer and Aitken, who are not 'protected' because their sentences were too long. They must endure publication to the grave. That is not the case with GLF who deserves the protection in law to which he is now properly entitled. Sussexman 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This kind of statement is likely to be construed as arrogant and unapologietic; to characterise as "demonising" the documenting in neutral terms of a criminal conviction which is clearly a significant event in the life of a public figure, and which from the available evidence is actually responsible for most of the independent coverage of him in the press, is absurd and baseless. To characterise the likes of William Pietri, who researched it, as "demonising" is gross incivility. Also, it seems that you were happy enough to allude to the case when the article said (falsely, as you clearly knew) that he was cleared on appeal. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to describe adequately your tone of language towards me. I have nothing to be apologetic about. All the information I gave was given correctly and in good faith. Just because you are unable to locate the successful Leave hearing or the May appeal hearing is not my problem because I am not attempting to smear someone 14 years after the event was concluded and all matters resolved. Spending endless amounts of time "researching" (I would say dredging up) this matter and posting it up shows a degree of malice towards the subject which is painfully obvious to anyone other than those who wish to rubbish the subject (who is today virtually inactive) on the WWW. That you cannot see the wrong you are doing and supporting is something that you must address. What about this part of J Wale's quote: we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies. ---Jimbo Wales 14:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Sussexman 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a coincidence: it's difficult for me to describe adequately your tone of language towards me, as well. Perhaps you are unaware that the burden of proof lies with the person insserting a claim? So whereas William was able to provide multiple reliable sources for the conviction and imprisonment, it seems that you are unable to provide any for the claims you wish to insert - I see no evidence of lack of willingness to include verifiable and sourced material. You appear also to be unable support with references your assertion that a neutral biography may not contain details of criminal records. As to some nebulous wrong being done, that's only the case if Lauder-Frost seeks to conceal his criminal record. If he is open about it, as I'm sure he is, then there can be no harm done in presenting it neutrally - and possible genuine good, since it is open to some pretty unflattering interpretations by his opponents, should they choose. I know perfectly well Jimbo's take on biographies (I have been involved in more than one controversial biography, and have been subjected to gross personal attacks for removing a provably false diatribe by detractors of a living individual, but having respect for a person does not mean lying about, or conspiring to cover up, their criminal record. You should also be aware that I have done my best to ensure that Jimbo is aware of this case (and I'm sure that Brad will have told him anyway), I have also posted details of your block on the mailing list, which is read by many of the most experienced members of the community. If you can find evidence of malice in what I have done so far I suggest you document it in the form of diffs. Just zis Guy you know? 14:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself ad infinitum I have told you and the others that you were breaking the law and that re-publicaion of the matter in 2006 was illegal. You said that was rubbish. Someone else posted a great wad of info on convicium which again you, and the others, ridiculed and again said was rubbish. You now suggest, in a bizarre twist, that GLF should not be trying to conceal the events of 1992. Frankly its beyond belief to suggest that anyone with a minor conviction (whether appealed or not) would not wish, once it was dealt with, to be able to rebuild his life, especially after the 10 year 'spent' period. Your suggestion is that because a skewed item appeared for one day in a newspaper article 14 years ago it is somehow a justification for putting it on the WWW 24 hours a day 365 days a year, effectively meaning that it could never be lived down. I'm sorry but my sense of British justice in central London is clearly different to yours. He did not get, or deserve, a life sentence, courtesey of smearers. Sussexman 14:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you said that. We asked you for proof. You provided none. Proof by assertion is considered inadequate, especially when the source is known to be non-neutral. Your assertions, like the info on convicium, comprehensively failed to address the context of a neutral biography. And I'm not suggesting that he should not, only that as an honest man he would not. As for appearing for one day, that is patently false - there are several cited references spanning a number of years. Again you ascribe motives to those who are documenting this subject: this is incompatible with policy, and I also see it as indefensible in at least one case. I challenge you to find any instance of William Pietri making tendentious edits. And I'm sorry but the currency of appeals to, as it were, the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of fair play, is somewhat debased these days. Just zis Guy you know? 15:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've come to log my absolute support for Sussexman to be unblocked. The Guy above, if you read his many posts, is extremely biased against Lauder-Frost, and so his claims to neutrality are just hilarious. No article is neutral which seeks to denigrate and defame someone. 195.134.6.202 16:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, then the fact that this article does neither should be a great start. No article is neutral which seeks to obscure the fact of its subject being a convicted criminal either, so it's now much better than when it lied and said he wasn't. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• For someone who lives in Caversham, Reading, you really ought to read up on the law. 81.131.107.156 07:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick question from a confused editor/theatre professor to a page seemingly peopled with editors/barristers & lawyers: under which nation's jurisdiction does wikipedia operate? If, for example, an article does not violate libel laws in the US--which I had understood to be the site's country of origin--how do threats of legal action from the UK affect it? I realize a great deal of this might have to do with the location of supporting servers, availability of access, etc., but simply know nothing about this. (None of this touches upon the issue of whether or Sussexman violated wikipedia's "threat" policiy, of course.) --Patchyreynolds 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Florida, USA, I believe. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is Florida USA, which means the content is subject to U.S. law. "Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act" wouldn't apply. In the U.S. printing verifiable information about a politician's criminal convictions is nearly a national past-time during election cycles...BTW, as a neutral outside observer I think this ban was completely appropriate as Sussexman has engaged in disruptive behavior, wikilawyering, and legal threats.--Isotope23 15:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor point, I'd like to note that the IP's who have posted above are from:

81.131.37.101 btopenworld (UK)

195.134.6.202 as5587.net (UK)

86.129.79.148 btbroadband (UK)

All from the same approximate location of Sussexman.

(This information is easily confirmed by simple command-line tools, no checkuser or privacy-policy violation involved.)

~Kylu (u|t) 04:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it is a ridiculous minor point. You really ought to stick to the issue rather than indulge in these conspiracy theories. This is a very small island. British Telecom certainly control mine, 81, and 86 (as you say) but I'm not so sure about the 195. But its irrelevant unless you're simply looking for yet another silly reason to banish people you disagree with and who won;t back down. 81.131.107.156 07:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Users with the 81 and 86 prefixes can be anywhere in the UK as one is British Telecom Internet and the other BT Openworld. 195 as far as I can see is not BT. Chelsea Tory 09:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I was recently banned from another site accused of making a litany of remarks which did not come from my computer. But they insist the first six digits of my IP address and that of the fellow with bad language are the same. Just shows you. 195.194.75.209 17:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is terrible thing to relate 195, but there is a story that your particular public library is infested with a small closely knit group - a CABAL, whose only purpose is to cruise the web getting you banned from places from which you might not have been in other circumstances. Endomorph

Correcting Sussexman

Their cracking lack of knowledge is evident in the paragraph above which mentions Archer and Aitken, who are not 'protected' because their sentences were too long.

Aitken recevied a term of 18 months imprisonment whilst GLF received two years. Apologies if I am displaying a "cracking lack of knowledge" but isn't 18 months less time than 2 years? If Aitken isn't "protected" then neither is GLF. Homey 14:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

• Aitken only got 18 months. Sussexman is clearly thinking of Archer. Technically Aitken is protected by the same laws. However his was such a very high profile case, and very recent (he must wait ten years for protection under the ROA), and he seems not to be bothered:-he wrote a book about it!. 81.129.155.181 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the point here?

In wiping the entire user page? Is that vindictive, or what? Sussexman has done sterling work on Wikipedia. Just because he broke it off to go to the support of his old political collegue Lauder-Frost (on whose article he had carried out virtually no edits until this nonsence began) should not make him a non-person. That is unless you're a Stalinist. 81.131.24.254 17:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, are you saying that he is formally connected with Lauder-Frost, not just a casual acquaintance? Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They were members of some of the same political pressure-groups, as I understand it. I don't know how one could be "formally connected" with Lauder-Frost - other than as an employee or by marriage! (I'm not the prior anon. poster). I do get the Stalinist reference though - the user page was informative and historical and fine. The problem seemed to be more in failing to adopt a good faith npov and some exchanges that were considered threatening, resulting in a loss of editing and discussion privileges. No point in trying to bait arguments here GUY, under the circumstances, I would think. Suze1 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I cannot see that anyone other than User:Jtdirl has blocked this fellow, regardless of what it says on the template. So its this a commune - as opposed to a community - at work? 195.194.75.209 17:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• We are the cabal (TINC). Just zis Guy you know? 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd take some convincing that there is no close-knit group at work here. "Guy" is certainly up front with his fair share of vitriol. 81.129.155.181 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there is a close-knit group at work, the small group of editors and anons who have been puffing the various articles on minor Tory right-wingers. The cabal will of course always be the cabal. Just zis Guy you know? 09:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the Monday Clubbers certainly have been coordinating things, as evidenced by the rush of anons into obscure AfDs. Does anyone know what forum they're using? -- ChrisO 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested to learn that a significant number of these IPs in support of GLF appear to originate at Marylebone Library in London:

inetnum: 195.194.75.208 - 195.194.75.211 netname: WESTMINSTER-CC-LIBRARY-SERVICES descr: Westminster City Council Library Services country: GB admin-c: CL601-RIPE tech-c: CC828-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA mnt-by: JANET-HOSTMASTER source: RIPE # Filtered

Seems to suggest the author is trying hard to remain anonymous.--Edchilvers 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no "close-knit" groups working here. They have been banned by order of The Cabal - All Hail The Cabal! Endomorph

I had always thought conspiracy theories were the preserve of The Right. Obviously not. Westminster City is extremely large and covers umpteen libraries. What does such a revelation prove? Look at just about any article on Wikipedia and you will see many, sometimes most, of the articles are often edited by numeric users. Chelsea Tory 10:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If I were a REAL conspiracy theorist I would point out that Marylebone Library is just a stones throw from Lincolns Inn where members of the British bar traditionally gather. Now who do we know who cliams to be a barrister? --Edchilvers 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that's way off beam. Lincoln's Inn is in Holborn, which is nowhere near Marylebone. The nearest public library to the Inn is Holborn Library, which is in Camden, not Westminster. -- ChrisO 19:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, close enough. I'm from Suffolk so it all looks the same to a country bumpkin like me --Edchilvers 12:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon edits tend to follow one of a small number of patterns: minor (usually typographical) fixes of the "not worth logging in for" variety; blatant vandalism; and POV pushing. There are relatively few people who make genuine and substantial contributions to the project without registering; registering actually confers more anonymity since the IP address is then obscured preventing exactly this kind of analysis. Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What rot. Countless Users/editors (including me) have spent hours on end researching and sourcing and writing or contributing to articles. How dare you suggest that these are not "genuine" or "substantial". What a cheek. As has been said before, the average user can identify little or nothing about a 'registered' user in real terms. You give your proper name, but few others, particularly those with a relentless agenda, do not. 213.122.27.106 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that Sussexman remains banned demonstrates how bitter and twisted The Left still are. They hate opposition, especially if legally founded. It winds them right up. 81.151.89.176 16:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am now all in favour of lifting the ban on Sussexman. The GLF debate has gone stale and the article doesn't look as though it will be restored. It must also be noted that no new legal threats have been recieved. If Sussexman makes a full apology for the behaviour which got him banned then I see no reason why he should not be allowed back on to edit to his hearts content. Having said this I must take issue with the (surprise surprise) anonymous troll who branded the ban the work of 'twisted left wingers' (now where have we heard that phrase before?). Fact is it is standard Wikipedia policy to ban any user who makes legal threats and it always has been. Sussexman is not in any way being singled out, Administrators are simply adhering to the code of conduct. --Edchilvers 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC).

Fascinating - another banning order

That yet another individual (User:Paul Marchment) has been banned on trumped up unproveable charges of supporting Gregory Lauder-Frost, when an examination of everything he has said on GLF's Talk page demonstrates absolute incisive balance. There is not a scrap of evidence to show that this fellow supported GLF only that like Sussexman) he felt that clear attempts were being made to abuse UK laws. Does everyone who supports UK legislation end up being banned here?

Chilvers, who if you examine the GLF Talk pages has a clear obsession with 'outing' GLF's 1992 problems to the world and so denying him the protection of UK Law, has resurrected Lauder-Frost's article without the consent of Wikipedia's legal team who blocked it. Anarchy rules at Wikipedia, it seems.

So where does that leave Sussexman and all the others who have been arbitrarily banned because they upset the mudslinging applecart? 213.122.89.216 19:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If the article had been blocked by the Wiki legal team then I would not have been able to have restored it. The block was lifted a few days ago on the advice of Brad Patrick (Wiki head of legal) and Jimbo Wells (Wiki founder)--Edchilvers 20:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Help

I refer the the article you commenced in May on John Scholey, the colliery proprietor. I taught out there for a decade and would be grateful if you could advise me as to whether you had any further information on this gentleman which is not yet up on the article. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Christchurch 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I did have some more info on him because I was (academically) interested in coal-mining. I'll look. Sussexman 11:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be editing similar articles, are you currently banned or do you operate under another account? (Couter-revolutionary 15:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)).

I am currently banned, Mr.Counter-revolutionary. Sussexman 11:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC).

Banning

What is the position now? I see the GLF article has been taken down. I see also that people are calling for me to "apologise". My position has always been that I was warning other users they were breaking UK Law. This was perceived by some as a "legal threat" whereas I was not personally in a position to threaten anyone. What I find astonishing on Wikipedia is that some users seem to think they can place upon the Law their own interpretations of it, discuss those interpretations, and then dismiss it if they so desire by some kind of majority vote? Quite astonishing. I'm afraid that if they went before a court and attempted to discuss the law or argue about its meaning with the judge he would give them very short thrift. I do apologise to anyone who may have been upset by my warnings. I felt that overall I had made intelligent contributions to Wikipedia and that I have been most unfairly treated. Sussexman 12:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The GLF thing finally seems to be over and as the person who Sussexman made the percieved legal threat against I wish to place it on record that I fully support his attempt to have his Wiki ban lifted.--Edchilvers 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't been involved in this debate, looking at it objectively, I quite agree that there is no longer any reason for a ban to be in place, assuming that a legal threat merited one in the first place.--Couter-revolutionary 14:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sussexman

User:213.122.18.37 wrote:

You have arbitrarily deleted my User Page. I have appealed against the block and await a result. I have made many good contributons to Wikipedia and I believe that you are out of order with this deletion. Please reinstate my User page or leave a message on my talk page as to whose instructions you are following in this matter so that I can take the matter further. User:Sussexman Sunday 5 Dec 2006

Sorry about that. I checked your talk page first but couldn't find any indication of an ongoing block appeal (your last unblock request appears to have been denied five months ago). I've restored the page – Gurch 17:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Followed your posts in here Sussexman. I have looked at some of your excellent work and I think you have been badly treated. Wikipedia needs people like you. I will plug for your reinstatement. Chelsea Tory 11:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, it is standard Wikipedia policy to block anyone pending legal action against another contributor. Ian¹³/t 14:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But I cannot see where he personally issued a legal action or why he personally would have done so? Chelsea Tory 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done my bit for you. The answer by someone called Zoe is that I am you, even though I have a user name and can write and edit as many articles as I wish to under it. Its pathetic, but I've had a go for you. Chelsea Tory 10:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wingfield

You added the text below to the Wingfield site and I would be most interested to know where you got this information.

The body of Sir William de la Pole, K.G., 1st Duke of Suffolk, was returned to the Collegiate Church at Wingfield, Suffolk, where it was buried beneath a purfled arch. Deben Dave 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Block

• For over a year this user has now been blocked. Whether the reason surrounding the block was valid or not the heated issue of the debate has now long passed. I imagine this user could successfully contribute, and be a benefit, to Wikipedia and request an Administrator to champion a request for unblocking. Thank you. --Counter-revolutionary 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)