User talk:Chelsea Tory/Archive 1

Marxist
Chelsea Tory hello! You're more than right. 81.129.155.181 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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legitimate articles which they call "right-wing propaganda" (even when they are about people or groups wno are no longer active) I am dissuaded.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

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

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


 * Information about Wikipedia's rules is not a threat; it is helpful information. Futher, "How dare you" is a contentious and hostile approach to discussion, which is unlikely to yield any results which are beneficial to you or to the project. Finally, you are WP:Wikilawyering, which is almost certain to get you nowhere except possibly blocked as a disruptive element. I strongly adivse you to learn to discuss things civilly. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Brad really needs to get more involved in this issue--Edchilvers 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He already is. SV and I have communicated with Brad and Jimbo respectively, I think we are clear on the foundation's position here. I am not aware that Chelsea Tory has communicated directly with the foundation.  Guy 08:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath...
I am clearing the Talk page of Gregory Lauder-Frost. You are welcome to help to improve the article, but please read my message on the talk page before wading in. Guy 19:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

One would hope that the archives would continue to be available. Chelsea Tory 14:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

I have been on the continent so unable to visit Wikipedia. Back today. Chelsea Tory 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Monday Club
Reading the above, I can see you've run into trouble before on Wikpedia for POV pushing. Your reversion on the Monday Club article was unjustified. You can't revert properly sourced material just because you don't personally agree with it. And putting right wing in speech marks was frankly silly. --SandyDancer 19:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC).


 * DO NOT post on my main user page again or I shall make a formal complaint about you. Chelsea Tory 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not done any "POV pushing" on Wikipedia, as far as I am concerned. You cannot insert into articles deliberate political smears just because they suit your agenda. My correction (it was not a revert) on the Monday Club page was most proper and correct in that it removed a deliberate demonising comment (which in any case is in the text further down) from the opening description of the group. We can all source such comments. They are all over the place. Margaret Thatcher was called a "fascist" several times in newspapers. How would you like it if I went to her page, to the opening para and said "MT was the fascist PM of the UK"? After all, it would be sourced! Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a second-rate newspaper full of hype and smears. Chelsea Tory 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends on the source, or sources, doesn't it? The BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, the leadership of the Conservative Party - all of them have described the Monday Club as "far-right". Stop trying to obscure the argument by making false analogies. The Monday Club is considered "far-right" by publications and individuals across the (mainstream) political spectrum, which it lies squarely to the right of - indeed it has been disowned by the UK's leading right-of-centre political party. By definition therefore it is "far-right". --SandyDancer 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

I have followed SandyDancer to this page. Might I respond. The BBC, The Guardian, and The Independent are recognised organs of The Left. They spend their existance demonising The Right. The Conservative Party as an organisation has never described The Monday Club as "far right". Your statements show that you clearly have a very Left agenda. 213.122.26.72 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Political agendas
Your 'mission statement'
 * No. Wikipedia doesn't need a "Real Conservative" policeman. It doesn't need a "policeman" of any political persuasion. It needs editors who will adopt a neutral point of view, and who refrain from deleting verified, sourced material. --SandyDancer 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

With people like you around, obsessed with citing established Left-wing smears as "sourced material", all I can say is thank God for other users like Chelsea Tory. 213.122.26.72 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. I think it is extraordinarily clear that this SandyDancer fellow has an agenda when he refers to the Monday Club as "blatantly racist". One of the very serious problems which Wikipedia seem unable to address are the "blatantly" left-wing editors, where everything is reduced to their Guardian standpoint. This is not how an encyclopaedia is written. Chelsea Tory 13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the point in having political labels if we can't apply them sensibly?
 * If your point of view is that political labels should be completely absent from Wikipedia, even where fairly apportioned and backed by mainstream, reliable sources, I think you will find the same problem with virtually any politics-related article in this and every other encyclopedia in the world.
 * Further, I am sick and tired of you and other editors casting aspersions on my motives and making assumptions about my view. Stop it. You are being rude and uncivil, and need to read this. --SandyDancer 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Expecting not to be criticised for a most blatant piece of political editing and attempting to hide behind Wikipedia regulations for same is rather a poor show. In addition, attempting to justify your actions as based upon "mainstream reliable sources" really is a bit grim because we could all spend hours on our computers digging up pages of these to suit our own political convictions. This is not what an encyclopaedia shoud be about. Chelsea Tory 13:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume what you are talking about is the "far-right" label at the top of the article? You may be interested to know that I wasn't the one who originally inserted that - it was in the article long ago, along with the comment that the club has been called that by papers and news sources across the spectrum. It was removed by partisan editors who attempted to stop other editors contributing, including at one point threatening legal action. You may not be aware of this but it happened, long before I was even registered on WP.
 * One thing that amuses be greatly is the straw man attempt to say that the whole far-right tag is a creation of "marxists" (!) at the BBC and Guardian, when in fact the label has been applied to the club by the Daily Telegraph, no doubt your favourite broadsheet...
 * Get your facts straight before arrogantly and ignorantly spouting off rubbish. --SandyDancer 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And I must thank you too. It is so sad to see good people &c. defamed (in an extra-jurisprudential sense) in such ways.  All the best for future edits, I shall endeavour to keep watch upon it.  And, yes, I quite agree that the BBC is very much an organ of the left as well as Mr. Blair's tool to erode this Country; alas, I fear, there is not much we can do.--Couter-revolutionary 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't use the word "defame" so lightly. If you think anyone is being defamed, you should be raising it as a headline issue so Wikipedia doesn't get sued. If, on the other hand, your aim is to create an illusion of defamation because you can't get your partisan way in the articles you edit, you should stop doing it. --SandyDancer 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then what do you mean by defame? You mean the articles don't read like fawning puff pieces presumably... there is a biased, right-wing version of Wikipedia called "Wikinfo". You might like it. --SandyDancer 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have noted that several Users were not so long ago banned because they attempted to point out that other Users/Wikipedia were probably breaking the law in comment they were making/carrying. They were, from what I can see, vilified, sneered at, and finally banned. So I cannot see any of us "raising it as a headline issue so Wikipedia doesn't get sued". I felt some time back that your political agenda, SandyDancer, was crystal clear. I would be very grateful if you left my Talk Page alone. It is not a debating sheet for you to sneer at conservatives. Chelsea Tory 16:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You have my support. Please do e-mail me if you feel you should like to discuss anything out of the public domain. Best wishes, --Couter-revolutionary 17:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where I have "sneered at conservatives" on this page. I raised a legitimate objection to the content of your userpage - which by the way contravenes Wikipedia guidelines, as does, arguably, your user name itself. You don't own this talk page and if I feel the need to post here, I will. --SandyDancer 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions as are we all. But it is a different thing when you are so aggressive in attitude towards others and wish to impose a political slant through your edits. My user Talk page is designed for constructive comment between users attempting to creat an encyclopaedia, not for demonstrations of self-righteous arrogance. Chelsea Tory 16:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's what your user page is for, I see :o) Guy (Help!) 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions
I have to say that I find many of your edits to people's talkpages to be both abusive and provocative and it is my belief that you are here solely to promote a political agenda. Perhaps you would enjoy more successs in your various campaigns if you adopted a more civil tone.--Edchilvers 13:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that neutral comment. I am attempting to achieve balance and decency. Maybe it is impossible. If I have over-reacted to provocation I apologise. Chelsea Tory 10:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your note
Can you give me diffs showing examples of unjustified removals? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Has he done so? I've asked him to provide me with them too, but he won't - he just wants to throw out mindless accusations. --SandyDancer 12:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Demonisation and slurs"
Can you actually point to where I have introduced "demonisation and slurs" into articles on Wikipedia about your pet subjects? To my mind, most of what I have done is remove blatantly biased statements of opinion, long and irrelevant lists of dinner party guests and ex-members etc. from articles about minor political pressure groups. Hardly demonisation and slurs! Perhaps if you raised specific points rather than chucking toys out of the pram for no apparent reason and launching campaigns of harassment against other editors, you'd actually convince others they were wrong? Despite allt he incivility, despite all the harassment, I say this to you - if you can point out where there "demonisation and slurs" have been added by me to articles, I will happily discuss, with an open mind. Sound fair? Otherwise, the only person being demonised here is me. By you. --SandyDancer 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I think from the above comments you demonstrate very clearly your political position. The difference between me and you is that I am open about my Conservatism. Discussion with you was attempted before to no avail. It would take some convincing of any fair-minded person that you were not working with an agenda. Chelsea Tory 12:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, yet again. I edit article on many different subjects. I freely admit I have recently focussed much of my attention on a small set of articles. Those articles all happen to relate to a certain set of individuals and groups on the right of British politics - but that is not the reason I have focussed on them. I have done so because I have discovered a set of articles produced by the same, small group of editors (perhaps one person), which did not meet Wikipedia's standards. I have edited them - and I haven't added any demonisation and slurs - I have just deleted a lot of irrelevant content and statements of opinion.
 * I think you know that is true - but you won't address my point because you are pursuing a campaign of harassment against me, plain and simple. Perhaps you just want to cause me problems because the result of my work has been to interfere with articles you / your pals think you WP:OWN. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your views. It is not a place to list dinner parties you or your friends attended back in the 1980s. It is not a place to list out non-notable articles you or your friends may have written.
 * This has nothing to do with politics - so stop pretending it is. --SandyDancer 12:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Me thinketh you protesteth too much. We shall just have to disagree about your edits. Chelsea Tory 11:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That response further leads me to think this is simply harassment. You have no good reason and no evidence to accuse me - an editor with over 2,500 edits to my name, in many different areas - of being a sock of anyone, and yet you persist. --SandyDancer 15:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Ed. Chelsea Tory 17:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem Isabella, I'd love to get a few checkusers done around here, especially considering the number of anonymous IPs who've been editing certain articles. One other thing - If I was SandyDancer then I would have expanded on Lauder-Frost's 'legal problems' as mentioned in the Monday Club article, wouldn't I?--Edchilvers 17:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Err..I am, as far as I can tell, a male. Are you sure you're addressing your message to the right person here? Chelsea Tory 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not that person. Stop harassing me. --SandyDancer 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may have your own battles to fight here. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for them, if you have to have them at all (live and let live, perhaps?). Can you leave me out of it, please? I am sick and tired of it. --SandyDancer 17:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you genuinely believe I am a sockpuppet of EdChilvers - see here Suspected sock puppets. Initiate a discussion about it. If you don't genuinely believe I am a sock puppet, and you are only doing this harass me, stop doing it. In other words - put up or shut up. Likewise if you genuinely believe some of my edits have been unhelpful - either discuss on the talk page of the article in question or just go ahead and make edits. If you don't have any legitimate reason to disagree with any of my edits, and are only posting messages about me here and elsewhere on Wikipedia in order to be abusive, stop doing it. --SandyDancer 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why on earth would I even want a sock-puppet to edit articles on far right wing organisations, I edit them under my own name all the time--Edchilvers 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I just reaffirm our basic principle: discuss the article, not the editor? I'd like to make it abundantly clear that pursuing differences on what articles contain into the personal domain is quite outside our community norms. Charles Matthews 14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful News
That is excellent to hear. I am pleased, he did have a habit of arguing about things he knew nothing about and wasn't involved in. Yes I too haven't been doing as much editing of late. My best wishes to you for the New Year. Do let me know if you need any assistance. Yours, Couter-revolutionary 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ps, could you help me protect this article. Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet I should be most grateful.--Couter-revolutionary 00:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please help him!!--Vintagekits 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My apoloies for dragging you into this. The above chap is distressing me greatly.  (no need for any witty retort or badinage, vintagekits, thank you.)--Couter-revolutionary 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply from my Talk page
Hadn't actually...does that mean he was using a sockpuppet? He's been "stalking" my edits recently and, worst of all, describing horrific murders as "deaths" &c. All quite depressing. Hope all's well with you.--Couter-revolutionary 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, he was using a sockpuppet and found out. His comments about Irish terrorists are revealing. Chelsea Tory 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to answer your question: I am fine. Very busy though, and just a few minutes here and there to surf through Wikipedia. Because real conservatives are described by at least one administrator (Guy Chapman) as "extremists", there seems little pointin substantive editing because they'll just reverse it. I suppose thats the objective. Its like playing a football match with just one team. Chelsea Tory 15:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill
Please vote. - Kittybrewster 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC).


 * That articles like this actually exist is depressing. Chelsea Tory 14:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please would you improve Arbuthnot Road. - Kittybrewster 11:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Havn't been to HK and don't really know much about it other than historically. Chelsea Tory 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde
And this one. Kittybrewster and I undid a lot of the memorialising on the Bobby Sands article, but it needs constant vigilence to prevent the propoganda being reverted. Please keep an eye on it. --Major Bonkers 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you e-mail me today. I began to become paranoid that it was not from you but someone else. --Couter-revolutionary 13:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Hope you're well. Chelsea Tory 11:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, yes, all's well. Things seem to have become more quiet.--Couter-revolutionary 11:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This pretence that you two chaps aren't one and the same is a bit laboured, is it not! Come on, play fair, you reduce yourself to their level! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.192.252 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
 * We're not. I know that will be a disappointment to you, but thats how it is. Editors being friendly or holding similar views does not mean they're all the same person. Chelsea Tory 10:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Chelsea Tory - I have left a comment on the Monday Club talk page responding to a comment you left there about me. I look at my watchlist from time to time and spotted it. I think it is unfair. As you know I have retired from Wikipedia, and I did so partly because I was tired of constant bickering. Your accusations that I was User:EdChilvers were unfounded and untrue, but it seems you genuinely believed them. Perhaps that's why you always cast all my edits in the worst possible light. Never mind. Having taken a step back I now simply see Wikipedia is a vast battleground of ideas, and anyone who gets involved in it can't help but get embroiled. Anyway, best wishes to you. --SandyDancer 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. Thought you'd both left. Chelsea Tory 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. There really is no point in saying that. For the last time, I am not Ed Chilvers. He is a different user. That is obvious. You involved two admins in your allegations and neither saw any validity in your claims. It is very tiresome and rude for you to continue saying that. On the other hand, I recognise that while I was active on WP I was less than corteous to you from time to time, and for that I sincerely apologise. Cheers. --SandyDancer 18:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Privy councillors
Please contribute to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29 - Kittybrewster 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Chelsea Tory 08:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mission statement
A citicism was levelled against me (somewhere above) about my perceived mission statement. I would like to think I have not really been a troublesome editor (even though my family lofe really prevents me from serious contributions at the moment). But if you really want to see a "Mission Statement" and a seriously disruptive editor who has brought all his prejudices to play on Wiki then have a look at this bloke I've just discovered: user:Vintagekits. Chelsea Tory 09:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)