User talk:Sussexman

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.[reply]

Regarding banning

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 Homeontherange (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) a note regarding this matter. Fred Bauder 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egging on

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GLF

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

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

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

Eric Pickles

Firstly, please try to be polite in your comments to others. Reverts should be discussed in the talk pages of an article.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- Sincere apologies for that error.Sussexman 10:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]