User talk:David Lauder

I am NOT a sock of Sussexman or anyone else. User:David Lauder|David Lauder]] (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sussexman died from prostate cancer in October 2016. I am still here (as is obvious). This whole business was a frame-up and according to Wikipedia's own rules no-one is banned "indefinitely". David Lauder (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Whatever it is claimed that I did, it was not extreme enough by any margins to warrant a block which has now been over six months in extent. Others whose behaviour towards others has been aggressive, insulting and threatening, and who have been blocked in excess of forty times are unblocked. I believe that my contributions to the project speak for themselves.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, see WP:GAB. Also, sockpuppetry blocks by checkusers are generally not undone by other admins. Your appeal, if any, should be addressed to the blocking checkuser or to the Arbitration Committee. — Sandstein 14:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Yes, it does indeed address my block, which I have always contested in principal as a more than obvious witch-hunt based upon suppositions and so-called coincidences. It is surely laughable to tell me to address my unblocking request to the person who blocked me?! Its a bit like gang warfare where a gang of lads bundle you into a room and lock the door, me screaming out to the person turning the key to let me out. As I said, my contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. Had I wanted to be a wrecker would I have made those efforts? David Lauder (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Austro-Hungarian fleet.jpg

File:Austro-Hungarian fleet.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Austro-Hungarian fleet.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Austro-Hungarian fleet.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Collingham Gardens SW5.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Collingham Gardens SW5.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foulden Village 2.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Foulden Village 2.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foulden House.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Foulden House.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SOG Harrington Gardens.jpg is now available as Commons:File:SOG Harrington Gardens.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Lauder.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Richard Lauder.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halidon Hill.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Halidon Hill.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breadalbane.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Breadalbane.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duchess of Rutland.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Duchess of Rutland.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mrs Payne-Gallwey.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Mrs Payne-Gallwey.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord Cockburn.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Lord Cockburn.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kittybrewster.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Kittybrewster.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colin Lauder.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Colin Lauder.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyninghame.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Tyninghame.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyninghame Kirk.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Tyninghame Kirk.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whitekirk.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Whitekirk.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cotton mill.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Cotton mill.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viscount Kingston.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Viscount Kingston.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gilbert Burnet.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Gilbert Burnet.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coldingham Priory.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Coldingham Priory.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Netherbyres House.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Netherbyres House.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cawderstanes, (1990).jpg is now available as Commons:File:Cawderstanes, (1990).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grange House.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Grange House.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philbeach Gardens SW5.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Philbeach Gardens SW5.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but really I don;t recall ever being "involved" as such. But thank you. David Lauder (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

A very long period of time has now passed since I was blocked. I have always felt that my very substantial contributions to Wikipedia were not properly considered. is it not time for this block to be lifted?

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but after reviewing this case, I have concluded that your best course of action to be unblocked is to email the arbitration committee. There is too much evidence/history of sockpuppetry and other problems. TN X Man 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is a lie. David Lauder (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2nd Duke of Perth.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2nd Duke of Perth.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haltoun House.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Haltoun House.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 04:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Haltoun House.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Haltoun House.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Haltoun House.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Haltoun House.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Beilmouth Arms.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Chilham Castle II.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Chilham Castle.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany VS Third Reich discussion needs your voice

You are invited to participate in the Nazi Germany VS Third Reich discussion Axelode (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of William Tollemache, 9th Earl of Dysart for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Tollemache, 9th Earl of Dysart is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Tollemache, 9th Earl of Dysart until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification motion

A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Firstly, I was never ever a sock-puppet of Sussexman, regardless of your accusations. I edited twice for him when he was at the office and could not do so. I told you this before. Anyway, William died from prostate cancer in November so you might as well de-activate his account. My reason for writing is to ask for reinstatement. I made thousands of contributions to Wikipedia almost all of an academic nature. Wikipedia's own ruls state that I should not have been banned for this long. David Lauder (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Firstly, I don't for a second actually believe you after reviewing the massive amounts of evidence myself (outside of checkuser evidence that I cannot see, but was backed up by two very trusted checkusers in 2008) Second, there are no such rules that you speak of regarding indefinite blocks (which completely by coincidence was a point that the Sussexman account was used to make). Lastly, you were told the last time you asked for an unblock (in 2009) that you needed to go through the Arbitration Committee to appeal this block considering the nature of what led to it (and due to it being a checkuser block)... so, I'll repeat that here: You must contact the Arbitration Committee if you want to make an unblock request; to do so, email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org with your account information and evidence. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Massive amounts of evidence". Just a massive lie. Why would someone spending thousands of hours of his time adding to the project deliberately try to sabotage the project? Every ask yourself that? I won;t say anything about the IRA terrorist supporter who "compiled" your "massive evidence". And Wikipedia had a rule about how long people can be expelled for. Maybe you should look it up? David Lauder (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, David Lauder. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colliery.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Colliery.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sir Patrick Houston, 1st Baronet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sir Patrick Houston, 1st Baronet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Patrick Houston, 1st Baronet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Rusf10 (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]