User talk:SandyDancer/Archive1

Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples mediation

From the looks of things, you need someone with the patience to be a real mediator, and I'm probably not that person. The place to start is probably Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, though I'm not sure about that. Clearly you have nothing to fear from mediation, as it seems your changes are reasonable, and the same cannot be said of the others. I'll take a closer look at what's going on at the article. - Nunh-huh 16:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"as disscussed several times most of your comments are non sense populist claims. wikipedia is not a peoples magazine where one can post his opinion ...--Netquantum 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Pure nonsense, and I think deliberately so. You are trying to say Vittorio Emanuele did not kill Dirk Hamer. Vittorio Emanuele says he did, and so did the European Court on Human Rights - this is backed up by sources. Perhaps if you somehow know something the rest of the world doesn't, you would like to raise it on the talk page for the article, where I have invited you to do? And by the way - you are misusing the word populist. --SandyDancer 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are several ways of proceding. You could ask that he be blocked for violating the 3RR, though I think he'd just claim that there were minor differences and so his reverts weren't reverts. That's not correct, but he might fool an administrator into thinking it was. It would be most fruitful if a mediator would come along and tell him to clear all changes on the talk page before making them. That's not likely to happen quickly, as there are few mediators mediating. So I think the best approach would be to request a temporary page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Of course, almost inevitably it would be protected at the "wrong" version, and it would prevent further work on the article, such as adding additional references. - Nunh-huh 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done as you suggest, I am worried however that the block will take effect on the wrong version... --SandyDancer 22:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that often happens, though it shouldn't if the blocker does some basic homework. At least it will keep the article stable till the mediation kicks in. - Nunh-huh 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (After looking at the request, it's more likely to be granted if you request temporary full protection pending mediation. Permanent protection doesn't really exist. - Nunh-huh 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks a lot for your help and time. --SandyDancer 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, thanks for being willing to take the time, and for exhibiting the patience, that will clearly be necessary to get the page straightened out. If I've been of any assistance, I'm more than happy. - Nunh-huh 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm awed by your patience and support your effort to include sourced info about VE's life. One point, however. The reason that Wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) doesn't justify "Crown Prince of Italy" for Vittorio Emanuele is because Italy happened to have a so-called substantive title for heirs. Otherwise, most of those editing "royalty" articles on WP would probably consider you wrong and Couter-revolutionary right. Although the guidelines only call for use of an ex-title for an ex-sovereign, in fact, prevalent practice here is to use the former monarchy's title for any still-living member of a deposed dynasty. Thus, the ex-queen consort of the Hellenes continues to be labelled "Queen Anne-Marie of Greece" on WP even though she was never that country's sovereign. Her eldest son is also still called "Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece". While this is, technically, not found in the guideline, what editors of these articles usually do is apply a combination of Monarchical Titles rule #7 ("Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title") with Other Royals rule #5 ("When dealing with a Crown Prince(ss) (however not consort) of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince(ss) of {state}..."). I agree with you that this guideline needs to be reviewed (although I, personally, support retention of these titles for dynasts, but fear an eventual backlash from republican editors due to overbroad use). You will find this practice very difficult to change. The problem is that those who participate in and make use of these guidelines on WP are mostly those interested in articles on royalty and genealogy. In those circles, it is the common practice (taken from the old Almanach de Gotha) to continue attributing royal and noble titles to individuals and families even after the monarchy and/or nobility have been abolished. In monarchist and genealogical circles that approach is not, of course, problematic. At WP it is -- or should be -- considered POV, if not applied sparingly. But until far more WP editors who are not into royalty and nobility pay attention to these articles, monarchist editors will tend to close ranks and defend what most see as a time-honored and innocuous practice: See examples of the Requested Moves on talk pages at Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover, Queen Anne of Romania, and Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia. Lethiere 05:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and good advice. What you have said makes sense, and for the reasons you state I am going to drop the cudgels entirely on this one. I suppose that if the article makes it clear that the monarchy in question is no more, it will be obvious to the reader the titles in question no longer exist in the legal or constitutional sense. --SandyDancer 09:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go to the parapets over the tags. They're stupid, but you probably should leave them until there's a large number of people saying remove them, or until a mediator gets involved. - Nunh-huh 13:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

People who support various (living or dead) pretenders to (usually nonexistent) thrones are determined pov-pushers, and it's often frustrating to deal with them. I think it's appropriate to remove tags placed in furtherance of their pov when they have been placed without explanation on talk pages. Tags aren't a substitute for talk. Congratulations, though, on your patience! - Nunh-huh 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Soccer

....is not an Americanism in origin or usage. See Football (soccer) names. Grant65 | Talk 13:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that. But I think it doesn't harm to make it clear it is used "mainly in the USA", which is a true statement. To suggest it is called soccer elsewhere - apart from Australia perhaps - with any real frequency is totally misleading. --SandyDancer 13:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Myths die hard. As the article says "English-speaking nations where the word "football" refers to a rival code of football developed within that nation, specifically Australia, Canada, the United States, and parts of Ireland; and in areas where Rugby football is more popular than association football, such as Australia, New Zealand, and the white communities of South Africa."

"Soccer" is even used in English language material by the continental European media. Then there are the cases where the English word "football" is used to mean American football (see German Football League) and where the word "soccer has been localised (e.g. sakkā in Japan).

It's also a moot point, and probably unverifiable, whether the huge number of non-native speakers mostly use "football" or "soccer". Grant65 | Talk 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading through the Talk pages of the Monday Club, I cannot believe you referred to Ian Smith as a "racist old b**tard", this really isn't an appropriate use of language for Wikipedia, even if you do think so. And, no, he is not yet dead. --Couter-revolutionary 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I will censor my language. Some people - like Smith - are beneath contempt, but I concede he language wasn't appropriate. --SandyDancer 18:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, although I don't agree with what you have said you are entitle to your profanity-free opinion.--Couter-revolutionary 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your edits, you are very into royalty and aristocracy, are you not? Though hopefully not a die hard Italian royalist ;-) --SandyDancer 18:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Monday Club

If you want an edit war on the Monday Club it can be arranged. Citing a left-wing organisation such as the BBC calling it 'far-right' is laughable as much as it absurd. This organisation consisted of mainstream Tories and countless MPs and Peers over decades. So just keep it up. 213.122.76.250 12:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? First of all don't threaten to disrupt wikipedia by initiating "edit wars" - I don't want one, nor does anyone with any senseof decency.. Secondly, the BBC isn't a "left-wing organisation". Don't use ISP sockpuppets. If you try and start an "edit war" I will be reporting you to the administrators. I'd prefer it if you didn't post on my talk page again, though of course you are free to do so. --SandyDancer 16:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

I am nobody's sock-puppet, whatever that means. Just because I don't use a funny name like you is meaningless. We are both as anonymous as each other. You can report me to whoever you like. You started this with a clear agenda. 213.122.40.214 13:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, strange though it may seem you are LESS anonymous than I am - anyone can trace you through your ISP - for example by clicking on the "WHOIS" tool I have been able to see which city you live in and that you are a customer of a particular provider. That's not the point however - I am not saying that by being anonymous you are guilty of foul play. I am just pointing out that as long as you simply use an ISP, other editors like me don't know that you are a unique user. For all I and other knows, you might just be a sock puppet for a user with an account who wants to create the impression that there is consensus for the Monday Club article to remain in its current form. Considering what has gone on in relation to this page previously (I am talking about harassment, threats of legal action, breaches of Wikipedia guidelines left right and centre), you need to appreciate there is some sensitivity here, and you coming out of nowhere to launch attacks on me fits well with the pattern of past behaviour of others who have been banned.

This thing about me having an agenda is true, in that I readily admit that I think the Monday Club article needs work. That is the extent of my agenda and it is one no Wikipedia editor would be ashamed to have attributed to them.

The article was/is not written in a neutral manner, and I note that in the past users affiliated to the Club have had to be banned for threatening other editors who tried to make good faith edits. Your approach of threatening an "edit war" suggests you may be one of them. Again, the perils of simply using an ISP and not engaging in the process properly.

I don't accept there is a bias, or at least a sufficient bias, evident on BBC News Online to justify your assertion that it is not a legitimate source. You are entitled to your opinion, but note Wikipedia is not here to reflect your opinion alone.

The truth about the Monday Club is that its members tend to have very right-wing views (some say racist, some say racialist, I guess some supporters of the Club say neither) on post-colonial Africa and Africans, and my understanding is that they have made statements in the past about voluntary "repatriation" of Britons of various ethnic origins. This information needs to be presented in a prominent, through sourced and balanced way. At the moment it isn't because the article has been hijacked by supporters of the Club.

But I ask you this - why are the supporters of the Club so keen to make the article inpenetrable, concentrating on a list of events of limited interest whilst ignoring the activities that have actually made the Club notable and, dare I say, notorious? Surely if you and others are such supporters of this Club, you aren't afraid of what it really stands for? I just don't get it - you wouldn't get a radical Trotskyite editing an article on Leon Trotsky to the effect that actually he was a very middle of the road chap, and skirting around the fact he was a revolutionary socialist?

I'd be interested to hear your views - I accept you may not agree with some of the above, and am happy to hear your alternative viewpoints. --SandyDancer 15:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Had you carefully looked at the hundreds of edits on the Monday Club pages you will see that numerous very anti-Monday Club people, including administrators have edited it. Why is it that they left the article as it was (after their edits)? In addition to what has already been said about those who constituted the Monday Club, you, like some others, demonstrate your anti agenda because you wish to highlight certain things about the Monday Club which you very clearly see as being beyond the pale. That is why you are so keen to have the BBC headline up in lights when in fact it is just a left-wing journalist's personal opinion which, naturally, the BBC are happy to carry because it fits in with their agenda also. As has been said before, citing the BBC on the subject of the Monday Club could hardly be described as balanced sourcing. The Monday Club was, in fact, a very broad pressure group and this is demonstrated by the vast number of its publications, some of which are listed on Wikipedia on a separate page. Many members of the Club did not support all its policies, but in general supported most of them. Like it or not, the Club was the largest and most prominent Tory pressure-group ever. Until circa 1993 it was extremely active (I note the BBC quote is from a decade later). It is ludicrous and insulting to suggest (as the BBC's reporter is) that all its members were some sort of pseudo National Fronters. The argument here is for balance. 213.122.26.72 14:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my Talk Page and elsewhere, which are extremely cheeky and rude. It is not permitted to make postings on other User's Main Page. Do not do that again. Might one ask just who you think you are? You should make serious attempts to contain your own personal views and promoting the BBS's political agenda out of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not a second rate newspaper. Chelsea Tory 15:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I notice looking at your other disputes with editors on Wikipedia you regularly use expressions like "How dare you", "who do you think you are?", etc. Don't you think that is just a little pompous - and ridiculous? Are you a schoolkid/undergrad? --SandyDancer 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't permitted to make an edit on someone's User page? You might be right, but my understanding was that users do not "own" their user pages, just as they don't own any other pages on Wikipedia. --SandyDancer 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. Chelsea Tory 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect to state that I am not permitted to edit your user page, ("Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others, see [[1]]). I will refrain from editing your user page again in observation of this convention. Apologies for any offence. I will place my comment on your talk page instead. --SandyDancer 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now done so. I consider your "mission statement", proudly displayed on your talk page, objectionable and I have made that clear on your talk page. --SandyDancer 16:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_11#Template:Palestine. You'll notice it is the same block of voters who all come in and voted oppose to the renaming here: Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Requested_move.2C_Retitle_Article_ASAP. It's coordinated block voting and I do not know how to respond to it appropriately. Maybe I should create a mailing list of people who I think will vote with me and call them up when I want to get rid of something I don't like. --Ben 04:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Having checked into the argument a few times, I come to the conclusion that the possibility of sensible discussion in respect of Israel/Palestine related topics on Wikipedia is limited - partly because of the systemic bias of Wikipedia, partly because the founder and owner of the site freely admits to being a staunch supporter of Israel, and also - to be fair - because the topic arouses strong emotions anywhere and everywhere. There may not actually be a conspiracy, more likely there are a lot of users out there who share a very pro-Israeli view who over time have put all the relevant pages on their watchlist and spend much of their time on Wikipedia figting the same battle. The fact they vote the same way and use the same rhetotic doesn't surprise me. Its the way of the world, I guess. --SandyDancer 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone left a message on my talk page saying everything is all right now with the article. Can you confirm that on my talk page so I can take the appropriate actions? Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Islington Schools System

1. I feel like the LA ought to be Wikilinked. 2. I don't see a problem with stating that many/most middle class residents do not/did not have their kids in the local school system if the BBC article clearly states that fact.

WhisperToMe 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions for claimants to abolished non-monarchical royal titles

• Righto, it can stay, although I do think it was a tad unfair of you asking me to disclose my POV and then dragging it up to haunt me. I only revealed that because you asked me to and I thought you would find it interesting. Besides, having a vested interest does not mean one cannot edit with neutrality. Let's face it, everyone on Wikipedia has an interest in what they edit and, as a consequence, an opinion.--Couter-revolutionary 12:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that your POV doesn't mean you can't edit with neutrality, but when every single argument you have made depends entirely on Wikipedia representing your POV completely without deviation, people are entitled to draw conclusions. Deleting the discussion looked a bit like bad faith to me.
• I did ask you because I found it interesting, and the discussion was a good one. I don't necessarily agree with your view, but I don't think its crazy, and I do think it should be represented is some way on Wikipedia. But you and others seems to think that this encyclopedia should support the monarchist cause, and that can't be right. --SandyDancer 12:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there we are, I have explained on one page or another why I edited your posts to remove a link to my talk page, I'm sure you'll find it. I believe the issue of the Prince of Naples' article is now settled by User:John Kenney. If you attempt to revert his edits I think you will be force to take on Wikipedia's Royalty naming conventions, which, as I have said, I am more than happy for you to attempt.--Couter-revolutionary 13:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't have to take on those guidelines because they in no way support the argument you are making. You haven't even read them, clearly. --SandyDancer 13:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are now disagreeing with User:John Kenney. Well if you are correct it is, therefore, your duty to correct the whole of Wikipedias articles relating to members of deposed Royal families, at this point I'll retire from Wikipedia, which I'm sure you think would be no bad thing.--Couter-revolutionary 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read the actual guidelines you keep quoting? If you do, you will see it doesn't support the notion that ex-royals should be referred to by abolished titles during their lifetime - it specifically uses the example of Simeon of Bulgaria, saying he should be called by his actual name "Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha", but says this should revert to "King Simeon II" after his death. Same applies to VE - for Wikipedia purposes, he is "Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy" whilst still alive, then will be "Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples" after his death. Argue with that, if you will!

Here's a tip - before asserting a rule or guideline supports what you are saying, read it first! --SandyDancer 14:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Flouting commonalities is what is tiresome to deal with. Charles 18:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of commonalities on Wikipedia are wrong. This is one of them, even according to the guidelines on naming of ex-Royals which have been laid down. --SandyDancer 18:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

An apology

I sincerely apologise for allowing myself to be drawn into a heated and unproductive exchange. As a long standing editor, I should have known better and walked away from the discussion much sooner, allowing a broader range of contributors to voice their opinions. Fortunately we are now at the stage where there is wider input. Mrsteviec 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone

I agree that its a non story, and in that regard I removed it on Wednesday, but I was reverted by [Silverjonny and am on Revert patrol, so I cannot revert it away again. If it gets re-added, can I post a message here, to let you know? --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The article is on my watchlist. If I deem necessary but for your sake I want to make it clear that if I do revert the re-insertion of this non-story, it won't be to evade your revert sanction, but rather because we separately hold the same view! --SandyDancer 11:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrsteviec/MRSC - old user page

Please stop re-creating my old user page. My account was disassociated from that username for a reason. MRSC • Talk 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I only recreated it so that where you old name appears in discussions, the signature links to your new page. Otherwise it looks like you are two different people. If you feel strongly I'll desist but it was bad form to delete my {{hangon}}. Why didn't you just explain first? Your general approach is very abrasive. --SandyDancer 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

David Cameron

Thanks for the words of encouragement. It's a tedious job, but it's been one I've meant to do for a while. The article surely has the potential to achieve featured article status (and it's already far improved from when it was last nominated in July 2006), but there is still much work to be done. For example, just going through the refs, I've spotted a number of unsourced statements that I've {{fact}} tagged, that need sourcing etc... :-) DWaterson 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nikhil Parekh

I have just placed this notice on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Parekh page, and am bringing every voter's attention to it as promised.

Comment. Sigh. Despite the inevitable tirade that this will unleash, I am sorry to have to bring new information to the table. I have this morning received an email from Vijaya Ghose, editor of the Limca Book of Records. "Dear Mr (----), We have enlisted a couple of claims of Nikhil Parekh. Longest Poem is not one of them. He has formidable competition in John Milton's Paradise Lost and our own Mahabharata. However, he has written to many heads of state and has received replies but not from the head of state but the secretary or executive assistant. He is is the first from India to feature on Eppie. We checked with them. Regards Vijaya Ghose. So Parekh, though probably not notable as a poet, is indeed an Indian world record holder. I suspect that this changes the balance on his notability, though the article would still require a great deal of clear-up. I will notify everyone who took part in this vote and ask admins to extend debate a little. Sorry.

I don't know whether this changes your vote, but thought you should know. Vizjim 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Neo-nazi

No worries. By the way, have added some sources to 18 Doughty Street which indicate it has seen press attention; would consider it marginal. Morwen - Talk 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Personally I am perfectly happy to see that one stay, as long as the importance is actually asserted. That's what seems to be lacking from these AFD debates - from my limited experience to date, quite often I sense that there probably is the basis for an artice, but those who created it seem disinterested in actually demonstrating that. --SandyDancer 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What's your problem?

Why are you reverting my edits? You vandalised Neo-Nazism and Chameria issue. Don't you know that Epirus is Greek province? About neonazism, what you did was clearly vandalism. Mitsos 14:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No. What I did on Neo-Nazism wasn't vandalism - it was a mistake. I thought you had blanked out a comment from someone on the talk page - but I was wrong - it was the main user page, so what you did was correct.

I have not vandalished Chameria issue. I deleted the reference to "Greek province" because Epirus straddles both Albania and Greece. --SandyDancer 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, sorry. Anyway, Epirus is Greek province. We call Southern Albania Northern Epirus, but this term is not acceptable by the Albanians. In the article we need the reference to "Greek province" in order to make clear that the Chams were expelled from the Greek part of Epirus. The Chams were not expelled by "sovereign Albanian territory", the majority of Epirus population was Greek, the Chams were a minority. Mitsos 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Strangest thing on Wikipedia I have seen ever, ever

John Zammit

Hi, just to let you know that the article was instantly deleted. Marcus1234 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford

Hi, I'm not sure why you removed from this article thr info that he was made a life peer in 1945. I checked it out in Rayment, and it's verifiable.

It's a notable fact in itself, so I am puzzled that it should be removed from any article, but it's particularly relevant as a precondition for his ministerial career: he couldn't have been a minister unless he had seat one house of parliament or t'other. So I have reinsttae he info, but placed it before the text on his ministerial career. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, to clearify things: the barony of 1945 was a hereditary and the barony of 1999 for life, both are facts. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Thanks for the correction, Phoe: you are of course right. I dunno how I got that confused between editing the article and writing the summary, but at least the article is corect! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Farringdon, Sunderland

Um, did you mean to leave that comment somewhere else?  :) Morwen - Talk 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Have put it on the user talk page it was intended for now. You must think I am obsessed with all things Farringdon! --SandyDancer 22:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Farringdon, Sunderland thanks

THANK you Sandydancer for improving and expanding Farringdon. It has really helped the work I've done over the last few months and now it is a proper article rather than a stub, I owe you my thanks, and there's some other articles we could work together on. I want all the suburbs of Sunderland to be expanded. Notice, I had Farringdon on watch, as its link page Farringdon community sports college has been continually VANDALISED, but the user is now blocked, so it is not a worry

Hey need help

I need your help as a professional Wikipedian to put together an article which could be done with. Farringdon Junior primary school is a school in Farringdon and needs an article. I will provide you with some useful facts, and you can put it together.

-800 students -Principal Mrs. Henderson -Combined from two schools in 2002 -Newley built huge sports facility

I request you please or someone else to put an article Called (Farringdon Primary school) together with that information

I'm afraid I don't think the school meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It seems to be established policy here that only certain schools are included on Wikipedia, and primary schools generally aren't. --SandyDancer 12:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sort this article out

Hey sandydance, Pro. Sunderland here, I've just created an article on Gilley law LINK ISN'T WORKING, SEARCH WILL LEAD DIRECTLY TO IT, another suburb of Sunderland, about2 paragraghs long, pop down and have a look at it, and help me expand it. I've got it as a stub, so it requests expansion anyway.

I have taken a look and made some stylistic changes as I did to the Farringdon, Sunderland article. Here is a tip for you - if when editing you want to link to an article you should but double sets of square brackets around the name of the article - though you need to be sure to get the name of the article completely correct or it will not work. --SandyDancer 13:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuck you

Greeks are White, visit Iran to see that Iranians are darker-skined than Greeks. I 've met many Northern European White Nationalists, who consider Greeks their brothers. And now a moron like you is telling me I 'm wanna-be White!!!! Race is reality. If it wasn't, we would all be half-black, half-white to satisfy your "antiracist" feelings. Mitsos 18:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Go to Stormfront.org (the biggest White Nationalist forum, with thousands of members worldwide) and ask if Greeks are White. Everyone will say yes. You wrote: "modern Greeks bear little relation to the inhabitants of classical Greece anyway." That's wrong. The ancient Greeks are the direct ancestors of modern Greeks. Look at the ancient Greek statues, and you will understand that the racial type of ancient Greeks was Meditteranean White, the same as the modern Greeks. Only Falmerayer (in late 19th sentury), suported the theory that modern Greeks have nothing to do with ancient Greeks, but his arguments have been rejected. Mitsos 18:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A clear breach of WP:PAIN SandyDancer (referring to the title of this section by User:Mitsos) - you are fully entitled to simply delete this whole section from your talk page and report him on WP:ANI. He really is going too far with this. MarkThomas 18:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of comments from AfD debate

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages — it is considered vandalism. You may comment at the respective page if you oppose an article's deletion. Thanks. Seraphimblade 11:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an astonishing misrep of what I did. I moved the comments to the discussion's talk page because the banter between you and I sparked off by my jokey, but irrelevant, comment distracted from the actual debate and obscures the issues. My edit summaries made it clear what I was doing. How can that be vandalism? It was a good faith action and you should acknowledge that. --SandyDancer 11:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

While perhaps good faith, comments related to an AfD debate should stay there unless both parties agree to moving/removal or an administrator decides that they are unsuitable and should be deleted. Certainly I felt that several of my comments were relevant and should remain, generally deleting or moving another person's comments without approval is frowned upon. Seraphimblade 11:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. OK. I accept that but no need to accuse someone of vandalism when it clearly wasn't. You are operating some very strange double standards... --SandyDancer 11:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The post there was a standard template warning-and indeed, it is policy that removal or editing of another person's comments is considered as a form of vandalism. I do believe, however, that you were acting here in good faith and were simply mistaken or unaware as to the relevant norms/policies. I'm quite willing to consider the matter closed if you are? Seraphimblade 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But of course! No problem. Best wishes. --SandyDancer 11:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup requested

Hey sandydancer, I've created a new article which was needed, its another suburb of Sunderland, known as Thorney close and I want you to tidy it up for me and correct mistakes, we work well together on articles Don't we? Professor Sunderland 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC) at the 13th November at 16:42pm

Imperium Europa

Many thanks for keeping an eye on the Imperium Europa strangeness. - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It is astonishing how brazen some people will be in using WP for propaganda. --SandyDancer 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gemma Atkinson

Fair enough, I haven't been watching the show... I just saw the paragraph removed with no edit summary, and without the citation having been resited for the other use of it. Your edit removed it as well, so I've stuck it back in. Wasn't trying to be difficult... if the anon editor had included an edit summary, there would have been no problem!  ;-) robwingfield ^«T•C» 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! --SandyDancer 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

== I offer you an AWARD ==

SandyDancer, for helping me work on so many articles and sort out the ones I' ve created I'm offering you the purple shield award. Which is an award in my new award sceme, for helping me out please. Keep care of this.

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->]] The purple shield award. for work on Farringdon and the Gilley law articles.

Professor Sunderland 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) at 15:54PM on the 15th November 2006

Solidarity (Scotland)

Sandy - if you think the Solidarity (Scotland) article is inbalanced.... change it! That's the wonder of Wiki. Click "edit this page", and as long as you stay within policy, cite sources, and remain balanced, go for your life :) doktorb _words^deeds 13:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, I don't really have any knowledge about the party and it would be better if someone who did kicked off the process. Although I could go searching on the net and read things about the party and add them, I don't think that would create a good article. --SandyDancer 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job!

P.B. Pilhet / Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hey Sandy! Good job recognizing the sockpuppet on Soccergirl!

Thanks!

➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Sandy for anti-vandalism work that makes a positive contribution to Wikipedia

Thanks for the recent rvv. I appreciate it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Gateshead

I'm just glad I wasn't the only one who found those edits bizarre. Catchpole 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mitsos

Hello. I thought you might be interested to check User talk:Samuel Blanning. I am trying to figure out exactly why you guys want to erase all traces of white supremacism from Mitsos' user page. Haber 02:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have decided I agree with the argument you make on Samuel's page - I suppose if these deluded, POV-pushing wannabe-nazis are going to exist on Wikipedia, it is better for them to wear badges so they can be watched more carefully. --SandyDancer 11:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. Good luck and thanks. Haber 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism in North East England

About the Jews and Judaism in North East England article I started... and why I havnt written an article for each community and also deleted the Judaism in Newcastle upon Tyne, is because an article on Gateshead would be full of how we pinched stuff from all the neighboring communities, including the congregation of the shul from the Newcastle commynity, a Yeshiva and kollel from Sunderland and plenty of member from London. Perhaps soon, I'll write it up. But in the meantime I'm compiling in for for this one. Are you local? Chavatshimshon 18:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Martinp23 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

David Cameron - vandalism by anon. IP user

the article to which you are refering has clearly been written partly as bogus Labour political propaganda, yet you have the audacity to criticise my removal of some of this nonesense? I am confused. How can a man be wrong for spending time with his family?

Please read, im sure you will agree

best wishes (unsigned message left by 86.144.212.187 on 19 November 2006)

I am afraid I do not agree.

• Your repeated insertion of comments like "by idiots/fools" to the article here and here in reference to allegations made by name and linked press sources looks mightily like vandalism to me.
• Your attempts here and again here to remove any mention of the drug controversy which dominated coverage of Cameron's leadership campaign for a while, despite the fact that the paragraph is sourced and unbiased, smacks of partisan editing if not vandalism.

Your entire edit history - apart from posting on my talk page - has consisted of attempts to remove negative info from the Cameron article. Please stop. --SandyDancer 14:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked 86.144.212.187 for 24 hours, on account of vandalism and lack of civility ("idiots" comments). Martinp23 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good decision. Cheers --SandyDancer 14:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Queen Geraldine

Hi, SandyDancer. I'm afraid you're wrong on this one; she was definitely an actual queen, and despite that, our arcane article naming system doesn't call actual queens queens :) - Nunh-huh 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite.--Couter-revolutionary 11:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have made an edit which reflects this. As per the discussion and C-R's edit summary, the convention here is to refer to consorts by their maiden titles post-death. So I have made it clear that during her life she was referred to as Queen. --SandyDancer 11:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Richard Nixon "distant cousin" addition is going to be continually deleted by me. It is so trivial as to be unbelievable, and is dropped in with no context or explanation as to why it should be there.Mowens35 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarawak Royals

You show great disrespect to other editors. Please read and contribute to the discussion pages before making arrogant changes. If Anthony Brooke is not to be known as the Rajah Muda this article should be deleted as it is not notable, that is what I think.--Couter-revolutionary 11:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

When there is a genuine difference of opinion there is no need to indicate someone is showing disrespect. Please cool down. I just disagree that a pro-monarchist POV should pervade these articles. The article was renamed for a good reason - because this man is a living person who has renounced his title. He is not the Rajah Muda. I accept that after his death WP guidelines will dictate that he be referred to by the highest title he was known, but that doesn't apply now. So please listen to reason and don't just revert out of habit. There is nothing wrong with having a strong POV but you need to respect the fact that your strong POV does not represent neutrality and act accordingly. --SandyDancer 11:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do the WP guidelines "not apply now"? Where is this stated? I am perfectly happy for the article to candidly state he does not wish to be known by, or use the title, Rajah Muda, however I think this is what he needs to be called all the same.--Couter-revolutionary 11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of (a) common sense and (b) what the guidelines you love quoting actually say. Look, I personally think the guidelines have been written by pro-monarchists to reflect their POV. I have made that clear - I think they need to be changed. But I gave up this argument because there is no point in arguing against a consensus of interested editors. You should abide by them too. Read them again. Consider in particular the example of Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. --SandyDancer 11:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your statement "however I think this is what he needs to be called all the same" speaks volumes about the agenda you are pushing here. The agenda you laid out in full some time ago when we had a discussion on this. You think that monarchical titles can never be abolished - the rest of humanity bar a few exceptions disagree. Accept that. --SandyDancer 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason Tsar Simeon's article was changed was because he was, allegedly, more famous as PM than as Tsar. This is not the case with Anthony Brooke, Rajah Muda of Sarawak, who is not notable without his Royal title. --Couter-revolutionary 12:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that Brooke calls himself "Mr. Brooke" and not "Rajah Muda", and has been a private citizen for decades now, means he is better known by that title. If he attended a formal event for example, do you think they'd insult him by calling him by a title he has long renounced? No I don't think they would. Perhaps you'd like to contact him and ask him? --SandyDancer 12:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an issue of what he should prefer to be know as, it is an issue of whether or not Wikipedia believes him to be more notable as a travelling lecturer and citizen of New Zealand than as The Rajah Muda of Sarawak. WP doesn't allow exiled Royalty which are too far removed from the last reigning of their house to call themselves a King so why should it allow someone who ought be calles Rajah Muda to call themselves Mr.? An odd argunent, perhaps, but I should think I'd prefer to take my chances calling Brooke the Rajah Muda rather than an another exile Mr.--Couter-revolutionary 12:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you - it is an odd argument. You will tie yourself in a knot over this one and still not find a logical reason to call someone by a title he has renounced! I ask you again - would you call Tony Benn by his aristocratic title? I think we really do need to make a distinction between those who claim titles and those who have expressly disclaimed them - I doubt Mr. Brooke has been referred to by this title for nigh on half a century, and he'd be very surprised (possibly offended, but hopefully amused) to find a latter-day believer in the divine right of kings attributing it to him!

I accept I've taken a hard line on these naming conventions before, and I have conceded at appropriate times. That is because I try and respect the NPOV policy, and I accept my opinion doesn't represent "neutrality". I have my own biases which I need to put to one side when consensus is against me. Here, you are really taking your POV too far. We simply cannot call this man by this outdated title which he has renounced long ago. To do so would be bizarre, frankly. Your arguments about notability don't work for me, I'm afraid. He was notable once, so he is notable now. Lots of living people who now live quiet lives have biogs here because of positions they held in the past. Mr. Brooke is no different.

Respect his wishes, respect common sense, and please let's not have a big ding-dong over this. --SandyDancer 12:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Righto, for the sake of expediency I am willing to cencede, and hope we can settle. If we make sure the article makes it very clear he was once Rajah Muda; for instance "Until 1951 he the title Rajah Muda but in that year renounced any claim to the Throne", I think that should do it perhaps. Tony Benn did disown his title by statute, his son will, however be Viscount Stansgate, the question we should be asking is whether Hillary is entitled to be "The Hon." or not? --Couter-revolutionary 12:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is perfectly acceptable to me. --SandyDancer 14:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Settled, until our next dispute...--Couter-revolutionary 14:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Birthday

Cheers :) DWaterson 14:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me out. What can be done. Maltesedog 14:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Take a look here. Wikipedia:No legal threats. Should answer your questions. --SandyDancer 15:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do any false stuff in the article as the Wikipedia guidlines suggest.

I proposed, in good faith and article for deletion, and this was open for public discussion. This user could have opposed deletion and put his case there.

Maltesedog 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Troubles articles

Not sure I understand the problem with a single source, bearing in mind that these are stubs. I note that you "really take issue with these articles remaining as they are" yet you do nothing to improve the articles, except add a tag. Something more constructive than simply taking issue would help develop the articles. In articles such as The Troubles in Antrim and The Troubles in Ballymena other sources from publications are cited and more will be added as further incidents and reports are added. These remain stubs for now and will be worked on by many people over time - that is the Wiki way (and I'm not being combative). Ardfern 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. One thing though - the Tynan deletion debate others agreed the opening sentences of the article really needed to be amended if you were to avoid further RfDs, and I note you didn't act on this. So I would say I think that's something you could do. --SandyDancer 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The user shouldn't have threatened legal action against you at all. As far as I can see all you did was say the subject of the article was "infamous", which isn't so bad. I advise you to report them to an admin. --SandyDancer 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I already contacted an admin. I hope the matter gets resolved as if he keeps on threating and does not apologise I would have no option but to stop contributing to wikipedia. Maltesedog 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos

Hi - I did block him for WP:3RR when I did you, but I'll look into what you've said (and give him an npa warning, if he doesn't already have one. It would help hugely if you could point me to evidence of distruption in the form of diffs, so I can approriately warn him. Thanks Martinp23 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to the edit-warring, Hrisi_Avgi has also been protected, so there won't be any more WP:3RR violations for a while, and it has led Mitsos to the talk page. Thanks Martinp23 18:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here are two links about the matter: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Spylab & User:Robertbcole/Desk Spylab 14:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• We are going ahead with a Wikipedia: Request for Comment, which needs two editors who have had conflicts with the person to sign. This will raise attention to the situation and allow other editors to offer their opinions. Please contact User:Robertbcole for more information. Spylab 14:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Solidarity Scotland

Sandy - the Solidarity (Scotland) issue is needing resolved.

I fail to see why the official dispute between the Solidarity MSPs and both the NUJ and IWW needs to be removed. Both are factually accurate and public domain. In terms of the removal of the Herald ref, it was removed because it was no longer relevant to the article as was written at the time (although in your latest version you have re-inserted that Solidarity dispute the allegation). I also fail to see why you have removed the without giving any references or citations.

Can we figure out a way to resolve this - IMHO you have taken a consenus developed neutral article with an overemphasis on the negative aspects and rewritten it with a universally positive spin yet provided no new information.

Can we come up with a wording that we can agree is neutral, or should we perhaps start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment proceedure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ms medusa (talk • contribs) .

I removed the fact tag because the acrimony is clearly evidenced by the articles linked to in the paragraph - the fact the SSP are accusing Solidarity of fraud and that Solidarity are flinging insults back is evidenced in those articles. That word acrimony is appropriate, as far as I can see. So the point is therefore sourced. No need for a fact tag.

I fail to see why the Herald article which evidences that Solidarity dispute the allegations is no longer relevant. It is relevant.

It is relevant now that you have added back in the fact that solidarity claim that there is no investigation, however when you removed it, there was nothing there for the source to relate to.Ms medusa 23:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why the quite normal action that the trade unions are taking - i.e. letter writing - needs to be specifically described. You use the word "official dispute" - surely any dispute a trade union engages in on behalf of its members is "official". In a longer article, maybe. Here, where the article is little more than a stub, the more words you use, the more the article has balance problems. An article about a political party where about 50% of content concentrates on two (arguably quite minor) disputes with another party is simply not balanced and therefore doesn't comply with WP:NPOV, even if the text itself is fairly written and sourced. --SandyDancer 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

no - not all employment disputes are official. There are unofficial disputes and wildcat actions for example. This has now been escalated into an official dispute - which is a recognised term within the TU movement.Ms medusa

The SSP's primary dispute with Solidarity is over the truth or otherwise of the evidence in the Sheridan court case and the subsequent legal actions. That was (rightly) edited out of the article, however the workers dispute is a dispute between the IWW and the NUJ and the two Solidarity MSPs. Ms medusa 23:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If the text was fairly written and sourced, why did it need edited so radically? I can agree with you that there was a lack of general information about the party and I appreciate those additions that you made to that aspect, however why not just add such general information, rather than removing information which you appear to appreciate both here and on the talk page of the article was "fairly written and sourced"?Ms medusa 23:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that a request for comments would be an appropriate action at this stage?Ms medusa 23:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Information Deletion

Hello Sandy Dancer

Can I just say that I totally object to you following me around Wikapedia and deleting my posts.

Watch this space

David Cameron

Hi, I have no objection to your edit re the following car, other than that your source (at the time of writing) appears to be dead. Unless it revives, then I think that you will need to find some other source. Viewfinder 23:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am baffled as to why the source doesn't work when I put it in the article, but does work here - here. I've tried to sort it out. Puzzled --SandyDancer 11:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I transferred the above link to the article, hope it's OK now. Viewfinder 12:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And also a big thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Appreciated. --SandyDancer 12:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Strafford Club

Why do you imagine there is a major verifiability problem with the Strafford Club? It has been mentioned in Articles by the Daily Telegraph, I do not think they would cite a Society which does not exist. It has many notable members and is notable at St. Andrew's and is supported by the Const. Monarchy Assoc. In case you were wondering I am not a Member, "Old" member or honourary member of the Club. I do, however, possess some papers &c. referring to it and published bt it also.--Couter-revolutionary 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

One passing reference in a national newspaper does not a notable student club make. The point about verifiability isn't that we can't verify it exists - of course we can. Its rather that we can't verify the content of the article. However, as little of the content of the current article actually relates to the club itself I see that problem has been neatly circumvented. --SandyDancer 18:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If this article is not notable then barely any student society is notable. I made edits to the inter-links regarding certain personages on this site and since then, due to my editing of it, you have decided you dislike this article's existence and wish it deleted. As I have said I have said if this is deleted I shall encourage the same to be done with respects to other articles.--Couter-revolutionary 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And no doubt in some cases you will be successful, though you won't with the likes of Skull and Bones, Yale Political Union, Oxford Union, OUCA, Cambridge Union, Cambridge University Conservative Association, OULC... I could go on. I would advise you to exercise caution and read WP:POINT. To use the argument that if this student club isn't notable, then no student club is notable is no more or less sensible than saying that if one person isn't notable, then no person is notable... think about it for a moment and I am sure you will agree. --SandyDancer 18:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I also want to respond to due to my editing of it, you have decided you dislike this article's existence and wish it deleted. I came across the article because you edited it, yes. I don't dislike it - I just don't think the subject is notable. 100% of uninvolved respondents to the deletion proposal seem to agree with me. I could easily turn what you said on its head, and say that you have decided you like the subject of this article, and despite it clearly not being notable, you want to keep it for that reason alone. Please, remember to assume good faith. --SandyDancer 18:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well of course I shan't delete those, and I shan't try and delete all of them. There are many on here which aren't notable however. --Couter-revolutionary 18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Go for it then. I have witnessed a few non-notable student clubs go up for deletion recently, and seen them deleted. I agree that content unsuitable for an encylopedia should be deleted - hence my nomination of Strafford Club. You seem to want rules to be applied selectively however. I notice that your defence of this article at no stage includes explicit assertions of its notability. It is as if you know it isn't notable, but you don't want it to be deleted anyway because its about monarchism, seemingly your only area of interest on this site. --SandyDancer 18:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I shall publish reasons expaining why it is notable then. Monarchism is not my only area of interest here, I also contribute to articles concerning the aristocracy and High Tory values and politics in general...I am sorry I do not edit other articles such as you do (...pornographic magazines springs to mind, ha!, I must apologise, but I couldn't resist - seriously though, good for you being an all round editor, a lot of other things just don't interest me, that's all.)--Couter-revolutionary 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you appreciate that although it is OK to only edit articles you have an interest in, and indeed that you have a very strong and unusual POV on, nonetheless Wikipedia guidelines apply to you and those articles as much as they do to anything else?

Strike-through textPointing out that I have edited articles about porn mags in order to try and discredit me is childish and futile. But I think you know that.Strike-through text --SandyDancer 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be childish - I hoped you would find it comical! Please do not be offended, it was childish of me. There are only a few editors on Wikipedia who are not out to serve their own ends, all I'm doing is seeing that things I believe in aren't defamed - besides I think I am fairly fair in my editing.--Couter-revolutionary 19:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I am not offended. You may well consider yourself fair, but you aren't being so right now. --SandyDancer 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I genuinely think the SNP at St. As is not notable of an article, not in its present form anyway.--Couter-revolutionary 19:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Then the appropriate action is a {{cleanup}} tag. I agree with you about not having committee member names listed - doing so is a "vanity fork" in my opinion, and that is why earlier today, before we had this discussion at all, I deleted list of committee members and recent presidents from OUCA. --SandyDancer 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am too tired to do anything more this evening and have some too much real work to do R v &c...I await to see the outcomes of all this in the morning if I am not back before this eve. For my curiosity, why do you consider Strafford less notable than that SNP one, both are backed by national organisations and the same university and both have high memberships, Strafford also has many notable members.--Couter-revolutionary 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Strafford Society is probably unknown to most members of the uni. Everyone will know that the SNP has a student branch there. The SNP is the second biggest political party in Scotland - the national organisation that "backs" the Strafford Society is virtually unknown. The Strafford Society does not have a high membership unless you consider 30 to be high. The fact they are of the same uni means nothing. As far as I can see the Strafford Society doesn't have many notable members, only notable honorary members, though even if it did that wouldn't necessarily make it notable anyway. Please try and look at this objectively - what you are saying does not make any sense. --SandyDancer 19:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Article deletion tags

Please stop removing deletion tags without following their directions. There are no additional steps to the {{Prod}} process. I was not "misusing" the tags; while the magazines may in fact be notable, there is no evidence of that in the articles. Your thinking something is notable does not make it so. There are literally thousands (if not millions) of porn magazines, some of which have articles here and their articles document why they are important. These articles don't.Nicer1 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Those articles aren't speedyable so you aren't following procedure. You happen to be wrong - you have nominated two of the very best known men's top shelf magazines in the UK for deletion which is ludicrous. I will continue to monitor this and try to stop you doing it. OK? It is obvious you aren't a new user - and yet the account you are using is brand new and is only being used for these nominations. Can you be open and let me know which username you normally edit under? --SandyDancer 21:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Up until now, I've been an anonymous user; check out my user page. The articles say nothing about the magazines being "two of the very best known men's top shelf magazines" anywhere, let alone the UK. I'm not in the UK—how am I supposed to know that? The articles are poorly written, in one case completely unsourced, and I stand by my opinion that in their current form have no place here. The articles are speedyable under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles Reason 7: failing to assert their importance. Since you deem that to be controversial, they are now listed at AfDs. All this could have been avoided had someone taken the time to improve the articles subsequent to my placing the {{Prod}} tags; that's what they're for. For you to unilaterally remove the tags without changing the articles at all is what is ludicrous.Nicer1 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Before nominating anything from a country other than my own for speedy deletion, I'd at least to do a quick google test. That is why Google has such a problem with systemic bias - (mainly American) editors making no effort to think international. --SandyDancer 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel I should have to look outside of Wikipedia to determine whether the subject of an article is important. If it's important enought to be here, the article ought to explain why that is so. These articles don't. If you care to read a more detailed account of my views, please see my User talk:Nicer1; I'll not be making further comments on the matter.Nicer1 05:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please go back to my talk page and read my extensive response to User:Canley (which was made before your latest accusation) regarding why I made the nominations I did, as well as my response to your latest statement that I am "on a mission", implying that I am prejudiced against adult magazines. I would very much appreciate your not making such statements about me; they are unnecessary, uncalled for, and completely without factual basis. Please refrain from making such accusations against me (or anyone else) in the future. Thank you.Nicer1 17:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop calling me a liar. It is a form of personal attack; I deserve an apology.Nicer1 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not once called you a liar. Show me what you are talking about. --SandyDancer 17:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked for, and received, a third opinion on our exchange of comments. According to the third opinion, you have not acted inappropriately. While I disagree with that conclusion, I will apologize for my apparent miscategorization of your comments, the same error that I believe you have made regarding mine. Thanks—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok no hard feelings. --SandyDancer 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

HM Queen Geraldine

It is very hypocritical to move piece of information from the opening paragraph, so that it does not, as you admit support the monarchy. You allowed it to be there before I proved other sources, not just supporters, called Her Majesty this.--Couter-revolutionary 13:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't hypocritical. These articles shouldn't read as fi they have been written as part of a debate on the divine right of kings. I moved the section to a more appropriate place. Why is it so notable that she has been referred to as "Queen Mother" that it has to be placed in the introduction? Please discuss on the article's talk page. --SandyDancer 13:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mitsos

Hi, I noticed you had some run ins with Mitsos in the past. I am advocating a case for Spylab against Mitsos, and we were wondering if you would be interested in cosigning an RfC. If you are, please drop by my desk so we can finalize the draft and discuss technical issues. Feel free to add more examples of Mitsos' disruptive behavior to the examples already listed by Spylab and myself. Have a good one! →Bobby← 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Hi. Thanks for your comment, and glad you like my "philosophy". All the best. WMMartin 15:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fish

Your fish.

Hello. In execution of the consensus decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Andrews University Scottish Nationalist Association, you're hereby presented with a fish. I hope to have been of service. Best, Sandstein 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nicer1 / User:Chidom

(from User talk:Quarl) Please could you take a look at this and let me have your view. Thank you very much. --SandyDancer 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks suspicious enough to warrant a Wikipedia:Checkuser. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-04 19:22Z

Chidom's response here was less than convincing, so I think indeed a CheckUser is in order. How does one go about doing that? I assume only admins can do it? --SandyDancer 11:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the "spouse defense" before (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k). Anyone can request a Checkuser; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser for instructions. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-06 19:29Z

A friendly question

Sandy, are you the same person as User:SandyGeorgia??? I'm just curious. I find your userpage very original and very amusing. I'm puzzled, though, when you mention the Czech Republic and Germany as having too much lager beer, when in fact the former is the originator of pilsener beer, and the latter is its greatest producer. Regards, AVM 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope certainly not the same person as SandyGeorgia

Lager is a term which includes pilsener - in the UK, at least. --SandyDancer 08:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Chidom

I asked a question there that you seem to have missed: what is the specific abuse you are alleging?

Note that the policy Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_multiple_accounts says "Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere", so your lead complaint "the account is a sock ... registered to avoid the scrutiny of the community for his or her actions", even if true, would not be a problem. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be the misleading statement on the User page of Nicer1 I'd object to principally. --SandyDancer 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos RfC

Hi Sandy. I noticed you endorse the summary. Can you also certify the basis for the dispute (since you have tried on numerous occasions to confront Mitsos)? Once you and SpyLab both have signed on, we can open it to the public. Also, when you get a chance, please feel free to leave a statement (in the top section) to express your views on Mitsos' behavior and attitudes. Have a good one. →Bobby← 15:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: your comment "And for someone who was complaining about wikilawyering, calling me an "accomplice" because I pointed out that there are incidences of this person racially abusing people and heading up talk pages with "fuck you" is ridiculous"; I was not in any way complaining about YOU wikilawyering, that comment was directed squarely at Hectorian and Nikos. I have no problem with your conduct in the RfC in the least. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 17:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, and my comment wasn't aimed at you, I thought Nikos had made the Wikilawyer comments. Apologies. --SandyDancer 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought as much; no worries! -- weirdoactor ^t|c 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos RFC - signed in wrong spot

Hi, in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mitsos, you signed in the Other users who endorse this summary instead of the Users certifying the basis for this dispute (which is for "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute"). The Users certifying the basis for this dispute section needs two signatures within 48 hours of the RFC being posted, or the page will be deleted. I did not want to move your signature for you, but I strongly recommend that you do so as soon as possible, or we will be back to where we started. Spylab 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Empress of Iran

I have read the discussion page, you obviously have not. It seems the consensus was to include the title. In fact, all other users seem to have concluded this except yourself. --Couter-revolutionary 19:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Mowens35 says she shouldn't be either, and myself and that user base our view on sensible debate as opposed to a forlock-tugging belief in the divine right of Kings so frankly - I think our view wins. Soz. --SandyDancer 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong. Is this not Mowens35's last comment on the matter:

Was just thinking. Presumably, this article should, by Wiki standards, be titled "Farah, Empress of Iran". Why? Because it seems that Wiki allows the last-ranking title to be used, even when the person has been exiled, the throne abolished, et cetera (see Leka, Crown Prince of Albania, etc). Can we start a vote on this? Just to keep it consistent within Wiki as per other articles of former rulers?Mowens35 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

PS, the emphasis is my own.--Couter-revolutionary 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I need to back down on this one... soz--SandyDancer 20:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Righto, I have edited the article accordingly.--Couter-revolutionary 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrisi Avgi

Can you just confirm that the requests Mitsos is making here and here (and again further down that page) are uncontroversial. -- Steel 13:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a locked article should be edited at Mitsos's request, particularly when an RFC regarding him is underway. --SandyDancer 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

David Cameron

Hi, thanks for the kind words. You're right that I'm a member of the Tory party, but not an active one; I'm working on this article purely out of personal interest, not for political reasons. I've never really had much difficulty in ignoring personal POV in preference to sticking to Wikipedia policy; my view is that, if there are rules set down, then there's no real excuse for either not abiding by them or alternatively trying to change them by consensus if they are flawed. Perhaps that's why the recent minor UKIP-related revert war irritated me, as that was clearly nothing but an obvious attempt at pov-pushing. :-) DWaterson 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrisi Avgi

I 'm thinking of requesting unprotection for the article. But I first need to make sure you agree with it. I 'm going to make a compromise about the Imia march, say that it is organised by Epitropi Ethnikis Mnimis which was created by Hrisi Avgi and is now led by Patriotic Alliance. I 'm also going to provide sources and maybe some minor edits (change Patriotiki Symmachia to Patriotic Alliance). Are you OK with that? Thanks Mitsos 13:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to what you proposed, depends what you actually end up doing! --SandyDancer 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I 'm tired of getting blocked, so I 'm going to do the same things again. Mitsos 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean you are NOT going to do the same thing again? --SandyDancer 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA! Yes I forgot to put "not". looooool Mitsos 21:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Primrose League

Answer this please: how is it that your opinion is superior to all the others who have worked upon the Primrose League article, many ofthem very experienced administrators. Chelsea Tory 11:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should I answer such a ridiculous question? --SandyDancer 12:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Award

Hi SandyDancer. You may do with this award what you wish, but I would be pleased if you stuck it on your user page. Keep up the good work. And stay cool! SilkTork 12:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Awarded to SandyDancer by SilkTork for good works and long patience.

Gun politics in the United Kingdom

I've found a possible source for the claim about the UK's gun laws being among the strictest in the world. [2] It's quite an old article, but it does state The ban tightens what was already one of the world's strictest gun laws. Given the laws haven't been relaxed since, is that acceptable enough for you? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure a passing ref. in an article like that justifies front loading an article with such a statement, to be honest. --SandyDancer 19:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't overly sure myself, which is why I asked rather than just cite the reference and remove the tag. There's an article from 2002 which compares gun restrictions in various European countries [3], if "world" was changed to "Europe" would that be acceptable to you? One Night In Hackney 20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What's clear from those sources taken together is that Britain is among the stricter countries in the world regarding gun laws. So yes, I'd support that being in the article backed by the two cites. --SandyDancer 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted One Night In Hackney's links and tidied up the intro a little. SilkTork 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, was about to do that myself and came here to retrieve the links I needed. One Night In Hackney 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oxford Union

Hi, I see that you removed the link to my site which I put up there. It is, indeed, a link to a self-published site (naughty). However, it is the only resource which has a set of documents which are essential to understanding how the Union works (most obviously, the rules). Thoughts? Hackloon 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The site doesn't comply with WP guidelines and shouldn't be linked to. Perhaps you should ask the society itself to put the rulebook on their website if you consider essential to understanding the Union - I don't think its essential for the purposes of WP readers however --SandyDancer 11:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree - I've been through Wikipedia:External_links and it seems to me to fit most of teh criteria for inclusion (specifically, it provides more depth than you would ever want on the main article, it is unbiased, it is likely to remain there, it isn't full of advertising, and it's free). The one block might be that it is, indeed, maintained by one person, rather than the Society as a whole. And trust me, I've been nagging them for long enough to take it off my hands :) Anyway, that's why I put it on. If you still disagree, I'm not going to get *that* excited about it! Hackloon 12:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove?

Old political stalwarts like me are used to total scum like you, I'm afraid. Your aims are so blatant. That Wikipedia permits such a fantastically biased left-winger to edit with impunity subjects and people they no nothing about demonstrates their ineptitude as an academic source. I also wish to point out that whilst I do know the banned user Sussexman, (whom I have seen twice in 16 years) I am not he. Clearly conspiracy theories are not just the preserve of The Right. Gregory Lauder-Frost. 193.201.65.50 11:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You aren't "total" scum to me, I assure you. We have never met. I had not even heard of you until the last month or two when I became involved in editing Wikipedia.

Let me be frank about what I am doing. It seems to me you came to Wikipedia and wrote lots of articles, some on notable and important subjects, some not so. There was a massive row - involving you personally - which then died down. I've come along in the aftermath and can see that a lot of articles you / your friends / acquaintances worked on need to be revised to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I'm doing so as best I can. That's it. I am not adding biased editorial, I am not weighting the articles with negative material. On the whole, I am just rewording them and pointing out where they are completely unreferenced and / or biased.

Rewriting articles to be neutral, rather than biased towards your personal point of view, does not make me "fantastically biased left-winger".

It is clear you don't approve of this course, but then I suppose you believe you are correct and that your world view is the only one worth considering - so how could you? Wikipedia isn't for you Gregory - not because it is biased, but rather because it isn't. --SandyDancer 12:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, Sandy, Sandy. How could you be so dense? Bias means opinions these extreme right-wingers disagree with, whereas neutrality means opinions they agree with. Surely this is obvious! Guy (Help!) 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I clearly need to take a break from dealing with such people on Wikipedia! --SandyDancer 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I can arrange for some of them to have a break from vexing you...

No doubt the court which convicted Lauder-Frost of theft had been infiltrated by communists. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrisi Avgi

You must face it. You can't read Greek! I can, and I know what's sourced and what's not. Mitsos 08:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

• You are an editor who has been RFCd and accused of POV pushing many times. Therefore your work will come under particular scrutiny.
• This article is about a controversial subject (i.e. a far-right political party). Self proclaimed white nationalists like you are bound to be scrutinised when you edit here.
• This is English Wikipedia and you can't adopt that arrogant attitude - English sources are preferred. If there are no English language sources about this party, perhaps it isn't sufficiently notable from an Anglophone perspective to be on English Wikipedia and should be deleted? --SandyDancer 14:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's speak seriously. Copying from your version:"The party continued to hold rallies and marches. In October 1997, he published an article in Hrisi Avgi newspaper calling for nationalist vigilantism against illegal immigrants and leftists." Does this makes sense to you???? Who published the article??? Do you even read the article before editing? You have misplaced the paragraph! And stop removing the word "left-wing" from the article. I don't know what's wrong with you, but you go round the article and remove the word "left-wing" from every paragraph that it exists! Too bad for you that these information are sourced. Mitsos 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It refers, presumably, to the guy the paragraph was about. You never complained about this sentence until the internet link went dead - then you siezed your opportunity to have it deleted and are using any arguments you can to do so. --SandyDancer 14:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Czech beer

Hey SilkTork. How do you like the photo I added some time ago at the top of the article? Isn't that just the healthiest looking mug of dark lager you ever saw? Took it myself on a visit to the Klásterní Pivovar Strahov, Prague. I wanted to ask - do you think that microbrewery needs / deserves an article? --SandyDancer 00:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be a very minor brewery. There has been some discussion on the notability of breweries. Take a look: Wikipedia:Notability (breweries). You are welcome to add your own comments, and/or edit the proposal itself. While not conclusive, there was a general feeling that breweries could be started off in a regional article. So a mention of Klásterní Pivovar Strahov in the Czech beer article would be a good starting point. Any references or sources you have would be very welcome.

In fact - please leave a comment on the notability proposal. If people don't comment on it then it might get tagged as Historical and shoved in a broom cupboard. Poor thing. SilkTork 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Award

Gee thanks. I don't think I've ever been awarded one of those before. JASpencer 18:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Just in case you read this: Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

I quite agree, Wikipedia is tiresome and even depressing at times, I don't think I could leave it to go to the dogs though. Thank you for your kind words they are appreciated, I am attempting to leave behind petty squabbles and move on. My best wishes to you, Couter-revolutionary 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I 'm just curious

Aren't you supposed to be inactive? Mitsos 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, welcome back Sandy. – Steel 21:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Steel. I've started checking Wikipedia again and logged into my account to check my watchlist. Initially I was only going to make contributions to talk pages, but I think the abuse of pages relating to the Greek far-right is so serious that I want to intervene. That's your answer, Mitsos. One would have hoped you'd have learned something from your ban. It seems you haven't. --SandyDancer 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)