User talk:Counter-revolutionary

Welcome! User Page · Talk page · · Awards · Contributions · Edit count · Sandbox

James Chichester-Clark I have removed the term 'only' in the sentence "only 1,500 troops" for the very reason that you condemned me for, because it is a [unsubstantiated in the context] claim that expresses that the number of troops offered was not high enough. The quote may very well be a quote, but it is also a subjective analysis of a person's character, it is biased, many people would not describe him as "ever the gentlemen". Furthermore, it is incorrect to use the postnominals 'MP' if the individual is not currently a sitting MP. The individuals named in the table are deceased and thus are no longer entitled to use the post nominals, that is standard policy in wikipedia. Perhaps in future if you really disagree with my edits you could discuss them before engaging in a petty edit war? As I did regarding the appropriateness of using noble titles, before conceding. Thankyou! AJMW (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I suppose you are correct on the MP point. I still disagree with regards to the quote, given that it is referenced by a reliable source. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Hello Just back, and a newly blanked page - just like the good old days! Anyway, when you get your mojo back, why not take a look at Wikipedia:User Page Design Center? You might find something that appeals. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC). Dodds Really? Why?Traditional unionist (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Dodd's is a clever chap, seems much more capable than Robinson (even though he doesn't seem too bad a politician, whatever else he might be!) Thing is, if Dodds were it, I think he could beat the UUP. With Paisley gone, and Robinson in power, Stormont belongs to them once more. Hopefully.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC) I think you just don't like estate agents!Traditional unionist (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Is he an estate agent, hahah, I didn't know that. You're probably right... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Look at his shoes: if they're dirty, he's an estate agent. (An infallible test). --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I missed it I thought ONIH retired? GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Image copyright problem with Image:3rd Lord Lurgan.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:3rd Lord Lurgan.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in. That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page. This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Tomislav II Hi, I saw some of your comments on the Mindaugas II of Lithuania talk page and was wondering if you would be interested in commenting on the request move for King Tomislav II of Croatia. - dwc lr (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Don't suppose you know anyone else who might be interested in commenting. - dwc lr (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I'll try to find a few.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Nonexistent throne Would you care to comment here as you have been the "reverter" with whom I have mainly come into contact = ). Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Northern Command Northern Command Please stop disrupting this article by adding incorrect information to the lead or removing sourced content, your edits are unconstructive and are rapidly approaching borderline vandalism. Domer48 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Northern Irish People redirect Come now, that was most certainly not a "minor edit" as you indicated. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of that article. Please join us and help to work towards consensus. Windyjarhead (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Robert Ross Tomb Pics Hi, the pics are here: Tomb Pics --Spankr (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I'm not really sure how to work Wikimedia though.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Political Dweeb's Question User: Political Dweeb here wants to ask if User:Counter-revolutionary can look at the question I put on the Conservative Monday Club article's discussion page called Political position? I wanted you to clarify if what I said about the CMC in that question is true or not. If you do not know do you know of anyone esle who can answer my question. Political Dweeb (talk) Edward Carson Hi, please do not revert me on this again, else I will resort to searching WP:Mediation with a neutral admin. I have plenty of citations that make both the cat and entry in the article Notable. With kind regards Keysstep (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC) What are you on about? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Contacted the administrator Hi Counter-revolutionary! Since you reverted me again and I do not wish an edit war, I refrained from reverting you and contacted an administrator on the issue. With kind regards, Keysstep (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Lord Carson was no more a hurler than I am a cricketer. I have reverted you once, so far as I can see. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Bolding "sir" I was not aware that this had become a de facto convention. I regard it as bizarre in the majority of cases, but there you go. The text you refer me to does not state that "Sir" should be bolded, although it does give an example where it is. I hope that in future you will be able to assume good faith and leave more positive talk page comments. While I am commenting here, could I ask you to look over Help:Minor edit? At present, you seem to be marking almost every edit as minor, even those which change text - albeit usually a small amount - or could be controversial. The guideline states that a minor edit should be used for "...rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute". Thanks, Warofdreams talk 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Quid pro quo, very good. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Lord Faulkner If Lord Faulkner should be listed at List of teetotalers, please add a citation. I see nothing about this in his article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Michele Renouf Please note that "lady" should not be at the beginning of the article per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_Titles --Faith (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Note, lady is not an honourific title. I'm happy to take you on over this. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Senators Never heard of him! Not too bad, keeping busy. Yourself?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC) You should check with the likes of Bill Henderson, he's almost certain to have known him. If you call party HQ they would give him your number and I'm sure he would call you back.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Vyner Brooke 9 out of the 17 references are from the 1 website, really it should have a variety of reliable sources Michellecrisp (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Also noted you marked your comment on my talk page and removal of a tag as minor. Thought it was not minor? Michellecrisp (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Hardly major. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Hely-Hutchinsons I've just created a disambiguation page for Hely-Hutchinson. As I see you've been involved with a number of the articles about the earls with this name, could I ask you to have a quick look and make sure the descriptions for each are correct. In particular, whether I have correctly described them as Irish, Anglo-Irish or British - obviously this has been a sensitive issue over history, and I don't want to tread on anyone's toes. Many thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Thoughts I wish to state categorically that I have never ever used David Lauder's computer nor has he ever used mine. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I wish to state categorically that there's checkuser evidence that one or the other has happened, to vote-stack in an ArbCom election. This has been confirmed by multiple checkusers. SirFozzie (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Multiple=two. However there is another possible explanation which makes Fozzie just plain wrong. I have written to an Arbcom checkuser to verify. Berks911 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Two (2)? You do seem to have some specialised knowledge Berks911, so where you fit in (as you like a mathematical analogy) to the equation. Exactly whose sock are you? As I see it, the main obstacle to Sussexman et al returning is an abject failure to come clean and stop deceiving the community. Perhaps Sussexman is more than one person - who knows? Perhaps, lots of people take a turn at being Lauder/Sussexman/Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. The only thing known for certain is that as long as he/they is banned he is fooling nobody. Giano (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Two = Alison and Thatcher. David Lauder has agreed that he has known and used Sussexman’s password; that does not make him the same person. Sussexman has retired. Lauder hopes to return and vehemently denies being Sussexman. I assume good faith on his part and Counter-rev’s. As Bonkers put it, I hope Lauder is not being left in limbo by Arbcom. Berks911 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC) This seems accurate. Giano, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post here again. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid the problem is with you people is that you think you can all sign in and out with different names and that the rest of us are all too stupid to see it. For instance you, Berks, are quite clearly Kittybrewster or another of the "gang" - if indeed you are all separate people rather just one adult with an identity crisis. So you see, there is not a lot of confidence placed in any of you is there? The question is not, when is Lauder returning, but who do you think you are fooling? Giano (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I'd like to point out that it was actually significantly more than two checkusers - Alison ❤ 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)