User talk:Robert I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Welcome!

Hello Robert I, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Lectonar 14:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert, May I add my welcome to Lectonars. We love new contributors, and as a historian I am sure you have a lot to give. Please read the links above, in particular the Five pillars, and WP:NPOV - they are crucial to building an encyclopedia without peer. User:CJCurrie is not adding bias to the Harvey Ward page, he is removing it. We do not like words like 'terrorist', 'dictator' because they mean different things to different people. If you would like a little perspective, I refer you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators for some live debate on these subjects. Feel free to pitch in - but I request that you read all the comments first. Wizzy…☎ 06:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC).
  • Actually, I think I've given up on Wikipedia. Some stupid female is now saying that my IP code is "similar" to Lauder-Frosts. what next. In fact its very similar to that of the Daily Telegraph also. I felt I'd started writing some reasonable biographies, such as Gregory lauder-Frost and Harvey Ward, about relatively well-known people on the conservative Right. The Left have railed in with all kinds of smears from the usual sources. I think in these circumstances Wikipedia is unworthy of serious scholarly effort. Robert I 16:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I'm a stupid male, not a stupid female. It looks like you have a habit of jumping to conclusions in the absence of any evidence to support them. (There's nothing particularly feminine about the name "Homey" or "homeontherange". Indeed, quite the opposite when one considers that home on the range is a reference to cowboys.)Homey 17:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC).

  • My apologies. I thought it said Honey at first. I understand some of your comments but I weary of the ceaseless attacks which I feel are just so unreasonable. There are lots of people on the left, lots on the right. Surey a biography of all of them can be written without it being perverted by the opposition. Robert I 17:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should read wikipedia's NPOV policy in order to gain an understanding of what's going on. It's not a matter of being right-wing or left-wing but of being balanced and neutral. Writing an article from an ideological slant is inevitably going to result in it being re-edited and balanced out with information from the other end. There are plenty of articles on "left-wing" topics in which this has happened as well as articles on issues of contention between right and left and for that matter, articles involving one or another side of various other questions outside of politics. Responding to NPOV edits by accusing editors of being left-wing (or for that matter right-wing) will endear you to nobody. You have to addess the substance of the edits rather than attack the editor. Homey 18:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC).

  • Thank you. I note what you say but at the end of the day its a question of individual perception. I thought I had written or added to some articles in summary fashion demonstrating to the reader what the individuals concerned were about. Obviously I am not going to quote journalists of either right or left in any major degree because we all know that articles are usually written for sensational value and designed to sell newspapers. I have not voted for 20 years, I have never belonged to a political party. But I can recognise obsessiveness when I see it and no-one is obsessive without an agenda of some description. I feel that CJCurry has an agenda with those on 'the Right'. He is out to make absolutely certain that not one iota of credibility is attached to them. His idea of neutrality is pretty left-wing from my observations, and I am non-political. I am currently writing a book on at least 12 of these people so I'm not sure I can keep up this endless Wikipedia business. I must go back to London to research. Curry suggests that Lauder-Frost's daughter is using his/my/someone else's computer but I can tell you that she lives in London!. I am very weary. Robert I 18:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you click on the following link and read what's there: NPOV. Homey 18:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC).

  • Thanks. I have looked at it before but I'm happy to look at it again. I'm going out for dinner now (I live alone). Robert I 18:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Robert for your defences. I am taking action.

  • Could I just say that you might like to have a word with CJCurry about 'neutrality', given some of his outrageous comments and postings. His 'crusade' against Lauder-Frost. I would be very happy for the article to be removed as I wrote the bulk of it.


Mr. Lauder-Frost (if that is you), the article cannot be deleted without a vote to do so. I think you have found what others have found before you - there is an unintended consequence of vanity articles which is that people may add to them factual information you would rather not have included and as that information is factual there's nothing you can do about it.

In any case, I had occasion to research British and Canadian libel laws some years ago. It would seem that the only way a libel action commenced in the UK can be successful in Canada is if the Canadian plaintiff first consents to the case being heard (there's either a treaty between Canada and the UK on the matter or something in the UK laws that states so, don't remember which). Now, if the Canadian plaintiff had property in the UK or was a UK resident things would be different but neither is the case here. You can sue whomever you want but if they are outside of Europe and ignore your notice of motion there's nothing you can do about it. And no, libel is not an extradictable offence. Homey 23:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Do not edit other people's comments in the talk pages again or I will have you banned for violating wikipedia rules. Homey 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I am not Lauder-Frost and I have not been 'warned' before this. Is it a Wikipedia rule to break UK law by leaving malicious content up? Anyway, I have spent two hours copying and pasting everything to lauder-Frost. He tells me that he is taking action initially against Wikipedia for wilfully permitting itself to be used for defamation.All, I understood, under Scottish Law.Robert I 07:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert I 07:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • defamation ? Precisely which section defames him ? We strive for accuracy, and facts. Are there uncited lies in the main article ? Wizzy…☎ 07:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

CJCurrie had deliberately inserted something into the main article relating to detail concerning the case, which I took down because I believed that it was a deliberate attempt of malice. As Wikipedia is copied all over the world and is available all over the world. Flagging up this issue of nearly 14 years ago is seen in British law generally as malice and an action can be raised for defamation under those sections. The law in Britain contains certain protections for those who have appeared in court, guilty or not. After 10 years anyone with a conviction under 3 years has the matter 'spent'. That means it cannot be RAISED in public (that is different to it remaining on record) unless it can be demonstrated as in the Public Interest. In addition, in Scotland there are additional laws regarding protection of the individual to enable them to begin a new life with this sort of baggage behind them. Raising it deliberately is an offence. Robert I 08:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm unclear, was Lauder-Frost's conviction overturned on appeal or wasn't it?Homey 21:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but not until May or June. I'll look it up in my notes. I had already posted full details some days ago, for which I had a wrap over the knuckles from him. he wished the matter to be left alone. I can understand that. Robert I 21:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, in future you and you're friends shouldn't start vanity articles since they tend to either get deleted or be rewritten with the inclusion of facts that the vainglorious would prefer forgotten.Homey 21:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You really are very rude. I wrote this article because I thought it was someone (whom I had not met before I started researching him) who was often mentioned in conservative circles who was of interest. That is all. I proposed to write several others but I have decided against that. No doubt you and CJ Currie will be very pleased with my decision. The inclusion of "facts" which transgress our laws and the inclusion of them designed very obviously purely for malicious purposes would naturally be offensive to us. Robert I 21:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So are you saying that it's illegal in Britain to mention in a biographical work that someone was charged and tried for a crime? Does this mean that in a decade's time it will be illegal to mention Jeffrey Archer's prison sentence? I seriously doubt that. If true you should oppose it as an example of liberalism run rampant. Homey 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be liberalism run rampant but it is a fair law. Because Archer's sentence was too long. He is not covered. Its only minor sentences which are covered. It must be under 2.5 years. The Act states specifically that people in this category must be able to get back on their feet without their conviction being constantly thrown at them in public. (What CJCurrie would like to see is some sort of media life-sentence, it would appear). So Archer's business can be constantly brought up until he goes to the grave. He has no protection at all. Robert I 21:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the matter only came up because you were trying to obfuscate the reasons around your friend's departure from his job. There is no harm in saying someone was charged but the charge was not sustained on appeal - it's simply a matter of fact and the article only mentions it in passing. I'm more concerned by your attempt to white wash your friend's views on immigration and white minority rule through the use of euphemisms. Homey 22:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Your terminology shows your political leanings. The position of European governments anywhere in the world, and supporting them, by British citizens, who were born and brought up with a concept of Empire and and being an Imperial Power are not "euphemisms". Your terminology is determinedly anti-European and anti-British. Could I point out, again, that he gave his notice at the end of December 1991 because he felt his position had become untenable, with the political witch-hunts that were taking place. It was not until later in January that accusations (only) of discrepancies were made. So that was not the reason he left his job. You are wrong. He was not charged with anything at all until June. But I have said all this before and I am unable to understand how you and Mr.Currie cannot understand plain English.Robert I 10:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert, you're not a lawyer so stop pretending you know the law. If Mr Lauder-Frost wishes to see a solicitor, so be it. Until then the matter is closed. Homey 13:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Er..how do you know what I am? I understand they are proceeding. Robert I 19:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


To be frank, because what you've said about the law reveals more of your ignorance of it than it does anything about the law itself. Homey 19:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two week ban

Robert I, you have been banned from wikipedia for two weeks for vandalism by means of fraudulent editing. You knowingly and deliberately distorted and misrepresented a quotation. That this was not an honest mistake but a deliberate act is clear from your statement on Talk:Monday Club. Homey 22:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Rubbish. Just who do you think you are? Who are you to dictate what shape and form quotes take? I note that you have also accused me of placing false information on a site. This is a lie. I am complaining about you and your friend. Robert I 18:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You falsified a quotation and expressed no contrition in having done so (quite the opposite) which makes you completely untrustworthy as an editor. Anyway, I've lifted you ban and asked other administrators to review your behaviour. Homey 19:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I DID NOT falsify anything at all. A quote can be as long or as short as you decide to make it. I felt that the quote I put up was an adequate description of the Club. I did not think the last word was, as it was a left-wing smear word. So I dropped it. That is all. That is a writer's prerogative. You may not like it but really, so what. You cannot dictate to people the size of a quote, how long it may be, how short, and what it may or may not include. I think you're getting a bit over-the-top. Of course, all the newspapers (and the BBC) you are so fond of quoting would NEVER quote things out of context, would they? Not much! Robert I 21:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    You mis-quoted. Wizzy…☎ 21:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I hear what you say but I feel that I have answered the criticism just above your post above. Thank you for the comment anyway. I am not an ogre. But I feel that the war being carried on against my articles and all the various subjects is deliberate. Robert I 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please do not quote if you do not know how. A quote is a verbatim transcript of the speaker's words, not your interpretation of what they said.

This is rather insulting. I did quote what the speaker said. I simply left off one offensive word at the end of his comments. That is every writer's prerogative. It remains verbatum. I have an honours degree from Oxford and I think I am sufficiently well-versed in the Queen's English. Robert I 08:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please do not make legal threats. Goodwill and 'assume good faith' evaporate in the face of them.

I have already stated that I personally have not made legal threats. I have nevertheless pointed out clearly to posters with malicious intent what the situation is here in Britain. How can there be anything wrong with that? Robert I 08:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I got involved through Harvey Ward and your edits to Zimbabwe articles. We are not writing for a group of sycophants at the pub - we must write in a sufficiently neutral way that everyone is satisfied, even Mugabe's cadres. Its not easy.

I felt that I had presented the articles not as "sycophantic" (I don't drink so I don't frequent pubs) but as they were from a standard perspective at the time. If these articles are to be re-written from a politically-correct standpoint with a left-wing bent they should be removed. Robert I 08:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Try checking out articles you did not start - I think you are being too possessive of certain articles. 'What links here' is useful. Look at Land reform in Zimbabwe, ANC, Josiah Tongogara, Ian Smith and see if they tell the whole story. Wizzy…☎ 07:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall do that. Robert I 08:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In 1970 the PCR contributed to 14 groups known to be involved in revolutionary guerrilla activities, some were Communist in ideology and receiving arms from the Soviet Union (Reader's Digest, October 1971).

I guess by your standards we should add a footnote pointing out that Reader's Digest has a reputation for having a very conservative editorial policy and that some universities cite it as an example of propaganda. But since we are not using your standards we'll not do that. 64.231.212.67 00:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what the last two posts are about. Is this to do with me? Robert I 13:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MORI Poll

I've found a more recent (2004) MORI poll on newspaper readership and updated the info in the Guardian and Independent articles accordingly and also added figures to the Telegraph. The figures for Labour supporters are far lower than what you indicated were the figures in 2000. Homey 15:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Five years have passed. There may be some change. I merely quoted Mori's very clear graph. I shall check with them on the latest figures. Robert I 17:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, support for Labour among readers for those two papers is only a few points higher than in the general population (though support for the Lib Dems is significantly higher, more Independent readers support the Lib Dems than Labour). With the Telegraph, by contrast, support for the Tories is 61% compared to 31% among the general population at the time - an interesting statistic that shows how far out of step Telegraph readers are with most Britons. Homey 18:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

I have made a request for arbitration concerning your recent activities. See [1].

  • MY "recent activities"! Well, thats rich, I must say. Robert I 12:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I should clarify that you (and your anonymous associate) are asked to give your account of the story on the RFA board. CJCurrie 23:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clive Derby-Lewis

Lyndon Larouche's Executive Intelligence Review is not a credible source. He and his cult are notorious conspiracy theorists. Homey 16:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I was not aware of that. The information was passed to me. Who decides ultimately what is and what is not a credible source? I have previously posted very credible sources which have still been both ignored or questioned. Robert I 16:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Larouche is notorious and nothing EIR publishes is picked up by the rest of the press (that should be a pretty good indication of not being a credible source). EIR has also accused the royal family of being the world's leading drug dealers. Obviously whoever passed on the information to you doesn't care about the credibility of sources. Homey 16:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • OK. Just asking. Robert I 16:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derby-Lewis

See [2]Homey 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think I knew most of that. Arthur Kemp was and his wife were 'in exile' here in Oxfordshire for some time. But he missed home and wanted to return. I am not sure that I would call him entirely credible as he has to find succour with the ANC authorities to be able to live quietly in the RSA. It is still unclear how the gun came to be in Derby-Lewis's home. I understand he had a very large gun cabinet and was a member of rifle clubs and was a prize-winning pistol shot. Did he buy it? Probably we'll never know. Robert I 08:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Little Hitler

I object to you referring to me as a "Little Hitler" in the comment you made here. Homey 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Not me, I'm afraid, whatever you wish to believe. Possibly you can give it but cannot take it. Just because you dress up your abuse by trying to palm it off onto Red journalists does not make it less abusive. Robert I 09:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

To the best of my knowledge I have not been undoing edits without giving my reasons somewhere. I have been reverting on the Western Goals Institute page to the version which I had worked very hard on and which User homeonetherange has deliberately reverted umpteen times simply because he/she does not like it and just wants to constantly vandalise everything do or demonise those people or organisations I have worked upon. Please confirm that you have sent exactly the same message you sent to me, above, to homeontherange. Robert I 10:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

I have been instructed at this end to refrain from further comment on Wikipedia. Robert I 14:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Who, pray, is instructing you ? Wizzy…☎ 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your timing is intiguing, Robert I, and merits further investigation. Homey 00:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith

Please remember to respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Constantly accusing people of "demonisation", for example, isn't good for Wikipedia:civility. Thanks. Rd232 talk 14:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Thank you. I feel bound to say that the condescending manner in which some contributors to Wikipedia are spoken to is positively insulting. It is very important that the English language in its entirety is available to us. If demonisation has been taking place or recommended then that is the appropriate word to use. It is also very important that certain contributors do not constantly attempt to hide behind the umpteen Wikipedia headings, to which you refer, in an attempt to silence all criticism of their activities. Robert I 15:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoffrey Stewart-Smith, M.P.

What has happened to the article on this fellow? The London Daily Telegraph thought him an important enough personage to give him a full half-page obituary. Robert I 10:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems it was deleted because the article was copied almost word for word from the Daily Telegraph obituary and thus infringed their copyright. Homey 17:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I would like to know exactly who deleted it. Was it actually word-for-word? Did the Telegraph make a complaint? Did you check with them? Are you therefore saying that the Wikimedia Foundation is legally responsible for everything that appears here? That is very interesting in itself. How does one's life history, which in Stewart-Smith's case much is common knowledge, become copyright to a particular organisation? I see the article to which you have contributed on the communist, Stewart Smith, is still up. Interesting, eh? Robert I 09:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

From Deletion log - 17:59, December 29, 2005 User:Jareth deleted "Geoffrey Stewart-Smith" (copyvio http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/20/db2001.xml)
It was reported by Homey 16:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
You can check Contributors rights and obligations to see why verbatim copying from a copyrighted source is not allowed. It is not necessary for the Telegraph to make a complaint - though it would be in their rights to do so. I am not sure of the significance of the Stewart Smith article - Smith is a common name. Wizzy…☎ 10:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

So. It was "reported" by Homey. Speaks volumes. This is just another attack by these people against those they disapprove of. I cannot understand how the Wikipedia people cannot see that these people have a political agenda. Its beyond me. Robert I 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Having now contacted by telephone the Daily Telegraph they say that as long as accreditation has been given (which it was) they don't have a particular problem with copyright. They do, however, reserve strict copyright over pictures. So that does not apply in this case. I have therefore requested restoration of this article. Robert I 11:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

One cannot fault either Homey or Jareth for deleting the article. A standard technique on freshly-created articles is to paste a section of the text into google and see what comes up. If hte article is substantially the same, with long passages of verbatim text, it is a candidate for a speedy delete. The Telegraph page says this at the bottom :-
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006.

At the bottom of what? Not the obit because I am sitting her looking at it.Robert I 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of the link above ?? Look at bit harder ?? I did a copy/paste. Wizzy…☎

My apologies. When I said I was looking at it I meant the paper copy. I see to what you are referring but that 'copyright notice is standard and appears at the bottom of every single electronic page. Robert I 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that notwithstanding your telephone call, a such a page is a candidate for deletion. How hard would it be for you to write an article in your own words, using the Telegraph article as a source ? It is not that Stewart-Smith's case is common knowledge, it is that the journalist's words, in that order, are copyright the Telegraph. Wizzy…☎ 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

I hear what you say but the 'Daily Telegraph' don't seem to think there is a problem. What more can I say?

It says right on the page. Wizzy…☎

Of course it is pure co-incidence that Homey nominated this article for deletion, whatever the grounds. Pure co-incidence. I will see if I have the time to write up something but it is fair comment to say that the English language must surely be very similar for most writers. Robert I 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is not coincidence. Of course Homey is going through your contributions list to see if there are bad cites, copyright violations, and NPOV, because your contributions are full of it, and I am glad someone is taking the time to do so. When I come across questionable edits on wikipedia, I skim through the previous contributions, and see if there is more of the same. Homey is doing that as well, and you know it. Why do you think this is surprising ? Wizzy…☎ 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

I am extremely disappointed with your very rude comments. I had thought you might have been more balanced. I have worked extremely hard to gather together mountains of evidence and set up accurate articles for peoples and individuals. They have been attacked by people with a political agenda. I have NOT made "bad cites" or knowingly made any "copyright violations". Indeed when I was first told of the baove I telephoned the Daily Telegraph to see if that assertion was correct. It was not. These and assertions of NPOV are entirely OPINIONS, not FACTS. It does seem that my collegues in Britain are correct in their assessment of the peole who appear to be in control of Wikipedia. Robert I 14:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

bad cite: you mis-quoted, as noted further up this talk page, and subsequently defended it.
Copyright violation - Your telephone call cannot trump stated policy on their web page, because it must be verifiable by any editor (I am certainly not calling the Telegraph from South Africa). Even if you are reading the paper copy, I am certain that somewhere in the paper it mentions their copyright. Yes, it says it at the bottom of every web page - so they mean it. We (Wikipedia) cannot use it. Just write the article in your own words - it is not very hard. Use google to translate it to french and back, and then chop out the nonsense ?
NPOV - I got involved on your page over Harvey Ward, and mentioned NPOV on my first visit to this page. It has been mentioned numerous times since. Wizzy…☎ 14:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

I do not accept I mis-quoted and I have explained this ad infinitum. The Monday Club has never made any adverse statements about other races (apart from not wanting them all in Britain) so I therefore regarded the 'racist' word as abuse and dropped it from the end of the sentence. The rest of the quote was absolutely accurate. I also do not accept that anything I wrote on Harvey Ward's page was NPOV. Certainly much opinion (which I eprsonally would regard as NPOV) has been added and that includes fanatasy stories by journalists who are, at the ened of the day, just ordinary people who want to sell whatever it is they are writing. If its tedious garbage it wo't sell. So it has to be sensational. That seems to be lost on some contributors. I am pleased that one thing my parents taught me was never to rely on anything you read in a newspaper. Robert I 08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As has been noted, the article was deleted as a copyright violation. Regardless of the statements of the Telegraph, unless they are willing to release the text under the GFDL license, Wikipedia cannot use the material. You mention that numerous sources contain the information in the obituary -- please feel free to use those sources and re-write the information in your own words. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this is just part of a campaign against me and anything I have written about traditionalists and ultra-conservatives by Leftists and Politically-correct obsessives. I cannot believe that you were just sitting there and out of half a million entries in Wikipedia decided somehow to look at Geoffrey Stewart-Smith! Robert I 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made a start on Geoffrey Stewart-Smith. Wizzy…☎ 15:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demonisations

I have been sent this link today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

It seems that Wikipedia is getting a reputation for demonisations. Robert I 14:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Old news, actually. Wizzy…☎ 14:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a prank played by an Anon that was, unfortunately, not noticed. You're comparing apples and oranges in your attempt to paint yourself as a victim. Homey01:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC),

Old news, 'prank', whatever, its getting Wiki bad publicity. Much of what the victim says there is true. Robert I 08:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Did you read the article I linked to above ? Changes have been made that would prevent such a thing happening again - anons can now not create new articles. When you, or anyone else, create a new article, other people (like CJCurrie, Homey, and myself) do a quick check to see if the information there is correct, and NPOV. Does that seem reasonable ? Wizzy…☎ 09:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

I am not sure of your political persuasion, but think that disputes such as the current one between myself, (and some other contributors?), and the friend's trio: CJCurry, Homeontherange, GroundZero, must always occur when they are SO political orientated that they demonise articles because of it. I, for instace, could easily have gone to all of their articles and made endless comments and edits, but I have not. One, because they interest me not, and two because I may be biased against them/their subjects. So possibly it is better if editing of political material is done by someone who is neither right nor left, and more particularly by someone who is ot the slightest bit interested in politics and edits for the sake of it. Robert I 17:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We strive for NPOV. It is a lofty goal, that seems inevitably to require some scratching in the dust. I am glad you realise you can, quite easily, check CJCurrie, Homey, and my own edits, and thus check political persuasion or otherwise, by means of a large database held on the mediawiki servers, that allows searching by user, date, and conveniently provided diffs. Wizzy…☎ 17:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorists

On the face of it, yes. But my concern is political agendas being engaged under the veil of 'neutrality'. For instance, terrorism. It has been accepted by just about everyone other than those on the far-left, that murder and mutilation for political ends is the classic definition of a terrorist. It matters not what their aims were. They cannot be justified. I am afraid that is not the way CJCurry and homey see it. Robert I 09:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The way wikipedia uses the word terrorism can be looked up on its article, Terrorism. The first sentence says Terrorism is not defined. Wizzy…☎ 09:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

They are wrong. Obviously a major flaw for Wikipedia. I suppose its a convenient cop-out for murderers and their supporters. Robert I 10:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

They are wrong. Well, there are nine archived talk pages on Talk:Terrorism that have come to that conclusion, and the significant first sentence, so I think yours is a simplistic analysis. I have brought this up before, in my first item on your Talk page. Wizzy…☎ 10:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

I note your original comment at the top of the page, but whether or not you think my analysis "simplistic" it is nevertheless an analysis based upon very straight forward fact. People can argue until the cows come home but murder for political aims is terrorism. I simply cannot understand anyone who argues against that assessment. Robert I 11:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, take it up with Talk:Terrorism before taking it up with your 'demonisers' here. My take on it is that Terrorist means different things to different people (Harvey Ward, Mugabe's cadres, Bush detractors, Islamic fundamentalists) and thus is not a useful term on an NPOV encyclopedia, as it does a poor job of communicating, and so should not be used. I will not be discussing the word's merits here. Wizzy…☎ 11:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

Whatever, it seems that British politicans at least have no difficulties in describing terrorists as terrorists in their many speeches in parliament. Robert I 13:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Response to fantasy

  • Just laughable that someone would have that amount of spare time. All of the people and groups you refer to are credible for something like Wikipedia, as is evidenced by other contributions. So you can believe what you like. Wikipedia does not lay down the law as to what computers may be used and who can use them. In fact, when I first registered with Wikipedia I stated that I had previously only edited under an anonymous ISP number. Moreover, to suggest that two entirely different ISP numbers are the one computer is farcical as it would mean that the individual concerned would be forking out to two ISPs.

But that is not the issue here. The BIG issue has always been your fantastic attempts at demonisation (the Western Goals Institute must rank as possibly the most classic example) and the very major attempts to discredit absolutely everyone on the Right of British conservative politics. Every argument and every excuse (almost all based upon known left-wing organs) has been used by you and if the arbitrators cannot see this then there is no hope for balance on Wikipedia. Robert I 11:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

AND - please do not block up my talk page by reposting your arbitration complaints here. Robert I 11:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiry regarding legal dispute

Is there a legal dispute between you and Wikipedia or between you and other Wikipedia users regarding Gregory Lauder-Frost? Also, assuming you are not Gregory Lauder-Frost, are you involved in any way in a legal dispute between him and Wikipedia or other Wikipedia users? Fred Bauder 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

  • I am personally not involved. He told me he had instructed solicitors about attempts (some of which were exceptionally obvious) to deliberately demonise him on Wikipedia. I have a note from him this morning which states that their enquiries to the Charity Commission reveal that the Foundation have no status in the UK. That is all I know. Robert I 11:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I will make an inquiry to our legal committee and give them a heads up. Fred Bauder 13:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case

I am relatively sure that the proposals I have advanced in your arbitration case are sound. However, you should probably contact the other arbitrators and ask them to carefully consider the matter, pointing out the aspects of my proposals which you consider unfair. There is a list at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Active.

Thanks. I think I'll just leave the masses of evidence rather than harrassing the arbitrators. I just felt it strange that my complaints/request for arbitration was ignored whereas that of my detractors was taken up. Robert I 16:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert I IPs

Robert,

Why did you delete this section from your user page earlier today? CJCurrie 18:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Because my Talk page was not the place for it. It had already been posted on one of the arbitration pages. Robert I 08:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And you never replied to it even though it was the most serious charge against you. Homey 13:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC).

I do not accept that any "serious charge" has been made against me. This is not a criminal court. To the best of my knowledge, all accusations against me have been answered on the appropriate pages. Robert I 13:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • User Homeontherange has just blocked me without the authorisation of the arbitrators. He has also publicly accused me of dishonesty in my postings which is a disgrace and is slanderous. As far as I am concerned he has exceeded himself and I will be making a formal complaint not just to the arbitrators but also to J Wales. I have had two friends staying here since Friday with me. If there is a Wikipedia rule which categorically states that a different computer must be used by each different person that must turn entire families with only one machine in the house on their heads. I have had quite enough of these infantile accusations being made by people with a VERY CLEAR AGENDA. Robert I 14:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert, you may wish to review this. CJCurrie 20:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Robert, as CJCurrie suggests, you should look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I under "remedies". The arbitrators ruled 6-0 to ban you indefinitely until legal issues are resolved alongside other rulings once the legal matter is resolved:

[edit] Robert I banned pending resolution of legal issues

1) Based on his posting signed Gregory Lauder-Frost and his admitted posting to Gregory Lauder-Frost of his concern regarding the article Gregory Lauder-Frost, Robert I is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution or formal withdrawal of all legal disputes with Wikipedia and its users. When all legal disputes have been withdrawn or resolved either by settlement or final judicial resolution including payment in full of any costs and judgment, the ban may be lifted.

Passed 6-0

Homey 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Doubtless you are thrilled with this decision which is what you and your comrade Currie have worked hard for. You don't like a poster or what he is saying, so get rid of him. The greatest injustice here is that (1) I am not involved in any legal actions whatsoever against anyone anywhere and it is therefore entirely wrong and unjust to tie me into them and (2) if you have a problem with Lauder-Frost you should be contacting him on lauderfrost@btinternet.com What I would say is that if you go public attempting with clear malice to defame individuals you must expect them to act and you must also expect people (like me) to contact them, if we know them, to tell them what is happening. That is, unless you believe firmly in a totalitarian state, which is possible, I suppose. Robert I 08:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate that I am not involved in any legal actions and never have been. Could someone explain why I cannot even edit my own user page. Robert I 17:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

....may be "one user or a closely related set of users sharing an identical point of view." So at least thats clear. No relations or close friends, and certainly no-one who has similar points of view. I hope this will be applied across the board. Robert I 17:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Landmark on Internet Abuse

Thought this might interest you.

The Times, 21 March 2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2096902,00.html IT Week, and The Guardian, both 22 March 2006, http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737001,00.html?gusrc=rss

  • Thanks. To a point it does but I can only repeat what I have always said: I am not involved in any legal actions whatsoever. If others deliberately leave themselves open to legal attack that is a matter for themselves rather than trying to use me as a scapegoat. Robert I 14:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Banned?

Dear Robert Isherwood, are you still banished? 86.129.77.169 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, User:Homeontherange still has me blocked although the template has gone. He is busy blocking and deleting as many people on the UK's Conservative Right that he can identify. Robert I 06:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See you're still off the air Robert, although your stalker, Homeontherange, has departed at last. One extreme left-winger down, eh. Whats the bet he'll be back under some other guise? You may like to know that at least three or four others have laso now been banned for supporting UK law. Tells you something about this lot, eh? 213.122.28.7 07:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] You've Lost

Your sterling efforts to produce a detailed history/biography of one of the leading figures on the British respectable Right were much appreciated by many. As you know his (and so yours also) detractors demonised the article, and had you, and others, banned for the defence of common decency and the law. Now, finally, at a third attempt, the article has been entirely deleted. You did good with your thorough research and should be commended for your efforts. 81.131.3.209 09:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But a great many of your other excellent contributions remain up despite the constant attacks on them by such obvious leftists such as User:CJCurrie. I have been looking at some others who have also been blocked because they are obviously on the wrong side of Wikipedia's political fence (ignore their catalogue of reasons for blocking, all similar to schoolchildren trying to think of a reason to get rid of those they don't like). You must all keep appealing against your block by this gang of totally undemocratic and dictatorial Reds. 86.129.73.61 10:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal

I would like my banning order removed please. The reasons for it were largely manufactured by my detractors and in any case are now ancient history. Robert I 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you been evading your ban by editing anonymously, and editing articles relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost? Please see relevant contributions here. --SandyDancer 14:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CJCurrie Left Wing Politics

For your information, I read your remark in User_talk:CJCurrie/Archive_2#Left_Wing_Bias. I am currently undergoing a similiar problem with CJCurrie on my talk page and in the Judy Marsales talk page. Your input would be appreciated. Alan.ca 05:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/User_talk%7ERobert_I_ca17.html"