Talk:International Monarchist League

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cannot understand why these important League activities were deleted. Also, where can I find the evidence that the Australian branch severed its links with the British body in 1993? I was a member until 1998 and Philip Benwell was still regularly attending London Monarchist League events then and I understand still is. Lightoftheworld 13:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it says in the Australian Monarchist League article.

I fail to see how who attended a dinner a decade and a half ago would be of interest to anyone outside of the actual attendees. Wikipedia is not a court circular. Homey 14:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Activities/dinners &c give an indication of what the group was about, and the stature of it is evidenced by the guests-of-honour. Sussexman 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait wait...

A pro-Monarchist organization with a council elected from among its members?

Am I the only one who finds that notion deliciously ironic and quintessentially British? :) Kasreyn 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But they're not elected. They're appointed by the existing council, not the membership.86.136.191.212 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The problem is it's very difficult to get sources for these sorts of things, especially ones which one can be directed to over the internet. Any suggestions?--Couter-revolutionary 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is often a problem. Unfortunately unsourced information shouldn't appear on Wikipedia - and the same applies to information which is unverifiable. --SandyDancer 11:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion (which is not shared by everyone) is that we should give any source of information we know about. If we heard about it on the news, we should write "X channel newscast on NNNN-NN-NN"; if we were there at the time, we should put in "personal communication from <name>". The more verifiable sources we can add, the better - but we should add "the best we have". --Alvestrand 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources" which are purely personal communications are not reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia and shouldn't be used. --SandyDancer 16:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Dandy Dancer fellow, who has vandalised countless article under the guise of 'revision' is jaundiced in the extreme against me and any groups I have had contact with. His wildly erroneous edits demonstrate that Wikipedia cannot be used as an accurate source base because it permits such amazing bias. Gregory Lauder-Frost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.65.50 (talk • contribs)

I quite agree.--Couter-revolutionary 16:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are like a stuck record. I had no idea who you were until I encountered the mess you created on Wikipedia, which has done nothing but further harm your reputation and cause you a lot of heartache and worry, it would seem

Gregory, an interview with you in a third-party magazine is clearly not a publication of the International Monarchist League. --SandyDancer 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may not be direct publications of the IML, but this does not mean they are not useful and relevant. Accusing Mr. Lauder-Frost of creating a "mess" on Wikipedia is not helpful to anyone.--Couter-revolutionary 16:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would contest the notion that lists of Gregory Lauder-Frost's own personal writings, archives, interviews are relevant to articles about organisations he has been associated with.

The mess I am referring to is this. A mess by anyone's standards, and one centred around the person of Gregory Lauder-Frost, due to ~~his~~ efforts to create a plethora of ~~self-~~references to him, but then crying foul when references to his legal problems in the early 90s were added to his biography. I don't want to rake over old ground. However, now that the dust has settled on this dispute I think it is only fair that an independent editor who was not involved should be able to make revisions to certain related articles without being insulted and vilified. That is what Lauder-Frost - and now you - are doing to me. --SandyDancer 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unble to see where GLF has himself done anything to Wikipedia. I see no concrete evidence anywhere that he has made himself any major contributions. There are plenty of wild accusations about sock-puppets, friends, impersonators, etc., all unsubstantiated, just excuses, from what I can see, for banning any supporters that he may have had. May be this Sandy Dancer fellow can point us to things outside of Wikipedia he has produced and edited. If not, how is he able to be a (self-appointed) judge? GLF has written a great deal and been an editor of a variety of things. It seems that here we simply have a very biased Wikipedia editor who, in what he writes, is quite open about that bias. He rather poorly tries to dress it up, which hardly improves his position. The Monarchist League, of which I am a member (since 1986), was well-served by GLF who produced some excellent treatises which winged their way to a world-wide membership. Just what has this Sandy Dancer fellow ever done?

Elsewhere on Wiki I see notes that all properly sourced material is acceptable if it adds meat to an article. Does that mean all approved material? Soungs a bit like 1984 to me. 86.136.191.212 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions that GLF was involved in editing Wikipedia are based on findings of the arbitration committee (see here, and the fact that certain edits have been signed off as being from him (see above, the post which prompted this long-dead discussion you have chosen to revive). I suppose it is possible that he has never edited Wikipedia personally, and someone has chosen to impersonate him. I don't know. It isn't my concern. I am not self appointing myself as a judge. Since retiring from WP at the beginning of the year I have kept out of the matter apart from when, as has happened above, I have been dragged back in. I am not a biased Wikipedia editor - at no stage have I purposely introduced bias, as my edit history proves. There may be times when my edits have not gained the approval of you or others, but if you choose not to edit them yourself (which you are free and able to do), you cannot really criticise. Feel free to get stuck in, I won't stop you. Goodbye. --SandyDancer 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You announced you were leaving from what I can see. But you're still here. You ought to make up your mind. The "evidence" you cite above showed that someone called Robert I was making numerous edits, not Gregory Lauder-Frost. In fact, Wikipedia has produced no concrete evidence that GLF had anything to do with them. I always thought conspiracy theorists were supposed to be the preserve of the Right. Clearly I am wrong. 86.136.191.212 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's why I said "I suppose it is possible that he has never edited Wikipedia personally, and someone has chosen to impersonate him.". --SandyDancer 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'd like to add that I'd never even heard of GLF until I started reading and editing Wikipedia articles. I am certainly not jaundiced about him, as the post purporting to be from GLF states above. I would agree with you that it seems he has been a very active person in public life, making many notable contributions to various organisations and publications. It is perhaps strange, therefore, that he does not have an article about him on Wikipedia. --SandyDancer 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did, but then I think you know that! --Couter-revolutionary 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. Mr C-R, perhaps you'd like to jump in and make changes to this article to correct any perceived bias described by the anon. IP. That way everyone will be happy, and my name won't be taken in vain anymore. --SandyDancer 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I shall at some point. I do not, however, believe your name carries sufficient gravity to be taken in vain! Best wishes,--Couter-revolutionary 02:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right! Bad choice of expression, but you know what I mean. --SandyDancer 11:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, you are not telling the truth. A glance at the website you (aka Ed Chilvers) and Tracy Williams (a person found guilty last year of Internet Libel) set up, level9, carries posts which show that you not only knew of GLF's existance but that you and she were out to deal with the Conservative Democratic Alliance and anyone associated with it. Several of us have catalogued your many aliases Ed, so don't try and wiggle out of your activities. Sandy Dancer doesn't fool anyone other than the half-witted. 86.136.191.212 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say this now - I am not Ed Chilvers. I do not know who he is, I do not know who you are. Stop trying to involve me in your personal disputes. If you do not like edits I have made - reverse them. You are free to do so. I will not stop you. --SandyDancer 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Constitutional Monarchy Association

Please merge any relevant content from Constitutional Monarchy Association per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional Monarchy Association. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 13:48Z

The merge has taken place. I think this article needs a section on the CMA. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Monarchist League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070120001817/http://monarchy.net/monarchistpublications.htm to http://www.monarchy.net/monarchistpublications.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=946582006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]