User talk:Cheetham Jones Parks

~~(I appear to have been prevented from continuing this query at the noticeboard. I am not sure why.)~~

Reply to Gurth Summit

I was not a participant, I was shown the conversation after the event, and for reasons I am not at liberty to discuss openly, all identifying information (other than identifying which statements were attributable to Mr Macon) were removed before it was passed to my desk. The best I can do for you, is to repeat that this was a recent statement. And I definitely saw it on his talk page yesterday, as part of my process of assuring myself he actually said it, but that was only by viewing it on a colleague's computer. It is not in his archive, assuming I am looking at the correct link. I neglected to mention that in the previous reply, so apologies for that. Cheetham Jones Parks (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton"

I think someone has made a mistake here, or at least acted rather hastily. For clarification, I am not the person behind the Wikipedia account "Mr Happy Shoes". I am not at liberty to discuss any potential relationship I have with them, hopefully for reasons that should be obvious from my limited posting here. I have been authorised to state for the Wikipedia moderators, that I have accessed your website using a shared IP address via a shared company device. A device we are required to use by company policy and the law (as opposed to personal or personal work devices), for any communications of this nature. If anyone has any queries, please don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best to assist, without obviously saying or doing anything that could get me fired. Cheetham Jones Parks (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser has just confirmed that you are in fact Mr. Happy Shoes, your lies are as transparent as ever. To quote Dubya, “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon/Daily Mail

I an pretty sure this won't get me fired, but I feel obligated to inform Wikipedia moderators that in future, it is unlikely that a "focus on Guy Macon / focus on the Daily Mail" will be a useful identifying characteristic. Potential complaints against him have been shopped around a number of firms. In a jurisdiction where relief is calculated on a page view and foresight basis, there are likely to be more firms than just mine seeing a potential goldmine here. The British tabloid industry numbers approximately 10,000 relevant employees, even in these straightened times. That is a lot of potential plaintiffs, many of whom will find no win no fee actions very attractive. Who doesn't like free money? Cheetham Jones Parks (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]