User talk:BeatriceCastleBeatriceCastle, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The portrait is traditionally attributed to Queen Elizabeth of England and it would take much better sources than someone's personal blog to change this attribution. If you continue to add the image -- particularly without discussion or explanation -- you might be blocked from editing Wikipedia, which would be an unfortunate result all around. Renata (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803) (August 11) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:
The comment the reviewer left was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
AfC notification: Draft:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803) has a new comment
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Editing undisturbed: a tipIf you want to work on an article without others for a time, you can add the templates {{under construction}} or {{in use}} at the top. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Thank you so much
Disambiguation link notification for August 28Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Wright (governor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Tyrrell. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC) September 2020Your addition to William Rugge, Bishop of Norwich has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. POLITANVM talk 21:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@POLITANVM Completely agree, had intended to revamp it, have now done so. Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Aylmer (politician)Hello BeatriceCastle, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Richard Aylmer (politician) for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks! Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer. John B123 (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC) This has already long since been resolved, but the text, as noted in the article, was published in 1806 BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Missing cites in William Knyvett (died 1515)The article cites "Virgoe 1982", "Richardson II 2011", "Gunn 2004", and "Lehmberg 2004" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste I am not quite sure what you mean? The references are there under 'References' BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC) I think I figured out what you meant, fixed it BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC) ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageDecember 2020Hello, BeatriceCastle, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as EEParsons (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC) I do have another account but I have not used that for three years, I think, and I do not think I have used it on any of the pages I have edited this year. I have never had any contact with the user in question outside of Wikipedia, except for reading his book and webpage, nor on Wikipedia except for editing the same article(s). BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Nor have I had any contact with anyone else outside of Wikipedia, nor on Wikipedia except for editing the same article(s). I am uncertain what makes you think this. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC) I have interacted with other users on Talk Pages etc., but nothing that isn't publicly available to everyone. BeatriceCastle (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The page Doreward's Hall has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1170740. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here. Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review GirthSummit (blether) 10:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
You are right, I'll fix it. I had intended to edit it, but I got distracted, I was too hasty in posting it. I'll recreate it at a later time, and use my own words. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that's a good clarification, about not being able to host copyright-infringing material even temporarily, not even in draft or user space. The paraphrasing I knew :) Thank you so much for taking the time to clarify that, that was really helpful. BeatriceCastle (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the tip. I will follow this recipe when I next make the attempt. I had never created a page about a building before, so I did not know quite how to begin :) Thank you so much for the tip about the Pevsner books as well. BeatriceCastle (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I will do that! That is really helpful :) BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Concern regarding Draft:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803)Hello, BeatriceCastle. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC) ArbCom 2021 Elections voter messageNovember 2021You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} . Drmies (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
BeatriceCastle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: That is deeply unfair. Another user vandalises an article. I have used the talk page and left the article for six months as it was, making no sense, in order to show respect for Wikipedia’s rules and reach a consensus. This user vandalises another article. I again refer this user to the talk page to reach a consensus. Everything I have written has been carefully referenced. I ask that the user quits vandalising the article and that we instead discuss the matter and reach a consensus on the talk page. The other user engages in an edit war. BeatriceCastle (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC) In fact, the user clearly writes underneath this message, on this, my talk page, that the objections are due to some misguided belief that I am related to these people. Which, to the best of my knowledge, I am not. I can only repeat that I have referred this writer to the talk page(s) again and again. BeatriceCastle (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Decline reason: The main issue here is the edit warring. You are not permitted to edit war against edit warring. There are proper forums to report edit warring to instead of engaging in it yourself. That you used the talk page does not exempt you from this. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Oh, okay, that actually makes sense and seems fair. Sorry, I did not know that. I just did not know the proper place to report it. I had just begun to search for it when the block happened. Thank you for the link and the explanation. I still think it is kind of unfair that only I got blocked, but I will just have to live with it, I guess. *g* Thank you again. Will do better. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but I did not engage in edit warring. I used the talk page. I waited six months. The other user was the one who engaged in an edit war. The sources have been published. Kate Emerson, Heraldic Visitations. Several articles on JSTOR. Francis Blomefield. These are all known and respected sources for this time period. BeatriceCastle (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia, not Ancestry.comThis is Wikipedia, not a personal genealogical web page. Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
GawdyHi Beatrice, thanks for your edits getting the Gawdys into the right order! Do we know (i.e. does Blomefield say) which of the Norfolk Tuddenhams John Wootton was from, so we could link it? There are 2 in Norfolk and 2 in Suffolk, confusingly. And I presume Hicklyng is the same as Hickling, on the Broads, where the Priory was? kind regards, Eebahgum (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
January 2022Your recent editing history at Temperance Flowerdew shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} . Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
BeatriceCastle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have been wikihounded by Agricolae. I tried to get help here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents And got blocked myself instead. There’s irony for you. I suppose if everyone agrees it is better that I take my toys and go home, but I think this is insane. Another user stalks and harasses me and clearly violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment and somehow the victim is to blame. Well, that is the world we live in, I suppose. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Decline reason: Per the consensus at the AN/I thread. Maybe someday in the future we can think about an unblock, but not now. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
BeatriceCastle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: So the fact that someone is being a big creep and stalking and harassing me is okay? Are some users more equal than others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment Because nobody in that thread disagreed that this user was following me. How is that okay? When it is a clear violation of the rules? BeatriceCastle (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC) I have used the talk pages. Everybody who actually knows what they are doing thinks my sources are good. If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_Flowerdew, when another editor edited last night it wasn't even my edits they were questioning. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temperance_Flowerdew. Why are you letting Agricolae getting away with this behaviour? This person is a stalker. Think about the signal you are sending and Wikipedia’s reputation at large when it will get known that you are letting a stalker getting away with it, blaming the victim, ignoring Wikipedia’s own rules. BeatriceCastle (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC) I was discussing perfectly civilly with Ealdgyth at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents that most of they objected to was in fact not my edits originally. "In the edit from 01:44, 13 June 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temperance_Flowerdew&oldid=1028285980 you see that it ran originally thus: "On 18 October 1618, she married George Yeardley. Exactly a month later he was appointed to serve three years as governor of Virginia, and was knighted by James VI and I during an audience at Newmarket on 24 November.This is the accepted date of marriage by genealogists. However, she was widowed in 1610. It is unlikely she remained unmarried for the next 8 years in a colony with so few women and very harsh times. Her first child by Yeardley was born 3 years before the reported marriage, thus the marriage must have been earlier." I do not know who originally wrote it. I simply amended it to fit facts (i.e. we do not know when Richard Barrow died). I agree that it is completely speculative and may be struck." Strange that I am not allowed to reply to the people on that board while I was leaving the pages themselves alone. The one who was engaging in edit wars last night was Agricolae. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Agricolae has followed me to SEVEN different articles. And engaged with on the talk pages now I think on all of them. How is that a not a clear violation of the rules? Why is there one set of rules for this user and another for the community at large? BeatriceCastle (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Decline reason: Please see WP:GAB to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request, unlike this one. Yamla (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
BeatriceCastle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Fine, I have plenty of other things to occupy my time. I have yet to see any reason why this user is exempted from a very clear rule. If you can't recognise a web troll when it is standing right in front of you, more's the pity. I would have checked the account for sock puppets while I was at it if I were you. I would have kept at least one very sharp eye on this user from now on. When something pings me as not normal about someone I am unfortunately usually always right. One of the benefits of studying history is that you get really good at recognising patterns. One of the downsides is seeing everyone else repeat said history. Maybe when the next person comes along you'll care about their story. There is always a next victim. I wish everyone except for this user here all the best, I have had a lot of enjoyable times. I'm out. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Decline reason: Whatever it is, this isn't an appeal. Cabayi (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:BeatriceCastle. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please stop the personal attacks you are digging yourself a deeper hole. Theroadislong (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
|