User talk:L'honorable: Difference between revisions
L'honorable (talk | contribs) |
unblock pro tem |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== L'honorable, you are invited to the Teahouse! == |
== L'honorable, you are invited to the Teahouse! == |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
|- valign="top" |
|- valign="top" |
||
| [[File:WP teahouse logo 2.png|alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0]] |
| [[File:WP teahouse logo 2.png|alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0]] |
||
Line 475: | Line 474: | ||
: Many thanks and please advise what, if anything, I need to do at this stage. Best, [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC) |
: Many thanks and please advise what, if anything, I need to do at this stage. Best, [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Unblock requests == |
|||
{{ping|Boing! said Zebedee}} hi there - you may recall I was blocked from Wikipedia? I recently received a message on my Talk Page about voting.... I am not sure whether this is wise or not, but any guidance as to what I should be doing next so as to remain friends with the Wikipedia community would be much appreciated. Many thanks. [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 20:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC) |
{{ping|Boing! said Zebedee}} hi there - you may recall I was blocked from Wikipedia? I recently received a message on my Talk Page about voting.... I am not sure whether this is wise or not, but any guidance as to what I should be doing next so as to remain friends with the Wikipedia community would be much appreciated. Many thanks. [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 20:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC) |
||
Line 513: | Line 514: | ||
::{{yo|L'honorable}} the delay since Christmas is likely due to it being around Christmas and not as many users active at this time, nothing more. I recommend reading the "[[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]" guideline, and understand that while some editors were previously bothered by your edit warring, there is no hostility towards you as an editor. Wikipedia culture comes with a steep learning curve, but most editors will be pleased to offer guidance if you ask polite questions. I say this because if you treat your fellow editors as though everyone is out to get you, then very soon they will be. Please ask questions if you need help, and try not to take it personally if your contributions are edited or reverted. Best of luck. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC) |
::{{yo|L'honorable}} the delay since Christmas is likely due to it being around Christmas and not as many users active at this time, nothing more. I recommend reading the "[[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]" guideline, and understand that while some editors were previously bothered by your edit warring, there is no hostility towards you as an editor. Wikipedia culture comes with a steep learning curve, but most editors will be pleased to offer guidance if you ask polite questions. I say this because if you treat your fellow editors as though everyone is out to get you, then very soon they will be. Please ask questions if you need help, and try not to take it personally if your contributions are edited or reverted. Best of luck. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::{{ping|Ivanvector|Boing! said Zebedee}} you are both most kind to attend to this matter and I can assure you as well as [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] with whom I am indeed acquainted that your faith in me will be more than reciprocated. Many thanks again for the update and looking forward to hearing further in due course. Meantime all best wishes for the New Year. [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC) |
:::{{ping|Ivanvector|Boing! said Zebedee}} you are both most kind to attend to this matter and I can assure you as well as [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] with whom I am indeed acquainted that your faith in me will be more than reciprocated. Many thanks again for the update and looking forward to hearing further in due course. Meantime all best wishes for the New Year. [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
Sorry to interfere, but my name showed up earlier in the discussion. I am neither an admin nor an usual contributor on en.wiki, and my english is not very good. Most of my activity consists in chasing copyvios and helping with deletion requests on commons. If I may, I would nonetheless strongly oppose this request. Indeed, this user has shown on the other projects the same problematic behaviour which caused his block here : |
Sorry to interfere, but my name showed up earlier in the discussion. I am neither an admin nor an usual contributor on en.wiki, and my english is not very good. Most of my activity consists in chasing copyvios and helping with deletion requests on commons. If I may, I would nonetheless strongly oppose this request. Indeed, this user has shown on the other projects the same problematic behaviour which caused his block here : |
||
Line 531: | Line 531: | ||
:Halo '''[[:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Kathisma|Kathisma]]''' : I do not view this at all as interfering, and in fact I welcome your viewpoint (let's indeed all strive for transparency) ; I can for the most part (I say this because should you wish to go through your complaints line by line, I shall of course be willing to engage) resist all your observations/criticisms (not least because the "roi d'armes" to whom you refer and I are working very well together - ''qv.'' the very many recent liaisons). So please reconsider your assertions, which may have more to do with other reasons than to do with me. Let's leave it at that, because as I have been advised above it is no good engaging in a contre-temps, especially one so needless. Your central point is utterly unfounded, but nonetheless please write to me in French on my discussion page should you still have questions which you'd like to iron out. [[File:Blason de Sir Anthony Berry avec ornements exterieurs.svg|right|100px]]Merci à toi et cordialement, [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 02:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)<br>PS. voir [[:fr:Projet:Blasons/Demande de blason|Projet:Blasons]] ;<br>PPS. voir aussi [[:fr:Anthony Berry|sir Anthony Berry]] : [[:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Kathisma|tu]] connais l'éditeur anonyme peut-être ? (I also note that in the English language version about [[Anthony Berry|Sir Anthony Berry]] you have introduced into the Infobox your own COA image, for far from clear reasons - & I suppose it could be pointed out that if you had such great knowledge of the subject why hadn't you previously created a good heraldic image for the Berry family?). But hey, at once, you are drawing me into having to justify myself, where I believe it is not required. So let others adjudicate svp - à bientôt et cdlt, [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 03:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)<br>PS. could I also ask you for your prompt reply as to why you deemed it necessary to state "nouveau nom, d'après les blocages qui ont été faits sur les wikis anglais, allemand et néerlandais" in your representations at [[:fr:Wikipédia:Le Pub#consensus sur les prédicats nobiliaires|Wikipédia:Le Pub]]? This to me seems to go against all the advice I have received above... Anyway let me know... Thank you. [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
:Halo '''[[:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Kathisma|Kathisma]]''' : I do not view this at all as interfering, and in fact I welcome your viewpoint (let's indeed all strive for transparency) ; I can for the most part (I say this because should you wish to go through your complaints line by line, I shall of course be willing to engage) resist all your observations/criticisms (not least because the "roi d'armes" to whom you refer and I are working very well together - ''qv.'' the very many recent liaisons). So please reconsider your assertions, which may have more to do with other reasons than to do with me. Let's leave it at that, because as I have been advised above it is no good engaging in a contre-temps, especially one so needless. Your central point is utterly unfounded, but nonetheless please write to me in French on my discussion page should you still have questions which you'd like to iron out. [[File:Blason de Sir Anthony Berry avec ornements exterieurs.svg|right|100px]]Merci à toi et cordialement, [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 02:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)<br>PS. voir [[:fr:Projet:Blasons/Demande de blason|Projet:Blasons]] ;<br>PPS. voir aussi [[:fr:Anthony Berry|sir Anthony Berry]] : [[:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Kathisma|tu]] connais l'éditeur anonyme peut-être ? (I also note that in the English language version about [[Anthony Berry|Sir Anthony Berry]] you have introduced into the Infobox your own COA image, for far from clear reasons - & I suppose it could be pointed out that if you had such great knowledge of the subject why hadn't you previously created a good heraldic image for the Berry family?). But hey, at once, you are drawing me into having to justify myself, where I believe it is not required. So let others adjudicate svp - à bientôt et cdlt, [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 03:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)<br>PS. could I also ask you for your prompt reply as to why you deemed it necessary to state "nouveau nom, d'après les blocages qui ont été faits sur les wikis anglais, allemand et néerlandais" in your representations at [[:fr:Wikipédia:Le Pub#consensus sur les prédicats nobiliaires|Wikipédia:Le Pub]]? This to me seems to go against all the advice I have received above... Anyway let me know... Thank you. [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
::* Highly sceptical '''unblock''' proposal. He does appear to have kept to the terms of the standard offer so we should assume good faith and unblock. However I confidently predict that we will soon see a return to the disruptive activities which got Mabelina <span class="plainlinks">blocked so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMabelina many times]</span>. — [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[User talk:RHaworth|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Please do not comment below this line --> |
<!-- Please do not comment below this line --> |
||
</onlyinclude> |
</onlyinclude> |
Revision as of 18:05, 29 December 2016
L'honorable, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi L'honorable! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 17:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Gerald Loxley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Chevalier
- Prince Marco of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Dukedom
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Welcome!
|
Talkback
Message added 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
North America1000 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Gerald Loxley, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. clpo13(talk) 19:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Clpo13: thank you & as you can no doubt glean I am constantly learning more & more about Wiki - I realised that in the case of Major Loxley RAF intelligence is a more appropriate category than that of spy. Much appreciate your guidance. L'honorable (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- That is a more appropriate categorization, but unfortunately, such a category does not exist, only Category:Heads of RAF Intelligence. That itself is under Category:British intelligence operatives, which is pretty broad. Category:British spies is actually a distinct category. Don't hesitate to ask for more help if you need. clpo13(talk) 19:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
List of current Grandees of Spain
@Clpo13 and Northamerica1000: would Wiki prefer Spanish noble titles to be represented in their original form or by way of an English translation equivalent? Clumsy English translations can lead to such titles becoming almost unrecognisable, one example being: Marquess of the Guadalquivir Marshes (marqués de las Marismas del Guadalquivir).
Looking forward to receiving your advice. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is not my area of expertise. Check out WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, part of the Wikipedia:Article titles page. It seems to be convention to use the English-language version of titles. For example, see how names are formatted at Spanish nobility § Marquis/Marchioness (Marqués/Marquesa). North America1000 23:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nor mine, insofar as I'm not yet familiar with Wikipedia's naming conventions. I just addressed the following message to ClarkSui & reaching consensus would avoid wasting a lot of time:
- "I saw your request, placed on Wikipedia in 2012, as to whether www.diputaciondelagrandeza.es may be considered a "reliable source"? Should this public enquiry not yet be closed, I suggest that the said website (www.diputaciondelagrandeza.es), whilst not being an empirical (ie. governmental) source of evidence (such as www.boe.es), could be deemed to be a more than reliable source by Wikipedia given that its express purpose is to maintain the dignity of Grandee of Spain; its Deacon, the Duque de Híjar, and other governing officers all happen to be Grandees too.
- You may have noticed that I have recently been engaged in trying to improve the accuracy of information in Wikipedia about the Grandes de España? It may be worthwhile highlighting here that any updates in Spanish somehow get translated in (sometimes bad) English within a very short space of time - I can only presume this is an automated facility?
- Nonetheless, I trust that Wikipedia having an accurate and well-explained update about the Grandees of Spain is, in general, a good idea so any assistance/guidance/help would be much appreciated.
- Many thanks."
Please advise. L'honorable (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Grandees of Spain
Hey L'honorable, Happy to work with you on this. Actually I believe quite strongly that the correct Spanish should be used, especially on things that don't have proper English form. A while back I attempted to change the title of the [1] Spanish Treasure Fleet article to Flota de Indias, because that is the fleet that the article refers to. Consensus was against the change which doesn't really make sense to me because a "Spanish treasure fleet" is definitely not proper and could refer to any fleet sailing under a Spanish flag. In any case, at the very least I think that the titles of the Grandees should be in Spanish when referring to the names of their landed interests (i.e. Duke of Almodóvar del Río is better than Duke of Almodóvar of Río or Duke of Liria y Jérica is better than Duke of Liria and Jérica). Let me know your thoughts. Best, - Clark Sui (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I totally agree & the correct title could be put like this : Duke of Alba; L'honorable (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- PS. sorry, that was too flippant & immediate a response; this needs more consensus than just yours & mine: if it is absolutely essential to anglicise everything (which ain't true anyway) then Duke of Almodóvar is much better than Duke of Almodóvar of Río, for example; but, does anybody else know what we are talking about? L'honorable (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- (ie. Duke of Almodóvar del Río is better than Duke of Almodóvar of Río or Duke of Liria y Jérica is better than Duke of Liria and Jérica qv: - Clark Sui.)
- @ClarkSui: I am having difficulty adding to/progressing the Grandes de España template you kindly set up thus cannot see how the project can be satisfactorily completed. Surely there could be an easier layout so that everybody who knows about the subject can easily contribute? Please advise. L'honorable (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @L'honorable: Any part in particular or is it a sourcing issue? I can probably fill everything out as is, but there are also loads of titles yet to be added, see [2]. Specific information is available by combing google books, through the official sites of the relevant titles or towns and on es wiki. - Clark Sui (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @ClarkSui: I was/am having difficulty with the uprights - ie. when I add a fact/value an external source kept reversing my edits. L'honorable (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
PS. please be so kind as to give your evaluation of my amendments so far (there is a long way to go - roughly 400 Grandees!).... L'honorable (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @ClarkSui: I was/am having difficulty with the uprights - ie. when I add a fact/value an external source kept reversing my edits. L'honorable (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @L'honorable: Thats strange, have never experienced. See what you did after checking on some of your changes (removal of lesser titles, spelling, some structure). All good in my book, not sure why it is reverting your edits, dont see it in the log. I havent worked on this today aside from Olivares just now so it couldnt be that I was updating from an older version. Not sure why it does that for you. Re: your amendments, I am completely fine, I think the goal should be to blow the Spanish version out of the water (hehe) - Clark Sui (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- ¿Porque? The intention is to have a proper list of Spanish Grandees on Wiki - is this so difficult to achieve? L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I note that since my undertaking the task of updating Grandees of Spain on Wikipedia, others have joined in too - welcome & let's make the job easier for all. L'honorable (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely, the more the merrier and with regards to the Spanish version I meant that we should strive to make the English version more comprehensive because generally Anglo speaking people are less aware of the intricacies of the nobility in places like Spain where it is so deep rooted. The Spanish nobility is also arguably less renown than say the ones in Britain. Re: the question of English vs Spanish names again and where to draw the line, understand that the issue is yet unresolved but agree with your position. Generally the name of a place should remain true to form, your reference on the Marquess of the Guadalquivir Marshes (marqués de las Marismas del Guadalquivir) really drives this home. Actually even the translation of the of or the of the in a title does it injustice, for example, Vizconde de la Alborada would become Viscounty of the Alborada with no distinction between the female/male la or del which is present in some of the titles. This is quite understandable though as we are in fact on English wiki - Clark Sui (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I note that since my undertaking the task of updating Grandees of Spain on Wikipedia, others have joined in too - welcome & let's make the job easier for all. L'honorable (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- ¿Porque? The intention is to have a proper list of Spanish Grandees on Wiki - is this so difficult to achieve? L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @L'honorable: Thats strange, have never experienced. See what you did after checking on some of your changes (removal of lesser titles, spelling, some structure). All good in my book, not sure why it is reverting your edits, dont see it in the log. I havent worked on this today aside from Olivares just now so it couldnt be that I was updating from an older version. Not sure why it does that for you. Re: your amendments, I am completely fine, I think the goal should be to blow the Spanish version out of the water (hehe) - Clark Sui (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Alexander Obolensky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Rugby and Preparatory school
- Grandee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Grand
- Jeremy De Halpert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Maritime
- List of current Grandees of Spain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Queen
- List of foreign recipients of the Légion d'Honneur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to MP
- Spanish nobility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Duke of the Victory
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Grandeza de España
@ClarkSui: I have been wading through the List of current Grandees of Spain and it is becoming a bit complicated. I welcome the concept that Wikipedia should have at its disposal a complete list of all current Grandees, but may I suggest that there could be a better way of achieving this result? Perhaps we should simplify the table so as to make it more user-friendly?
I fully understand the importance of when monarchs created titles (& for whom) but perhaps these two sections could be dismissed from the table (for the time being), as it is to be hoped that in time, Wikipedia will cross-reference all such information in greater detail no doubt elsewhere.
I am just thinking of expediency (but not forsaking accuracy), so should you have any better ideas as to how to complete what is quite a considerable task (approx. 400 Grandes), please advise.
Many thanks.
L'honorable 03:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
List of current Grandees of Spain
@FactStraight: I trust you approve of my edits to the list of current Grandees of Spain so far? I note that you tried to claim that Marquess in English is not the equivalent of marqués in Spanish, which is not the case, but leaving that aside, a sensible and practical consensus needs to be arrived upon if we are to improve Wikipedia's info about Spanish Grandees.
Would marqués de if represented as Marquis of and correspondingly marquesa de as Marchioness of followed by the relevant titular designation suit you? Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- PS. I propose that I now give way until after Easter so as to allow time for reflection on these matters - many thanks.
- PPS. Further to comments before Easter, I have just made the following amendments with which I hope you will concur, namely: Duke of el Infantado; Marchioness of Aguilar de Campoo. I agree with you that Marquis best describes marqués and for Wikipedia to provide an accurate and useful list of the Grandes de España attempts at translating proper nouns should be avoided; eg. Racine might otherwise soon become known as Root! L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Francis McClean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Air Force Cross and Spottiswoode
- Victoria Eugenia Fernández de Córdoba, 18th Duchess of Medinaceli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Don
- Herbert Carmichael Irwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to AFC
- J. E. M. Pritchard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to AFC
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Grandee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Rank, Royalty and Precedence
- Thomas Bingham, Baron Bingham of Cornhill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Human Rights Act, Doctor and Territorial Army
- Carlos Gereda y de Borbón (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Knight of Malta
- Dukedom of Segorbe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Ponce de León
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Lord Sidney Beauclerk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Estate and Thomas Norris
- Beauclerk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to FCA
- Carlos Gereda y de Borbón (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Kinsman
- Géraud Michel de Pierredon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to His Excellency
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lewis Vernon Harcourt, 1st Viscount Harcourt, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Knight of Malta and CVO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Crosby Hall, Liverpool (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Knight of Malta, City of Liverpool and Crosby
- Baron Grey of Codnor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Writ of summons
- Baron Grey of Ruthyn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Writ of summons
- Dunham Massey Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Deer park
- Weld-Blundell family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Mission
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
More stuff
Hi, I haven't read the later comments you wrote on my talk page but I have removed them. Instead I have been reading your correspondence with other editors. It seems we are closely related. Please just relax a little about our family. Eddaido (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Eddaido: really, how can that be? L'honorable (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Pyrgo Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to North East London and Arthur Collins
- Anchetil de Greye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Noble
- Baron Walsingham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to DSO
- Lord John Grey of Pirgo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Henry Denny
- Roger de Grey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to KCVO
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Heraldry
@Magog the Ogre: I haven't had much response from anyone on Wiki Commons re Heraldry since we last liaised. Perhaps you could give a nudge? Best L'honorable (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but why are you asking me here? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there - thanks for the nudge! L'honorable (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grandee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hatchment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Booth
Right, listen up. Wikipedia works, or at least should work, more constructively through discussion. An editor is more than entitled to carry out an edit on any article. If that edit is then reverted then there is more than likely going to be a problem with your edit. At that point you need to go back to the reading screen and at the top left of that page you will see "Talk". Click on that and open a discussion about the edit that has been reverted. You should ping the editor who reverted you and they should discuss the matter. There is a guideline called WP:BRD which would explain this further. A discussion is then had and some sort of result will form out of that. If you are still dissatisfied, you may open an WP:RfC which opens the whole discussion up to the community. A consensus is then formed by a series of !votes and the result of that determines whether your edit will or will not make it onto the page.
This, I shouldn't think, will make it that far but you need to discuss the matter first with Hchc2009 and Ealdgyth. They clearly have concerns and despite them inviting you to the discussion on Booth's talk page, so far, you haven't participated. CassiantoTalk 22:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Cassianto: I have to the enth degree (look at the time/date). L'honorable (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are now, yes, but you weren't until I advised you. I'll happily leave you to it. CassiantoTalk 22:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK - hope someone can come to the rescue. Best L'honorable (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are now, yes, but you weren't until I advised you. I'll happily leave you to it. CassiantoTalk 22:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Cassianto, Ealdgyth, and Hchc2009: unless you desist from reverting my more than exact/informative/referenced edits I shall have no choice but to report your interventions to WP:ANI. I do not want to do this, but much time has been wasted on an utterly futile argument to which (apart from random objections) you provide absolutely no supporting evidence. Sorry but please refrain from being so disruptive. L'honorable (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh no! Hchc2009 and Ealdgyth, we'd better stop preventing L'honorable from adding badly sourced and repeated information, otherwise we'll be hauled before a load of drama mongers ANI. Please, L'honorable, don't waste your time there. Discuss the matter here. at the dramah boards. You'll only make yourself look foolish. CassiantoTalk 23:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am afraid that I have had no alternative to apply for a decision from the Administrators in light of your continued bullying & disruptive editing. Why you have elected to pick on poor old Archbishop Booth beats me, but it seems symptomatic of your behaviour on other pages. L'honorable (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Lawrence Booth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Just so you know, you have now reached WP:3rr. If you revert again, I will have you blocked. CassiantoTalk 01:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have not encountered this before, ie. being threatened with being blocked for Edit-Warring, but recent exchanges about Lawrence Booth and heraldry (despite expending hours explaining the matter) seem to have little effect. Clearly it is better for me to stay away right now, but surely Wiki welcomes excellent, precise info, and if so, is it right that such good info should be excluded from being entered on Wiki for fear of riling a few hostile editors? L'honorable (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. until I ventured onto English medieval ecclesiastics I had not received such treatment - are such topics now a no-go area for me?
- I have not encountered this before, ie. being threatened with being blocked for Edit-Warring, but recent exchanges about Lawrence Booth and heraldry (despite expending hours explaining the matter) seem to have little effect. Clearly it is better for me to stay away right now, but surely Wiki welcomes excellent, precise info, and if so, is it right that such good info should be excluded from being entered on Wiki for fear of riling a few hostile editors? L'honorable (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Latest re. Lawrence Booth is this! 23:32, 13 May 2016 Cassianto (talk | contribs) . . (13,096 bytes) (-10) . . (Undid revision 720126764 by L'honorable (talk) not an improvement; clunky to read, and the linked article makes no mention of the entire caption, let alone "office".) (undo | thank)
Seriously - I despair - clearly I have managed to get their backs up - but God knows why? Only because I know something about the subject. It certainly looks as if I cannot introduce any sense into such articles at the moment without being almost immediately reverted (without consideration of the veracity of my edit). Bad state of affairs....
- Just by way of example - and apparent lack of co-operation - it would have been possible for Cassianto to simply change the caption to read: Archbishop of York arms of office rather than trying to turn this into a dispute. Let's please try to work together. Thank you. L'honorable (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @HighInBC: I fear that all is not well with my relations with the same folk as earlier. Any tips - because it would seem they do not want me to touch any article with they have had anything to do with..? This seems unWiki-like - especially since (as you will note if you have the time to look) my edits are constructive. Anyway, by posting this no doubt it will get their backs up even more, but what is the alternative? L'honorable (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- My advice is don't edit war. If an edit is disputed then talk it out on the talk page. If you can't convince others of your position then you just have to accept that. If you can convince others of your position then great! HighInBC 00:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- @HighInBC: Hey I totally agree - but right now all I have to do is make an edit & it seems they are looking for trouble... Or at least, preferably to get me in trouble. This is one way to make Wiki-editing grind to a halt... L'honorable (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. 23:54, 13 May 2016 Cassianto (talk | contribs) . . (13,096 bytes) (-2) . . (See, you're edit warring again, stop it! You was Bold; I Reverted; you should Discuss. Per WP:BRD.) (undo | thank) - sounds like rabble-rousing to me, what do you think?
- @HighInBC: Hey I totally agree - but right now all I have to do is make an edit & it seems they are looking for trouble... Or at least, preferably to get me in trouble. This is one way to make Wiki-editing grind to a halt... L'honorable (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@HighInBC: please see Talk:Lawrence Booth for further (but by no means all the) aggressive and disruptive harrassment received, about heraldry. L'honorable (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. is it safe to reload Archbishop Booth's COA now?
- Why does this seem a one-way street?
@HighInBC: further evidence of my being hounded: 02:20, 14 May 2016 Cassianto (talk | contribs) . . (13,096 bytes) (-45) . . (Undid revision 720154728 by L'honorable (talk) WP:RS? And your talk shows nothing that we haven't already seen) (undo | thank) Who can apply to in the Wiki hierarchy who knows about heraldry since these objections are so utterly ridiculous? Something must be done, please??? L'honorable (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Piping links...
There is no need to do an edit like this. It serves no purpose. Read WP:NOPIPE where it is specifically stated "Never use piped links to convert first letter to lower case: write simply "[[public transport]]" instead of complicated "[[Public transport|public transport]]". Both display identically as public transport. The first letter of wikilinks is almost always case-insensitive.". Please actually read the help pages that you are referred to, it's to help you. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: I am totally with you on what you say above, but ever since inadvertently straying into the domain of medieval (albeit Late Medieval) ecclesiastical history I have received threats of being blocked, a barage of criticism, etc. Me thinks this is a no-go area, bit like one of those inner city areas where you get roughed up if you dare enter. Your objections to the heraldry were so unfounded what else can I think? L'honorable (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. rather than taking any edits as a personal slight let's work together to improve things...
May 2016
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. HighInBC 03:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
This was my last submission (which seemingly got me blocked) - note the timing: They know me well - so how does that help! The current issue is about the continuous & unfounded reversions - perhaps you could advise about the matter in hand, or not, please? L'honorable (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC) PS. Familles catholiques de la noblesse du Royaume-Uni
L'honorable (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked without notice or a right of reply - and all this comes down to is a simple coat of arms - is this reasonable?
Decline reason:
You were warned that you could get blocked if you continued to edit-war, you continued to edit-war, you got blocked. What more notice could you have wanted? Whether edit-warring over a coat of arms is reasonable I will leave open, but that it's disruptive (and time-consuming) is a fact. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2016 (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.
L'honorable (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I regret having been drawn into a contre-temps about coats of arms & shall ensure to avoid edit conflict in future contributions I might make to Wiki. I trust that my contributions about history, heraldry & genealogy will continue to help enhance Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
You block is not "all over uploading a simple coat of arms", it is over your battleground approach to edit warring against multiple other editors.
You say "the Admin who rejected my appeal against blocking readily admits above he knows nothing about the subject". That is, in fact, ideal, as admins have no say whatsoever over resolving content disputes. Admins can only judge behavioural and policy issues, and both the blocking admin (User:HighInBC) and the admin who declined your first unblock request (User:Drmies) acted correctly on those counts, in my view.
Now, with that out of the way, I will explain why I am going to decline your latest unblock request. I should make it clear that I also know nothing about the subject matter and I have no opinion on the correctness of the disputed coat of arms, and I also am judging this purely on behavioural and policy grounds. Here are what I see as the problems:
1) Below, you appear to be blaming other people for your problems, notably User:Ealdgyth, who is actually one of our most accomplished contributors (and who knows Wikipedia policies and procedures better than most). You also appear to be alleging that people are teaming up against you in a nefarious manner, with your comment "Is Wiki now subscribing to Teamster tactics?". Accusations like that are not acceptable, and you really need to drop that battleground approach.
2) You were clearly edit warring against multiple editors who disagreed with your addition of the coat of arms, insisting that your own view was correct and not listening to theirs. That will not do. Wikipedia works by discussion and consensus, and when you have an addition reverted you need to start a discussion and wait for consensus before you repeat it.
3) Even after a discussion at WP:ANI was closed with the sound advice that: "This is a content dispute. L'honorable has asked for advice on how to best handle this, the advice is to get used to people disagreeing with you. We have standards for sourcing and our editors are correct to enforce that. Administrators cannot take sides in such content disputes, please sort it out on the article talk page", you still continued your edit war over the coat of arms.
4) Examining the actual dispute, purely on a policy basis now: You appear to have been basing your argument on your own personal correctness, and your opponents appear to be arguing on an actual policy basis. They are correct in that approach, and a resolution to the disagreement would have to be based on Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, original research and synthesis, among others. Please read those policies and be sure you understand them.
You say "I trust that my contributions about history, heraldry & genealogy will continue to help enhance Wikipedia", and I sincerely hope that will be the case. But until you accept the reasons for your block, accept that Wikipedia content disputes are decided by consensus, and start to listen to people who know a lot more about Wikipedia policies than you do, I do not feel it would be right to overturn the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2016 (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.
L'honorable (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you Boing! said Zebedee for setting down what is a most accurate, considered and invaluable assessment of the status quo to which I wholeheartedly subscribe. It is also very obvious to me that Ealdgyth is a most valued, consistent and knowledgeable editor & in fact I learn a great deal from her vast knowledge of the mediaeval church. I also regret having let myself get too carried away on the heraldry issue & I hope I can build up respect with other knowledgeable contributors so as together make a good contribution to Wiki. In fact Ealdgyth has already explained to me the reliable sources, original research and synthesis policies, which I now fully understand, and I apologise for getting drawn in to answering back rather than sitting back with a considered response - I shan't allow this to happen again. Thank you again for your balanced and helpful reply. Best L'honorable (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I feel that right now, with a SSP running, would be an innapropriate time to unblock. Additionally, you were as much at fault edit warring as the other party. I don't see any arguments made that would exempt you from 3rr. SQLQuery me! 04:58, 15 May 2016 (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.
- Now that's the kind of unblock request I would support, but as I have reviewed one I'll leave it to another admin. (Btw, it's "her vast knowledge" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: Oh, my gods... too! Hope that Ealdgyth & Hchc2009 can see too how unhelpful Cassianto's remonstrations have been.. I am onside.. Best L'honorable (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. more to the point I never signed up for such antagonism.., & should much like to pool our knowledge to make Wiki better. L'honorable (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
PPS. my contributions only seem to have got out of flunter after I ventured from French & Spanish heraldic & historical topics to English ones. Hopefully you will find that my edits in English aren't so unhelpful? L'honorable (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Heraldry
@Arianna the First, Espresso Addict, Gilderien, Illegitimate Barrister, Jtmorgan, and Philosopher: I have got myself in an awful mess over the correct usage of arms (or rather its display on Wiki). Who should I turn to for advice as to how to continue to best help Wiki (if that is something Wiki deems me capable of providing)? L'honorable (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- I spotted your names on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts & you may be able to deduce that I am dismayed & non-plussed by my recent treatment à-propos of heraldry edits for Wiki. Any thoughts? L'honorable (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, my gods... Talk: Lawrence Booth ... and of course an associated ANI report also. WTF. I ask for a reliable source and I get .. I don't know what. Sources that don't support the information and now I'm bullying and harassing someone. Gods above, it makes me want to tear my hair out. (This leaves aside the whole earlier today issue at John Blund where someone tried to say that Blund, who died in 1248, was tied to the Scholastic Corporation, the American kid's publishing house founded in the 20th century. I'm about to start screaming "Calgon, take me away!". Ealdgyth - Talk 01:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
And the edit warring continues. I don't know how much plainer I can possibly explain this. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC) What does this look like, Ealdgyth? ANI 2.0? (Patience is a virtue...) Drmies (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Couldn't help taking a look at Blund. Since you're in the neighborhood, Drmies, Special:Contributions/Floppo-Sloppo needs a NOTHERE block. EEng 02:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC) I disagree, EEng. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Am I allowed to whack arbs? Surely its a reward for some number of DYKs, or GAs or FAs? PLEASE????? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC) I'm untouchable. Let me know if your honorable friend makes that or another disruptive edit again. :) You may not have looked at the ANI thread recently, where HighinBC just committed a comma splice in his close. Tsk, tsk. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC) I'm utterly dependent on Word to keep my grammar in line. I couldn't tell you what a comma slice was if it bit me on the ass. But I can diagram sentences! There's a useful skill. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Thank you, Ealdgyth, I'm not the only one.--v/r - TP 02:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC) @Ealdgyth and Drmies: welcome to ANI 2.0. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC) No, Ealdgyth, GAs, FAs, admin bits, mainspace edits are liabilities when it comes to arb whacking, as the late, great Janis Joplin sung freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. NE Ent 10:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Dang it... what do I have to do to get to arb whack (outside of election season when I get to write an election guide?)... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Well, you live in Illinois, they just only passed conceal carry so I gather it will be quite a few more years until they pass Arb whacking. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC) So today ... Ralph Neville got visited ... problems included way overlinking, a lot of capitals against the MOS, linking things like "royal clerk" to herald. This is after I was asked on my talk page for examples of good archbishop articles to use as examples, and in an act of good faith, I pointed a bunch out. Sure feels like I'm being singled out for something here... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Eh, yeah. Have you considered a mean and old-fashioned level 2 or 3 template for disruptive editing? And do you consider "the way I read History at university is different from how Wiki wishes to represent it" to be an attack on you and maybe some fellow editors? I see this headed toward AN, not ANI, for a topic ban--for not getting it, for edit warring, and for disruption including insinuation and personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC) I wouldn't have the least freaking clue what template to use for that sort of thing. I don't generally DEAL with this sort of stuff - most people in my little areas are actually quite nice and helpful. (flails) Someone able to drop one on him? (I generally go running to .. oh, the admins.. .on the few occasions I've run into major issues.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC) You know... I'm wondering if I'm not being visited by a previously banned user who often times went after FA writers and feigned the "new user" ... just a thought. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems like they are taking the mickey rather than trying to be helpful & supportive??? (this is bearing in mind that I was repeatedly told to go to Talk: Lawrence Booth to get issues sorted out...) & by the way that moan above in bold was dealt with by return comment - so why continue to moan & groan other than to spread the bad news that she doesn't want me around?????
WP:RAA I preadvised what I could see might be problems ahead yet I still managed to get blocked - can my block be overturned? I should also much appreciate guidance for the future.. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- PS. more time has now been spent arguing than contributing - and this is surely not good news for Wiki?
[Above dealt with more than satisfactorily by Boing! said Zebedee's helpful response]
- L'honorable, I have no idea why you copied and pasted the messages above or why you thought they would support your unblock request or support your editing decisions. It looks like you are making this content dispute into a personal dispute between editors and that will not help your case at all. I suggest you delete or archive this section of your talk page as it looks like you are trying to blame other editors for the conduct that led to your block. Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there - no that is not the case at all - I appreciate that I have not handled this well but I was simply trying to get an understanding of how this all happened. My apologies & trust it will work out for the best - thanks your interest. Best L'honorable (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- L'honorable, I have no idea why you copied and pasted the messages above or why you thought they would support your unblock request or support your editing decisions. It looks like you are making this content dispute into a personal dispute between editors and that will not help your case at all. I suggest you delete or archive this section of your talk page as it looks like you are trying to blame other editors for the conduct that led to your block. Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
‑ Iridescent 18:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks but I am not Mabelina, but there is a connection - she is my ex-wife. L'honorable (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your ex-wife said "Although my user name may suggest otherwise, I am in fact male."? ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps that's why she's now his ex-wife ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are not wrong! L'honorable (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps that's why she's now his ex-wife ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- That was not put by me... L'honorable (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- @RHaworth: made the edit in question. SQLQuery me! 04:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SQL: I should be much obliged if some sensitivity could be exercised by not involving Mabelina (unless of course it is absolutely necessary). Please advise - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also there has been a fair amount of acrimony, so if you can understand this really is the last thing I need. However, I fully appreciate you need to do your investigations. Thanks L'honorable (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- @RHaworth: made the edit in question. SQLQuery me! 04:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your ex-wife said "Although my user name may suggest otherwise, I am in fact male."? ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
May 2016
This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC) |
- @Drmies, Boing! said Zebedee, Iridescent, Ealdgyth, and HighInBC: I trust you won't mind my writing to you jointly, since we all (mostly me) had a part to play in the unfortunate present state of affairs:
- I note that Wiki has now blocked me indefinitely for allegedly being a socket puppet. As recommended I have read the guide to appealing blocks and would be most grateful for any pointers as to what to do next.
- Is it right for Wiki to appropriate all blame on me when having readily admitted to my former connection with Mabelina (who introduced me to Wiki in the first instance and owns that account name and computer) being much more tech-savvy than me, could of course still be editing under a different guise?
- I certainly had no inkling that by creating my own account name I could possibly later be deemed to be a sock puppet, but I apologise if so and note that the guidelines state "leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly..". I certainly have no intention of doing so again and in fact would much like to restore my reputation, such as it is, under the user name of L'honorable. Furthermore, naturally I am dismayed that Mabelina's editing degenerated to the point of being so admonished after I left home, but I trust that I shall not be held responsible in absentia for that?
- As stated elsewhere I should like to be able to make helpful and informed contributions in the future to Wikipedia, mostly about history, genealogy & heraldry (note not other more controversial topics such as BLP). Such contributions I sincerely hope will be welcome, however I realise you may wish to place stipulations on my activity but seek your guidance first, if you could be so kind as to give it - many thanks in advance. Best L'honorable (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- L'honorable, your edits and associated behavior was already bad enough; this story about, well, the other person isn't just remarkable, it's also unlikely, since the behavior displayed by this account and by the other are a match. They behave the same. They talk the same. They edit the same. Wishing you the best of luck in your other affairs, Drmies (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: should I take this to mean that Wiki has blocked me forever, which surely noone could deem as being reasonable? L'honorable (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. is Admin adjudication as to the determination of socket puppetry so entirely arbitrary in which case what do I do now? I don't wish to have other affairs as you so kindly put it... but I would much like to know how to alleviate myself of the association tag with Mabelina, to which I have admitted...
PS. this story about, well, the other person isn't just remarkable, it's also unlikely, since the behavior displayed by this account and by the other are a match - how possibly to deal with such a foregone conclusion? L'honorable (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
PPS. please understand that I am not so stupid, nor do I take Wiki to be stupid, but I had ever imagined, which is why I have not been devious, to think that I could be deemed a sock puppet. How has it come to this? Please advise. Many thanks. M L'honorable (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: should I take this to mean that Wiki has blocked me forever, which surely noone could deem as being reasonable? L'honorable (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
(by the way - just in case anyone is wondering - the above gibberish was not phrased by me - so how did it happen (in the last sentence, ie. PPS? - I leave it like that for the time being because I do not feel as if I am not getting a fair hearing..... (& btw it has changed slightly without any apparent intervention by anyone?)) L'honorable (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
there is a very important subclause in there which is missing - can anyone spot where it should be (or what even better what it comprised?)? L'honorable (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
M has been inserted.... Could somebody please tell me that Wiki is always so inconsiderate as this?
Is this trial & jury? No point to edit more it just keeps changing - if you want to hear from me, please advise
- We are not a courtroom. You may consider the standard offer. HighInBC 00:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @HighInBC: thank you for your understanding and without further ado may I submit to Wiki's standard offer, which I understand to be threefold? This requires me to do nothing to upset the agreement, ie. by devious behaviour etc. (of any sort), & I shall happily wait six months for this to be tested and I can also assure you that I shall do everything thereafter to avoid blocking/banning situations (& whatever else is required).
- This I understand to be the Wikipedia:Standard offer which I accept in its entirety. Many thanks & apologies for inconvenience caused to all. Best L'honorable (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I fully endorse the block. Sadly my betting is that if you stick to the standard offer and we unblock you in six months time, then within your first half dozen edits you will resume the behaviour which has got you blocked a dozen times so far. Prove me wrong and I will buy you a drink in Penderel's Oak! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, L'honorable. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks and please advise what, if anything, I need to do at this stage. Best, L'honorable (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Unblock requests
@Boing! said Zebedee: hi there - you may recall I was blocked from Wikipedia? I recently received a message on my Talk Page about voting.... I am not sure whether this is wise or not, but any guidance as to what I should be doing next so as to remain friends with the Wikipedia community would be much appreciated. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
L'honorable (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Having accepted Wiki's Standard Offer for suspected Socket Puppetry, I fully subscribe to Wiki's values & aims, and furthermore hope to make most useful contributions where appropriate
Decline reason:
Firstly, "doing your time" is not sufficient; you will also need to discuss the reasons that led to the original block (either the one on User:Mabelina or, if you're saying that you aren't Mabelina, address that in somewhat greater detail). Secondly, we generally do not unblock puppet accounts; unless you maintain you are not Mabelina, please request an unblock from your original account (WP:UTRS is available). Thirdly, blocked editors are not eligible to vote in the ArbCom elections; unless your block is resolved before the election, you can ignore that notification. Huon (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2016 (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.
@Huon: thanks so much for your prompt reply, and please forgive me should it be thought I was in any way suggesting "doing time" is sufficient. However, it has already been well explained that Mabelina is not me & that she is my ex-wife. Since this evidently was not believed in the first place, hence my being blocked, I am slightly non-plussed as to how to explain further... Anyway, I am sure this will be resolved, but at the moment it is a bit like a pantomime (if you know what I mean!). Much obliged if you could advise further. Best L'honorable (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
PS. & it is good to have clarified voting eligibility too. Thanks!
- I have spent quite some time looking at the available evidence. There might be more that I'm not aware of, but what I can see already looks strange enough. You will agree it's a rather curious coincidence that the other account we believe entirely on behavioural grounds to be yours happens to be your ex-wife's. Even if we accept your explanation that you are indeed not Mabelina, you should adress the behavioural issues - RHaworth even predicted that, if you were unblocked, you would likely get yourself quickly blocked again. So how will your conduct differ if you were unblocked? Huon (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Huon: I have again postponed my representations to you so as to demonstrate that for me it is not the be all and end all. Like you, it also worries me that there are those such as RHaworth who seem to be ready to pounce to have me blocked again for whatever reason, thus for me there is no urgency to be welcomed back into the fold. However, I believe my contributions to Wiki going forward will be of value and needless to say, I shall do my utmost to steer clear of any areas of controversy. I am more than happy to contribute, and please let me know if you should require any further explanation (which I am happy to provide). Best, L'honorable (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome to request another review of your block that will be performed by another admin. To me this still does not address the issues with your conduct in enough detail. Merely editing in controversial areas isn't what got you blocked. Huon (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Huon & would it be helpful for you to guide me as how then to satisfactorily appeal my supposed sockpuppetry? I find it still unnerving that there seem to be those threatening to have me blocked again; what do you think? Best, L'honorable (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- As I said above, we connected this account to Mabelina based on behavioural evidence - not because the accounts shared a computer or something, but because they edited in the same way, with the same problems. If we were wrong in concluding that this indeed is a case of sockpuppetry - and given the very strong behavioural evidence I'm not convinced we got it wrong - there would still be the issue that this account edited in exactly the same problematic way as Mabelina - even if you aren't her, we wouldn't want you to edit in that way, either. So you will need to address how your conduct will change if you are unblocked. That said, there's a difference between "threatening to have you blocked again" and "predicting that your own behaviour would lead to a renewed block". It's your behaviour that's at issue here, and it's your future behaviour that will determine whether you are blocked again or not. So convincing us that you understand the problems with your past conduct and explaining what you'll do to not let those issues recur will help. Huon (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, I am not sure what to do here since if Wiki cannot accept my word then what is the point of continuing? L'honorable (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
PS. may I ask you whether you would like to see me unblocked? I should be grateful of any help/advice in this regard. Many thanks. Best, L'honorable (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)- Whether I would "like" to see you unblocked is irrelevant. What I advised you to do is to request another review of your block in the way explained in the original block message (that will be reviewed by another administrator, not by me) and to address in some detail how your conduct, if you are unblocked, will differ from the problematic conduct we saw so far. Huon (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, I am not sure what to do here since if Wiki cannot accept my word then what is the point of continuing? L'honorable (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- As I said above, we connected this account to Mabelina based on behavioural evidence - not because the accounts shared a computer or something, but because they edited in the same way, with the same problems. If we were wrong in concluding that this indeed is a case of sockpuppetry - and given the very strong behavioural evidence I'm not convinced we got it wrong - there would still be the issue that this account edited in exactly the same problematic way as Mabelina - even if you aren't her, we wouldn't want you to edit in that way, either. So you will need to address how your conduct will change if you are unblocked. That said, there's a difference between "threatening to have you blocked again" and "predicting that your own behaviour would lead to a renewed block". It's your behaviour that's at issue here, and it's your future behaviour that will determine whether you are blocked again or not. So convincing us that you understand the problems with your past conduct and explaining what you'll do to not let those issues recur will help. Huon (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Huon & would it be helpful for you to guide me as how then to satisfactorily appeal my supposed sockpuppetry? I find it still unnerving that there seem to be those threatening to have me blocked again; what do you think? Best, L'honorable (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome to request another review of your block that will be performed by another admin. To me this still does not address the issues with your conduct in enough detail. Merely editing in controversial areas isn't what got you blocked. Huon (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Huon: I have again postponed my representations to you so as to demonstrate that for me it is not the be all and end all. Like you, it also worries me that there are those such as RHaworth who seem to be ready to pounce to have me blocked again for whatever reason, thus for me there is no urgency to be welcomed back into the fold. However, I believe my contributions to Wiki going forward will be of value and needless to say, I shall do my utmost to steer clear of any areas of controversy. I am more than happy to contribute, and please let me know if you should require any further explanation (which I am happy to provide). Best, L'honorable (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
L'honorable (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
PS. I have no problem being placed under a supervision order, should that be required. L'honorable (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= [[User talk:HighInBC|HighInBC]] : my intention with regards to contributing further to Wikipedia is by making only factual contributions. In fact given the apparent hostility towards me I intend to make very few, for fear of getting into "hot water". This should of course not be the case but since I will undoubtedly be subject to supervision this is how I shall conduct myself. By the making of "factual contributions" I define these only where I can see that something is demonstrably incorrect : I have no wish to enter into further edit conflict with fellow Wiki contributors. <br>PS. I have no problem being placed under a supervision order, should that be required. [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 21:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1= [[User talk:HighInBC|HighInBC]] : my intention with regards to contributing further to Wikipedia is by making only factual contributions. In fact given the apparent hostility towards me I intend to make very few, for fear of getting into "hot water". This should of course not be the case but since I will undoubtedly be subject to supervision this is how I shall conduct myself. By the making of "factual contributions" I define these only where I can see that something is demonstrably incorrect : I have no wish to enter into further edit conflict with fellow Wiki contributors. <br>PS. I have no problem being placed under a supervision order, should that be required. [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 21:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1= [[User talk:HighInBC|HighInBC]] : my intention with regards to contributing further to Wikipedia is by making only factual contributions. In fact given the apparent hostility towards me I intend to make very few, for fear of getting into "hot water". This should of course not be the case but since I will undoubtedly be subject to supervision this is how I shall conduct myself. By the making of "factual contributions" I define these only where I can see that something is demonstrably incorrect : I have no wish to enter into further edit conflict with fellow Wiki contributors. <br>PS. I have no problem being placed under a supervision order, should that be required. [[User:L'honorable|L'honorable]] ([[User talk:L'honorable#top|talk]]) 21:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
@HighInBC, Huon, and Boing! said Zebedee: should there be any delay in adjudicating please let me know - meantime, please see the activities of Kathisma. Merci. L'honorable (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Qv : Anthony Berry (apparently renamed as Anthony Georges Berry by Kathisma for purposes of heraldic disrespect). Que faire?
I am going to leave this to another admin to answer. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 23:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks & just by way of clarification Anthony Georges Berry seems "a bit unnecessary" given the pursuit of accuracy (where it already exists). Hope of help. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've started a thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard to discuss unblocking you per the standard offer. The section of your talkpage below will be transcluded onto that noticeboard - so you will be able to participate in the discussion. SQLQuery me! 04:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Standard Offer unblock discussion
- SPI clerk comment - this account is blocked as a sockpuppet of Mabelina based on behaviour and not on technical data. In my opinion the case is strong, however I see no reason to decline the request on this sole basis if the user intends to use only this account from now on. Pinging Vanjagenije and Drmies for input. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: many thanks for your consideration and I can confirm without any doubt that I shall use « L'honorable » as my user name from now on. There probably is little point in rehearsing the same old arguments but the simple reason for the confusion is that « Mabelina » was the user name of my wife (before we divorced) which we did use jointly from time to time. Anyway as you realise this is in the past and also as said if agreeable I should be delighted to contribute further (where helpful and with caution!). Thanks again and looking forward to hearing. Best, L'honorable (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Considering that L'honorable has owned up to joint use of the Mabelina account, agrees to stick to only L'honorable now, and has gone the six months with (presumably) no socking, I'm happy to support a Standard Offer unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: thank you for your support & hereby just confirming that I have not socked for over six months nor shall ever again. In fact I can't even remember how to access the « Mabelina » account now, but more importantly I shall not be socking under any guise in the future. I am more than embarrassed that I allowed myself to get into this situation, and trust that we can draw a line under that episode and move forward. Many thanks for your understanding. Best, L'honorable (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
PS. because there has been no further comment [since before Christmas], I thought it worthwhile to investigate as to why that may be. Although painfully aware that I have frustrated certain powers-that-be, to me this seems not a good enough reason for my continued block. Nonetheless, the silence is deafening, so could you please advise as the case may be? L'honorable (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)- With only supports and no opposes there's clearly a consensus to unblock at this stage, but I think it's probably best to leave it for at least a full week from the transclusion to ANI, and leave enough time for RHaworth to respond to the ping below - so perhaps give it a few more days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: just in case you're editing from the transclusion at AN, it might be best to come over to the user's talk page and read the full thread from above the unblock request. There aren't any opposes per se but it's not quite unanimous. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm editing directly from here (the user talk page). But what I did mean was indeed that there have been no opposes since the request was transcluded to ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, and the key difference I see that resolves the issues from before the latest unblock request is that L'honorable has owned up to sharing the Mabelina account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: just in case you're editing from the transclusion at AN, it might be best to come over to the user's talk page and read the full thread from above the unblock request. There aren't any opposes per se but it's not quite unanimous. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- With only supports and no opposes there's clearly a consensus to unblock at this stage, but I think it's probably best to leave it for at least a full week from the transclusion to ANI, and leave enough time for RHaworth to respond to the ping below - so perhaps give it a few more days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Curious. Pinging RHaworth who it seems may know this person (or these persons) in real life. For my own part I will support this unblock request. It seems to me that L'honorable was trying to learn the ropes earlier this year when they stumbled into a sockpuppetry block, and has not socked subsequently in more than six months. Since Mabelina is also blocked and not likely to be unblocked, I don't see any good reason not to grant this request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @L'honorable: the delay since Christmas is likely due to it being around Christmas and not as many users active at this time, nothing more. I recommend reading the "assume good faith" guideline, and understand that while some editors were previously bothered by your edit warring, there is no hostility towards you as an editor. Wikipedia culture comes with a steep learning curve, but most editors will be pleased to offer guidance if you ask polite questions. I say this because if you treat your fellow editors as though everyone is out to get you, then very soon they will be. Please ask questions if you need help, and try not to take it personally if your contributions are edited or reverted. Best of luck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector and Boing! said Zebedee: you are both most kind to attend to this matter and I can assure you as well as RHaworth with whom I am indeed acquainted that your faith in me will be more than reciprocated. Many thanks again for the update and looking forward to hearing further in due course. Meantime all best wishes for the New Year. L'honorable (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @L'honorable: the delay since Christmas is likely due to it being around Christmas and not as many users active at this time, nothing more. I recommend reading the "assume good faith" guideline, and understand that while some editors were previously bothered by your edit warring, there is no hostility towards you as an editor. Wikipedia culture comes with a steep learning curve, but most editors will be pleased to offer guidance if you ask polite questions. I say this because if you treat your fellow editors as though everyone is out to get you, then very soon they will be. Please ask questions if you need help, and try not to take it personally if your contributions are edited or reverted. Best of luck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to interfere, but my name showed up earlier in the discussion. I am neither an admin nor an usual contributor on en.wiki, and my english is not very good. Most of my activity consists in chasing copyvios and helping with deletion requests on commons. If I may, I would nonetheless strongly oppose this request. Indeed, this user has shown on the other projects the same problematic behaviour which caused his block here :
- on commons, he has been repeatedly uploading copyvios files. When his files were nominated and deleted, he contested the deletion, the community consensus and the official policy (see [3] and his contestations here [4] ). He took these actions as personnal attacks [5]. In addition, he repetedly behaved in a very incorrect way, removing deletion tags (see [6]) and removing all categories of files [7] just because they displeased him..
- on the German wiki, he was blocked for forcing editions in spite of his clear lack in linguistic ability ([8]).
- on the French wiki (sorry for the non French-speaking), his activity indludes the same abuses :
- his numerous edits show a very approximative knowledge of the French language, with many linguistic errors he reverts even when other users try to correct him. For instance his incorrect form "D'ascendance de la haute noblesse" was corrected, but he reinserted the same fault in the next paragraph on a further revision "aussi d'ascendance noblesse bohémienne"). Basically he tried to import an english form which does not exist in French and refused to accept the correction. Frequently he does not even make the effort to try to speak French.
- he claims to "improve articles" but inserts historical or factual errors. In this revision, for instance, he adds a coat of arms image which is different from the sourced blazon added by a previous contributor, introducing an inconsistency and a factual error. In the page [9] (which he seems to consider as his masterpiece), he has introduced many linguistic errors, historical/factual/heraldic inaccuracies and confusions (the worst being the confusion of a 12th century duke of Brittany with his 15th century homonym), he has invented arms for non armigerous persons of the 12th century, he has refused to follow the recommendations of the wiki heraldic project...
- these errors have led to harsh disputes where he refuses to accept and ignores other contributors arguments [10]
- in these disputes he has repeatedly erased comments of other users because they despleased him [11].
- he frequently accuses the local heraldic expert to behave as a censor, calling him ironically a pseudo "roi d'armes" (king of arms) because they desagreed [12]
- in spite of being repeatedly asked not to use the "notify/ping" tag by this user, he continued for weeks to harass him with it
- he called the local heraldic workshop a politburo [13] because they did not obey his demands
- after each argument, he presents himself as a victim and complains that everyone is hostile [14] [15]. He suggests that this hostility is personnal and due to the fact he is British [16].
I therefore fear that lifting the block would result in the return of the same abuses this user was blocked for. Kathisma (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Halo Kathisma : I do not view this at all as interfering, and in fact I welcome your viewpoint (let's indeed all strive for transparency) ; I can for the most part (I say this because should you wish to go through your complaints line by line, I shall of course be willing to engage) resist all your observations/criticisms (not least because the "roi d'armes" to whom you refer and I are working very well together - qv. the very many recent liaisons). So please reconsider your assertions, which may have more to do with other reasons than to do with me. Let's leave it at that, because as I have been advised above it is no good engaging in a contre-temps, especially one so needless. Your central point is utterly unfounded, but nonetheless please write to me in French on my discussion page should you still have questions which you'd like to iron out. Merci à toi et cordialement, L'honorable (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
PS. voir Projet:Blasons ;
PPS. voir aussi sir Anthony Berry : tu connais l'éditeur anonyme peut-être ? (I also note that in the English language version about Sir Anthony Berry you have introduced into the Infobox your own COA image, for far from clear reasons - & I suppose it could be pointed out that if you had such great knowledge of the subject why hadn't you previously created a good heraldic image for the Berry family?). But hey, at once, you are drawing me into having to justify myself, where I believe it is not required. So let others adjudicate svp - à bientôt et cdlt, L'honorable (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
PS. could I also ask you for your prompt reply as to why you deemed it necessary to state "nouveau nom, d'après les blocages qui ont été faits sur les wikis anglais, allemand et néerlandais" in your representations at Wikipédia:Le Pub? This to me seems to go against all the advice I have received above... Anyway let me know... Thank you. L'honorable (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Highly sceptical unblock proposal. He does appear to have kept to the terms of the standard offer so we should assume good faith and unblock. However I confidently predict that we will soon see a return to the disruptive activities which got Mabelina blocked so many times. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)