User talk:LoveActresses

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page to follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Sdrtirs (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tamara Gorski[edit]

The article Tamara Gorski has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Stansfield[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Claire Stansfield, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please source your information[edit]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Torri Higginson. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced material to WP:BLP articles. Adding personal information without including a source is against our policy on verifiability, and adding whether an actress was clothed or not in any given role is completely unnecessary. I urge you to read the guidelines and policies I've linked to prior to making any additional changes to biography articles. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity note - this conversation was continued at my talk page Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dahlia Salem[edit]

The article Dahlia Salem has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. mark nutley (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tamara Gorski[edit]

The article Tamara Gorski has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Olivia Llewellyn[edit]

The article Olivia Llewellyn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN actress, article lacks RS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Categories[edit]

Hi there. When adding categories to articles, please be sure that the categories actually exist. You have added some nonexistent categories. For example, your edit here to Angie Harmon added 3 nonexistent categories, Category:American actors of Greek descent, Category:American actors of Irish descent, Category:American actors of Native American descent. Similarly, on Boti Bliss, you added Category:American actors from Colorado, which does not exist. In that case, I have changed it to the correct category: Category:Actors from Colorado. Thanks a bunch! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP articles[edit]

Unsourced BLP articles should be stubbed and if reliable sources are not found should be deleted. Reliable sources are not optionally, they aren't simply a nice thing to have. Other people have told you, now I'll tell you - please read our policies on WP:BLP and WP:RS. If you don't you will waste a lot of time adding content that will simply be deleted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and as for how many articles - I'll stubbed any unsourced BLP I come across, so the answer is ALL. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User generated context is not considered reliable and cannot be used for BLP articles. Also please keep your personal views about editors to yourself or your account will be blocked. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just put you straight on something because you'll be blocked if you carry on in your current manner - there is no right of free speech at wikipedia, editing here is constricted by our policies and guidelines. Some policies concern articles, some interaction between editors, absolutely none of them allow for free speech.

Just to help you out, here are broadly sources you should avoid - anything where users can edit the content (most of your recent sources), blogs, forums. If something is actually notable, a reliable source (and once again I'll point you towards WP:RS) will have commented on it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can determine, it's a self-published source and seems to be run by a single individual. Self-published sources can be used in very limited circumstances, generally only about themselves and certainly not for BLPs. If you are unhappy about this, I suggest you head off to the Reliable sources board and ask them to take a look, I doubt you will get much of a different answer. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's at WP:RSN --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions[edit]

LoveActresses, it is apparent that you are not happy with the way Wikipedia works with regard to our policies on sourcing, especially when it involves biographies of living persons. I have two suggestions as to how you can move forward:

1) take a break from editing for a day or two. Come back refreshed and before making any new edits to articles, thoroughly review the policy and guideline links that have been provided to you. If anything is unclear regarding the guidelines, post a message on the guideline talk page or email me and I will be happy to expand or clarify. Perhaps a break and a firm grasp on how sourcing and editing work here will inspire a desire to contribute positively within our collaborative environment. We can always use enthusiastic editors to help improve Wikipedia!
2) if you truly find Wikipedia's guidelines and policies too restrictive, perhaps it would be best to direct your enthusiasm for actresses towards another online project. There are many websites that are not as strict with regard to what can and cannot be added to articles.

Regardless of the path you choose, the one constant is that the edits you are currently making do not adhere to our policies and need to be removed. I sincerely hope that you listen to all the advice you've been given and choose option 1, however if you choose option 2 then I wish you the best of luck. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark[edit]

LoveActresses, regarding Princess Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark, she is entitled to use the title "Princess Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark" because she is not a Princess of Greece and Denmark in her own right, but only through her marriage to Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark. This is standard protocol in the former monarchy of Greece and also in the former monarchies of Germany and even in the United Kingdom (see Princess Michael of Kent). Therefore, Wikipedia recognizes her formal title, and not the title she should bear. Thank you for your attention to this matter, though, and feel free to contact me with any further questions! --Caponer (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in the cases of Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York, they were married to princes who had individual titles in their own right: Charles, Prince of Wales and Andrew, Duke of York. Had Charles or Andrew been Prince Charles and Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom, without individual titles, their wives would have been titled Princess Charles and Princess Andrew of the United Kingdom. I hope this answers your question! Prince Michael of Kent does not have an individual title, therefore, his wife was titled "Princess Michael of Kent." Had he been "Duke of Cumberland," she would have been titled "Duchess of Cumberland." --Caponer (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smile![edit]

Hello LoveActresses, Thesevenseas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 300° 44' 44" NET 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 346° 45' 30" NET 23:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Brandon (standard-bearer)[edit]

Hello, I just saw your edit in this article, where you added several dates and facts. I am curious as to the sources of these, especially the death date of Elizabeth Bruyn, his wife, since I have never seen any date given even by historians. What are your sources? --Feuerrabe (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes and sources[edit]

You made some changes to Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury and Walter Hungerford (Knight of Farley)‎, but you did not add any sources for those changes. Do you have some? -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk pages for those two articles. -- PBS (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Elena Evangelo[edit]

A tag has been placed on Elena Evangelo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Airplaneman ✈ 05:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyre Coote (British Army officer)[edit]

I have reverted your additions since the birthdate of 1759 that you gave contradicts numerous sources which say 1762. Please provide citations if you wish to make these changes. I am concerned that there are several other comments on this page recently making similar remarks. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources before adding any more "facts" based on information from the genealogy.euweb.cz website. There doesn't seem to be any reason to suppose that this is anything more than someone's personal website or that it would qualify as a reliable source more than any other randomly selection genealogical website. You certainly should never use this kind of source to add information which is contradicted by references to published works by real historians, as you have done here. As the article said: "Earlier histories, following John of Fordun, supposed that Duncan had been king of Strathclyde in his grandfather's lifetime, ruling the former Kingdom of Strathclyde as an appanage. Modern historians discount this idea." This is sourced to A. A. M. Duncan's Kingship of the Scots, p. 40, to which you could add Alex Woolf's Pictland to Alba, pp. 260–263, among others. And while "Suthen" appears in the index to Woolf, the only Sybilla who is to be found is the wife of Alexander I. Alison Weir is clearly not to be trusted on anything remotely controversial. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise with the article Sir John St John, 1st Baronet, you made these changes yet you did not cite any sources for the information you gave. It has been generally agreed on Wikipedia that it is quality not quantity that we need. So please include citations to reliable sources when you add information to a page. -- PBS (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bold type[edit]

...should be used only sparingly. See WP:MOSBOLD.--BillFlis (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer[edit]

Please don't make demands like this one [1] of Caponer or other users. Like you, all Wikipedia editors are volunteers and are free to participate as and when they wish. If you have a dispute with an individual editor, I suggest that you take the matter up with them in a polite manner and seek to convince them that your position, within the policies of Wikipedia, is correct. It's very bad form to characterize good-faith opinions or edits with which you happen to disagree as "vandalism."Acroterion _(talk) 15:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you came to the same conclusion as Agricolae on the use of honorifics in titles: his position is correct per WP:MOS - we stick to names as much as possible, such as Elizabeth II rather than "Queen Elizabeth." As to the other issues you've raised with Caponer, they are emphatically not vandalism. Each editor must be prepared to defend their edits within Wikipedia policy and reliable sourcing without applying the "vandalism" label. It would be helpful if you could use edit summaries - there's a toggle in "preferences" to remind you if you need a nudge. Acroterion _(talk) 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Continued BLP violations[edit]

Sigh. I thought we were past this - you are still adding unsourced information to BLPs without including a reliable source. Given the multiple warnings on your talk page, at WP:BLP and WP:RS you are still not getting it. It's very frustrating for other editors to have to revert your edits because you turn a blind eye to policy and guidelines. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your message regarding why you continue to believe the IMdB can be used as a reliable source for personal information as well as your unfounded accusations of stalking on my talk page. In the interest of not having fragmented conversations on multiple pages, it would be preferable that you reply here. Note however that unless you plan on bringing some fresh, policy compliant arguments to the table, I essentially consider this conversation done. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final waring - the next time you add unsourced information to biography articles, as you have done at George Osborne and Frances Osborne, I will request that your account be blocked for disruptive editing contrary to policy. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Please, urgent![edit]

LoveActresses, while I recognize and appreciate your enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia subjects that are of great importance and value to you, I must advise you that Wikipedia is governed by codes of conduct that include guidelines for proper dispute mediation (please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). As Acroterion mentioned to you above, you should not canvas other editors to come to your aid in a dispute, but rather try first to respectfully resolve your differences with an editor, and then consult Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for arbitration if your efforts to resolve in a one-on-one fashion are not fruitful. Over the years of my participation in Wikipedia, I have allowed myself to become embroiled in similar disputes with editors, and because I did not know better, I also canvassed for support, but I became more knowledgeable about Wikipedia's standards and guidelines, and worked to resolve matters within them and not outside of them. Working within Wikipedia's framework of standards will lend credibility to you and your argument.

In reference to your comment on me being "away for so long," I have taken on (and inherited from others) new and challenging time-consuming responsibilities in my personal life, and just stated on my user page that I have transitioned to a "semi-retired" status on Wikipedia. While I support and cherish Wikipedia and my participation in contributing to and refining its content, I must focus on other priorities, and will be unable to aide you in your current editorial disputes. As Acroterion stated above, we as editors all volunteer at our leisure. Because you are currently active on Wikipedia, and have recognized changes that you do not agree with, it is up to you to raise concern and bring these questionable edits to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. I wish you luck in your current and future editorial endeavors on Wikipedia, and hope to return at my past rate of participation in the near future. In the meantime, please be mindful of respecting others in order to solve your disputes as quickly and smoothly as possible. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Caponer (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John de Lisle, 2nd Baron Lisle[edit]

The article John de Lisle, 2nd Baron Lisle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

In the absence of an article with information on the first-creation one, this must be a single entry Dab and thus speedy-deletable per WP:CSD#G6 (db-disambig)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jerzy•t 07:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disambiguation[edit]

Please try to avoid using (as you recently did for One Just Man and John de Lisle, 2nd Baron Lisle) Category:Disambiguation, which is legitimate for about 14 non-Cat-namespace pages, and no main-("article"-)namespace ones. Dab pages usually get, instead, {{Disambig}}.
Thanks for your efforts, including your attention in Dab pages.
--Jerzy•t 07:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Sir Euan Bowater, 3rd Baronet[edit]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Sir Euan Bowater, 3rd Baronet. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Cromwell, 3rd Baron Cromwell[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Edward Cromwell, 3rd Baron Cromwell, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.thepeerage.com/p3188.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Cromwell, the Golden Knight[edit]

As the article that you recently created seems to be about the same subject matter as Henry Williams (alias Cromwell), do you not think they should be merged. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Ardglass. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baronet page moves[edit]

Please stop moving these to their full title without first discussing them on the article' talk pages. Per WP:NCPEER baronets do not go at their full title unless disambiguation is needed. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Petrb (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the information in the corresponding reference, please ensure that informations are correct, for instance:

He is also the 1,322nd Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (Austria) (source?)
Johannes Nepomucenus Andreas Heinrich Joseph Karl Ferdinand Johannes Evangelist die Heiligen Drei Könige Achaz Michael Maria, Hereditary Prince of Schwarzenberg (b. Vienna, 13 December 1967), married on 20 March 2010 Diana Orgovanyi-Hanstein

If you can't give refereces in english which have those informations, please do not change the article, thank you Petrb (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVIT & WP:DISRUPTION[edit]

In the article Sir John St John, 1st Baronet you made this revision as of 16:23, 2 November 2010] which added the text:

"His father was the son of William ap Yevan (son of Yevan ap William or Yevan Williams and Margaret Kemoys) and reportedly of Joan Tudor, an illegitimate daughter of Jasper Tudor, 1st Earl of Pembroke and 1st Duke of Bedford."

I reversed that edit during a large expansion to the article. You have then edited the expanded article with this Revision as of 19:07, 3 November 2010 which reinstated the text:

"His father was the son of William ap Yevan (son of Yevan ap William or Yevan Williams and Margaret Kemoys), and reportedly of Joan Tudor, an illegitimate daughter of Jasper Tudor, 1st Earl of Pembroke and 1st Duke of Bedford, which is also denied by several authors^{[citation needed]}."

With that edit you also reinserted text that I had removed:

"at Putney Church, Norwell, Nottinghamshire, in 1499, Catherine Cromwell, born at Putney, London, the sister of the later Earl of Essex, and afterwards changed his surname to Cromwell;"

In doing so you ignored the a dated but reliable sources denying that this was true:

"but according to Mark Noble this is denied by several authors."

Again you have done so without a reliable source. If you continue to add text to articles without reliable sources -- despite numerous requests from many different editors -- which is against policy your account may be blocked. --PBS (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Williams alias Cromwell[edit]

In reply to most of your recent questions on my talk page see Talk:Henry Williams (alias Cromwell)

You also wrote on my talk page "About the Joan Tudor thing, read Jasper Tudor for the reported connection." You can not use another Wikipedia page as a reliable source. You have to cite a reliable third-party source to meet the requirements of WP:PROVEIT -- PBS (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

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).

LoveActresses (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Just because I corrected some of the pages edited, and sometimes badly at some extent, of User:G.-M. Cupertino, it doesn't mean I'm him/her. If you check better you'll see I corrected him/her sometimes, including those "Sir" when other titles are presented. I wish to require an opportunity for a defense, since I'm being prevented from doing so at the investigation page. I've followed that editor and corrected many of his contributions. That doesn't make anyone a sockpuppet. How many other people would be sockpuppets then? There are thousands of editors, and despite the edits to some pages not being that many, I've already seen some editors tracking and adding elements to other editors' work. Are you going to block everyone who tracks other editors? If so, are people "forbidden" from editing some pages with the fear that some overzealous Administrator blocks them? Is that how you run things around here? It's impossible not to stumble on some articles in common when editors share the same area. The articles you mentioned aren't obscure, since they're linked to Baron Thyssen and his daughter and to Isabella Calthorpe, a famous socialite, not obscure people at all. All I had to do was following the family connection. And what are a few "obscure" articles among many? Also, if I was hostile in some manner was because of the arrogance and even patronizing of some editors. I was never as uncivil as the above mentioned user. Anything I can do to help you prove my innocence, just ask me. LoveActresses (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sockpuppet of banned user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

LoveActresses (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How can the CheckUser say the IP I'm using is the same as the banned user if we don't even have the same computer, nor it matches the IP's he/she's suspected of using?

Decline reason:

Checkuser KNOWS ALL. But, in case it doesn't, how would you know these things? Hmm? — Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

LoveActresses (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How do I know? Because this computer is mine at my home, and no one else used it, ergo, it could never be someone else's. Simple exclusion. "Hmm?" You people are rude, patronizing and sarchastic, you don't have the people quality to be Administrators. Why do you think you can talk to people like that, because you're hiding behind a computer? Check the CheckUser again.

Decline reason:

Firstly, do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially when making an unblock request. You're just lucky there are no good reasons to unblock, because I would have declined your unblock for that incivility alone. As for what you say, well, how could we possibly verify that? One day we will have a tool that will enable us to scan your DNA through sensors in a keyboard, and then we'll be able to be more discriminating, but until then we'll have to just be better safe than sorry. Especially when it has been decided through a review of the technical and behavioral evidence that it is within Wikipedia's interests to leave this account blocked, at least for the time being. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

LoveActresses (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was uncivil because I accused you without insulting, and you and your posture aren't uncivil!... Duality of chriteria: one for Administrators, other for victims. And you block people just because of that. You're extremely susceptible and above that you apparently get even on people when they make a valid accusation, thus abusing your power. The point is simple: you can't claim that we have the same IP because we don't. Unless someone broke into my house. There ar eno good reasons to unblock. What about you have none to block? Hmm? What does "better safe than sorry" means? That you have squat, I'm just a "suspect", but you block me anyway. Nice work. Can someone else please do this?

Decline reason:

First of all, if you really want to request an unblock, this is the wrong way to go about it. Please have a look at WP:NOTTHEM. Secondly, it's a lost cause. When behavioral evidence and CheckUser data point the same way, that's it: you are a sockpuppet. Favonian (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

LoveActresses (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry about the personalizing of the discussion. Behavioral evidence is what, blocking everyone who makes edits to nobility pages because it might be some other user in disguise? How can CheckUser say it's my IP if I just got a new one? I checked the alledged IP sockpuppets of User:G.-M. Cupertino and none of them is mine. How is that?

Decline reason:

Questions are not a reason for unblock. These statements are not sufficient for rebutting a checkuser determination. Your requests are repetitive and I am therefore removing your talk page access. Sandstein 18:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment on behavioral evidence[edit]

Not just any old set of nobility pages; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive#05 November 2010 for very specific examples. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some in common? There are only a few noblemen/women, of course some will be in common. So far I've only seen two mentions of coincidence, and I can only say that I've corrected some of alledged sockpuppet User:Phoebus de Lusignan's contributions, which means they're not mine. LoveActresses (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Denice D. Lewis for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Denice D. Lewis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denice D. Lewis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tataral (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]