User talk:DowntonAbbeyFan

This is being posted on your talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four tildes ( ~ ) or by pressing or  in the editing interface toolbox, located just above the editing window (when editing). You won't need to sign your contributions to articles themselves; you only need to when using talk pages. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.

Again, welcome! Mark Miller (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Baronet?
If Violet actually refers to her mother as a "Baronet" then it is possible this is a mistake in the writing. Baronetess is more rare than Baronet. As uncommon as that is today, it is possible that erred is the script and that should have been Baronetess. I can not seem to find a surname of "Baronet". Trying to go by the sound heard has been an issue at Wikipedia in so many debates. In such an obscure mention, I'd just not bother to be honest.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your sandbox
Here is the page you can use to make test edits, prepare articles and create other content that is not published to Wikipedia yet: User:DowntonAbbeyFan/Sandbox. It is next to the "Talk" link in the upper right of the page where it says "Sandbox".--Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, if you need multiple sandboxes to prepare other things at once use: User:DowntonAbbeyFan/name of page . Each time you create a "user" page with a different "Name of page" as demonstrated, you will create that page work on at your own pace.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A story about a fan editor
Give me a minute.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, here is the story about an editor named User:Amadscientist who came to Wikipedia when he became interested in the television series Rome.

Many years ago, back in the archaic days when guidelines were not as strict or adhered to as well...editors were allowed to write a great deal of content that was un-sourced even in non fiction areas. Many film and television articles were written from an in-universe perspective, as if the characters were real. The issue still persists but many of the articles are now being dealt with. While I was a interested in the TV show Rome, it was really The Rocky Horror Picture Show that I was a real "fan" of, long term. I spent countless days and nights debating the article, the plot, the details of the production, the actors, previous stage productions, the marketing and even the posters in a vein attempt to place my own POV as a fan into the article. I stayed up until 4:00am many, many days debating an editor who, to their credit, tried to get a number of points across. It took time but eventually we got to a point where we could live with the version. Later, I came back and raised it to a GA rating that only held for a short time. It took walking away for a while and spending a good deal of time studying the guidelines and policies that I was able to begin to understand Wikipedia. But it took others who came to help me even though we were originally in a dispute. There are people here that will not do that but there are also new editors that would easily have walked away because they didn't understand the basics and just gotten frustrated. You seem to be able to catch on quickly and it looks to be a real pattern of a newbie (trust me, newbies that catch on fast can be held with suspicion because they seem to get some things to quickly) who is seeing what to do and doing so, but still confused about some of the other issues that face new editors.

Moral of the story...don't waste years. Your contributions and suggestions can be refined by others just by asking as you did. I'll get back to you tomorrow.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Tree
The tree in your sandbox: User:DowntonAbbeyFan/Sandbox compared to the Template:Downton Abbey family tree created for the main Downton Abbey article plot summary and placed on the talk page of that article for discussion long before it was placed on the article itself are very different. As a new editor some of the changes you made are simple errors of choice that make it harder for your version. First, you altered the already existing formatting using a specific wiki mark-up.


 * Formatting should never be changed without a discussion. What exists prior to ones edit in the basic set up of the wiki mark up should be discussed before it is changed because, such changes can have a very major effect and crosses the line between an encouraged "bold edit" and a reckless edit. This is a guideline not a policy or a bright line rule like edit warring and going across the WP:3RR rule. In other words, it is not proper protocol, but isn't a violation unless you resist the consensus that allowed its placement. Consensus is how everything is decided. It is not a straight up vote. On Wikipedia, responding to official polls is called a vote (link is just an essay, a collection of various editor opinion on a guideline, policy etc.). Consensus is what all involved editors can live with, within the basic framework provided over years of discussion by the community. A local consensus of editors can never override the consensus of the wider editing community. These basic guidelines and the more stricter policies, bright line rules as well as the terms of service are the standards to which all editors are held. Administrators decide if intervention is needed in behavioral disputes and have tools to block editors and in some cases (through different processes) site ban editors that cannot conform to the standards of "behavior". There are a number of boards that exist to deal strictly with the content disputes with moderators and discussion.

That was long explanation about one objection to be clear what was being objected to and why. The rest is less complicated to explain.


 * How far back to go and have encyclopedic value as a summary of the primary work (the TV series) is based on the relevance to the story. Obviously there is a first Earl since we have a numbered system (its basic math that can be assumed) that counts the present Earl of the storyline as the 7th Earl of Grantham. For this template we need only concern ourselves with what the plot covers and should not go outside those boundaries. For this reason we go only as far back as is relevant to the plot. That is Matthew Crawly's connection as the next heir after Patrick Crawley is assumed dead on the RMS Titanic. There is no mention of the beginning of the peerage.


 * Honoraries (unofficial titles) would not be used when official titles are and there is no reasoning to do so, It could cause confusion with official titles from paid or elected political positions such as Rose's husband who is a judge. His title would not be substituted for anything else for a second son's, secondary title. The proper title in this manner would be "lord" or "Lady" for the sons and daughters of titled, hereditary heirs.


 * When no title exists, use no honorary such as Mr. or Mrs. just the full names. Generally the full names are to be as they appeared at death with mention of the name they were born with.


 * Patrick Crawley, 6th Earl of Grantham is not mentioned in any episode in any manner. It is only being mentioned in print by the author as backstory, fill and possible set up to his prequel. It is "canon" of a nature that only few would know and a viewer could not by simply watching the episodes. The source should not be used to make a claim of fact, this is not actual. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, there is no way to know that this will be true if it is ever depicted. Right now, it is not.
 * Marigold can be assumed to have a legal last name and it has the consensus to be Crawley from past discussion. While consensus has changed, there is not basis for the change.


 * I currently believe that all dates should be left off as treating canon storyline too seriously against guidelines and is past the simple intent to illustrate the family connections of the story line, to a debate of the authors intent. If it is the authors intent it will have more mention. At least Marigold's name can easily be assumed because she used a birth certificate and these legal documents have a manner in which they are made. In some instances, a father's name can't be entered unless there is a marriage, but yes, children in these cases would carry the name of the mother if not married and she would have needed a marriage certificate to demonstrate she was married to name name anyone else. Besides this, Edith states she had the document made just in case. In case she had to claim the baby as her own. I feel confident than any such document, to prove parentage to Mrs. Gregson in such a manner as to have her yell that it was a lie, meant she was looking at Marigold's name with another name attached that showed Edith was her mother. That was the "lie" Mrs. Drewe wanted to believe. Besides all that...we know from the viewers standpoint, not the in-universe reality, that she is indeed a part of the Crawley Family. Edith will likely marry and Marigold will retain her surname unless adopted by the new father.

That's about it. I'm off to bed. I'll be back tomorrow sometime.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine - it's only Early here, so I'll probably be on tomorrow. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I should mention that I am not an administrator but was very active with content disputes on the WP:DRN. That is a good place to go if you have a long dispute that, after a good amount of discussion, you can go to ask for volunteer meditation between parties involved.


 * Dennis Brown is an administrator. You can tell by looking at the bottom of their page where it will state that they belong to a category of Administrators. Some will also say so with a disclaimer on the userpage.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ohh, thank you. I'll remember him. --DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He's one of the best actually. very fair minded and very patient.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, we should get along perfectly then! DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A few edits needs to be made to this tree - Lady Bagshaw from the film is the daughter of the brother of the 5th Earl; her husband was "David Bagshaw, Baron Bagshaw"; she had an affair with a man called Jack Smith and had Lucy. Mary and Henry's daughter is called Caroline. --DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Anne Boleyn
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-pregnancies-of-anne-boleyn-and-catherine-of-aragon/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Your addition to Anne Boleyn has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. It's okay to use the quotations, but not the surrounding prose. — Diannaa (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Jane Seymour
Hilary Mantel's 3rd book, referenced in the article on Jane Seymour, has now been published. It is referenced as forthcoming in the article. Rlabraham (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Nick Robinson 123.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nick Robinson 123.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I... have absolutely no idea as to what any of that means. Can you please explain it in dumb-dumb terms so I can understand because I read both pages and now my head is spinning in confusion? DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nick Robinson 123.png
Thanks for uploading File:Nick Robinson 123.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It is in an article. It is a reference provided for a claim in the article. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nick Robinson 123.png
Thanks for uploading File:Nick Robinson 123.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Images as sources
Note that images cannot be used as a reliable source to support content in BLPs. If the information you are trying to add is notable enough for inclusion, it will have been reported in reliable sources. If, as you note in your edit summary, "there's no other way to source it", then it cannot be included in the article. In addition to the image not being a reliable source, when your edits are contested the onus is on the individual wanting to add or restore the content to get consensus for its inclusion.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Nick Robinson (American actor), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

You have now been reverted by two different editors for the same reason. Stop now or you'll be reported for edit-warring. Please also acquaint yourself with WP:RS and WP:V. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

April 2024
Hello, I'm Qflib. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Montana Jordan, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please have a look at the Talk page for this article. Instagram posts referring to third parties are not considered reliable sources for biographical information that involves those parties.'' Qflib (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)