User talk:Fuseemusee

Hello, Fuseemusee, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

February 2019
Hello, Fuseemusee. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Sherborne School, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Combat Fatigue...
Wikipedia is one of the 10 most used sites on the entire internet and staffed almost entirely by volunteers (a few of the dozen or so employees of Wikipedia edit, but do it on their own time. Vandalism fighting is something that has to be done with user assisted tools or it gets completely overwhelmed. There are certainly areas where more exacting attention is necessary. I invite you to stay around and check out various wiki projects in the hope that one will align better with what you are looking for. I hope you do stay.Naraht (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice work!
Nice work on the Sherborne School bios. Keep it up!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much MainlyTwelve - doing my best! I welcome any hints and tips. Fuseemusee (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Glad to see you managed to resolve the differences and reach a favourable outcome! Maybe you can post another userpage update now? ;) Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bungle. I have a feeling you have made my 'come-back' possible so a big thank you. No doubt I am making a few mistakes as I go, but I feel it is now a truly collaborative exercise which is great. As time goes on I hope it becomes even clearer that my intentions are to be a good Wikipedia editor. I feel I have a lot to add so I hope so. Fuseemusee (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

William Thornton (d. 1707)
I've moved Dr William Thornton to William Thornton (d. 1707) as we don't use honorifics or academic or military titles in article names (WP:NCP). Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Cabayi. I will remember that for another time. Fuseemusee (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've moved William Thornton (d. 1707) to William Thornton (academic) as Naming conventions (people) recommends using a noun indicating what the person is noted for being, rather than a date of birth or death.TSventon (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Hugh Hodges) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Hugh Hodges.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Onel 5969  TT me 16:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks and noted for the future. Fuseemusee (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Thomas Wyndham (of Witham Friary)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Thomas Wyndham (of Witham Friary).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Onel 5969  TT me 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Fuseemusee, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Richard Wright (MP) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Violations of the copyright policy were also found in the following articles:
 * William Thornton (academic)
 * Obadiah Wills
 * Colonel Richard Newman
 * Peter Curgenven
 * Thomas Lyte (antiquary).

The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think has over-stated that point. As she says, it's complex, and asking you to read and understand all of it before you do any more editing at all is asking a lot. There are basically two points you need to understand. [1] It is rarely acceptable to copy from anywhere else to Wikipedia, and the safest way of avoiding any problems is to never do it. [2] It's a common mistake to think that just changing the wording a bit, or altering the order of what is said, makes it OK, because then it isn't a straight copy. A fairly good rule of thumb is that if anyone seeing your version and the original side by side is likely to guess that the  one is derived from the other, then it's not acceptable. Basically, write your own text from scratch. By all means have a look at  Wikipedia's copyright policy to get a more detailed idea of what it says, but expecting you to read and understand every word of all the pages we have about copyright before you correct a punctuation mistake is unrealistic. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My thanks to you Breaking sticks and for putting me right on this. I will admit that having created a mission to complete the pages in that section over the weekend, I got a bit lazy where an existing biography was available (it's that novice impatience yet again). Having given clear citations for the sources I was not wholly conscious of conflicting with copyright or Wikipedia policy, however I was aware that it was not ideal and it had been my intention to go back and edit the pages properly in time. Interestingly some copy was cut that I had composed based on multiple sources and original research but that's the way of it I suppose. I have ensured that any articles created after 's notice have not conflicted with policy and I think they read all the better for it. Thank you for providing two simple rules to guide me going forward - very much appreciated. Fuseemusee (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of John King (lord of the manor) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John King (lord of the manor) 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 Articles for deletion/John King (lord of the manor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean to vote keep
Hi, I saw you marked Delete, but I suggest you might want to review it and maybe change it to "Keep" instead, or rebuke me if I am in the wrong.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Aha! Now I see how it works - and I humbly thank you Epiphyllumlover rather than rebuke you of course. Still finding my way around. I gather you also added a link which was kind. Thank you for your kind help and support. Fuseemusee (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Since you marked Keep twice, you'll want to remove one of them. I did that recently and somebody crossed off my second keep because they only let you vote once per article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My thanks again; now corrected. I think the article stands up to scrutiny now - let's see what happens. Fuseemusee (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sherborne School
I am puzzled as to why the three left aligned images in the Sherborne School article appear so low down when they are placed at the head of the History article to which they relate. Would appreciate some help if anyone has any ideas. Fuseemusee (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , If you mean the ones in this section they display fine for me. join the live help channel if you need more assistance or give us more information like your browser information or screenshots by replying to this post. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , many thanks. Just puzzled why they aren't further up the page where they are positioned. I'll try the live help channel later - appreciate you dropping by. Fuseemusee (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , They are placed in the code to be at the top of that section. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 12:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks. That looks good. Might see if I can make them a bit larger. Appreciate your help. Fuseemusee (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm S-I-T-H, one of the helpers you spoke to on IRC. Please see the updated version of Sherborne School, I've put the images in the correct sub-section but I've had to use a gallery in order to make them display correctly.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   12:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of William Thomas Putt for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Thomas Putt 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 Articles for deletion/William Thomas Putt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. signed,Rosguill talk 18:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Claver Morris) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Claver Morris.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 22:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Vanderbank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George White. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you DPL Bot. Link now fixed Fuseemusee (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)]]