User talk:SeriousHist

August 2021
Hello, I'm Notfrompedro. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Orange Room, 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. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

March 2023
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mary, Queen of Scots ‎. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Dr Kay DrKay (talk), please see this new source see lignes 7/11
 * Narrative of the Execution of the Queen of Scots
 * The text I started to read today is the excerpted long letter sent by Robert Wingfield to his uncle, Robert Cecil, the equivalent of the prime minister in Queen Elizabeth’s time. The young man was sent to Fotheringay for the express purpose of witnessing the execution and describing it to his uncle, and also presumably the Queen. I guess that is the reason why he takes such pains to note down absolutely everything, including Mary’s dress and appearance on the last day of her life. He even describes her garters and stockings, which I presume he didn’t have the opportunity to see while she was alive, in which case… creepy. Mary’s attire is rich but sombre, mostly in black. She is no longer the beauty admired by the French court – she is still very tall (she was probably nearly 6 foot tall, unusual especially for a woman in these times), but also quite stout, double-chinned and has to wear a wig because she’s lost her hair. She was 45, so hardly an old woman yet, but she had a lot of health problems (some people suspect porphyria, a genetic disease supposedly haunting the Stuarts) and I guess she had not had enough exercise for the last twenty years, taking into account that the only .exercise for the woman of her social standing would be horse-riding.
 * Mary accepts the news about the day of her execution with Christian resignation, although she cries a lot. As I wrote earlier, she apparently did retain her fashion sense even on the day of her execution. She also wears many religious emblems, including the medallion “Agnus Dei” (Lamb of God), which is printed in the NAEL as “Angus Dei”. I wonder if it’s a misprint of the NAEL’s typesetter or Wingfield’s mistake. Her servant Andrew Melville (again, mistakenly called by Wingfield Melvin), falls down on his knees and cries, saying he is going to be the bearer of the worst news ever. Mary also crying, comforts him, saying that she welcomes death as the end of her troubles and that the good news he is going to bear is that she died like a true queen and Catholic. She says she always dreamt about uniting England and Scotland and asks to tell her son James (who never saw her, I mean consciously, since she left him as an infant) that she never did anything to hurt Scotland’s interests. Then she addresses the gentlemen around her, asking them to settle the accounts with her servants and to treat them well, to which they agree. She also asks them to allow her servants to witness her execution, but the earl of Kent protests, saying that he’s afraid they are going to get hysterical and give her even more pain, or they are going to indulge in superstitious practices like dipping their handkerchiefs in her blood. The English are apparently very afraid of creating relics and making Mary a martyr.
 * https://readingnorton.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/narrative-of-the-execution-of-the-queen-of-scots/ SeriousHist (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hy Dr Kay, I don’t know if you remember me, I was the one who added important contributions missing in the Elizabeth Tudor article ( North America Plus the East India Company) ; here I want to discuss the issue here because you are the main contributor of the great article Mary Queen of Scots ; First the source is on page 289 not 288 if it is available online please check it line 21 ;

289 with a pillow, but not to have put her to so open a death. pwas the opinion of the King of France and of others. Tuesday, February 7th, 1587, Mary received warning that she was to die the next morning. She showed no terror. She denied complicity in the Babington Plot, inferred that her death was for her religion, and forgave her enemies, in the full confidence that God would take vengeance on them. wE Much of the night she spent in prayer. About 8 a.m. the gif sheriff and his company escorted her to the Hall of the Castle, where arrangements had been made for the execu ton. She was dressed all in black, a veil of white lawn over be halt, a crucifix in her hand, her beads hanging from her side, She was forty four, and, save for the fleeting days after her escape from Lock Leven, had been a prisoner fo Just on twenty years. The charm of youth was gone; shs was corpulent, round-shouldered, fat in the face, and double-chinned; her auburn hair was false. epalled at the at at parting from her servants, Please check DrKay (talk). Second I made a mistake in the name it is Robert Wingfield of Upton https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Andrew-McLean/dp/0954474856 Or https://wingfieldfamilysociety.org/execution-of-mary-queen-of-scots/ Or https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780954474850/Execution-Mary-Queen-Scots-Eyewitness-0954474856/plp
 * ha sigaling the death warrant Elizabeth had gone as far as she was prepared to go. She expected someone else to take the responsibility and the blame for dispatching it; and the wretched Davison, perceiving that it might fall to him to be made the scapegoat, spread the responsibility to Burghley and other councillors. They quietly sent the warrant off.

Or https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18400586 http://www.librarything.com/work/19696972 Lord Burghley was his uncle Thank you SeriousHist (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor-edit marker
Hi SeriousHist! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Marie Antoinette that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Grorp (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Your recent editing history at Economy of the Song dynasty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Qiushufang (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

-Oh you are the one reversing me and you have the audacity to say I m doing an edict war ; did you even tried to make a compromise, did you wait for a discussion on the talk page to get a consensus; did you not remove my source while I kept yours or the one you cite, did I not changed my edit reducing it to search for a common ground; the person with bad faith was you and your talk page prove it , I m reporting you and let the community decide.SeriousHist (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTH. It does not matter how you compromise when that compromise includes combining content to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources. Qiushufang (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Dude I put a very important source supported by another editor; you removed it plus you didn’t go to the talk page in good faith to let the community decide ; three your talk page is full of incidents of this type; You removed my source Dude ; you did it. I was very positive in my dealings with you not trying to Impose anything; you are Insisting in getting your way ; anyway don’t worry I will not revert you ; I m reporting you and let the community decide; if they support you great if not you will have to accept their verdict. I don’t know about the matter of socks; I don’t have the evidence but the Administrators have their own ways to discover Esther the professor situation SeriousHist (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Economy of the Song dynasty. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. As advised in the past, please visit WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH. You have combined two or more sources, one of which is an outdated general history book (current edition is 10th), to WP:POVPUSH with clear WP:COATRACK behavior. The content added is not stated in the sources provided as you have done already before. Qiushufang (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please be serious you are not a judge what is outdated or not go to the talk page to argue with the community world history is a very serious book used in many universities and the information is still the same ; what they claim about the production of iron is the same as the song article plus I only described European achievements which are only facts like universities or Magna Garta ; the second source is about the Byzantine economy and is even available on Wikipedia ; we have the figures of the Byzantine financial revenue and as you are claiming on one source that the song economy was the most prosperous and also inside the article are figures and claims about Europe; I simply compared the fiscal ressources of both empires; you are acting in bad faith and as owner of the article; you reverted me twice today all my posts consider this a 🚫warning
 * please stop 🛑 your behavior of ownership of the article SeriousHist (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

SeriousHist (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A very often overlooked policy is WP:AGE MATTERS. Not only is one of your sources 30 years old, it is also not even the most recent edition of the text. Combined with its general history and frankly European centric focus, as well as the way you have used it to synth an original statement not found in the source, it is of course not suitable anywhere in the article. Qiushufang (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * First thing to show you your WP:OWN" which is forbidden 🚫; you removed first my contribution which say your assumption is based on one source which is the truth ; second Palmer is a classic but I m willing to discuss it on the talk page ; but when I described Europe achievements who are facts you removed them also ; third byzantine fiscal revenue are even in Byzantine article in Wikipedia; I simply compare the two empires revenues ; finally as for the comparison with Europe it is already in the article; I showed only respect for China ; I read a lot and see a lot of documents and movies about China like kingdom or qin empire so stop and open yourself to compromise I m ready to discuss SeriousHist (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2023
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Economy of the Song dynasty. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your actions are damaging the community as the article history show your insistence on WP:OWN ownership and probably meatpuppets since you are the only beneficiary of these suspected accounts who interfere only on this article. Consider this a warning ⛔️ SeriousHist (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You accuse me of WP:OWN while accusing any account that disagrees with your content as a meatpuppet or sock and constantly revert them. You should consider self reflection. Qiushufang (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)