BeatriceCastle

BeatriceCastle, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BeatriceCastle! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Catherine of Austria, Queen of Poland

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The portrait is traditionally attributed to Queen Elizabeth of England and it would take much better sources than someone's personal blog to change this attribution. If you continue to add the image -- particularly without discussion or explanation -- you might be blocked from editing Wikipedia, which would be an unfortunate result all around. Renata (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803) (August 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chris Troutman (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing undisturbed: a tip

If you want to work on an article without others for a time, you can add the templates {{under construction}} or {{in use}} at the top. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much

@Charles Matthews: Oh, thank you so much! That is a wonderful tip, very helpful! BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Wright (governor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Tyrrell. 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) 06:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Your addition to William Rugge, Bishop of Norwich 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 Wikipedia: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—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 Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. POLITANVM ^talk 21:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, looking closer it doesn't appear the quoted section is a copyright issue. Nonetheless, large excerpts from primary sources may not be the best way to explain the family. See WP:Primary for more about using primary sources. POLITANVM ^talk 21:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@POLITANVM Completely agree, had intended to revamp it, have now done so.

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Aylmer (politician)

Hello BeatriceCastle,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Richard Aylmer (politician) for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

John B123 (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This has already long since been resolved, but the text, as noted in the article, was published in 1806 BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing cites in William Knyvett (died 1515)

The article cites "Virgoe 1982", "Richardson II 2011", "Gunn 2004", and "Lehmberg 2004" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean? The references are there under 'References' BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I figured out what you meant, fixed it BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, BeatriceCastle, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as EEParsons (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 01:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I do have another account but I have not used that for three years, I think, and I do not think I have used it on any of the pages I have edited this year. I have never had any contact with the user in question outside of Wikipedia, except for reading his book and webpage, nor on Wikipedia except for editing the same article(s). BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nor have I had any contact with anyone else outside of Wikipedia, nor on Wikipedia except for editing the same article(s). I am uncertain what makes you think this. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I have interacted with other users on Talk Pages etc., but nothing that isn't publicly available to everyone. BeatriceCastle (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm that I have had no interaction with BeatriceCastle other than in regard to the article I have created about Robert Wright. The article is based entirely on my research (including sources) into the history of the Manor House in Sedgefield which I own and that is my interest. The first I knew of BeatriceCastle was when I read again the article o n Sir James Wright in preparation. EEParsons (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEParsons (talk • contribs) 14:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Doreward's Hall

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Doreward's Hall has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1170740. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review GirthSummit _(blether) 10:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I've got no doubt that the building is notable, and we should definitely have an article about it, but you can't copy the content from the source. Please read through the links above about our copyright policies. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 10:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right, I'll fix it. I had intended to edit it, but I got distracted, I was too hasty in posting it. I'll recreate it at a later time, and use my own words. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

BeatriceCastle, hi again. Just to be clear, we can't host copyright-infringing material even temporarily, not even in draft or user space. If you're going to copy from sources and reword, do that offline, and only upload here once it's in your own words. Also make sure you avoid any close paraphrasing. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 11:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good clarification, about not being able to host copyright-infringing material even temporarily, not even in draft or user space. The paraphrasing I knew :) Thank you so much for taking the time to clarify that, that was really helpful. BeatriceCastle (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I write a lot about buildings - what I usually do is collect all the sources I can find, and then write the key information from each of them in ungrammatical note form, then I write my own sentences about them without looking at the sources. Pevsner books are a great source for buildings, they're expensive to buy new but you can often pick them up second hand for not too much. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the tip. I will follow this recipe when I next make the attempt. I had never created a page about a building before, so I did not know quite how to begin :) Thank you so much for the tip about the Pevsner books as well. BeatriceCastle (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

BeatriceCastle, feel free to look at some of mine if you want something to copy. You can find them on my userpage; Johnby Hall is a manor house, so might be a useful one to look at. There are templates there for an infobox, geo-location stuff to give you a map, and some categories to give you ideas. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I will do that! That is really helpful :) BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803)

Hello, BeatriceCastle. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet (died 1803), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

That is deeply unfair. Another user vandalises an article. I have used the talk page and left the article for six months as it was, making no sense, in order to show respect for Wikipedia’s rules and reach a consensus. This user vandalises another article. I again refer this user to the talk page to reach a consensus. Everything I have written has been carefully referenced. I ask that the user quits vandalising the article and that we instead discuss the matter and reach a consensus on the talk page. The other user engages in an edit war. BeatriceCastle (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC) In fact, the user clearly writes underneath this message, on this, my talk page, that the objections are due to some misguided belief that I am related to these people. Which, to the best of my knowledge, I am not. I can only repeat that I have referred this writer to the talk page(s) again and again. BeatriceCastle (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The main issue here is the edit warring. You are not permitted to edit war against edit warring. There are proper forums to report edit warring to instead of engaging in it yourself. That you used the talk page does not exempt you from this. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2021 (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.

Oh, okay, that actually makes sense and seems fair. Sorry, I did not know that. I just did not know the proper place to report it. I had just begun to search for it when the block happened. Thank you for the link and the explanation. I still think it is kind of unfair that only I got blocked, but I will just have to live with it, I guess. *g* Thank you again. Will do better. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• From the log: "edit warring over poorly sourced content--original research, use of primary unpublished documents". Drmies (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I did not engage in edit warring. I used the talk page. I waited six months. The other user was the one who engaged in an edit war. The sources have been published. Kate Emerson, Heraldic Visitations. Several articles on JSTOR. Francis Blomefield. These are all known and respected sources for this time period. BeatriceCastle (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia, not Ancestry.com

This is Wikipedia, not a personal genealogical web page. Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know I am not related to nor descended from any of these people. If the thought of people having notable ancestors upsets you, I suggest you start harassing the Queen instead of me. BeatriceCastle (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Your pattern of editing the pages show a desire to present the members of this family from a genealogical perspective based on some degree of personal interest and personal research, hence a personal genealogical page, whether you directly descend from them or not. That is not what Wikipedia is for. That people have notable ancestors does not upset me. However, not everything that is true and that you (or I) personally find interesting is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Agricolae (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

If we were to strip Wikipedia of anything that was interesting reading, not much would be left. I therefore find that as poor a criteria for removing information as adding it. BeatriceCastle (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That is not what they said at all. They are saying that just becuase something is interesting, dose not mean it is suitable for inclusion, They are not saying that interesting things are now allowed.

Simply put, just because something is interesting dose not mean it is suitable for inclusion. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

But that something is interesting it in itself often noteworthy. Like Leonardo da Vinci – which parts of his life and works do we exclude because they are not suitable for inclusion? Do we remove that he lived in different countries? His life? His works? His family? I actually can think of no better reason to include something than that it is interesting. Perhaps that it is important, but one thing does not necessarily exclude the other. Often what is interesting and what is important are related. BeatriceCastle (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This is simply not how it works. Material is not included because it is 'interesting', which is subjective, nor because it is important, which at a minimum is contextual. It is included because secondary biographical accounts of the person, with similar scope and size to an encyclopedia article, have included that information in their accounts of the person. When an editor writes an article based on their personal subjective whims it tends to go off the rails because, oddly enough, not everyone finds the same things interesting. Agricolae (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but often those cherished secondary sources include different things, because, oddly enough, not everyone finds the same things interesting. What do we do then? Just reference the one book? Or take what we think is interesting from several different books? "Da Vinci, the Inventor"? "Da Vinci, the Italian"? "Da Vinci and the French"? "Da Vinci, the Artist"? "Da Vinci, the Lover"? So as to create as complete an impression of the person as possible? Or do we just use the one book to the exclusion of everything else? BeatriceCastle (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

we would put what each of them say based on what they all get at, is what my understanding is. I would advise you wait for the block to expire then ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE where you can better get help. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, precisely, we would pick the interesting and important bits from them all. BeatriceCastle (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

(e/c, subsequently adjusted) That is not what LakesideMiners is saying at all. Information appears in a 'cherished secondary source' because both the author and the editor thought it was worth the space it took to include, a decision that combines pertinence, interest, usefulness in forming the narrative, etc. We use their collective judgment, not our own, and as LakesideMiners says, we bring together what they all say (bearing in mind their inherent biases, such as a specialist publication giving more details in line with their specialty, or an 18th century publication completely ignoring women) to produce an article that is more or less consistent in scope and content with them all. What we don't do is pick and chose because 'we find it interesting' (let alone dig out an unpublished primary document and quote it in full, when none of them have included this information, just because it interests us). Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Then please answer the question asked above, and do not answer that another user does not mean precisely what they wrote that they meant. So what do you do if you have multiple books from which you must choose? Or a 3000 page tome? You pick the parts that are relevant. That is why the people who edit articles on Wikipedia are called editors. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Which question - you asked several? As to LakesideMiners, how about you follow your own advice and quit pretending you know what they were trying to say - they clearly understand the process, you won't if you keep insisting that it has to do with whatever interests you. With multiple sources an editor should try to 'average' them out, based on a neutral evaluation of what they collectively seem to think belongs (e.g. if it is mentioned by more than one of them, if it seems to contribute to the overall narrative), not what among them one finds interesting. With regards to your 3000 page tome, it is an inferior starting point to begin with - anything with that much written about it is going to have more suitable, shorter sources too, and you use those. And yes, we are called editors, not authors, which is precisely why we should not invoke our own personal interests in making these decisions. Agricolae (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

So what do you do if you have multiple books from which you must choose? That was the question. I never said it is whatever interests me. I said it was what was interesting. Could that be up for debate? Sure. That is what the talk pages are for. Which I referred you to several times. Editing will always imply choices. It is baked into the word. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

are you addressing me? or addressing what they said about me? I’m just here because I saw it pop up on the RC feed. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, no, definitely addressing them, not you! I appreciate your contributions to the debate. I thought they have been very helpful and interesting contributions, indeed. It's a public forum (sort of), join in one and all. *g* BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I was replying to Agricoale, some update was done and broke my reply tool. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Just ... ignore the above, then. You can just reply to them again here if you want, it seemed the two of you were friends. And that's okay, if you need my approval. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

LakesideMiners, not sure who is talking to whom at this point. BeatriceCastle, not friends, complete strangers - I don't recall ever interacting with LakesideMiners before.Agricolae (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, *shrugs* no problem. Really, no problem at all. It wouldn't have been either way. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

BeatriceCastle, you seem to be splitting a hair pretty thin to draw a distinction between 'what interests you' and 'what you find interesting'. Anyhow, 'interesting' is indeed up for debate, which is why we don't use it as a criterion. (It also can't be resolved by Talk. How do you think that discussion is going to go - Editor 1: 'I think it is interesting.' Editor 2: 'I think it isn't interesting'. Editor 1: 'But I really, really think it is interesting.' Editor 2: 'I really really don't.' - you can never break a stalemate like this based on different subjective evaluations, which is why such evaluations are best avoided.) As to your Talk page attempt, that whole WP:WALLOFTEXT showed up, that didn't really address the reasons I had given for making any changes. In one of today's edit summaries, you cite Blomfield having mentioning Elizabeth as justification for a 30,0000+ character revert of edits that largely had nothing to do with Elizabeth. To be productive in resolving a dispute, a Talk contribution should be both succinct and clear as to what specifically you wish to dispute - if I have to guess what you want changed, I am probably going to ignore it just as I did in this case. If it is just too much of a text wall, I may glance here and there to see what the point is, but if this does not become immediately obvious, I won't even bother reading it all, which I didn't. Agricolae (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Look, you know you broke the rules. You also don't seem to be able to debate. Or understand sources. Or the way they work. If you did not reply to what was written on the talk page, it was because you did not have the arguments and you do not understand the sources or what they say. You write here clearly that you ignored the established way to reach a consensus in order to vandalise those two pages. For what I wrote of Elizabeth, I thought I was reverting an edit for Thomas Thursby (d.1510) not an edit for Thomas Thursby (d.1543). That was my bad. Continuing to reverse the edits with no heed to procedure is yours. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that making a rant filled with intentional mischaracterizations and incivility is not the way to claim the moral high ground in a dispute, don't you? Anyhow, I am done with you here. Agricolae (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

And what are these mischaracterizations? You yourself is the one who stated that you think the talk pages are pointless. You are the one who asked for sources, and then freely admit that you did not bother to read my reply. You are clearly unfamiliar with Heraldic Visitations, Blomefield, and all the other reputable secondary sources I listed. You do not seem to comprehend that a commemorative window put up by a widow for her three husbands shows that this woman was married to these three men. BeatriceCastle (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gawdy

Hi Beatrice, thanks for your edits getting the Gawdys into the right order! Do we know (i.e. does Blomefield say) which of the Norfolk Tuddenhams John Wootton was from, so we could link it? There are 2 in Norfolk and 2 in Suffolk, confusingly. And I presume Hicklyng is the same as Hickling, on the Broads, where the Priory was? kind regards, Eebahgum (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That is so nice to hear! Blomefield writes that Anne’s father was "John Wooton of North Tuddenham in Norfolk", does that help? 😊 About Hicklyng, I think you must be correct, that it was Hickling, on the Broads, where the Priory was. This appears to be the right Hickling: Happing Hundred: Hickling – https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol9/pp301-308 It mentions a memorial to Sir William Woodhouse, and several other names/facts that can be connected to these Woodhouses. BeatriceCastle (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eebahgum: Oh, and to follow up on what I wrote above – the fact that Anne’s father was "John Wooton of North Tuddenham in Norfolk" is from: Hundred of Giltcross: West-Herling | British History Online – https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol1/pp297-312 This appears to be right North Tuddenham: Mitford Hundred and Half: North Tudenham – https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol10/pp263-269 See also Norfolk: North Tuddenham, Parish Church of St Mary - Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi – https://www.cvma.ac.uk/publications/digital/norfolk/sites/northtuddenham/history.html The windows depict the arms of the right Wootton family. BeatriceCastle (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those very exact references! At a distance of 500 years it is very helpful to know where, and how-related, people like the Gawdys were in order to understand their connexions and of course to avoid muddling them all up, a trap which even the well-intentioned can so easily fall into. Professor Collinson did so much to explore the important social changes which surround the magistracy of East Anglia in those times that we cannot be too careful in elucidating the Who's Who aspect of it. I note your observation that the Corpus Vitrearum has the Wottons at North Tuddenham, which is decisive, but maybe keep that argument in reserve in case anybody should query "North Tuddenham", which Blomefield has clearly got right, and bearing in mind that this article is about B. Gawdy, not about the Wottons. How blessed we are to have these monuments of County History underlying so much of our modern understandings. Happy New Year, Eebahgum (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I completely agree, both about the importance, and easiness of muddling them all up. The Who's Who aspect of it is such an important part of nearly all facets of Tudor life, and particularly of course in the area you mention. Oh, I quite agree that the Corpus Vitrearum does not belong in the article itself. (Only, as you say, if anybody questions the North Tuddenham location of the Woottons.) It really is remarkable how much one can discover about the past even 500 years removed from it, and how it helps highlight our own understanding. Happy New Year! BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Your recent editing history at Temperance Flowerdew 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't discussions be taken on the talk page? BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been wikihounded by Agricolae. I tried to get help here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents And got blocked myself instead. There’s irony for you. I suppose if everyone agrees it is better that I take my toys and go home, but I think this is insane. Another user stalks and harasses me and clearly violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment and somehow the victim is to blame. Well, that is the world we live in, I suppose. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per the consensus at the AN/I thread. Maybe someday in the future we can think about an unblock, but not now. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2022 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

So the fact that someone is being a big creep and stalking and harassing me is okay? Are some users more equal than others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment Because nobody in that thread disagreed that this user was following me. How is that okay? When it is a clear violation of the rules? BeatriceCastle (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC) I have used the talk pages. Everybody who actually knows what they are doing thinks my sources are good. If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_Flowerdew, when another editor edited last night it wasn't even my edits they were questioning. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temperance_Flowerdew. Why are you letting Agricolae getting away with this behaviour? This person is a stalker. Think about the signal you are sending and Wikipedia’s reputation at large when it will get known that you are letting a stalker getting away with it, blaming the victim, ignoring Wikipedia’s own rules. BeatriceCastle (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC) I was discussing perfectly civilly with Ealdgyth at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents that most of they objected to was in fact not my edits originally. "In the edit from 01:44, 13 June 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temperance_Flowerdew&oldid=1028285980 you see that it ran originally thus: "On 18 October 1618, she married George Yeardley. Exactly a month later he was appointed to serve three years as governor of Virginia, and was knighted by James VI and I during an audience at Newmarket on 24 November.This is the accepted date of marriage by genealogists. However, she was widowed in 1610. It is unlikely she remained unmarried for the next 8 years in a colony with so few women and very harsh times. Her first child by Yeardley was born 3 years before the reported marriage, thus the marriage must have been earlier." I do not know who originally wrote it. I simply amended it to fit facts (i.e. we do not know when Richard Barrow died). I agree that it is completely speculative and may be struck." Strange that I am not allowed to reply to the people on that board while I was leaving the pages themselves alone. The one who was engaging in edit wars last night was Agricolae. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Agricolae has followed me to SEVEN different articles. And engaged with on the talk pages now I think on all of them. How is that a not a clear violation of the rules? Why is there one set of rules for this user and another for the community at large? BeatriceCastle (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please see WP:GAB to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request, unlike this one. Yamla (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2022 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Fine, I have plenty of other things to occupy my time. I have yet to see any reason why this user is exempted from a very clear rule. If you can't recognise a web troll when it is standing right in front of you, more's the pity. I would have checked the account for sock puppets while I was at it if I were you. I would have kept at least one very sharp eye on this user from now on. When something pings me as not normal about someone I am unfortunately usually always right. One of the benefits of studying history is that you get really good at recognising patterns. One of the downsides is seeing everyone else repeat said history. Maybe when the next person comes along you'll care about their story. There is always a next victim. I wish everyone except for this user here all the best, I have had a lot of enjoyable times. I'm out. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whatever it is, this isn't an appeal. Cabayi (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2022 (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.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:BeatriceCastle. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please stop the personal attacks you are digging yourself a deeper hole. Theroadislong (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I stand by what I have written. This user has harassed and stalked me and bullied me. If stating the truth is breaking the rules, I am sorry, but there is value in truth. Perhaps when the next user comes along with a similar story, you will not take it so lightly. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)