User talk:BeatriceBamber

December 2018

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you recently removed content from Antonio Deinde Fernandez without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Invasion of privacy.

I am a family member and do not appreciate you adding innaccurate and slanderous information about myself and my family.

I have notified other members of the family and I suggest you contact us before adding information from dubious internet sources. Not to mention continuing to practice invasion of privacy.

If you continue to edit my fathers page I shall seek legal action. BeatriceBamber (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Your recent edits to User talk:Binksternet could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 19:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, please read the article at WP:OWN. Neither you nor your family "own" the content of the page Antonio Deinde Fernandez, nor any other portion of Wikipedia, and cannot assert that you do or that others should not edit any portion of the site. You agreed to this policy when you established an account with Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 19:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I appear to have been blocked for asking someone to stop repeatedly deleting edits I have made in order to remove personal information about myself on someone elses page! Please could you lift the block and enable me to delete information about myself that is not relevant to the person’s wikipedia page and could be seen as vandalism and a personal attack. Not to mention the fact that the information is inaccurate. BeatriceBamber (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You will need to explicitly withdraw your threat of legal action in order to be unblocked. You may also proceed as described below if you are not otherwise interested in contributing to Wikipedia. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2018 (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.

No, as the information above explains, you have been blocked for making legal threats in violation of Wikipedia policies. As for requesting corrections to an article (which will require that you prove that it pertains to you personally or someone you represent, and that the information requires correction), please see this page. The procedure described there does not require that you be unblocked, and you will not be while your legal threats have not been explicitly withdrawn. General Ization ^Talk 20:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC))

I would happily remove my suggestion of seeking legal aid with this matter. If my personal privacy is respected.The deletions I have made to the section referring to myself and my mother are quite clearly to do with our personal privacy. There is no reason for that information to be made public. I would also be happy to send proof of who I am, please could you give me a correct email to send it to. I have followed your guide to emailing about this but have recieved no reply.

BeatriceBamber (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I explicitly withdraw my suggestion of legal action BeatriceBamber (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The following key issues which I had accurately corrected, have not been taken from reliable independent sources. Those sources if questioned would not be able to verify the facts of: 1/My date of birth 2/Personal details of the relationship between my mother and father ie where and when they lived together. 3/Purported legal disputes between my parents. 4/My name.

BeatriceBamber (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You may click the words "this page" in General Ization's post above to be taken to the contact information page. If you would like to be unblocked, you may make another unblock request. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Unable to contact editor

I am unable to leave a note on anyones talk page!

Can the editor in question please be directed to this page so that we can communicate. BeatriceBamber (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

{{unblock BeatriceBamber (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)}}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I rescind my suggestion of pursuing legal action BeatriceBamber (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Thank you. You have now been unblocked. Please read WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:CITE before editing further. Yamla (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Published sources about Oyinkansola Antoinette Fernandez

BeatriceBamber has complained that some information about her is incorrect, or an "invasion of privacy". Because of her earliest edits, I am assuming she is talking about Oyinkansola Antoinette Fernandez, also known as Antoinette Oyinkansola Fernandez, Oyinkan Antoinette Fernandez, Antoinette Fernandez, etc.

BeatriceBamber listed the following as problems:

1/My date of birth

2/Personal details of the relationship between my mother and father ie where and when they lived together.
3/Purported legal disputes between my parents.

4/My name.

So here we have sources publishing the name of Antoinette and the month and year of birth. In September 2015, the Vanguard published an article by Antoinette's mother Abiola Dosunmu (or Dosumu) who described her life with Deinde (or Dehinde), and in that article she said, "We waited on the Lord for our baby to arrive and in March 1976, our daughter Oyinkan Antoinette Fernandez (whom you named after your mother and first daughter of your mum) was born... christened our daughter Oyinkansola..."[1] Two weeks later, FirstWeekly interpreted the article by Abiola Dosunmu, Princess Erelu Kuti IV of Lagos, confirming Antoinette as daughter.

The personal details about the life Deinde and Abiola are also from the article Abiola wrote in the Vanguard.

"Purported legal disputes" between Abiola and Deinde are supported by several sources. The Vanguard article says Abiola was pressured by her lawyers to claim some of the property of Deinde, but she declined. The Encomium published an article a couple of days earlier, saying Abiola was not yet talking about Deinde, and revealing that "things went sour in their relationship" and Deinde forced Abiola to stop using his surname, at which point she returned to her maiden name. The Encomium continued, "Chief Dehinde Fernandez did not only force her to drop his name, he also severed the relationship between Erelu Abiola Dosumu and his daughter, Oyinkansola Fernandez. For years Oyinkasola could not relate with her mother for fear of being cut off from her father’s inheritance."

I stand by these sources, but I am always interested in seeing more sources, even if they are contradictory. So far, BeatriceBamber has not opted to provide more sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The sentiments dispayed in those sources are not neutral. I believe Wikipedia requires information on living people to be neutral.

As far as personal details like my age and name. I fail to see any reason why you shoud be so adamant on either keeping them or listing them incorrectly. There are sources that state my name as Princess and I have noted that you have chosen not to include that. Which implies that your edits are not neutral. Your insistence on using biased sources for example the open letter written not by, but for, my mother was biased and quite obviously not neutral hence any information from that can be justly deleted in this case the date given for my birth and the formation of my name. Some of your souces are blogs or the information jas been obtained from a blog and again as far as I am aware do not fall under the legitimate unbiased and neutral sources required by Wikipedia.

I should not have to provide alternate sources of gossip and hearsay as to repeat, your sources are using non neutral and biased information.

A truly positive and informative edit to my father’s page would include factual information about his achievements and political endeavours, of which there are numerous valid sources. BeatriceBamber (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

With regard to the inclusion in this article of royal and other honorific titles with names ("There are sources that state my name as Princess and I have noted that you have chosen not to include that. Which implies that your edits are not neutral."), please see MOS:HONORIFIC. As explained in this documented policy, as a general rule, we do not refer to people by or with their honorific titles, other than (once) when describing their role in a royal family or government. This does not imply any lack of neutrality concerning this specific article or any of the people named in it, and, in fact, is a reflection of neutral point of view. General Ization ^Talk 16:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

That was merely used as an example and I have no interest in whether or not it is used. Thanks for your response BeatriceBamber (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

BeatriceBamber, you claim that the article in the Vanguard was not written by your mother, but written for her. I have not seen any published discussions about this possibility. In fact, when FirstWeekly analyzed the piece by your mother, they discussed what they saw as its factual errors but they did not question its authorship. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My main point was that an a letter written by a grieving woman was not a neutral source. Your insitence in including information such as my birthday and a legally incorrect formation of my name also seems far from neutral. Do i need to publish my passport online for you to stop deleting my edits? An act that you should not expect me to do! Why is incorrectly adding my nae and birth date for example so important to you?

Wikipedia states that anyone is allowed to edit a page, your consistently deleting minor corections I am making implies that I am in fact not able to edit.

Again a letter written by a grieving woman is not an unbiased and neutral source.Whether or not it was analysed by someone else.

Information about my mother’s life outside of her relationship with Antonio Deinde Fernandez is not relevant to his page. Ie her other children not by him, and her other husbands/partners. Discussing an assumption of who the father may be of a child with no ties to my father - that is not my father’s child - is inappropriate. Again it has nothing whatsoever to do with Deinde Fernandez.

I politely ask you again to please stop your insistence on adding gossip and private information with no direct bearing on my father on his page. BeatriceBamber (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The letter by a "grieving woman" was published in a reliable source, which makes it a good source for us. And the letter was commented upon by others, which establishes it as being part of the public story of Deinde Fernandez. Your supposedly "minor corrections" were two significant removals,[2] including material about Halima, widely reported to be Deinde's sixth and final wife. If you are not specific about what you want changed, such as taking out x, then it's impossible to determine what material you consider to be inappropriate. And information about Halima can't be removed simply because you don't like it. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, though your asserted lack of neutrality on the part of the cited sources is questionable, our sources are not required to be neutral. We are required to neutrally describe what reliable sources say, not to pick and choose sources based on our impressions of their neutrality concerning any given subject, impressions which may themselves be extremely limited and/or subjective. Where sources may disagree on a given point, we are required to accurately reflect those multiple viewpoints in our summaries of what they say. This is why you have been invited to offer sources that offer contrasting viewpoints, or which contradict the reporting of the cited sources. Unless you choose to do so, we will generally side with our cited sources over an anonymous editor who claims to be the subject of (or related to a subject of) an article and who claims our sources are incorrect without any evidence to support the claims. General Ization ^Talk 21:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)