User talk:Bill stradling

September 2017

Hello, I'm RA0808. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Eagle and Child, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Order of the Garter has been reverted.
Your edit here to Order of the Garter was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://pubastrology.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/the-spirit-world-pub-astrology-v5_pt2.pdf) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: LOTR, Knights of the Garter addition

Hello Bill,
Pages 101 and 102 of the self-published Maloney source list the similarities to which you refer in the article and on the post on my talk page. The claims on these pages (101-102) have no footnotes leading to other sources, so we have to take the author's word for it, but the source does not appear reliable (self-published, written by a non-scholar). Even if there were footnotes on those pages, the article should cite those (now hypothetical) reliable sources rather than Maloney, who is not RS.--MattMauler (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the similarities between the Lord of the Rings and the Knights of the Garter are the two books themselves.^[1]Bill stradling (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit adding original research to the article The Lord of the Rings. Content on Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable, third-party references. If you are unable to provide such sources, the content will be removed, and if you persist in doing so, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Note also that another editor (MattMauler) has opened a discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings#Knights of the Garter comparison comes from unreliable sources. Please provide constructive comments there, and refrain from adding the same material to the article until, and only if, you've achieved a consensus to do so from that discussion. Mind matrix 16:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Lord of the Rings. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Lord of the Rings; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for two days for persistently ignoring Wikipedia policy. When the block expires, you may continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but must abide by the site's policies. If you not do so, you will be permanently blocked from editing. Mind matrix 17:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: during the block, the only page you will be able to edit is your own talk page (ie - this page). Mind matrix 17:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at The Lord of the Rings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Added information on possible Lord of the Rings connection including references to verifiable reliable source - EH Fellowes 'The Knights odf the Garter 1348-1939' resulting in being blocked for a week. Unsure as to what policy I contravened. Please discuss.}}

Blocking admin's comment

You were told repeatedly not to edit-war, in fact you were blocked for 2 days because you persisted. Then, 4 minutes after the block expired, you resumed this disruptive behavior. Count yourself lucky I didn't block you indefinitely! Favonian (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Unsure why this latest edit is considered as disruptive behaviour? Please can you explain.

Decline reason:

This is clearly explained. Are you reading the warnings on this page?!? Yamla (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please can you explain why 'The Knights of the Garter 1348-1939' by EH Fellowes is considered an unreliable source.(EDMUND H. FELLOWES M.V.O., M.A., Mus.Doc. Minor Canon of Windsor. Hon.Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford). The pdf referenced book was owned by Sir Arthur William Steuart Cochrane KCVO (27 April 1872 – 11 January 1954) who was a long-serving officer of arms at the College of Arms in London. [2] Cochrane was appointed Clarenceux King of Arms on 26 July 1928. Cochrane also served as the first Patron of the Cambridge University Heraldic and Genealogical Society. Thanks and without prejudice.

Decline reason:

Your block has nothing to do with the validity (or otherwise) of the content you were trying to add, you were blocked because you were edit warring. You must not edit war over a content disagreement, even if you are right. Please read WP:EW before you make a new unbock request, and explain what you should have done instead when your edits were contested. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Dee - unreliable sources for extraordinary claims

Hello Bill stradling, please don't add speculative or extraordinary claims unless you can provide a high-quality source from a reputed expert (usually an academic scholar or other high-profile expert). A self-published Wordpress blog or non-expert book is not a reliable source for historical analysis, let alone for speculative or extraordinary claims about complex and controversial details. I noticed that a lot of your edits seem to be based on this unreliable source. Please try to find reliable sources for such claims before you add them. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

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 ~~~~}}. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Knights of the Garter" (PDF). Drew Maloney.

[1] "Knights of the Garter" (PDF). Drew Maloney.

[1]