User talk:Bvrly

My wiki input

I might be taking a break due to continued harassment by Smerus. IT is not doing my health any good at all and I cannot keep up with his correspondence. I do have a life outside wikipedia. It is a shame as I have orginal sources and references that are begging to be added. They will have to wait. Sadly, for now, Bvrly (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Veteran

Bvrly,
Hey good edit content, however many of your edits did not comply to the WP:Style Guide. Please be good enough to review it that way other editors don't have to come back and clean-up what your have written. If you need any help understanding anything feel free to contact me by clicking on the link "Talk", Sadads (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, Wikipedia:Style#Links and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnote_system for now. Sorry I was kindof vague, I myself have not looked at how large it is in a long time. You also may want to try the {{cite}} template, filling in as much information variables as you can about the source. Sadads (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks,I will have a look later when i have more time -just wanted to check back for now to see if you had replied. Are you the general guardian of this page in a way? wondered what your role is as no one else seems to be taking much active interest at the moment. I have some press clippings with info that i want to add to it and some more stuff but it might take me time - conflicts of duties/ chores and interests... you know how life is! thanks Bvrly (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I auto add pages to my watchlist when I make edits, and when they don't appear to have people paying attention to them, I keep tabs on them. I generally know a little bit about each topic, but I am no owner nor particular "guardian" of any said page but I feel strongly about maintaining style conventions on Wikipedia in order to make this great wealth of knowledge better and easier to trust. I also like helping new users that I come across, I remember what it was like to not know what was appropriate, etc. Best of luck, and I get on most of the days of the week if you have questions (PS, make sure you add to the bottom of talk pages in a new sections for new conversations using the heading style: == "TITLE" == ) Sadads (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the tips. I don't manage to get on most days. I had an eye operation a while ago and my computer usage is much more limited that it was before, but I will be getting well over teh next few months and able to do more. And better no doubt! Bvrly (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Chipp

Dear Bvrly, please stop introducing the stuff about Chipp on the Mendelssohn page. He is an extremely minor figure in FM's story (if indeed he figures at all - he is not even mentioned in the major biographies) and it is highly misleading to feature him strongly on the FM page. I suggest you mention all this on Chipp's own page in WP (giving appropriate references of course, if any). Thanks - --Smerus (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Smerus has a history of blanket deleting all the contributions I made to the Felix Mendelssohn page as soon as I put them, and seems quite aggressive and certainly very sarcastic - which is the reason I leave the post above. THis is without any talk or suggested amendement - just plain oold totalitarian deletion, which I consider to be vandalism. Dr Edmund Chipp was the first person to play Mendelssohn's music in England, introduced him to the Royal Circle and many organ manufacturers, music publishers and orchestras including the Philharmonic, where Mndelssohn was givent he opportunity to conduct. As a composer he is indeed an inferior figure, but as a personal friend to Mendelssohn he was highly significant in his success and deserves a mention. the deletions were done without properly reading what I had written or looking at the refs I gave (see above ;he suggest that none exist) and so for the meantime I have left the FM page as I do not wish to battle with anyone, let alone someone as rude and arrogant as this man. I am an experienced writer and researcher but less experienced with wikipedia. I might suggest that Smerus is wrong in thinking that if something is not mentioned in the main biographies of a person then it cannot possibly be true, and he gives me a chance. The Edmund Chipp page does need serious work as the information I have is fragmented and as more comes to light then the structure of the page needs to change to accomodate it elegantly. There is much to be done, but give me a chance to add the rest, and please contribute to it if you can. Bvrly (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Edmund_Thomas_Chipp, you will be blocked from editing. . Bvrly, deleting whole sections from discussion pages is serious vandalism, of a very different order form editing article texts. Please don't do it. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As I created the page and have written almost all the page, I can delete talk posts once I have read them if they are unhelpful towards the general development of the stub as they are only about my own work. I find your prolific over-interest in my activities most upsetting. Others have been helpful, you, I find without any doubt, intrusive, bullying and distressing. I have asked you to give me space and you have not. A wise person or even someone with some respect, would at least leave off for a while. Bvrly (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Smerus - my first contact with you was when you deleted all my posts that i had made in one day without discussion. this is something you have continued to do and ***you*** are the deletionist. projecting the problem onto me is not funny. You canot post anything you like on my pages and overwrite my work, harass me and then complain if I delete something which has upset me. This wikihounding has gone on for too long. I am not the only person to complain about you so perhaps you should read the following.

Wikihounding

Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. To use the older term "Wikistalking" for this action is discouraged because it can confuse minor online annoyance with a real world crime. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Bvrly (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"As I created the page and have written almost all the page, I can delete talk posts..." Incorrect: you can delete posts from your own usertalk page (WP:BLANKING) but not from mainspace talk pages except under certain conditions (WP:TPO); even redacting your own comments needs to be done carefully (WP:REDACT). Deleting edits to an article is different, however: WP:BRD best explains this practice and links to relevent policies. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 00:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that further information. It's yet another reference that highlights Smerus is out of order to just delete my posts on this and other pages without permission; "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." The exceptions didn't apply. Although he has behaved himself more recently, and even contirbuted positively, I am still not feeling very confident that the harassment has stopped and so I am mostly avoiding the pages he has been savaging my contributions on.Bvrly (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

I corrected the last sentence of your bio to use a colon rather than an "l". Hope you don't mind? BTW, "an info-maniac" sounds like an ice person to know! Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 19:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Censorhsip

why was this censored?Lihaas (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Royal Panopticon concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Royal Panopticon, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Royal Panopticon

Hello Bvrly. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Royal Panopticon.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Royal Panopticon}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)