User talk:Neautone 1

Dear Neautone

The Manor of Slaidburn comprised the townships of Slaidburn, Newton, West Bradford and Grindleton with regard to copyhold land until the 1920s when copyhold was abolished.

The court rolls of the Manor of Slaidburn survive from c1515 in a more or less unbroken sequence up to 1922 (archived at the Lancashire Record Office, Bow Lane, Preston, ref DDHCl/Slaidburn) and they record in minute detail the conveyances of copyhold land from copyholder to copyholder. There are many conveyances for Newton, and also West Bradford and Grindleton. This is primary source material for historians and undisputable proof that Newton was simply a township within the parish of Slaidburn (ecclesiastically) and a constituent part of the Manor of Slaidburn.

To be precise, the land in the township of Newton was not all copyhold of the Manor of Slaidburn - the Manor of Knowlmere (now owned by the Peel family) and the Manor of Battersby (Dunnow) had been granted out from very early times. Nevertheless, the population of these places, and also Waddington, Mitton, Bashall, Bowland Forest Higher Division townships, owed suit of court twice yearly at the halmotes of the Lord of the Manor of Slaidburn (post 1660) and before that to the Lord King of Bowland – all these courts were held in Slaidburn at the court house (now part of the Hark to Bounty Inn) from c1577. The constables of these townships, including Newton, are recorded in the rolls as attending the courts at Slaidburn, well into the late 1700s, and possibly later.

As a result of the 1950s sale of the Manor of Slaidburn to the Assheton family, the ownership of the Manor of Slaidburn belongs to the descendants of the Assheton family. The Manor of Newton is a fiction – there is not a shred of evidence to support its existence. The same goes for West Bradford and Grindleton, for the same reasons as above. All their inhabitants attended the courts in Slaidburn. The Domesday manors - which no doubt Manorial Auctioneers will cite as oroof - ceased to exist in the late C14th at the time when the Duchy of Lancaster undertook the wholesale reorganisation of the feudal landscape in Bowland.

With best wishes

Manorial (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To: Manorial; RE: newton

Please can you substantiate your claim that the Manor of Newton is fiction. The Manor of Newton was sold to me by the 4th Lord O'Hagan 4 February 2011. Are you stating that not only Lord O'Hagan, his solicitor, and Manorial Auctioneers are liars. Also, I have been contacted by the Assheton family land agent of Clitheroe, Mr. Michael Parkinson who categorically states that Thomas Assheton has registered title to the Lordship (LA937696) and also claims manorial interest in the land and minerals under the former copyhold land have similar been registered and these include land within Newton. So, are we all conspiring to create something out of nothing. Please check your facts. Yours, Neautone 1

To: Neautone 1; RE: newton

I appreciate that you must be very upset by this but the reality is Rollasons simply don't know what they are talking about and you have been sold a manor that hasn't existed since the late C14th. The Manor of Slaidburn was granted a Liberty in 1399 that included the former manors of Grindleton, West Bradford and Newton. As the Asshetons bought title to the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn in 1950, they bought the rights to the Newton at the same time. Lord O'Hagan has previously tried to sell the "manors" of Grindleton and Slaidburn and more recently Pendle - none of which belong to him and indeed never have. They were part of the Second Schedule of the 1885 Towneley Estates Act which descended through the daughters of John Towneley. The O'Hagan rights descended through a separate Schedule of the Act under different trustees.

You should understand that Lord O'Hagan is not selling manors. In effect, he is using a statutory declaration to make a claim (ie to squat manors, defunct or otherwise), and then sell on that claim. What you have been sold is a claim to the "manor" of Newton but this manor has not existed since 1399 being part and parcel of the Liberty of Slaidburn which is owned by the Asshetons. Robert Smith is taking the risk that no-one will contest O'Hagan's claim. Of course, you might lay claim to Newton if it were a manor without an owner but it is merely a township already owned by someone else (namely, Thomas Assheton) as part of the Liberty of Slaidburn.

You ask for substantiation. Well, CJ Spencer is the leading historian of Bowland and has been advising Mr Parkinson. He has studied this subject intensely for 20 years. Mr Smith's researcher Steve Johnson knows almost nothing about Bowland and his account of the lordships Manorial Auctioneers have sold or tried to sell in the area are poorly researched and inaccurate. You misunderstand Michael Parkinson - he has the legal documentation recording the Asshetons' ownership of the "manor" you have been sold. These title deeds are lodged with HM Land Registry 1950, 1977, 2003.

Manorial (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To: Manorial; Re: Newton

Now that I know you are a friend of Mr. Parkinson, or are in fact Mr. Parkinson? You have a vested interest in keeping your client, the Assheton family, happy your information is useless. If, as you say, Mr. Parkinson has the legal documentation to back up the Assheton claim, then the manors do exist and if the Manors of West Bradford and Grindleton are not manors then Lord Clitheroe was duped as well. Mr Parkinson should have copies of same. I have been in contact with Mr. Parkinson and he says he chooses not to pursue the matter or show me the proofs. Why? please tell him I am not the one who has to prove my rights to anything, he does. He can send all the information he has to my email address or my Fax he has both of them today 25 March 2011 or 28 March 2011 also tell him i wish i had the view he has from his window over looking is it a rugby field to his right best wishes.

To: Neautone; Re: Newton

I am not Mr Parkinson and I am no friend of his.  I am an academic and an authority on these matters.  I would ask you to hold fire on your amendments to the Wikipedia page. If you are willing to speak by phone from California, I will explain the position to you in detail.  Mr Parkinson consulted me and CJ Spencer on the issue.  He was concerned about you.  His client has all the documentation needed to prove ownership and that documentation was registered with HM Land Registry in 2003 - I have studied it in detail.  You have a statutory declaration from Lord O'Hagan that is only valid if no-one else owns the asset being conveyed but Thomas Assheton owns the manorial rights to Newton.  You do not seem to understand the nature of a Liberty in English law.  I am happy to explain all these things to you.  I am not an enemy of yours but I got stung in buying a manor as you have been and can advise you on the complexities involved.

Manorial (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To: Neautone; Re: Newton

I am sorry to see that once again you've changed the entries for Slaidburn and Newton. Once again, I ask you to familiarise yourself with the records held by HM Land Registry 1950, 1977, 2003. If you consult those records (which can be ordered online for a fee) you'll see that ownership of Slaidburn and its Liberty including Newton-in-Bowland clearly and indisputably lies with the Assheton family. Before resorting to wild assertions about Newton, I suggest you review the evidence. My suspicion is that Rollasons supplied you with a wad of legal photocopies with the conveyance. You might think these impressive but if you study them, I am confident that you will see no reference to Newton, not even in the 1835 conveyance to Peregrine Towneley. That is because O'Hagan has never had ownership of manorial rights relating to Newton which have been part and parcel of the Manor & Liberty of Slaidburn since the late C14th. Alice O'Hagan's portion of the 1885 Act relates to an entirely separate Schedule and so O'Hagan could never claimed Newton even if it had been a manor (which it hasn't been for more than five hundred years). I am sorry that you have been placed in this unhappy position but that is not a good reason to continue to try to pervert the historical record. You are NOT the lord of Newton. The Lord of Slaidburn is the lord of Newton and has been since 1950.

Manorial (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Newton-in-Bowland‎‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Dr Greg talk 19:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing sources from articles, like you did here. Go to Talk:Newton-in-Bowland and provide reliable sources for why the registry is wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDITING WAR ON SLAIDBURN AND NEWTON-IN-BOWLAND PAGES: REQUEST FOR PAGE PROTECTION

Neautone has purchased a bogus lordship of the manor. He is repeatedly attempting to pervert the historical record by asserting he is "Lord of Newton". Legal documentation held by HM Land Registry 1950, 1977, 2003 plainly shows that any manorial rights relating to Newton-in-Bowland (which has not been a manor since 1399) are in the possession of Thomas Assheton, nephew of the second Baron Clitheroe, and held as part and parcel of the Manor & Liberty of Slaidburn, West Bradford and Grindleton. I have attempted to assist but he is not interested in meaningful engagement. I am therefore requesting protection for the two pages for SLAIDBURN and NEWTON-IN-BOWLAND.

Manorial (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You've been edit warring and removing sources on several pages - by now you should be aware that this violates the site rules. Wikipedia was founded on the idea of collaboration - if you have a difference of opinion over article content, you must discuss it with other editors, usually using the talk page of the article and work to find a solution you can all agree to. If you aren't able to agree, you can either a) drop the issue or b) engage more editors by using the options at dispute resolution. If you continue fighting with other editors over the article content, you will end up blocked from editing. Shell ^babelfish 16:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Shell ^babelfish 21:37, 26 March 2011 (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).

Neautone 1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I purchased the manorial title of Lordship of the manor in Bowland from Lord O'Hagan through his solicitor and the Manorial Auctioneers. I have asked Mr. Parkinson of Ingham and Yorke and also Manorial to supply written proof to me that my title is in fact bogus and neither have submitted proof to me. Manorial also knows more than he should about me, my surname, and my solicitors name which I have never provided to this site. He must be getting direct information from Mr. Parkinson. Lord O'Hagans solicitor is looking into this matter and my attorney in America will be sending a cease and desist order. I have, as I said, all of the legal paperwork. If Manorial has absolute proof to the contrary, then please produce to me.

Decline reason:

This does not appear to address the reason for your block, which appears to be abuse of multiple accounts. Furthermore, your statement appears to violate the no legal threats policy, and thus this account cannot be unblocked until that issue is retracted. Kinu ^t/_c 03:28, 27 March 2011 (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).

Neautone 1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I retract the statement on legal action against Manorial. Having communicated by email with Mr. Parkinson of Ingham and Yorke, his client Mr. Thomas Assheton does not claim ownership to the Lordship of the Manor of Newton, but does claim registered title to the Manor of Slaidburn and its Lordship (LA937696). All I am requesting is that I be allowed to put the following statement, "Charles Towneley Strachey, 4th Baron O'Hagan, 15th Lord of the Manor of Newton sold the Manorial Lordship of Newton(in Bowland), together with some, but not all of its historical rights in February 2011."

Decline reason:

Thank you for retracting the threat of legal action, however this unblock request does not appear to address the reason for your block, which is abuse of multiple accounts. As such, I am declining the unblock request PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:05, 1 April 2011 (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).

Neautone 1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It was not my intention to use multiple accounts to disrupt the article. There were two accounts for two people under the same IP address. We both thought we were doing the right thing to correct the article factually.

Decline reason:

Per notes below. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2011 (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.

How would such a thing happen? How would two accounts have the same IP address and then both edit the same article(s)? That would almost be fraudulent! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, there were more than two accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neautone1, I wanted to try leaving another note here because as it stands, things are rapidly getting worse. As you can see, other editors are having a difficult time believing that you thought making multiple accounts was appropriate and that's mostly due to the timing involved. After you were giving a final warning you stopped editing with this account, a new one was created which then started making exactly the same edits. At the very least, even if this was another person, you were attempting to get around your final warning. THere's also the problems that led to the final warning which have yet to be addressed.

The major difficulty here is that you haven't responded to multiple attempts to discuss this site's rules with you. Just like any other website, there are certain things you can do here and certain things you can't. For example, you cannot put any information in an article unless it's first been published by a well respected source, so even your new suggestion will not be included. If you're only editing Wikipedia for this reason, you may just want to stop at this point - no matter how many times you keeping including the same information, it will just be removed. However, if you'd like to contribute some volunteer time towards making this free encyclopedia a better place, I'd be happy to work with you on understanding the rules you need to follow and how you can help. Shell ^babelfish 18:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, concerning the blocking and multiple account use, it seems to me that nobody is interested in the true facts. I own, by law, the title Lord of the Manor of Newton. Bought February 2011 from the 4th Baron O'Hagan 15th Lord of Newton-in-Bowland, which makes me the 16th and legal Lord. You are letting this other person, Manorial, put in facts that are not accurate or legal. Why don't you ask Manorial to show proof and stop him posting incorrect information? I was only doing what I believed was right and so was the person with the other account. I have noticed on quite a few of your articles that information is incorrect. If all you're interested in is protocol of how to run the site then I am sorry I do not want to participate in adding information of any kind to any of your articles.

The problem with "facts" is that on the internet, you can't simply take someone's word for anything - we're all anonymous here - it's important to provide some kind of "proof" which on this website, means providing a well-respected published source that backs up your claims. Manorial is citing the records of Her Majesty's Land Registry. I've gone looking around a bit myself and found that your claim is supported by documents on the official Slaidburn Village and Forest of Bowland websites. I've also found a special issue of the Cambridge University Heraldic & Genealogical Society's journal - The Escutcheon, vol 15, 2010[1] which specifically says that Assheton's claim was found to be without merit and withdrawn in 2009. However, the sources also say that the lordship was purchased in 2009 from Baron O'Hagan, not 2001.

So you see, it's not that folks here won't work with you and fix errors, it's that you'll get further working with others than breaking the site's rules. Shell ^babelfish 18:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neautone 1, the first thing you have to do is acknowledge you were using sockpoppets improperly - even if it was an honest mistake. You've got to make people believe that it won't happen again if you want to be able to edit freely again. You and Manorial can't be using these articles to war against each other, and revert each other's edits constantly. Wikipedians are supposed to use talkpages to settle disagreements. You and Manorial have to start using Reliable Sources for every piece of information you add into an article. Your "I'm the owner of such-in-such", and Manorial's interpretations of things like "HM Land Registry 1977, 2003" are just not good enough for Wikipedia. Read this: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - But first you've got to settle the sockpuppet thing with the admins here on this talkpage. Shell is trying to work with you; you've got to work with him if you want to edit the articles you have an interest in.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have said all I am going to say on this matter it seems truth does not matter here or facts. I am sorry for the sock puppetry. I did not even know what it meant. I have now read the information provided for reference. I will not use multiple accounts again. I have also read the information regarding registered sources and I am a little confused. If I bought the title from a private seller, then how can it be proven to your satisfaction when it is not in a publication? Please help explain the correct way to do this.