User talk:Phoebus de Lusignan

August 2010

Please stop adding huge amounts of irrelevant genealogical info to articles. Wikipedia is NOT a genealogical site! The Ogre (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland statistics

Be careful reverting changes to the Northern Ireland article, it's under revert restrictions as an article related to the Troubles. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should have added to say, instead of a 3RR rule (no three reverts in 24 hours), it's on a 1R rule, check the talk page. It can bite on new comers to the article. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Edward Seymour, Baron Beauchamp of Hache. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

Another editor undid your edit to the latter page, and left a redirect loop that made both titles inaccessible. Accordingly, I have restored the article at the original title, without prejudice to a move using the correct mechanism, should you still wish to pursue it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Duke of Berwick has been reverted.[reply]
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/berwick.html.
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) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Duke of Berwick do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. [reply]
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/berwick.html.
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) 13:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Duke of Berwick. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. [reply]
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/berwick.html.
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) 13:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on peers

Please do not add every single title a peer held to the introduction (or anywhere else in the article for that matter). These can be found in the article on the peerage. Tryde (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly suggest responding to this thread with more than "what?" before making any more edits like the ones you've been doing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for refusing to discuss contentious edits being made at a high rate. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I need to be able to talk to the Administrators while this lasts and to have the opportunity to argue, and I didn't finish adding my arguments to their pages. I also have to do other addings that are not the ones that are being challenged.}}

If you add your comments here, they can be copied to ANI. Glad you finally decided to join the discussion. Favonian (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know there was one on! In that case please copy and add to my last post to User:Dougweller that "Not all titles are evident and sometimes aren't even mentioned anywhere, I've come up with some of these cases. It's easier to look them up on the articles about the actual people than having to search for them at the articles about the titles.". Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll copy. With regard to knowing about the discussion, please look further up this page. You were notified some three hours before a block was deemed necessary to catch your attention. Favonian (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then I wasked what was it about. The discussion wasn't very explicit about anything. Not only I was in good faith but I've also only done mere constructive addings. They were worried about my velocity. Yes, that's me, I'm fast!... Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looked pretty explicit to me. I will consider unblocking you if you promise not to add any more titles to nobility articles until the matter has been discussed further. Is that OK with you? Favonian (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However, I'm worried they start reverting everything while I'm out, because at some point I can only return tomorrow. I won't leave before the three hours of the previous block have passed, I don't know if those three hours are the time for the Administrators to reach a conclusion. Meanwhile I will be able to join any discussion, though. Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Editor has promised not to add any more titles to nobility articles until the matter has been discussed further.

Request handled by: Favonian (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Ahem!

Just saw this. Rather than edit knightly articles, you really should spend some time presenting your case as I explained in my reply to your question on my talk page. Favonian (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of G.-M. Cupertino

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Favonian (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm being falsely accused. What is this accusation based upon?

Decline reason:

Your edits are identical in style and content to a banned user. DrKiernan (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

With thousands of wikipedians how could they not be? Is that even a chriteria? What style is that? Many people add historical elements to wikipedia. They said I've edited some pages in common. Coincidence? They're all Royal Families of Europe or somehow connected with them.

Decline reason:

Your edits at Jorge Maria O'Neill, amongst many others, are identical and could not possibly be coincidence. Further disruption will result in this talk page being protected. DrKiernan (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Disruption when I'm just trying to defend myself? If I stumbled on the O'Neill lineage and restored the missing contents that doesn't make me the same person. Unless you want to block everyone who approved someone's reverted edits.

Decline reason:

When you go back past nearly two years of edits to October 2008 and then type in exactly the same text as was deleted then I think, yes it does. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:31, 26 August 2010 (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.

Here is the Wikistalk report on both users showing what articles they have edited in common. This is not "proof" of anything in either direction. I am merely putting it forward as a research resource for administrators and users who wish to look into this. - Vianello (Talk) 18:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrKiernan said "Further disruption will result in this talk page being protected", and you decided to go for it. So you've got it. Your talk page access has been removed because your persistent unblock requests without serious reason are a waste of everybody's time. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]