User talk:RosieBrock

June 2020

Hello, I'm Robby.is.on. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The Federalist (website) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Jeremy Clarkson, you may be blocked from editing. --Ferien (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not talk to me like this. How dare you? I support Wikipedia financially as well as doing an awful lot of corrections mainly on historical dates and fact . This issue of Clarkson is different and it is getting to be bigger than you know. He will probably be cancelled on Wiki. And he has incited hatred and abuse against women and in particular a black woman. Your description of my accurate description of him, has brought his profile up to date. It is fact not fiction or opinion, and Wikipedia should not be involved in any whitewashing of this man's activities. Rosie Brock 82.69.43.37 (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of This vile man must be sacked, and jailed for his offences. The Sun Editor and Rupert Murdoch must be hauled to the High Court. was not appropriate for Wikipedia. This is not a fact, it is an opinion, whether most people believe it or not. Supporting Wikipedia financially does not exempt you from the neutral point of view policy. Adding what he has said is ok, adding your opinion on it is not, and looking above on this talk page, this appears to have been an issue before. --Ferien (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -I agree, my edit was not entirely factually bringing his profile up to date -so what part of my edit would you allow as 'fact'? 82.69.43.37 (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see what you have said Robbie. So not sure what I am allowed to say or not.It seems to be men who are protecting Clarkson's page on this issue. That aside, can I repeat my query? What am allowed to say about Clarkson as fact concerning his abusive article in the Sun that has caused a storm of protest from men and women? 82.69.43.37 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you not edit that article at all, as you seem to have difficulty being dispassionate and impartial. If you believe there is well-sourced information that is missing from the article, suggest it on the article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have difficulty being dispassionate on this issue. Impartiality is not an error when it comes to someone who is inciting hatred surely?

And I do not need three of you to bully me on this. Robby seems the most helpful. 82.69.43.37 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felt the need to chime in. Everything is already covered at Jeremy Clarkson#The Sun newspaper column on the Duchess of Sussex in a neutral language, including what he wrote, the reactions, and the public outcry. So the assumption that It seems to be men who are protecting Clarkson's page on this issue is false. Keivan.f^Talk 20:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Useful. Should it not be referenced on the Clarkson profile page? 82.69.43.37 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The story is still developing. We have to wait and see what the consequences are before making any changes to the lede, if that's what you are referring to. And even then, it has to be included in a neutral language, similar to his 2015 BBC incident. Keivan.f^Talk 01:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Brock, what I did was move your reply into this section of the Talk page. You had previously placed it, most likely by mistake, in the section below named "Notification for awareness". Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me like that you arrogant person. RosieBrock (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification for awareness

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Bulstrode

I had some useful information to add on Dorothy's sister Elizabeth mentioned in the original piece on Dorothy. Elizabeth, Dorothy's eldest sister was the mother of Bulstrode Whitelocke who was a very prominent Parliamentarian during the period of the Civik War and the subsequent Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. The Bulstrode name carried on in the Whitelocke family. I was citing a reference - Ruth Spalding's biography of Bulstrode Whitlock, nephew to Dorothy, but can't see where I have gone wrong witgh a closing <Ref> that seems to be missing in edits. I looked at help and removed spaces but can't get it righ. I need Help. RosieBrock (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it for you. The proper format is: <ref>Ruth Spalding ''The Improbable Puritan'' (Faber&Faber,London 1975).</ref>. You were missing the closing </ref> tag. Schazjmd (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much I think I see I need a closing <ref> at the very end of the edit. So kind. 82.69.43.37 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. A closing tag has a slash (/), so the closing tag must be </ref>, not <ref>. Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a page number would be good!Unoquha (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]