User talk:Sutton12

Do you work for discoverashfield.co.uk? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I dont. All the info is on the website, as is other bits for ADC.

Sutton12, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sutton12! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sutton Lawns

Hello Sutton12,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sutton Lawns for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There

The page Sutton Lawns was created by myself. I have done extensive work on this page, all referenced. Sutton12 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise me how I can complain? Sutton12 (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Teversal and Skegby Trails

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Teversal and Skegby Trails requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://kingfishervisitorguides.com/nottinghamshire/discover-ashfield/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good practice would give sufficient time for me to correct things without removing them. Sutton12 (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kings Mill Reservoir

Hello Sutton12,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kings Mill Reservoir for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again this was page created by myself, you clearly do not understand. Sutton12 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good practice would give sufficient time for me to correct things without removing them. Sutton12 (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Sutton12, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Sutton-in-Ashfield have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled that you have removed all of my content, without consulting me , yes speech Mark's could have been used but what you have done is wrong.... Sutton12 (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sutton Colliery into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am on earned you have deleted all,I fear you level of education does not fit the criteria for this role. Sutton12 (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should have informed me earlier.....! How rude and common. Sutton12 (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the message I left you: I've provided the attribution for you this time, but you should do it yourself from now on if you copy content from other articles. Please make sure that you do not copy any content from non-free external sources into Wikipedia – you run the risk of losing your editing privileges if you continue to do so. If you want to donate material to the project you can follow the instructions here. Please make sure that you are logged in to your account when editing – this helps to identify the edits you make as yours. I also advise you to avoid directing personal remarks at other editors. If you have questions you can ask them at the Teahouse – I've left you an invitation below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I note that just because Stanley is not on the Ashfield page doesn't mean it does exist. Sutton12 (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello! Sutton12, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. It's a good place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please give it a try! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Sutton-in-Ashfield, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content looks far better than it was... Sutton12 (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep removing things?? Surely you want people to add information, if this happens I will make a formal complaint. Sutton12 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good practice would give sufficient time for me to correct things without removing them. Sutton12 (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sutton-in-Ashfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Anderson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sutton-in-Ashfield, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages King John and John Molyneux.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Nkon21. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mansfield without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 16:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible image copyright violations

This is a courtesy message (as I've already messaged your Commons Talk) for other editors watching this Talk page on en-Wiki to alert you that your changes and uploads need to be advised/discussed. Two images (from several) copied from Ashfield District Council website are nominated for deletion, initially, as a test. Please do not over-size thumbnail images placed into the text on articles such as Sutton-in-Ashfield and Kirkby-in-Ashfield without good reason. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been deleted.

I dont seem to know how to add the Sutton-in-ashfield page into different languages in its enterity? I've changed some photos that's it.

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sutton-in-Ashfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William VI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hooton

The information about Elizabeth Hooton you added to Sutton-in-Surrey needs to be removed and made into a standalone article, and then her name added to Notable People in the article. Moriori (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the Elizabeth Hooton bit, however please can it stay in? It brings this lady to life within the article far more than a notable person. Many in this area do not know this history, I have condensed the paragraph. Please advise what other bit of the page is not right?

It may well bring the lady to life but the article is about the town, not the lady. She would justify a mention under the notable people section, with a link to the article about her. But, the article about her does not mention Sutton-in-Ashfield anywhere. I am removing the info under discussion, and the link to the article about her. Please sign your edits with four tildes -- these things ~~~~. I have done so here and it has produced my name and date --> Moriori (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that really was not helpful, instead of removing why could you not leave it on for me to change things to reflect the town, I spent ages on that.

You are not listening! First of all, you didn't indent, or sign with four tildes. The article is about the town. It is not about Elizabeth Hooton. An article about her already exists, Elizabeth Hooton, but it does not connect her with the town in any way. Moriori (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new bit mentioning sutton-in-ashfield throughout. The page says that citation is needed please can you tell me where?

I am losing patience. Wikipedia editors are volunteers. They aren't paid to follow around after people who will not make an effort. You need to be like any editor seeking reliable aources, go look for them. I am removing that information again, for the reasons already mentioned above, and because it is unreferenced. Moriori (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely appalled by your comments have you not read the Elizabeth Hooton page, the page mentions Skegby which is in Sutton in Ashfield. I am making a complaint about your appalling comments.

Do it. You are a problematic contributor, so stand by for a Boomerang. Include this fine example of your work when you file your complaint. Moriori (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry please give me a chance to get my references at the source rather than a website link to make it more robust, ideally like you say books are better!

I have never mentioned books. As you haven't made your promised complaint, I will get the ball rolling.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Moriori (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mild warning

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please be aware that persistent disruptive editing can get you blocked. Deb (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information - not a warning

I have restored the banner tag {{overly detailed}} at Sutton in Ashfield which you removed after a couple of hours, as the following sections you have authored or modified "Teversal area", "Teversal and Teversal Manor", "Skegby Old Manor House", "Skegby Heritage Trail", "Silverhill Woods", "Teversal and Skegby Trails" should be at other articles, as they are not within Sutton in Ashfield. Wikipedia has dedicated articles for these geographical areas - Skegby, Teversal, Teversal Manor.

I do not know what 'mission' you are undertaking, but this is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide (WP:NOTGUIDE) or gazetteer.

Please do not undertake more expansion which should be elsewhere, and do not remove templates without fixing the problem. I hope this is clear-enough. As I stated at your Commons Talk (in this diff), I don't have any more time to commit to this presently, but the problems are increasing. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC) I am removing the content for the different areas but the areas of Teversal, Skegby Stanton Hill are within Sutton in Ashfield the wiki link pages highlight this. These are villages in Sutton in Ashfield. I realise you are busy but this is taken out information that is correct. Sutton12 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC) See link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teversal Sutton12 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skegby Sutton12 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Please can the starting but about the villages be reinststing, clear evidence depicts these places as being in Sutton in Ashfield. Sutton12 (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this evidence? If you continue to introduce poorly-written unreferenced content, you'll be blocked from editing the article. Deb (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are to continue with Wikipedia, it's important to learn - preferably at an early stage - that WP is not considered to be a reliable source; so you should not place any credence into the content, which may be wrong. Considering Teversal, the content was changed on 28 March 2017, causing it to be read entirely differently to previously; this is regarded as a good faith change, as the editor thought s/he was doing right. The confusion could stem from Ashfield being both a large geographical area and a local government administrative organisation.

Skegby reads correctly: "Skegby is a small village in the Ashfield district of Nottinghamshire". Following the link to Ashfield shows the administrative area to include a list of villages, including those outlying, such as Jacksdale and Selston. You have altered this in August 2020 (with more changes in September) to read exactly as you want it to (linking the same villages you are disputing above, to Sutton in Ashfield) seen in this change. This is why it's necessary for someone to trawl though every change. Please stop, and let it drop.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Teversal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Herbert.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Deb (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There, I was going to delete the Henry Herbert link. I was advised to change all the wiki page on Sutton-in-ashfield and remove content to other wiki pages which I have done, I am confused to why I have been blocked? Sutton12 (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2020 (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).

Sutton12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi There, I was going to delete the Henry Herbert link. I was advised to change all the wiki page on Sutton-in-ashfield and remove content to other wiki pages which I have done, I am confused to why I have been blocked? I added that the link by accident Sutton12 (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2020 (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've been blocked for disruptive editing. You have repeatedly ignored advice and have twice removed improvement tags from an article that is going to take others a lot of work to clean up. Deb (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have given very unclear arbitrary information with little clarity to what you are meaning, if you want me to delete my work on the Teversal Wiki page, I will that is my work, given clear precise information is key to dealing with the issue. Sutton12 (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If for any reason we cannot resolve this I will pull all the work I have completed from the page including photos as I own the copyright not wiki Sutton12 (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2020 (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).

Sutton12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You have given very unclear arbitrary information with little clarity to what you are meaning, if you want me to delete my work on the Teversal Wiki page, I will that is my work, given clear precise information is key to dealing with the issue. If for any reason we cannot resolve this I will pull all the work I have completed from the page including photos, I wrote all that wrote in good faith that Wikipaedia would work alongside me, this is my work and my work only in international copyright I can request to pull all the information, which would leave wiki in a far worst position to sort the page out. I removed the citations page on the premise that the photo needed to change as I did not own the copyright. https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/international_copyright

Decline reason:

No, you most certainly cannot do this. Come off it, stop trying to play us for fools. Every single edit you make, you agree to the following (emphasis mine): "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." You are welcome to make a new unblock request but drop the pointless threats, they count significantly against you. Yamla (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2020 (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.

I did not realise I had put in the wrong Henry Herbert. Sutton12 (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Whittington, Brimington and Staveley be added into the description for the Chesterfield wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesterfield

Why can Teversal, Skegby, Stanton Hill and Huthwaite not be added into the Sutton-in-ashfield wiki page, the same principle should apply. Sutton12 (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

I am a volunteer also providing information for my community.

Although I have asked several times by this talk page which content you are referring to, I have mentioned the Henry Herbert bit. I am somewhat surprised by you way of a dragoninan way of ensuring i do things without give me explicit information to do this.

I am the Author to this work, I do not been Dylexic understand things in the way you do and that is also with the Terms and Conditions.

I have asked to work collaboratively rather than the abuse, that I have suffered on here. I get that you are volunteers. But I also know that this page needs improving. I have not has answers to the questions I have asked this why is Skegby, Stanton Hill, Teversal and Huthwaite not allowed in the Sutton in Ashfield page but Whittington, Staveley and Brimmington are allowed in the Chesterfield page? These are village and in the borough of Chesterfield indeed the villages in Sutton-in-ashfield are their village, is this vendetta against me?

{unblock| https://insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk/gov-uk-standards-and-guidelines/image-copyright-standards-for-gov-uk/

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/legalcode#:~:text=CREATIVE%20COMMONS%20CORPORATION%20IS%20NOT,DOES%20NOT%20PROVIDE%20LEGAL%20SERVICES.&text=This%20Creative%20Commons%20England%20and,You%20credit%20the%20Original%20Author. } Sutton12 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2020 (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).

Sutton12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am the Author of this work and I want to work closely, but I want to be respected. Creative commons in UK Law means that i the Author am allowed to say how the work is distributed or taken out, I do not give threats I protect the work I have spent hours on, this is not for my benefit but for the benefit of all and the community I live and yes I have compassion

Decline reason:

I have no idea what you're talking about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2020 (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.

Sutton12 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock| The Teversal wiki page is Henry Herbert, 4th Earl of Canarvon very easy mistakes to make as many I am sure have

}. Sutton12 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock Henry Herbert, 4th Earl of Carnarvon } I'm human we all make mistakes. Sutton12 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason= Henry Herbert, 4th Earl of Carnarvon } Sutton12 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple unblock requests

You now have four (!!!) open unblock requests. You only need one. Which one would you like the next reviewing administrator (not me, someone else) to review? --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla the Teversal mistake which is meant to be Henry the 4th Earl of Carnarvon Sutton12 (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you which one of your four unblock requests you wished to be reviewed. You haven't answered the question. --Yamla (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be Henry Herbert, 4th Earl of Carnarvon in the Teversal page leading to the block. Sutton12 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be answering a question, but not the question I'm asking you. --Yamla (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock request at17:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Earl of Carnarvon. Sutton12 (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! I've edited the others so they are not active. --Yamla (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking and your requests for information

Blocking
You were blocked on 8 November for repeatedly removing top-notices from the Sutton in Ashfield article, causing others to have to re-check your changes and re-apply the flags. These flags were added to notify others that specific attention was needed.

Added: 1 Nov Removed: 1 Nov
Added: 5 Nov Removed: 5 Nov
Added: 6 Nov Removed: n/a
Added (extra): 6 Nov Removed: 6 Nov
Added: 7 Nov Removed: 8 Nov

Your request for information
Concerning Chesterfield having inclusions of Staveley, Brimington, etc., these are taken in context of census population and the 1974 local government changes when certain former council areas amalgamated under one new umbrella (as did Sutton and Mansfield councils). There are a few other passing mentions - but not headed sections within Chesterfield, promoting those areas that have their own articles.

You added "Sutton-in-Ashfield includes the villages of Huthwaite, Stanton Hill, Teversal and Skegby" on 21 August 2020 with the edit summary: New added information, please read all the village which give reference to Sutton in Ashfield, including the Ashfield District area.

Then you went on to create or expand headed sections for Skegby Old Manor House, Skegby Heritage Trail, Teversal area, Teversal and Teversal Manor, Silverhill Woods and Teversal and Skegby Trails, substantially BLOATING the article with un-needed detail of areas for which there are dedicated articles. I can't be more accurate when you did create all of this content, as you have made hundreds of changes.

That is the essential difference - Chesterfield does not have irrelevant/duplicate content for those linked nearby areas, just mentions with little detail.

Finally, you have not been subjected to any abuse. I hope that clears it up once and for all.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And your tone works collaboratively with me, I think it's always wise to reflect on how you come across that's learning from practice, volunteer no volunteer. Thank you I will check these things out. Sutton12 (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will make it clearly Ashfield is a local authority area within Nottinghamshire, of which there are 3 towns Hucknall, Kirkby in Ashfield and Sutton in Ashfield, Sutton in Ashfiekd incorporates villages as their postcode including Teversal, Skegby, Stanton Hill and Huthwaite.

So for instance a address would be:

1 High Street Skegby Sutton in Ashfield Nottinghamshire NG

This is exactly the same principle as Chesterfield for instance:

1 High Street Brimmington Chesterfield S41

The town us the key for the postcode and area. In theory the wiki pages for Teversal, Skegby, Stanton Hill and Huthwaite should be mentioned and have always been part of Sutton in Ashfield since the Doomsday book of 1087. Whittington and Brimmingham gave always being within the borough area of Chesterfield also. I hope this makes it clearer for you. Sutton12 (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postal system is nothing to go by - it is merely the way that the sorting offices and deliveries are organised. Villages are stand alone. Towns are stand alone. Towns don't have villages incorporated. As you are all knowing....how come you're missing off Eastfield? Completely separate to Sutton with fields in between. My ancestors lived there in 1860s, buried in Shirebrook circa 1900. Others were at Sutton Market Place in a grand house and Riber Castle during the build, 1870s in tied accommodation.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some further advice

You wrote:"Although I have asked several times by this talk page which content you are referring to, I have mentioned the Henry Herbert bit. I am somewhat surprised by you way of a dragoninan way of ensuring i do things without give me explicit information to do this. I am the Author to this work, I do not been Dylexic understand things in the way you do and that is also with the Terms and Conditions."

Your block has nothing whatsoever to do with Henry Herbert. It's to do with your repeated removal of improvement tags and your refusal to listen to advice and information given you by others.
I assume that, when you say "I do not been Dylexic", you mean that you are dyslexic. This being so, you must surely be aware that anything you write is likely to contain errors - the kind of errors that we don't like to include in Wikipedia articles because they make it difficult for readers to understand the article. The obvious solution to this is for you to get someone to proof-read your contributions before adding them to the article. Then your work would not need to be repeatedly deleted. If you don't have a friend who can do this for you, you can ask more experienced Wikipedia contributors to look at it. For example, you could put suggested changes on the Talk page or in your sandbox and ask others if they are okay.
The suggestion that others have a "vendetta" against you is completely unjustified. You are not the only person who has ever been blocked for disruptive editing and you are far from being the only person who has ever had your contributions deleted. If you can read the guidelines, you should be able to follow them. If you can't understand the guidelines, I'm sorry to say that there may be no point in you continuing to edit. I hope that you will listen to this advice. Deb (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RocknRollMancer I wanted to clarify to you that Eastfield Side is a toad within the Town Centre of Sutton in Ashfield, it is no longer a village it's simply a road which used be owned by the Duke of Devonshire of Chatsworth. Riber Castle is in Tansley, Derbyshire and Shirebrook is in Bolsover district of Derbyshire. I am not sure how things work within the US but villages formed part of towns, that said the villages I said all but one Teversal, directly link (without fields or land to Sutton-in-ashfield).

If you look at Staveley, Staveley is a town within the Borough town of Chesterfield. I think it would be important for you to visit Sutton in Ashfield to understand how the town is set up. Sutton12 (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skegby, Stanton Hill and Huthwaite are part of the settlement of Sutton-in-ashfield, the postcode purpose is our Nottingham postcode which is NG, I will ask Ashfield District Council to clarify all for us. Sutton12 (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocknrollmancer: perhaps there should be a separate article at Borough of Chesterfield for the district since the boundaries were significantly expanded in 1974 per WP:UKDISTRICTS that said the BUA of Chesterfield does include Staveley and Brimington though not the BUASD, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Partly parished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason= @RocknrollMancer I wanted to make it clear that neither Stanton Hill, Huthwaite, Skegby nor Teversal have separate parish councils as these were disbanded and brought under the wider Ashfield District Council. That said these villages except for Teversal Village have houses with no fields between them. There is only distinction by a sign. That said, these should be included in the Sutton in Ashfield wiki page. The land as you can imagine has changed since the 1800’s. These villages are not linked to Sutton in Ashfield for postcode purposes. I took out the information from these villages from your request to remove the villages. Deb I wanted to clarify that all the information I have provided have been looked at by local historians with vast insight into the history of sutton-in-ashfield. I thought the citations were linked to errors that I had made such as adding in the Teversal, Skegby and Stanton Hill bits into the wiki page of Sutton-in-ashfield, that said I thought this on top of other changes was sorting the issue but clearly it did not and it caused further confusion, of which I apologise.}}

Reminder: One open unblock request at a time. You've been warned about this again. You won't get another warning. You are free to remove your currently open unblock request from November 8th, but I don't want to see you posting multiple simultaneous unblock requests. --Yamla (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Chesterfield

Noted your comments and made changes to the article to clarify the outlying coal mines/villages (in this diff) You can see the similarities between the geographic areas in (old) File:Chesterfield Rural District, Derbyshire (1970).svg and new File:North East Derbyshire UK locator map.svg, the local authority now administering the villages. Remember, WP is an overview, not a text book, so generalities apply, and it's not always possible and/or practical to obsess over the minutiae. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocknrollmancer: you might want to see the discussion about Chesterfield at User talk:Morwen#District splits. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Deb (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sutton12, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user is now banned by the community under WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]