User talk:TridiaChaplain

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Pastorwayne (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

TridiaChaplain, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi TridiaChaplain! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat naming

Cat names HAVE to follow the names of the articles they refer to: so for example [[:Category:Burials in Frombork, Poland]] is no good, even if it appears helpful to add the information that F-k is in Poland, because the article is at Frombork. Jsmith1000 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat re-naming

There are procedures for re-naming cats, the main point of which is to allow other editors to comment on proposed moves/renamings: please see WP:CFD. For example, you have emptied the existing cat [[:Category:Burials in cities in England]] and moved the contents to your own newly-created cat <nowiki>[[:Category:Burials in cities or towns in England]]. This should have been done by renaming the existing cat according to the procedure, which would have given anyone interested an opportunity to comment. Jsmith1000 (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fitzalan Chapel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne Percy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Carmelites of Mary Immaculate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Blessed

Fitzalan Chapel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chamberlain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Monastery of Santa Maria de Santes Creus

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Monastery of Santa Maria de Santes Creus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abel Muzorewa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buried (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Tompkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cape Breton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:58, 25 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

I have checked the editing history, and it is clear well beyond all reasonable doubt that this account is a sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2014 (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 am unsure what has happened or what this means. I am new to all of this. I will abide by this if I have done something wrong. If something was done incorrectly, please provide feedback so that similar mistakes are not made. I know I made some errors with disambiguation pages. I sincerely apologize. I am interested in editing articles about British people and their places of burial. But maybe that is someone else's realm, or I did it incorrectly? I would very much appreciate some explanation, and would indeed appeal this finding if my mistakes are not as serious as someone perhaps thinks they are. Thank you most sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TridiaChaplain (talk • contribs)

Your edits are highly suggestive of you being the same person that used the accounts User:Pastorwayne, User:EstherLois, and dozens of others that have been blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 26 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

TridiaChaplain (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Evidently I did something wrong. I apologize most sincerely. I have tried to correct my mistakes as these have been pointed out, as above. I would very much like to edit certain things, on a limited basis, and therefore humbly request to be unblocked. Perhaps I might be assigned a Mentor who might guide me through the intricacies of doing this editing? I am willing to learn. I want to be a collaborator with you, to make Wikipedia a wonderful place. Perhaps a period of probation would be in order? I am willing to receive whatever guidance and/or direction you think warranted to help me improve and learn from my mistakes. May one please have a second chance? Thank you for your every consideration.[reply]

Decline reason:

Saying "Evidently I did something wrong" and then completely dodging the issue you're blocked for when you have every reason to be aware of it and then trying to suck up to us is no way to get unblocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for the opportunity to request unblock. I admit to that of which I have been accused. I would be wrong not to. I assure you that I am here only to be a collaborator with you and others, to make Wikipedia the very best it can be. I am learning the rules, and while I cannot be sure mine will be perfectly mistake free, I believe I have now a much firmer grasp on what you and others have found lacking in my contributing/editing. I sincerely apologize for the problems I have caused. I will not repeat my mistakes and errors, but instead will learn from them and from the corrections given/made by others. I will continue to study and learn to be the best editor I can be. I have a very limited area of interest, and will seek to perfect my abilities in that area and stay away from other areas where I have no knowledge, and will always welcome the suggestions/corrections of the community -- as I have tried to do above. I humbly request a chance to prove to the Wikipedia Community that I am reformed, ready to again contribute only in a collaborative and helpful way, and certainly willing to receive instruction and help from others (deferring to those of you who are my "Elders" in this wonderful enterprise). Thank you most sincerely.

Decline reason:

Since you admit to that of which you have been accused, that means you can and should request unblock on the blocked account's talk page; given that you were finally blocked indefinitely because of your abuse of multiple accounts, we're not about to reward you for continuing the same bad behavior seven years later. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:47, 29 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Administrator --jpgordon asked that I request unblock on talk page. I went there to do so but it said I am blocked, thus unable to add anything on that talk page. I am not sure I am doing this correctly, being so new to Wikipedia. I accept responsibility for all the problems I have caused. I pledge with all my heart to learn from my mistakes, to use Edit summaries, to follow the rules, to collaborate with the Community, to contribute to making Wikipedia the very best. I very humbly request to be able to edit in the limited areas of interest: burials of mostly British persons. If you would like an example of some of my work, I would kindly request you look at Fitzalan Chapel, where I discovered and added the names of persons buried there. Next I would like to make sure each person's own page states where he/she is buried. Please accept my apology. Please help me learn from my mistakes and allow me to rejoin the Wikipedia community. Thank you very much.

Decline reason:

The PastorWayne account is blocked, but talk page access has not been revoked, so far as I can see. I see no reason why you should not be able to apply there, provided that you are logged out of this account and are logged into that one. This account may only edit this page. The PastorWayne account may edit the PastorWayne talk page. Peridon (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am very sorry. You must think me stupid. I did what --jpgordon requested. I logged out of my account, then went to this other user talk page talk page and tried to post an unblock request there, as instructed. I tried several times, but Wikipedia would not recognize this request. It said it looked suspect or something. It would not allow me to post on that page. I am surely unsure what to do. I simply would like the ability to do a very little editing. I promise to abide by all the rules, and learn from other editors and especially Administrators, and promptly correct any mistakes. Would it be possible that you might grant me this small request? TridiaChaplain (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your original page is available to you, assuming that you log in using the correct password, which is of course known to you. And no, I do not think that you are stupid. I think that you are devious. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:44, 10 July 2014 (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.

Did you log in as Pastorwayne? If so, you'll need to tell us exactly what error message you got when you tried to edit the User talk:Pastorwayne page - nobody can really tell what was wrong just from "It said it looked suspect or something". — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's setting off an abuse filter. It won't be triggered if you log in as Pastorwayne, I don't think. I've emailed an admin who is more knowledgeable about that filter to see if he thinks it was a false alarm. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]