Hello, Beautiful Rosie! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your
talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking
![]() |
---|
|
|
Peaceray ( talk) 15:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Beautiful Rosie. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on the page
Murder of Don Banfield, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The article has stood for a long time and has contained misrepresentation of the facts, misquoting the precise details, omission of counter argument, and harmful insinuations without the balance of or benefit of the other side. This is incomplete information, misleading and after repeated requests in the talk page, I felt that I needed to try and rectify the harm. The majority of the offensive, imbalances were written by a banned prolific sockpuppet, but these have been left in place Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 01:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
"If there is a problem with an article about yourself, a family member, a friend or a colleague, please read Biographies of living persons/Help. If you spot a problem with an article, you can fix it directly, by clicking on the "Edit" link at the top of that page. See the "edit an article" section of this page for more information. "
All additional information is verifiable sources. It is not spin. That is hurtful and untrue. Other editors included in the development of this article clearly were happy for the edits to remain. They are not meant to be disruptive, they add additional information about the judges findings. The edit to the other article was because I thought that it read better. I came across it when trying to figure out where you were at. That's all. Regarding your initial edit, you deleted everything. There is relevant information about the judges decision. It is now balanced by the addition of other sources. I took nothing away, how can more information be bad?.. The sockpuppet added information that doesn't relate to the sources cited, and a lot of suppositions. I left that. I thought if others are happy, I'll just add for balancing, from verifiable sources. That is NOT spin. No-one else had a problem with my additions for a month. You deleted everything, I feel that that is disruptive. I was not paid for editing, and may have previously misunderstood the guidelines, but apparently one can fix a problem with an article, if it's declared, when I understood I did explain why. Please see my reply. Everything is verifiable, so there is no reason or justification for deleting everything. If you read through you'll see that there was insufficiency in the original artical, with omission, and incomplete information, and inaccurate quotes. I don't understand why you don't think that a reader can understand both sides with the benefit of all the information to hand. I don't want an argument. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia, but I'm actually trying to make good additions. It's a shame you just felt the need to delete it all without leaving the up to date information. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 19:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at
Wikipedia:Teahouse, is considered
bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Cordless Larry (
talk)
11:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
Murder of Don Banfield, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 06:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk)
04:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Please seek consensus for your edits on the talk page. Drmies ( talk) 04:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Beautiful Rosie ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have previously reported that the article contains information that is wrongful, and opinion and defamatory and is cited to sources that don't back up what is being said, which in large part were written by a sockpuppet. This is a personal matter, which is why I held off from editing for so long, but there is either intentional malice here, or no-one cares to check. I am going to go through the motions of requesting an unblock, so I can show that I explained all of this regarding opinion stated as facts and attributed to cites. The cited do not say what is said in the article, critical legal facts have been rewritten, and opinions stated as facts, genuine facts omitted to create a false narrative. I have previously reported this. I have been silenced, whilst defamatory untruths are being maliciously displayed by your revolting website. So I requested an unblock, to demonstrate that I have been silenced and bullied from trying to correct this wrongdoing. Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 08:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your request due to your personal attacks and legal threats; I'm also making the block indef and sitewide. When you are ready to abide by our policies, you may request unblock then. 331dot ( talk) 08:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
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.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
331dot (
talk)
08:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)We cannot stop you from using the courts of your country according to its laws, but you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia using Wikipedia processes, but not both at the same time. If there are errors in the article you edited, we want to know what those are, but this must be done in a civil, collaborative manner in accordance with our policies. You will need to unequivocally withdraw any and all threats of legal action in order to be unblocked; you will also need to refrain from making personal attacks. 331dot ( talk) 08:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
I'm not happy about any error in an article, and want to fix it, but you have elected to do so through the courts. You have silenced yourself. If you change your mind, and agree to withdraw any and all threats of legal action and/or end legal actions underway, so you can pursue corrections using Wikipedia processes, you may request unblock as instructed. 331dot ( talk) 20:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
It has been suggested to me that you should be permitted to retain access to this page. I am not certain that is a good idea, but I respect the experience and knowledge of the source of the suggestion, so I will restore your access. The offer above remains open if you are prepared to abide by our guidelines and processes. 331dot ( talk) 09:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Beautiful Rosie! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your
talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking
![]() |
---|
|
|
Peaceray ( talk) 15:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Beautiful Rosie. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on the page
Murder of Don Banfield, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The article has stood for a long time and has contained misrepresentation of the facts, misquoting the precise details, omission of counter argument, and harmful insinuations without the balance of or benefit of the other side. This is incomplete information, misleading and after repeated requests in the talk page, I felt that I needed to try and rectify the harm. The majority of the offensive, imbalances were written by a banned prolific sockpuppet, but these have been left in place Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 01:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
"If there is a problem with an article about yourself, a family member, a friend or a colleague, please read Biographies of living persons/Help. If you spot a problem with an article, you can fix it directly, by clicking on the "Edit" link at the top of that page. See the "edit an article" section of this page for more information. "
All additional information is verifiable sources. It is not spin. That is hurtful and untrue. Other editors included in the development of this article clearly were happy for the edits to remain. They are not meant to be disruptive, they add additional information about the judges findings. The edit to the other article was because I thought that it read better. I came across it when trying to figure out where you were at. That's all. Regarding your initial edit, you deleted everything. There is relevant information about the judges decision. It is now balanced by the addition of other sources. I took nothing away, how can more information be bad?.. The sockpuppet added information that doesn't relate to the sources cited, and a lot of suppositions. I left that. I thought if others are happy, I'll just add for balancing, from verifiable sources. That is NOT spin. No-one else had a problem with my additions for a month. You deleted everything, I feel that that is disruptive. I was not paid for editing, and may have previously misunderstood the guidelines, but apparently one can fix a problem with an article, if it's declared, when I understood I did explain why. Please see my reply. Everything is verifiable, so there is no reason or justification for deleting everything. If you read through you'll see that there was insufficiency in the original artical, with omission, and incomplete information, and inaccurate quotes. I don't understand why you don't think that a reader can understand both sides with the benefit of all the information to hand. I don't want an argument. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia, but I'm actually trying to make good additions. It's a shame you just felt the need to delete it all without leaving the up to date information. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 19:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at
Wikipedia:Teahouse, is considered
bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Cordless Larry (
talk)
11:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
Murder of Don Banfield, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 06:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk)
04:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Please seek consensus for your edits on the talk page. Drmies ( talk) 04:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Beautiful Rosie ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have previously reported that the article contains information that is wrongful, and opinion and defamatory and is cited to sources that don't back up what is being said, which in large part were written by a sockpuppet. This is a personal matter, which is why I held off from editing for so long, but there is either intentional malice here, or no-one cares to check. I am going to go through the motions of requesting an unblock, so I can show that I explained all of this regarding opinion stated as facts and attributed to cites. The cited do not say what is said in the article, critical legal facts have been rewritten, and opinions stated as facts, genuine facts omitted to create a false narrative. I have previously reported this. I have been silenced, whilst defamatory untruths are being maliciously displayed by your revolting website. So I requested an unblock, to demonstrate that I have been silenced and bullied from trying to correct this wrongdoing. Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 08:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your request due to your personal attacks and legal threats; I'm also making the block indef and sitewide. When you are ready to abide by our policies, you may request unblock then. 331dot ( talk) 08:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
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.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
331dot (
talk)
08:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)We cannot stop you from using the courts of your country according to its laws, but you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia using Wikipedia processes, but not both at the same time. If there are errors in the article you edited, we want to know what those are, but this must be done in a civil, collaborative manner in accordance with our policies. You will need to unequivocally withdraw any and all threats of legal action in order to be unblocked; you will also need to refrain from making personal attacks. 331dot ( talk) 08:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
I'm not happy about any error in an article, and want to fix it, but you have elected to do so through the courts. You have silenced yourself. If you change your mind, and agree to withdraw any and all threats of legal action and/or end legal actions underway, so you can pursue corrections using Wikipedia processes, you may request unblock as instructed. 331dot ( talk) 20:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
It has been suggested to me that you should be permitted to retain access to this page. I am not certain that is a good idea, but I respect the experience and knowledge of the source of the suggestion, so I will restore your access. The offer above remains open if you are prepared to abide by our guidelines and processes. 331dot ( talk) 09:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)