This is FirstInAFieldOfOne's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peaches for Monsieur le Curé, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 15:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Lansquenet-sous-Tannes, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Keyserzozie. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " Lansquenet-sous-Tannes".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at
WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Lansquenet-sous-Tannes}}
, paste it in the edit box at
this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot ( talk) 16:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Keyserzozie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Keyserzozie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I should point out that if you are Joanne Harris, we appreciate you volunteering corrections to your biography, but Wikipedia has strict policies on conflict of interest that apply to any edits you make. The most relevant part of that can be read at WP:COISELF.
For general corrections and omissions, you should make edit requests on the talk page of the article, mentioning your conflict of interest. Content you regard as "defamation or a serious error" can be deleted outright, but as it says at the COISELF link you should follow that up with a notification to a relevant response team or noticeboard. In all cases it's important that you disclose your conflict of interest.
( Wikipedia:Libel also has an email address you can contact if you believe that a Wikipedia article contains defamatory statements.)
I'm not sure what the current situation is on the biography, but I'll take a look at it now and see if anything should be removed. Belbury ( talk) 15:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I would ask you to read and follow the policy at WP:COI more literally at this point, particularly WP:COIEDIT. COI policy isn't just there to prevent flashy promotional edits and the airing of academic grievances, it's also about the unintentional bias when someone with a close connection to a subject expands a biography working in part from what they know to be true, rather than what can be and has been sourced.
Your recent edit about Harris performing with "the band she has played with since school" is presumably entirely true, but it's not mentioned in the source for that sentence, so I can't check to see that you got it right. It may be something she's only ever spoken about privately, it may be that you or a source you've read has misinterpreted something about a university band, or a band from when she was a teacher. This isn't earth-shattering stuff, but it's adding potential unsourceable content to a Wikipedia biography, and one of the foundations of Wikipedia is that the reader should always be able to verify for themselves that something an article says is true.
You're obviously welcome to edit any other articles, but for this one you should really stick to geninely uncontroversial edits and making suggestions on the talk page. -- Belbury ( talk) 20:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone's pointed out at Talk:Joanne Harris that under COI guidelines you have to declare your conflict of interest whenever you make a COI-related edit. You can either do that by laboriously mentioning it in every edit summary, with a template on your user page, or adding templates to the talk pages of articles: instructions are at WP:DISCLOSE.
This is already covered for the Joanne Harris article because there's a template at the top of its talk page now, and I'll add the same to the articles you've worked on about Harris's books, but if you intend to edit other related articles, please bear this guideline in mind. Thanks. -- Belbury ( talk) 12:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not Joanne Harris, but I did set up the original page, and I do add to it from time to time on her behalf.", which suggested that you were the IP who created the page on 31 Dec 2002 and that you had been editing under her instructions since then, rather than just acting as a fan keeping an eye on the page as fans naturally do. Also "
I used the same name to help Joanne set up some of her internet stuff many moons ago, including a long dead MySpace." which sounded as if you might have been her (paid) IT assistant, rather than just a technically-minded acquaintance. The "22 years" comes from your statement that you set up the page (OK, 21 years from Dec 2002), rather than from your registered editorship.
They pretended to be someone else to take advantage." is a serious but unfounded allegation. Pam D 09:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
spilled in to the real worldand hacked your account and cost you potential work. The talk page of a user who has asked you to stop posting to their talk page is also definitely not the place to have this conversation, please take this somewhere else - see WP:DWH for some suggestions. Belbury ( talk) 10:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
Joanne Harris, 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) 18:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
FirstInAFieldOfOne ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've been editing Wiki for years on and off, but I'd never engaged with the community until recently. I got into an uncomfortable conflict with another user, and I was starting to feel a bit harassed. I completely misunderstood the "Clean Start" guidelines, and I thought it would be easier all round to just start again under another name. I didn't realize that doing this was against the rules. I'm really sorry. I'd very much like to have the chance to start editing again.I'm a reasonably good stylist and an experienced and observant copy-editor. I'd like the opportunity to contribute again. If given the chance to do this I promise to use only one account. Keyserzozie ( talk) 19:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You clearly aren't done writing this unblock request, making modification after modification after you initially posted it. Please do not post an unblock request until it is ready for review, as you clearly do not believe this is. Yamla ( talk) 19:23, 4 February 2024 (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.
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. The guide to appealing blocks said that I could modify my statement whenever I wanted. I didn't mean it to seem disruptive, I just wanted it to be as clear as possible.Can someone else please review this, according to the principle of AGF, or do I need to make the request again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyserzozie ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Looks like you were called upon to address your long standing WP:conflict of interest regarding Joanne Harris and created new accounts to continue editing with a conflict of interest regarding Joanne Harris. Probably, to be unblocked you would need to read and heed WP:COI and agree to use but one account. Other admin's mileage may vary. Best, -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 11:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
where their contributions have been disruptive: I don't believe that KZ's edits have been disruptive. Their edits have been informative and factual, and they have recently come into conflict with another editor with a very definite agenda, which has caused all the recent controversy, in the course of which it transpired that KZ had been editing in ignorance of the COI policy for 22 years. WP:AGF applies.
happy to stick to small factual edits, but as PamD notes above, WP:COIADVICE is much stricter than that.) Belbury ( talk) 09:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
<code>
and <nowiki>
tags at the start and the end of it.
Belbury (
talk) 10:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
FirstInAFieldOfOne ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've been editing Wiki for years on and off, but I'd never engaged with the community until recently. I got into an uncomfortable conflict with another user, and didn't know how to escape it. I completely misunderstood the "Clean Start" guidelines, and I thought it would be easier all round to just start again under another name. I didn't realize that doing this was against the rules. I also didn't realize that I shouldn't make multiple edits to my appeal text, which is why my first appeal was declined. I'm really sorry. I'd very much like to have the chance to start editing again. I'm a reasonably good stylist and an observant copy-editor. I'd like the opportunity to contribute again. If given the chance to do this I promise to use only one account, and to be mindful of the COI rules. Keyserzozie ( talk) 5:44 am, Today (UTC−5)
Accept reason:
Per Primefac below -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want an edit request for new content to be applied, it's best made to the standard for good Wikipedia content, with sources for everything: many editors will outright reject an {{ edit coi}} request that can't be pasted straight into the article, and ask you to try again. I cut some aspects of your recent suggestion (that two novels were "stand-alone" and "explored different aspects of food as a metaphor") because it wasn't obviously true and I couldn't, in a few minutes of searching, find sources to support either statement.
Secondly, you must avoid making any edits that change the meaning of an article where you have a COI, even if they seem trivial to you. Although it's obviously very likely that somebody's sixth form and Cambridge studies wouldn't overlap in any way, the source currently cited in the article doesn't say this. It's not a simple "grammatical" fix to change a paragraph about two things having happened to say that one happened before the other, when the current source doesn't explicitly say that. Belbury ( talk) 09:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to
Joanne Harris while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being
blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's
policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your
IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. . If I'm wrong, please accept my apologies.
Esowteric +
Talk +
Breadcrumbs 10:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This is FirstInAFieldOfOne's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peaches for Monsieur le Curé, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 15:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Lansquenet-sous-Tannes, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Keyserzozie. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " Lansquenet-sous-Tannes".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at
WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Lansquenet-sous-Tannes}}
, paste it in the edit box at
this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot ( talk) 16:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Keyserzozie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Keyserzozie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I should point out that if you are Joanne Harris, we appreciate you volunteering corrections to your biography, but Wikipedia has strict policies on conflict of interest that apply to any edits you make. The most relevant part of that can be read at WP:COISELF.
For general corrections and omissions, you should make edit requests on the talk page of the article, mentioning your conflict of interest. Content you regard as "defamation or a serious error" can be deleted outright, but as it says at the COISELF link you should follow that up with a notification to a relevant response team or noticeboard. In all cases it's important that you disclose your conflict of interest.
( Wikipedia:Libel also has an email address you can contact if you believe that a Wikipedia article contains defamatory statements.)
I'm not sure what the current situation is on the biography, but I'll take a look at it now and see if anything should be removed. Belbury ( talk) 15:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I would ask you to read and follow the policy at WP:COI more literally at this point, particularly WP:COIEDIT. COI policy isn't just there to prevent flashy promotional edits and the airing of academic grievances, it's also about the unintentional bias when someone with a close connection to a subject expands a biography working in part from what they know to be true, rather than what can be and has been sourced.
Your recent edit about Harris performing with "the band she has played with since school" is presumably entirely true, but it's not mentioned in the source for that sentence, so I can't check to see that you got it right. It may be something she's only ever spoken about privately, it may be that you or a source you've read has misinterpreted something about a university band, or a band from when she was a teacher. This isn't earth-shattering stuff, but it's adding potential unsourceable content to a Wikipedia biography, and one of the foundations of Wikipedia is that the reader should always be able to verify for themselves that something an article says is true.
You're obviously welcome to edit any other articles, but for this one you should really stick to geninely uncontroversial edits and making suggestions on the talk page. -- Belbury ( talk) 20:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone's pointed out at Talk:Joanne Harris that under COI guidelines you have to declare your conflict of interest whenever you make a COI-related edit. You can either do that by laboriously mentioning it in every edit summary, with a template on your user page, or adding templates to the talk pages of articles: instructions are at WP:DISCLOSE.
This is already covered for the Joanne Harris article because there's a template at the top of its talk page now, and I'll add the same to the articles you've worked on about Harris's books, but if you intend to edit other related articles, please bear this guideline in mind. Thanks. -- Belbury ( talk) 12:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not Joanne Harris, but I did set up the original page, and I do add to it from time to time on her behalf.", which suggested that you were the IP who created the page on 31 Dec 2002 and that you had been editing under her instructions since then, rather than just acting as a fan keeping an eye on the page as fans naturally do. Also "
I used the same name to help Joanne set up some of her internet stuff many moons ago, including a long dead MySpace." which sounded as if you might have been her (paid) IT assistant, rather than just a technically-minded acquaintance. The "22 years" comes from your statement that you set up the page (OK, 21 years from Dec 2002), rather than from your registered editorship.
They pretended to be someone else to take advantage." is a serious but unfounded allegation. Pam D 09:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
spilled in to the real worldand hacked your account and cost you potential work. The talk page of a user who has asked you to stop posting to their talk page is also definitely not the place to have this conversation, please take this somewhere else - see WP:DWH for some suggestions. Belbury ( talk) 10:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
Joanne Harris, 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) 18:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
FirstInAFieldOfOne ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've been editing Wiki for years on and off, but I'd never engaged with the community until recently. I got into an uncomfortable conflict with another user, and I was starting to feel a bit harassed. I completely misunderstood the "Clean Start" guidelines, and I thought it would be easier all round to just start again under another name. I didn't realize that doing this was against the rules. I'm really sorry. I'd very much like to have the chance to start editing again.I'm a reasonably good stylist and an experienced and observant copy-editor. I'd like the opportunity to contribute again. If given the chance to do this I promise to use only one account. Keyserzozie ( talk) 19:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You clearly aren't done writing this unblock request, making modification after modification after you initially posted it. Please do not post an unblock request until it is ready for review, as you clearly do not believe this is. Yamla ( talk) 19:23, 4 February 2024 (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.
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. The guide to appealing blocks said that I could modify my statement whenever I wanted. I didn't mean it to seem disruptive, I just wanted it to be as clear as possible.Can someone else please review this, according to the principle of AGF, or do I need to make the request again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyserzozie ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Looks like you were called upon to address your long standing WP:conflict of interest regarding Joanne Harris and created new accounts to continue editing with a conflict of interest regarding Joanne Harris. Probably, to be unblocked you would need to read and heed WP:COI and agree to use but one account. Other admin's mileage may vary. Best, -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 11:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
where their contributions have been disruptive: I don't believe that KZ's edits have been disruptive. Their edits have been informative and factual, and they have recently come into conflict with another editor with a very definite agenda, which has caused all the recent controversy, in the course of which it transpired that KZ had been editing in ignorance of the COI policy for 22 years. WP:AGF applies.
happy to stick to small factual edits, but as PamD notes above, WP:COIADVICE is much stricter than that.) Belbury ( talk) 09:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
<code>
and <nowiki>
tags at the start and the end of it.
Belbury (
talk) 10:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
FirstInAFieldOfOne ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've been editing Wiki for years on and off, but I'd never engaged with the community until recently. I got into an uncomfortable conflict with another user, and didn't know how to escape it. I completely misunderstood the "Clean Start" guidelines, and I thought it would be easier all round to just start again under another name. I didn't realize that doing this was against the rules. I also didn't realize that I shouldn't make multiple edits to my appeal text, which is why my first appeal was declined. I'm really sorry. I'd very much like to have the chance to start editing again. I'm a reasonably good stylist and an observant copy-editor. I'd like the opportunity to contribute again. If given the chance to do this I promise to use only one account, and to be mindful of the COI rules. Keyserzozie ( talk) 5:44 am, Today (UTC−5)
Accept reason:
Per Primefac below -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want an edit request for new content to be applied, it's best made to the standard for good Wikipedia content, with sources for everything: many editors will outright reject an {{ edit coi}} request that can't be pasted straight into the article, and ask you to try again. I cut some aspects of your recent suggestion (that two novels were "stand-alone" and "explored different aspects of food as a metaphor") because it wasn't obviously true and I couldn't, in a few minutes of searching, find sources to support either statement.
Secondly, you must avoid making any edits that change the meaning of an article where you have a COI, even if they seem trivial to you. Although it's obviously very likely that somebody's sixth form and Cambridge studies wouldn't overlap in any way, the source currently cited in the article doesn't say this. It's not a simple "grammatical" fix to change a paragraph about two things having happened to say that one happened before the other, when the current source doesn't explicitly say that. Belbury ( talk) 09:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to
Joanne Harris while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being
blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's
policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your
IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. . If I'm wrong, please accept my apologies.
Esowteric +
Talk +
Breadcrumbs 10:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)