User talk:Fairchristabelle

March 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Excirial. An edit you recently made to William Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to William Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Soap has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You cannot copy content from http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/history-science-technology-and-medicine/history-science/the-history-soapmaking. General Ization ^Talk 15:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism and copyright infringements

Hello. My Wikipedia user name is Fairchristabelle.

I was recently blocked indefinitely for various reasons, at the source of which was a disagreement with your moderators over my own copyrighted work, which I have been accused copying. This is quite illogical, but I shall swallow it because I have had similarly idiotic transactions with Wikipedia before.

Anyway, I want to make a confession of further infringements of even more blatant acts of plagiarism, specifically in terms of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

I am sorry to say that all my contributions to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lever,_1st_Viscount_Leverhulme

were stolen from:

Jolly, W. P., Lord Leverhulme a Biography, Constable, London, (1976) ISBN 978-0-09-461070-5.

Although this was done in ignorance, it is nevertheless in flagrant infringement of the Wikipedia edicts. I did attempt to remove the offending edits, but I was blocked while doing so. I must therefore insist that ALL these edits are removed forthwith, otherwise I shall be obliged to inform the publisher and author of said work.

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evening News. 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) 10:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Fairchristabelle. 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)[reply]

Copyright problem: Edith Rigby[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Edith Rigby, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20170227064121/http://englishessaypartners.co.uk/data/documents/William-Lever-and-Edith-Rigby.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Edith Rigby and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Edith Rigby, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Edith Rigby. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Edith Rigby with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Edith Rigby saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! David Biddulph (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bunch of BBB - I am, as I have already made clear to you - the author of the document you refer to as stolen from "https://web.archive.org/web/20170227064121/http://englishessaypartners.co.uk/data/documents/William-Lever-and-Edith-Rigby.pdf" Moreover, the website [englishessaypartners] belonged to me before I deleted it. My research on this subject - Edith Rigby and Roynton Cottage - was published in the Bolton Evening News in June 2013. My paper/article is well written (sorry for that) and referenced an cited to academic standards (sorry for that as well) What exactly do you want?

Your contributions aren't as important as you think[edit]

If all you're going to do is drip sarcasm, brag about your PhD (protip: it's not as impressive as you think, and bragging about it makes you look like a fool), continue to refuse to listen to people who patiently explain how to fix something you've done wrong, and make oblique threats that "I think I have worked out who you are", then please just go away. We don't need you here. If you think you can behave like a decent human being, then welcome.

Your choice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, so there's no confusion: I will block you from editing if you continue this way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are yours. "Brag about my PhD" just about sums you up. I've made some important, valid and meaningful contributions to this "body", all of which I have been obliged to delete.

FairchristabelleFairchristabelle (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“They will hate you if you are beautiful. They will hate you if you are successful. They will hate you if you are right. They will hate you if you are popular. They will hate you when you get attention. They will hate you when people in their life like you. They will hate you if you worship a different version of their God. They will hate you if you are spiritual. They will hate you if you have courage. They will hate you if you have an opinion. They will hate you when people support you. They will hate you when they see you happy. Heck, they will hate you while they post prayers and religious quotes on Pinterest and Facebook. They just hate. However, remember this: They hate you because you represent something they feel they don’t have. It really isn’t about you. It is about the hatred they have for themselves. So smile today because there is something you are doing right that has a lot of people thinking about you.” ― Shannon L. Alder

FairchristabelleFairchristabelle (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at William Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for vandalizing an article in retribution for not getting your way.

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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin can unblock without talking to me first if it appears this isn't going to continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I am quite new to Wikipedia and I was not used to its many rules regarding copyright. I have made many edits and (I hope) useful contributions in the months since I registered. Not being used to my work being edited by people I don’t know, I found my first experience of this (to say the least) somewhat infuriating. I wish to apologise sincerely for my rash and irrational outburst. I should have known better and I can assure you that there will be no repeat of this childish nonsense. Fairchristabelle (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Decline as this is now a WP:SPI. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairchristabelle -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2017 (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.

From the looks of this talk page, there are other problems that need to be addressed. The latest outburst was merely the last straw. I think we need overall a commitment to leaving your petulance at home. We need a commitment to reading and heeding the polices and guidelines referenced in the foregoing discussions. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]