A rather different title to that of "President of Wales". I also note that Thomas Lynom is not included in the list of Presidents of the Council.
RGCorris (
talk)
13:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I do agree that it is different. For the muddling of the title, William Hake, who probably erected the epitaph, is most likely to blame. Several sources write of Thomas Lynom's involvement in the Council of Wales and the Marches, see for instance Moreana here:
https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/more.2022.0118. What is more significant is that he [Lynom] was at Lichfield in May, 1492, and this is a first sign that he was associated with the service of Arthur, prince of Wales, and of the Council in the Marches of Wales, which had been operating at least since March, 1490, soon after Arthur’s creation as prince. [...] In 1510, 1512, and 1513 Thomas Lynom was a justice of oyer and terminer in the Marches of Wales. [...] Thomas Lynom was a commissioner of the peace again in May, 1518 in North and South Wales, and in the Marches, Cheshire and Flintshire, and Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Shropshire, alongside the other members of the Marcher Council.58 But this was his last appearance in that role, and probably sometime between the May 1 date of that commission and early July he died. On July 6, 1518 a grant was made to Richard Pole, yeoman usher of the chamber, of land in Sutton upon Derwent in Yorkshire, which had been granted previously to Thomas Lynom, now deceased. This property was described as “formerly belonging to one Cathwaite,” and this identifies it with the land in Sutton which had been granted to Thomas Lynom, commissioner in the Marches, in August, 1516 as a “messuage called Cathwayte.” It is very likely therefore that Elizabeth Shore’s husband died early in 1518. Thomas Lynom was a justice of oyer and terminer in the Marches of Wales, and does not appear to have been the President of the Council of Wales and the Marches. There does, however, appear to be little doubt that it is this Thomas Lynom which is meant in the inscription.
ByTheDarkBlueSea (
talk)
13:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello. Remember, that wikipedia is not a genealogical database. With the exception of royal people, it is not necessary to provide all the family members of each person with an article here. Parents, spouse and the number of children is sufficient - children are otherwise only mentioned when they have their own article. Please remember that, and avoid edit warring or else you can be blocked from editing an article. Thank you, and good luck.--
Aciram (
talk)
14:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Ammelida. That was over 50 years ago.
WP:AGEMATTERS. And if you read what Strong writes, he only eliminates Frances Murfyn as the sitter because he errouneously believe she and Sir Richard were married in 1518, going by a wrong source (Noble). In fact, it was Frances's parents that were married that year, putting her in precisely the right age range to be the lady in the portrait. The Portrait is called Portrait of a Lady, probably a Member of the Cromwell Family. Frances Murfyn was a lady and a member of the Cromwell family of exactly the right age of the sitter in the portrait.
ByTheDarkBlueSea (
talk)
08:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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.
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).
Your reason here How in the world am I a sock puppet? You can check my IP address, I am not editing from any other account, nor anymonously
Decline reason:
Well that's how it works with CU, but you know that. Fortunately one can be blocked as a sock without CU evidence; in this case, your edits on
Streatham portrait are as strong a match.
Drmies (
talk)
01:36, 9 May 2024 (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).
Your reason here What is CU? What are your talking about? Because my edits are similar too or because I thought someone else's edits are good and restored them you think I am sockpuppet? I am not the IP address that edited the Streatham Portrait last summer. You can check. I merely thought they were right
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).
Thank you for courteous reply. All right, so this doesn't have anything to do with the edit from this summer, but that you think I am the same as this other user. Okay. That is less than thirty pages of the 268 on my watchlist. I have common interests with many users, I am sure that you will see many of us cropping up on the same pages. Just try the latest ones who have edited the same pages as me, and I am sure in many cases you will see the same if not even more results. I do have a habit of going back on a page's history to see if anything worthwhile has been removed, which might be a flaw I can work on. It has just been my experience that often time some user or another will mess with a page making it muddled. See for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_de_Vere,_16th_Earl_of_Oxford&action=history, where somebody probably in good faith (?) had made a mess, which then persisted even though many good editors had made good edits afterwards. So I always do a check if something looks weird to check that nothing of the sort has happened (references out of whack, years changed randomly, etc. (hilarious to change 1593 to 1596 just to make a mess) etc. Hi again! I just thought of another thing. This other user writes much more elegantly than me. Why I prefer to recover neat things other people have written like mentioned above (and below) and quote. I think I have used much more quotes than the other user. Plus, the other user wrote in a genuinely entertaining way and I am not sure I do at all. When I read through my own contributions they have a very different flair.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
Yes, they are identical because when I go through the log I will obviously see what has been written before. There are many people who have "an odd fascination with genealogical data and people's children".
If you are interested in portraits, there are only so many sources.
The katherinethequeen blog, Lee Porritt, J. Stephan's website, Roland Hui, Melanie V. Taylor, etc. It is a very small community for the newest research. Otherwise you are stuck with with books from the 1960's and 1970's, which great, won't be updated.
ByTheDarkBlueSea (
talk)
16:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but your argument is not credible. Nearly half of BeatriceCastle's edits overlap with nearly a quarter of ByTheDarkBlueSea's edits. despite most of these pages being obscure and not having much traffic; many having been around from 10-to-20 years and only have a few dozen unique editors total in all that time. ByTheDarkBlueSea only started editing after BeatriceCastle was blocked. Both accounts have reworded things from the same blog in the exact same way; it would be normal to see a quote given the exact same way, it's abnormal to see people putting things in their own words the exact same way.
And there are lots of similarities in edit summaries, which would make even less sense to copy from a previous editor. For example, I went through the histories of the overlapping pages one by one and got to 150 uses of the phrase "a bit more" in edit summaries used only by BeatriceCastle and ByTheDarkBlueSea 100% of the time before stopping. In fact, 278 of your 831 edits use the phrase "a bit more" in edit summaries while BeatriceCastle left that as part of the summary 48 times (BeatriceCastle didn't leave edit summaries for a long time).
CoffeeCrumbs (
talk)
23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for going to all that trouble!
I think there is so much identical because when I go through the log I will obviously see what has been written before, and just copy that directly.
When I find a user that I see is interested in much the same things that I am, I will sometimes "follow them around" (not in a creepy way) to see if they have edited other things that I might find interesting. I have done the same thing with several other users. I cannot remember doing that with BeatriceCastle but it was so long ago that I cannot rule it out. Yes, I only started editing after her (? based on the username) so I would have missed all the drama that went on plus she wouldn't have been actively editing so I wouldn't have thought that I was doing anything creepy if I edited several of the same articles. I have no recollection of seeing a blocked user, so if that was what happened I must just have noticed that her edits were a long time ago. I would have been much more careful if I realized it was a blocked user.
Haha, I probably borrowed the "a bit more" from her. As a new user I was very concerned not to do anything wrong, so I copied those around me. If hers were some of the early edits I found I would have probably have copied that phrase, thinking it was neat. English is not my first language. I first edited on another Wikipedia, so I was used to different phrases and had to find the right lingo for the English version.
The similarity of phrasing is because I like to copy directly when possible – barring copyrights issues and its suitability etc., of course – probably because English is not my first language. BeatriceCastle did not have this problem. Neither did she have my habit of going through a page's log. That habit is uniquely my own.
For instance, look at Bassingbourne Gawdy (died 1606), whom we have both edited:
This is an edit from before either of us edited it:
When I edited it, I went back in the log and restored from also from the edit from before either of us edited it, and added my own contributions, the page ending up like this:
OK then, can you name any other editor, in good standing, whose edit summaries *and* rephrased text you also copied so very very closely to the extent that they made up a large percentage of your contributions?
CoffeeCrumbs (
talk)
18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you again for your time!
All right.
I will first draw your attention to the article about John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford, which I mentioned above.
When I first started editing it, it looked like this:
If you read the Family section, it simply does not make any sense. It's muddled and looks like it has been spliced together by several different paragraphs. And the [17] randomly interted into the text looks like it might be a reference, but it is not formatted nor any reference attached.
I then discovered that the muddling had happened trying to copy this text:
"Dorothy fled the marriage in about January 1546, citing "'the vnkynde [unkind] dealing of the earl.'" In May of that year, de Vere bigamously married one of his mistresses, Joan Jockey of Earls Colne, at White Colne Church. Five men (including a knight and a lord) broke into Oxford's home while he was away and either cut Jockey's nose clean off or cut the "skin at the base of the nostrils into flaps to give her a permanently grotesque appearance," a traditional punishment for "unsocial behavior." Though Joan Jockey survived the attack, the Earl definitively 'put her away.'" In 1585, when attesting to the legitimacy of Oxford's marriage to Margery Golding, members of his household reported that "'all theise women were shaken off by the same Earle ... before the said lady Dorothie dyed'" on "about 6 January 1548, at a parsonage located a half mile from distant Salisbury."[17]"
However, the other section I quoted verbatim was a compilation from several users, TomReedy, PaulBarrow, Boleyn, another IP-address 64.180.94.93 (from 19 July 2009), Daytrivia, Lightbot, FeanorStar7, SimonDaw and Phoe:
"He married first Dorothy Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland in Holywell, Shoreditch, London on 3 July 1536, and second Margery Golding in Belchamp St Paul on 1 August 1548.[13] Dorothy Neville (died c. 6 January 1548),[14] His two marriages produced three children. With his first wife, Dorothy, he had Katherine de Vere, who married Edward Windsor, 3rd Baron Windsor. With Margery he had a son, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and a daughter, Mary de Vere. Margery died on 2 December 1568. After his death in Oxford, he was buried in Castle Hedingham, Essex, on 31 August 1562." (I split it in two.)
DrKay was an important early editor on that article.
There I went in manually and copied the coding. Copying is pretty much always how I restore earlier edits.
Let's see . . . I think stole 'Unmuddled' from somewhere/someone. "Make words good", "Better wording", and some other funny phrases I have read elsewhere on Wikipedia before employing them myself.
Most of the edits I make are small, so I am not sure they can compare in bytes with reverted edits from someone who was a verbose writer.
But the pages we have in common is less than 10% of the articles on my watchlist, of whom I have edited on most. I think you will find a similar pattern of interest among many of us who crop up on the same pages. Just try the latest ones who have edited the same pages as me, and I am sure in many cases you will see the same if not even more results.
But if you look at the article for Bess Holland, heavily edited by me, you will see that I have used many quotes:
I can only ask again to be unblocked. I think have the "a bit more" from the Sims community. If you google the phrase "added a bit more information" you will see that it pops in posts from the programming community in the early 2010s. It is possible that both the other user and I were active in this community in that period. A lot of people were. If I then saw another Wikipedia user also using that phrase, I would probably have easily started using it myself. Or I may have started using it independently. Honestly, I do not remember. I have tried using the arrow symbol → and which section I have edited, but it was so much hassle in comparison. Plus, on one of the computers I use for editing, the phrase "Added a bit more information" is the first one that crops up when I edit something and go to the summary, because on that computer all of the edit summaries I have used are listed alphabetically, so that is the reason why I have used it so many times.
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been
autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these
instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our
guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I can only ask again to be unblocked. I think have the "a bit more" from the Sims community. If you google the phrase "added a bit more information" you will see that it pops in posts from the programming community in the early 2010s. It is possible that both the other user and I were active in this community in that period. A lot of people were. If I then saw another Wikipedia user also using that phrase, I would probably have easily started using it myself. Or I may have started using it independently. Honestly, I do not remember. I have tried using the arrow symbol → and which section I have edited, but it was so much hassle in comparison. Plus, on one of the computers I use for editing, the phrase "Added a bit more information" is the first one that crops up when I edit something and go to the summary, because on that computer all of the edit summaries I have used are listed alphabetically, so that is the reason why I have used it so many times. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a
default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I can only ask again to be unblocked. I think have the "a bit more" from the Sims community. If you google the phrase "added a bit more information" you will see that it pops in posts from the programming community in the early 2010s. It is possible that both the other user and I were active in this community in that period. A lot of people were. If I then saw another Wikipedia user also using that phrase, I would probably have easily started using it myself. Or I may have started using it independently. Honestly, I do not remember. I have tried using the arrow symbol → and which section I have edited, but it was so much hassle in comparison. Plus, on one of the computers I use for editing, the phrase "Added a bit more information" is the first one that crops up when I edit something and go to the summary, because on that computer all of the edit summaries I have used are listed alphabetically, so that is the reason why I have used it so many times. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I can only ask again to be unblocked. I think have the "a bit more" from the Sims community. If you google the phrase "added a bit more information" you will see that it pops in posts from the programming community in the early 2010s. It is possible that both the other user and I were active in this community in that period. A lot of people were. If I then saw another Wikipedia user also using that phrase, I would probably have easily started using it myself. Or I may have started using it independently. Honestly, I do not remember. I have tried using the arrow symbol → and which section I have edited, but it was so much hassle in comparison. Plus, on one of the computers I use for editing, the phrase "Added a bit more information" is the first one that crops up when I edit something and go to the summary, because on that computer all of the edit summaries I have used are listed alphabetically, so that is the reason why I have used it so many times. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Hi, I am not sure what I did wrong on my last unblock request, because it doesn't appear to have been reviewed yet. I am sorry for whatever I did wrong on my last request, as that appears not to have been reviewed yet. To whomever is reading this, could you please look at the recent edits on:
I hesitate to say that they are not good faith edits, but I think they should be looked on to see if the community thinks they are improvements on the articles. I can unfortunately not do this myself at the moment. Thank you so much.
I've converted your unblock request into a comment; you may have only one unblock request at a time. Although, I've let the comment stand, you should not be asking other users to look at edits while you're blocked.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
22:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply