User talk:ByTheDarkBlueSea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hi ByTheDarkBlueSea! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Shelley, 1st Baronet[edit]

Don't mean to be rude, but the article seems poorly constructed. Maybe you can review your work and improve it?? Regards. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been meaning to add something to it, will see if I can improve the article ~~~~ ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Shore[edit]

You said "Thomas Lynom, President of Wales, was Jane Shore's husband." There has never been a "President" of Wales. RGCorris (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a President of the Council of Wales and the Marches, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Wales_and_the_Marches. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Which "inscription" or "epitaph" are you referring to, and what precisely does it say ? RGCorris (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found it in the Jane Shore article and clarified the meaning. RGCorris (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's great, thank you. That was much better, I agree. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geneaology[edit]

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. Please address this on the talk page of the article. Please do not address me on my talk page any more. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Murfyn[edit]

Hi ByTheDarkBlueSea, There is no known portrait of the wife of Sir Richard Williams alias Cromwell. Please note that portraits are identified by art historians after meticulous research. I have removed Portrait of a Lady, probably a Member of the Cromwell Family, c. 1535–40 by Hans Holbein the Younger from Richard Williams (alias Cromwell) as it was misleading. The lady has been identified by art historian, Roy Strong as probably Elizabeth Seymour.
Toledo Museum of Art: "Portrait of a Lady, probably a Member of the Cromwell Family, c. 1535-40, Hans Holbein the Younger". Toledo Museum of Art. Toledo, Ohio. Retrieved 25 March 2020. "The painting belonged to the Cromwells for centuries, so she was probably a member of that prominent family. It has been suggested that she may be Elizabeth Seymour, daughter-in-law of Henry's powerful government minister Thomas Cromwell and sister of Henry's third wife, Jane Seymour."
National Portrait Gallery, London: "Unknown woman, formerly known as Catherine Howard, late 17th century". National Portrait Gallery. London. Retrieved 26 March 2020. "This portrait was previously identified as Catherine Howard, fifth wife of Henry VIII. The sitter is now thought to be a member of the Cromwell family, perhaps Elizabeth Seymour (c.1518–1568), sister of Henry VIII's third wife, Jane Seymour, and wife of Thomas Cromwell's son Gregory." Ammelida (talk) 08:07, 9 May 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[edit]

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

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).

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

There's an extreme overlap in edits between the two accounts. See here. I'm not convinced this is purely coincidence. Yamla (talk) 09:45, 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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

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/w/index.php?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.

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.
Administrator use only:

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=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/w/index.php?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. |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=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/w/index.php?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 = {{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=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/w/index.php?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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Come on. This edit is identical to this edit, and both accounts have this odd fascination with genealogical data and people's children. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • And while we're on the topic, I can't help but wonder what your connection is to that katherinethequeen blog, and why you, a number of times from a number of different accounts, would cite stuff that starts with "I should be upfront with you. I do not have a shred of evidence to support this theory." Drmies (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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".
    Se for instance:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Manners,_1st_Duke_of_Rutland
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Grey,_1st_Marquess_of_Dorset
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Arundell_(1474–1545)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Essex
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Arundell_of_Wardour_Castle
    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:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bassingbourne_Gawdy_(died_1606)&oldid=982504938
    This is how the page looked like when BeatriceCastle started editing it:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bassingbourne_Gawdy_(died_1606)&oldid=1042969863
    This is how it looked when BeatriceCastle was done with it:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bassingbourne_Gawdy_(died_1606)&oldid=1065866219
    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:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bassingbourne_Gawdy_(died_1606)&oldid=1120004277 ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_de_Vere,_16th_Earl_of_Oxford&oldid=1120158646
    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.
    This is how the page looked before the muddling:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_de_Vere,_16th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=next&oldid=957959722
    Then the muddling happened here (quite possibly in good faith!):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_de_Vere,_16th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=next&oldid=1017426607
    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]"
    from this article:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Neville,_4th_Earl_of_Westmorland
    Into the one about John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford.
    I unmuddled it here and here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_de_Vere,_16th_Earl_of_Oxford&oldid=1179458577
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_de_Vere,_16th_Earl_of_Oxford&oldid=1179458577
    So I copied the above quoted text verbatim from
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Neville,_4th_Earl_of_Westmorland
    Unfortunately this edit originally seems to have been from an IP address :(
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Neville,_4th_Earl_of_Westmorland&diff=prev&oldid=1027575125
    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.)

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard_(died_1437)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Howard,_2nd_Duke_of_Norfolk

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]
All right, thank you. I won't do that again. Sorry. I didn't know that. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ByTheDarkBlueSea&oldid=1225497443"