User talk:Beautiful Rosie

Welcome!

Hello, Beautiful Rosie! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Peaceray (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Beautiful Rosie. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Murder of Don Banfield, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has stood for a long time and has contained misrepresentation of the facts, misquoting the precise details, omission of counter argument, and harmful insinuations without the balance of or benefit of the other side. This is incomplete information, misleading and after repeated requests in the talk page, I felt that I needed to try and rectify the harm. The majority of the offensive, imbalances were written by a banned prolific sockpuppet, but these have been left in place Beautiful Rosie (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coi

"If there is a problem with an article about yourself, a family member, a friend or a colleague, please read Biographies of living persons/Help. If you spot a problem with an article, you can fix it directly, by clicking on the "Edit" link at the top of that page. See the "edit an article" section of this page for more information. "

All additional information is verifiable sources. It is not spin. That is hurtful and untrue. Other editors included in the development of this article clearly were happy for the edits to remain. They are not meant to be disruptive, they add additional information about the judges findings. The edit to the other article was because I thought that it read better. I came across it when trying to figure out where you were at. That's all. Regarding your initial edit, you deleted everything. There is relevant information about the judges decision. It is now balanced by the addition of other sources. I took nothing away, how can more information be bad?.. The sockpuppet added information that doesn't relate to the sources cited, and a lot of suppositions. I left that. I thought if others are happy, I'll just add for balancing, from verifiable sources. That is NOT spin. No-one else had a problem with my additions for a month. You deleted everything, I feel that that is disruptive. I was not paid for editing, and may have previously misunderstood the guidelines, but apparently one can fix a problem with an article, if it's declared, when I understood I did explain why. Please see my reply. Everything is verifiable, so there is no reason or justification for deleting everything. If you read through you'll see that there was insufficiency in the original artical, with omission, and incomplete information, and inaccurate quotes. I don't understand why you don't think that a reader can understand both sides with the benefit of all the information to hand. I don't want an argument. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia, but I'm actually trying to make good additions. It's a shame you just felt the need to delete it all without leaving the up to date information. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Beautiful Rosie (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in sorry. It's bc I feel harassed by someone, and they followed me there, and began to dominate the narrative. It's a shame bc someone gave me good advice on how to request an edit,and npov and they were very nice. I'm sorry. I'm just feeling a bit intimidated and harassed by someone right now.I was asking a general question, just wanted advice, I didn't mention them, but they were there again.I deleted it in case they started again, they've been making public suggestions 're who I am irl, it's upsetting really the whole thing. Thanks anyway and sorry for that.Thanks so much for letting me know. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're being harassed and require removal for that reason, you could consider requesting removal via the address given at Wikipedia:Oversight. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Murder of Don Banfield

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Murder of Don Banfield, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Murder of Don Banfield) for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please seek consensus for your edits on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the article states untrue defamatory made up statements that are attributed to sources, but if you check don't relate to the sources cited. I have a declared coi, but can change outright lies if no-one else cares to. This is malicious misrepresentations, spiteful and it deliberately maliciously misleads. The assertions made do not relate to the sources cited. I have better things to do. I have a lovely life. This is on your site. The foundation cleverly accepts no liability for this, and doesn't endorse it. Those writing its are responsible for these lies, even if you all hide, a solicitor will have to get involved, and the absent parent of your spiteful people will have to disclose your identities. You are responsible for these lies, and fake related cites. I don't know if you're all thick or just unhappy? Probably both. I'm glad I've been silenced officially, it helps my case. Goodbye Beautiful Rosie (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're all a bit thick, so by absent parent I mean the Wikipedia foundation, the Wikipedia legal department accepts no liability and says it doesn't endorse any of this, so they will have to disclose your identities, because this is defamatory and doesn't even have the correct cites to back it up. Deliberately or not I don't care at this stage. It also lies by omission. You all need to get jobs, houses,people around you other than your mental health care professionals..they don't count. I have a declared coi, you lot just have nothing in your lives. So sad. Weird, I actually feel sorry for you, no doubt if you're exposed, and I sue you'll rely on your numerous "health conditions"to avoid accountability again,and you'll have no assets or jobs so maybe they'll just stop a bit out of all the benefits you no doubt claim.smh. but at least you'll be exposed. Honestly, it's been like arguing with a dead pigeon, but that'd comprehend more than you band of desperately sad pseudo intellectual losers.Get a job, get a life of your own, achieve something, and maybe you can write about yourself someday, just try to stop making things up, and completely attributing them to sources that don't back up what you're saying. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have previously reported that the article contains information that is wrongful, and opinion and defamatory and is cited to sources that don't back up what is being said, which in large part were written by a sockpuppet. This is a personal matter, which is why I held off from editing for so long, but there is either intentional malice here, or no-one cares to check. I am going to go through the motions of requesting an unblock, so I can show that I explained all of this regarding opinion stated as facts and attributed to cites. The cited do not say what is said in the article, critical legal facts have been rewritten, and opinions stated as facts, genuine facts omitted to create a false narrative. I have previously reported this. I have been silenced, whilst defamatory untruths are being maliciously displayed by your revolting website. So I requested an unblock, to demonstrate that I have been silenced and bullied from trying to correct this wrongdoing. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your request due to your personal attacks and legal threats; I'm also making the block indef and sitewide. When you are ready to abide by our policies, you may request unblock then. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot stop you from using the courts of your country according to its laws, but you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia using Wikipedia processes, but not both at the same time. If there are errors in the article you edited, we want to know what those are, but this must be done in a civil, collaborative manner in accordance with our policies. You will need to unequivocally withdraw any and all threats of legal action in order to be unblocked; you will also need to refrain from making personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are not legal threats, but you're right that there's no point in discussing them here. They are to be pursued privately.I withdraw threats, and discussing them openly here. Any legal action is a private matter. The errors are numerous, and I have reported them previously.I held back on editing, but when I (and others) did it was immediately reverted without the issues behind it being looked at. This article states opinion as facts. It lies in places, and then attributes the lies to sources that don't back up what is being said. The legality of the case is speculative and rewritten here. I don't know if this is with malicious intent, but as the errors have been previously pointed out (numerous times) ignorance cannot be a defence. I'm at the end of my tether. This has been going on for a year in August. I have a nice life, and want to get back to enjoying it, but it is wrongful that defamatory and outsourced untruths should be allowed to be presented on a public site. I don't understand how that is actually allowed, but the Wikipedia foundation cleverly accepts no liability, so that's how. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still indicate you are going to pursue legal action "privately" so you still have legal threats outstanding. You must unequivocally withdraw any and all threats of legal action as part of being unblocked. Again, if you wish to pursue legal action, we cannot stop you, but you can't edit Wikipedia if you do.

You will also need to refrain from attacks on other editors. You don't know anyone's background. I have a full time job, own my home, and am in good health, I am here in my spare time because I enjoy participating in this project and support its goals. Don't give in to stereotypes. If you agree to do these things, please make another unblock request for someone else to review. If the issues you raise are accurate, they are serious and need to be addressed, but this must be done in a civil manner in collaboration with others, without threats and attacks.

You say you declared a COI, but I don't see where you did this. I may have missed it. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this has been going on for a year in August. I am exhausted by going around in circles. I will remain silenced on Wikipedia, as I have been left with no option but to pursue this through the courts, as Wikipedia legal department accepts no liability, and refuses to endorse this article. They say it's up to you guys. So, I'm out of options, and will have to pursue them via legal counsel to release to us the real names of individuals responsible for this. It's defamatory. It relies on cites, but these bear no resemblance to the opinions stated. it is a deliberate, malicious and dishonest misrepresentation of the case by omission of inconvenient information to create a narrative, and also just outright lying in other parts. It misquotes a witness statement by Dr Karia, it fabricated facts, and is sensationalist and excessive, it also deliberately maliciously misunderstands the legal position of Mr William Clegg KC, and tone is wrongful, and one of attempting to challenge the defence and champion the prosecution. It even misquoted the prosecution, and for example states that there were "previously murder attempts" even the the prosecution doesn't state that position. It relies on court papers in places, with no secondary sources to back up what is being said. It uses facts from certain sources, but deliberately and dishonestly ignores contradictory quotes from equally verifiable sources. So I'll stay blocked, but ignorance is not a defence here. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. See WP:LEGAL for how you or your lawyer may contact the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying you are happy for defamatory unsourced untruths to remain. I have been silenced.This article contains literal lies. It's pathetic. BTW it some stereotypical views exist for a reason. Only deeply unhappy people who have no lives would write this article, or keep reverting it. I'm blessed to have a lovely life, I feel sorry for all of you, despite your spiteful petty little article. See you in court.The Wikipedia foundation will not protect you. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy about any error in an article, and want to fix it, but you have elected to do so through the courts. You have silenced yourself. If you change your mind, and agree to withdraw any and all threats of legal action and/or end legal actions underway, so you can pursue corrections using Wikipedia processes, you may request unblock as instructed. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested to me that you should be permitted to retain access to this page. I am not certain that is a good idea, but I respect the experience and knowledge of the source of the suggestion, so I will restore your access. The offer above remains open if you are prepared to abide by our guidelines and processes. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am effectively silenced. I have been bullied into silence by this horrendous "community" of trolls . Continuously blocked from addressing the issues by "erratic drumlin" who keeps reverting or getting admins to without checking the actual issues. "Erratic drumlin" came back after a long hiatus( on that particular account) just to do this it appears. So I tried the "talk" for the hundredth time and other brave anonymous individuals stated things like " stop begging,we're declining",( I never beg btw, I was just asking anyone to address this). Just wonderful to imagine such power, the ability to lie, libel and dishonestly distort reality and refuse to remove the lies with impunity. To bravely anonymously bully any challengers into silence. The Wikipedia foundation cleverly accepts no liability. This article states opinion as facts. It outright lies in places, and then attributes the lies to sources that don't back up what is being said. It omits information. The legality of the case is speculative and rewritten here. I don't know if this is due to malicious intent, but regardless the errors have been previously pointed out (numerous times) so ignorance cannot be a defence. It is wrongful that defamatory and unsourced untruths should be allowed to be presented on a public site about real people. I have tried multiple times to address what is wrongful, dishonest and defamatory. I have been silenced from addressing this through the site itself, and any attempts to amend are reverted without being addressed.Bullied into silence. This has stood for nearly a year. This is malicious misrepresentations. It is in part lies that are unsourced, or deliberately dishonestly cited. The entire narrative is wrongful. It champions the prosecution case, whilst deliberately maliciously misrepresenting the defence position. Events are created and completely distorted and referenced falsely to cites. Events that are contradicted in equally verifiable sources are included, with the sources most preferable to this defamatory narrative given, and the other report disregarded. So, we will have to legally acquire the identities of those involved in this. I will also contact Ofcom. As information is being misused, twisted, and this cannot be a public interest argument. I thought I had prevented that possibility with my numerous attempts to address this, maybe sometimes inappropriately, but someone far cleverer than me pointed out that those many many attempts are just indicative of the amount of harm done by this article, and the opportunities presented to you to engage without the involvement from outside parties. Which you have repeatedly declined. Your site has continuously refused to engage with me, or address the serious issues raised. I won't return to this site. I find it incredibly spiteful, childish petty and toxic. No doubt you'll delete/ surpress this bc that's what you lot do when challenged, but thats ok I have a record of it, and everything else. I'm going to leave this to professionals to deal with. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]