User talk:ByTheDarkBlueSea

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

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

May 2024

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.

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. |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. |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. |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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ByTheDarkBlueSea&oldid=1223057146"