User talk:Davinia Priscilla

Welcome![edit]

Hi Davinia Priscilla! 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Diana, Princess of Wales. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The scrutinized information is not needed for that paragraph. Only postive information Davinia Priscilla (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davinia Priscilla! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! DrKay (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Diana[edit]

I don't think the additional information is needed about princess Diana. I think positive information should be written about her. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other contributors to the article are unlikely to be reading your user talk page. I suggest you contribute to the discussion on Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales § The lede instead. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our principle of Neutral Point of View absolutely and utterly rejects the idea that "only positive information" should be written about any topic whatsoever. We accept neither hagiography nor attack pages. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gizelle Bryant[edit]

Hi Davinia! I'm not sure if you saw my response on the Gizelle Bryant wiki about her height. There have been a lot of varying reports on her height ranging from 5'8 - 6 ft. Juan Dixon's height is 6'3 (this is official and on record because of his NBA career) and she doesn't appear to only be 3 inches shorter, though telling the true difference is hard because she wears heels frequently. Either way, her height hasn't been confirmed by a reliable source. Medievalonion (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Majority of sources I seen they all said 6ft. Besides you can't go off height on people based on what you think a person looks like compared to someone else. Besides many housewives have their height noted without it being officially confirmed. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many of the pages that list her height as 6ft use Wikipedia as their source, so this data point should be removed until there is a reliable source that provides it. Heights are generally included in runway model and professional athlete biographies, so removing it until we find reliable citations doesn't significantly negatively impact the page. Medievalonion (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Off topic to you know how to correctly copyright a image ? Davinia Priscilla (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are copyrighted automatically. The copyright owner would be whoever took the picture (although they can transfer copyright to someone else). In order to use the image in Wikipedia, there needs to be permission from the copyright owner. See WP:PERMISSION for more information. ... discospinster _talk 21:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Hi Davinia Priscilla! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Rosbif73 (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim without evidence and shouldn't be noted. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You provided the evidence. If you continue edit warring, expect consequences. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where the evidence to suggest such a thing. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You told us, at the help desk, you had hired someone to write the article. They acted dishonestly and did not disclose their paid editing status. It seems they are continuing to be dishonest and demanding more money from you. You need to accept that you made a mistake and break contact with them. There's now a discussion on the talk page about the templates - that's where you need to be, not edit warring to remove them. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No there's a misunderstanding. As a editor I wanted to add more information to the page. I was advised by wikipedia I can do so, just with more references. English is my second language so when I write it can get confusing in translation. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. You were very clear. Trying to backtrack now is just making things worse. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no back tracking. I've gone to dispute resolution because obviously there's a mis understanding. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 18:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be the issue. I have used the help desk in going about adding additional information on pages. Not sure why I can't be provided with the assistance. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davinia Priscilla you can read the reason at the noticeboard but basically I think you might be another blocked user and you were edit warring, which I now see you have since been blocked for.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 19:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Gizelle Bryant) for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below the block notice on your talk page:


{{unblock reviewed|decline=Please seek unblocking from your original account. ~~~~|1=Your reason here ~~~~}}

. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi valeree,

I accept this decision due to my error in wording a request. Once the blockages expires, please can I have assistance in adding new references to the page please. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 18:22, 4 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Davinia Priscilla (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please show where you have obtained consensus for your change, either before or after the block on editing the article itself. Yamla (talk) 18:56, 4 April 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.

Misinterpreted a request on adding references to a page Davinia Priscilla (talk) 18:38, 4 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Davinia Priscilla (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, not all other editors, just admins. Second, you were warned about edit warring, which is against policy, both recently and a few months ago. A noticeboard discussion about you was started, which notes that in addition to the edit warring you seem to be a sockpuppet of another editor who was indefinitely blocked last year for similar edits. In those situations there is no requirement to warn. You did a lot more than just ask a question, and you know it. As Star Mississippi observed, you are lucky not to have been dealt with more harshly. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 5 April 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.

very offended as to other editors can block you even though you have not carried out any edits that go against wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia really should look into their policies, no engagement about resolving any dispute was made to me. You straight just blocked me for asking a question. Unless I made contact no one would have seen the need to block me. Very disappointed. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Davinia Priscilla (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of your unblock requests have addressed the reasons for your block. Valeree has explained to you why your conduct was deemed disruptive and why you were blocked and an eventual unblock request will have to discuss those problems. That said, since this account is a sock puppet created to evade a block, it will not be unblocked. So I suggest you go back to your original account, wait six months without editing or creating further sock puppets and take the standard offer. At the moment, that's your only way to get unblocked. Understand, however, that even if you wait six months, it's not guaranteed that you will unblocked. You will have to post a convincing unblock request. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:10, 5 April 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.

Goal post keeps moving all the time based on a query I asked from the help desk. I'm seeking legal advise, you can't advertise for users to seek help by the help desk and then you block a person. Everything that has been done to my account is based off no factual evidence I've done anything that doesn't follow the guidelines. I'm not a sockpupppet, if I never asked a question yesterday you would not had blocked me, as I have not conducted my account that has raised serious suspicions to be blocked. You talk about edit warring, if other editors are add misinformation to a page which is not accurate, like other editors I can change that. You warned me I sought a dissolution my talking to the other editors talk page to compromise on that issue and then you blocked me. In no way through this process have you tried to help me or answer any of my queries or seek out a resolution. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Davinia. I know this is frustrating, but you're showing a lot of misunderstanding of Wikipedia.

First, we cannot give legal advice. Second, you appear to be an account created because the last account you used was blocked; we consider this WP:block evasion and WP:sockpuppetry, both of which are blockable offenses. Third, we did try to help: We advised you that you stop paying anyone to edit Wikipedia. Fourth, no, you cannot WP:edit war (also a blockable offense) to force your preferred version, even if you believe is it the correct version; the way to handle such content disputes is by going to the article talk pages and discussing to persuade others of the correctness of your version by providing WP:reliable sources that support it. I do not understand what You warned me I sought a dissolution my talking to the other editors talk page to compromise on that issue means.

You've now made several declined unblock requests. I suggest you take some time to read the links above and, crucially, WP:Guide to appealing blocks and come back with a good unblock request. If you don't, you're likely to lose talk page access. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user used "legal advice" incorrectly, as English is not their first language; I think they mean they were seeking help understanding Wikipedia policies. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I didn't consider that they meant policy advice. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 5 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Davinia Priscilla (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. DrKay (talk) 17:24, 13 April 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.

Hello,

I have read into guide of appealing block as advised by Valereee. I can understand the confusion and i apologies for any disruptive manner i have came across in trying to seek advise on adding additional references to a page correctly. If you check my trail on my talk page, this all started from me reaching out to the help desk. So if I intended to keep myself hidden as being a sockpuppetry I wouldn't have reached out. My intention from the beginning was to seek advise nothing more. When I saw editors putting tags on the page based on misinterpretation of how I wrote the message. I have to admit I was very frustrated because no one attempted to understand my point but auomatically changed the page and came to assumptions without evidence. I am sorry for what has happened and can assure this wouldn't happen again. I request for my account to be unblocked. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]