User talk:SPQHH

June 2025

Hello, I'm Criticize. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Criticize (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baron of Cuckfield (July 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baron of Cuckfield and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SPQHH! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baron of Cuckfield (July 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baron of Cuckfield and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baron of Cuckfield (July 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baron of Cuckfield and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Cuckfield. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, @Theroadislong. Thank you for your message. I would be grateful on what constitutes a reliable source. I have made no syntheses, but based my article on a respected legal textbook on the topic (which was cited earlier).

I look forward to hearing from you. SPQHH (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Cuckfield, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong as far as I understand, the historic points up to the 'Present' section are forms of secondary research (taken from the National Archives sources ultimately). Do let me know what exact sources you feel would constitute an objective take on the article. I want to help reflect and share with others interesting, provoking and perhaps random facts about my local area in a true, accurate and fair way. Any help would be greatly appreciated. We're all on the same side, aren't we? x SPQHH (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Haywards Heath. Theroadislong (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong I take much of the authority for this from the Cuckfield article. Similarly, let me know how I can help Wikipedia here keep things objective. x SPQHH (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Cuckfield. Please stop or you will be taken to WP:ANI Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, SPQHH. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Cuckfield, 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 article subjects 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 Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. In particular if you have a relationship to the Christian Alexander Pitt who you keep adding to the articles on Cuckfield and Haywards Heath and is a major subject of the draft article Draft:Baron of Cuckfield Erp (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, @Erp. Thank you for your message.

I may confirm that I am an independent party in these edits. In my professional life, I am a lawyer and read Mediaeval history at University. As such, I have no relationship with any individuals in question.

I shall use the talk pages as suggested; however, my edits are factual knowledge in the public domain.

Again, I repeat there is no conflict of interest. Thank you for raising the point on avoiding links to outside organisations. I am new to Wikipedia!

This is all in my spare time, and no remuneration comes about from my hobby.

I only include Christian Pitt in the articles because (whilst I am fascinated with the man from what I have researched) he happens to hold the office of lord of the manor for this area of England.

I shall be grateful for any further guidance.

Beatrice x SPQHH (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked

Despite a number of warnings, you have continued to add material to various articles without any sources. Therefore, I have prevented you from editing articles (although not this page, talk pages, or Wikipedia admin pages). Please read the link in the first sentence, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. When you have done this, if you believe you can follow Wikipedia policies, please copy the string {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} into this page (obviously replacing "Your reason here" with your reason for being allowed to edit articles again). Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Thank you for sending me the link to NOR and synthesis. Yes, in hindsight I see that is what I have done and not shown the correct authority to cite. I shall keep this in mind with future edits. Forgive me for any confusion or vexation I may have caused. It was far from intended. I shall keep this in mind with future edits as now I understand how articles are written correctly. I was getting upset for the wrong reasons! hah Beatrice x

Accept reason:

Okay, I have unblocked you. Welcome back!

If you have questions regarding citing sources, OR/synthesis, or anything else for that matter, please feel free to ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPQHH (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Black Kite: based on the above assurances, are you happy for me to unblock? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Yes, sorry I missed this previously. Black Kite (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]