User talk:Goodreg3/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Nomination of Hey Dude (company) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hey Dude (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Dude (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Scotland

added a link pointing to Free Church of Scotland

Stewarton

added a link pointing to Fenwick

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries

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. Thanks!

As I have noted in my own edit summaries, many of your edits would appear to be pointless foutering about, not helped by the fact that you rarely provide an edit summary to explain them. That's not to say that an edit summary would necessarily justify your change but at least it would give others a start in understanding your intended aim. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries (2)

What was the point of this unnecessarily aggressive edit summary? Fact is your previous edit was badly incorrect and you had to correct it rather than, as your edit summary misleadingly claims, you just ‘undid’ my revert. It’s perfectly reasonable to question whether 3 years is worth mentioning. Your response, with an inarticulate made up word (‘un-write’), isn’t an answer to the question I posed and is pretty lacking in WP:AGF. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Edinburgh

added a link pointing to Princess Street

Glasgow

added a link pointing to STV

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Stewarton Academy moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Stewarton Academy, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. Currently, the only two sources are primary sources, and therefore do not go to notability. You need several sources which go in-depth about the school from independent sources to show it passes notability criteria. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Local Government and Communities Directorate moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Local Government and Communities Directorate, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stewarton Academy has been accepted

Stewarton Academy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ewen Cameron on The Late Show.png

Thanks for uploading File:Ewen Cameron on The Late Show.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 01:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rugby Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

File:East Ayrshire flag.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:East Ayrshire flag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 02:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kindergarten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Care Inspectorate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Files listed for discussion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 23 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

Thank you. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (4th request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hope (Susan Boyle album) into Susan Boyle. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marr College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brogue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Portrait is best

I notice you have reverted a number of additions of new photos of higher res to articles with the comment "portraits are best". Is this a policy and who is to judge what is a portrait as I think all the photos considered were all "portraits". Thanks Victuallers (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Official portraits are better in the infoboxes for government ministers, if available. In this case, official portraits are available and should be used. This is common practice across Wikipedia. Please gain consensus prior to reverting. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you have invented this policy. Should we use Winston Churchill's official photo? The current article uses a very unofficial Canadian portrait. I think you are claiming a consensus for what you think should be policy. To use a c.170 x 200 image when a c.1700 by 2000 image is available (and actually taken by a her government is ridiculous). Please supply a policy and/or the consensus for your point of view or stop reverting. If these people resign then in 25 years we will still be using a very poor res picture of them despite hi res pictures being available. Sorry not convinced. I think you should "Please gain consensus prior to reverting." Only one of us has done any reverting. Victuallers (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your tone. You changed the infobox images without getting consensus so in this case it is you that you are arguing against. Goodreg3 (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a discussion. (I haven't made any reverts so I was surprised that you told me to "not revert". That didn't seem to AGF.) I understood that your objection was that "portraits are best". I asked for the rationale as I didnt understand and the phrase is ambiguous (as it could mean content or frame shape). You say that you actually meant "Official portraits are better" and "should be used". You had made a revert of the photo of Roseanna Cunningham, the image you reverted to is not an "official portrait" but one of many taken by ScotGov's photographer and issued with 1000s of others with a free license. It was the same photographer as the one who took the more recent photo I added instead. It was just as official as the one I replaced it with. Was this a mistake, is this about "official" portraits? Can you explain? Is this just about putting a comment on the talk page for a week before making the change? Or is about "official portraits"? I apologise if you don't like my tone but I am finding it difficult to pin down your rationale. Victuallers (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Official portraits" are used by the government in an official capacity, professionally taken and photographed when the minister is appointed to a particular cabinet position. I do not see how the image you replaced it with is better, despite the fact it is a newer image. The image currently on the page has no background and only shows the person in question. The fact an image is "newer" is not a valid argument for changing it. In this case, pages such as Margaret Thatcher will have images of her in 2004 which are available through Commons. Instead, her "official government portrait" is used. Goodreg3 (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Now I understand all of that. I know what an official portrait is. I suspect that actually the picture of Margaret Thatcher used in her article is not in fact the official one otherwise it would have an OGL license... and in the case of Roseanna Cunningham both of the pictures are just as "official" as each other. So do we agree that this idea of an "official portrait" is in fact irrelevant here and your objection is not based on whether its official or not. Actually, you say now, its down to "background" and only showing the person in question. I can understand that view - I'm glad we have put that other stuff to one side. Now I haven't claimed that I have an argument in each case for making the change apart from the fact that they are IMO better. I don't need a better argument than that. That's how Wikipedia works. If they were good or featured class articles then I would have discussed the change on the talk page. If anyone (e.g.me) makes a change and you can see that the new image is in your opinion "no better" why revert (with no consensus). Surely we encourage editors to "be bold" and then people, with a rationale, can then talk about their arguments for reverting. If you think someone (eg me) has made it worse then tell them the reason. We can then discuss that reason and decide if your rationale is convincing. I will try and ensure that I find a photo for Roseanna that is IMO better (and doesn't contain a background), and if you think it is worse then we can discuss your argument. Have I missed something? Victuallers (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Halo Kilmarnock.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Halo Kilmarnock.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kevin Bridges

added a link pointing to Live at the Apollo

Riding on the Tide of Love

added a link pointing to Pop

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Dancing to a Different Beat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dancing to a Different Beat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing to a Different Beat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Richard3120 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tom Urie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2014 Commonwealth Games opening ceremony, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Red Arrow, Amy MacDonald and Mark Beaumont.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Robert Burns Academy.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Robert Burns Academy.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:William McIlvaney Campus.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:William McIlvaney Campus.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:River City title card 2020.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:River City title card 2020.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gavin Magnus

Hello, Goodreg3

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Whiteguru, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Gavin Magnus, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Whiteguru (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ayr. 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. The recent change from "largest" to "second largest" was never sourced. As far as I can tell it is the largest, but neither of you has sourced your version or discussed it. It's not appropriate for you to leave an edit summary stating that you will request that the user "be blocked for engaging in an edit war and not providing the requested references to support your [his] claim" when you have never warned the editor, never discussed the edit on a talk page, and are engaged in exactly the same behaviour as the other editor (edit warring to your preferred unsourced version). If anything, the Honestman is restoring the article to its original state. I have simply removed the claim. Meters (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you will actually find that this edit was sourced and had been sourced from the outset of the change on the article. The other user in question regarding this edit war is failing to provide a reference to dispute otherwise. For the avoidance of doubt, please see the original provided reference to support the fact that Kilmarnock is now the largest settlement in Ayrshire. Please ensure you are fully aware of the situation regarding references being provided by myself from the outset before highlighting this. Thank you. ^[1] Goodreg3 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Take it to the article's talk page. I have already started the thread. I warned both of you for edit warring, and I removed the claim entirely pending talk page consensus.

Please read WP:EW. You are clearly edit warring. You have not discussed this on the article's talk page. You have not warned the other user, but you are threatening to have him blocked for edit warring. And despite what you claim, I do not see this supposed reference (or any other reference for the claim) in the article. Meters (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

References

^ https://newmunicipalism.ballotbox.scot/ayrshire

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Hi (Texas album)

added links pointing to BMG and Pop

Sharleen Spiteri

added a link pointing to BMG

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Texas articles and Cocteau Twins discography

Hello. I'm a little concerned about your recent edits to articles for releases by the band Texas. Firstly, on Hi (album), it looks as if you semi-plagiarised from several sources, namely the Albumism reference, to describe songs. These quotes to describe the sound of several songs should have been between quotation marks to denote they were taken directly from sources, otherwise this could be considered a copyright violation per WP:COPYVIO. Secondly, you apparently copied the chart table directly from the article for Jump on Board and only changed the chart positions. The names in the album= parameters were wrong, and the German chart link pointed to the entry for Jump on Board. All these errors have been fixed, but please be more careful and change such things in future.

Not only this, but also on the articles you started for Let's Work It Out and Can't Control, you have taken French chart positions from Texas discography, seemingly trusting that information without verifying the chart positions were actually in the sources yourself. Those chart positions were most likely taken from the French download chart, and the chart positions are not listed on lescharts.com, which is where the French chart links generated by Template:Single chart point to.

Please also do not add unsourced genres (per WP:V), nor source genres to Discogs. Discogs is a user-generated source and thus fails WP:USERG. It is just other regular Internet users/music enthusiasts adding whatever genre they think a song or album is, so it is not reliable whatsoever.

Finally, as for your edits to Cocteau Twins discography, the entries you put under singles are already listed under the EPs section directly above. You are essentially doubling up information. The articles for the entries you added describe those releases as EPs, not singles. They don't even meet the traditional definition of a single—Sunburst and Snowblind and Echoes in a Shallow Bay are not even the names of songs, they are titles of EPs. EPs below a certain number of tracks in the 1980s charted on the UK Singles Chart, not the UK Albums Chart, but this does not make them singles. If you wish to propose that they should be considered singles, please propose so on the talk page, or better yet, Talk:Cocteau Twins where you might get more feedback. Thanks. Ss112 14:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I've just noticed your change on Amy Macdonald discography to add the Polish certification. A rule of thumb for discographies is that we do not list certifications for countries that do not have matching chart columns on the page. These certifications are generally only listed at either the album or single article. Just another note: we don't need to precede file names in file= parameters with "File:" This is expected and provided automatically. Ss112 15:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Jack McConnell

Your edit to Jack McConnell has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Conversation (Texas song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trainspotting.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Local Government and Communities Directorate

Hello, Goodreg3. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Local Government and Communities Directorate, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Financial Services District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BT.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Can't Control

The article Can't Control has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes GNG, and they don't meet WP:NBAND.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Can't Control Texas single.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Can't Control Texas single.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jai McDowall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All of Me.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Scottish premiership.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Scottish premiership.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:John Swinney addresses media over Kilmarnock incidents.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Swinney addresses media over Kilmarnock incidents.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bellsbank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bonnyton, East Ayrshire

added a link pointing to Scots

Laura White

added a link pointing to Charles Hamilton

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HALO Urban Regeneration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Innovation Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Amy Macdonald Flower of Scotland.png

Thanks for uploading File:Amy Macdonald Flower of Scotland.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Craig Ferguson interviews Archbishop Desmond Tutu.png

Thanks for uploading File:Craig Ferguson interviews Archbishop Desmond Tutu.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much the same thing also applies to File:Craig Ferguson and Jay Leno, Final show 2014.png. A non-free screenshot is not needed just to show that someone appeared as a guest on a talk show. This can be more that sufficiently understood through text alone supported by citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Scotland entrance at the 2014 Commonwealth Games.png

Thanks for uploading File:Scotland entrance at the 2014 Commonwealth Games.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Alex Salmond and heroes of 2007 Glasgow Airport attack.png

Thanks for uploading File:Alex Salmond and heroes of 2007 Glasgow Airport attack.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello, Goodreg3. I noticed that your recent edit to Ray Montgomerie added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you. Sumanuil. 02:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sumanuil. I appreciate your comment and understand your reasons for reverting the edit. However, I am afraid the removal of my edit by yourself was done prematurely as the image is copyright free as it was captured by myself and the only reason it had a red link was that I had requested a rename of the file to avoid clashing with another image that already shared the previous original name of the image. It has now been fixed. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of East Ayrshire Council.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of East Ayrshire Council.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Why Dont We promotional interview.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Why Dont We promotional interview.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttps://newmunicipalism.ballotbox.scot/ayrshire

[1]