User talk:Goodreg3/Archive 4

Better source request for File:Braidhurst High School Badge.png

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Braidhurst High School Badge.png

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as the web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the direct/bare URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 07:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Goodreg3. Thank you for your work on Buchanan Wharf. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Central Quay

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Goodreg3. Thank you for your work on Central Quay. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Walter Smith.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Walter Smith.jpeg. 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) 02:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doddie Weir.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doddie Weir.jpeg. 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) 02:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BBSP Stadium Rugby Park.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BBSP Stadium Rugby Park.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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Annie Lennox into List of awards and nominations received by Annie Lennox. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2 Atlantic Square

The article 2 Atlantic Square has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This appears to be a WP:MILL office building with no individual notability. No independent sources provided, smaller counterpart to 1 Atlantic Square (which does have media coverage due to height and tenancy so appears to meet WP:GNG), see no reason this smaller building cannot simply be mentioned in its article as part of the project.

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. Crowsus (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2 Atlantic Square for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2 Atlantic Square 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/2 Atlantic Square 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 until the discussion has finished.

Crowsus (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Kilmarnock

Hey, hope you are well,

I saw you contributions to Kilmarnock F.C. and I wanted to invite you to assist with a related draft I'm working on. I created a history article for Killie at Draft:History of Kilmarnock F.C. but it's still a long way from finished. I'd copied the format of some featured articles to get the structure for it so all it really needs is the content. I'll continue to work on it over the next weeks and months but any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. No worries if you're not able to.

Thanks, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Stevie, thanks for reaching out.

I would be more than happy to help in any way I can. What is it in particular you were looking for? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

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

Bonnyton, East Ayrshire

added a link pointing to Sewer

Kilmarnock

added a link pointing to Clarks

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk) 01:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Please don't copy material from elsewhere online

Hello Goodreg3. I have checked your re-working of your addition to Dean Castle, and it's not at all what we're looking for, as it still has a lot content copied from the source webpage. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words. You've now received four or five warnings for copyright policy violations, so this is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Put simply, there are some words that just can't be changed, either wise the article will make little or no sense. It is not my intention to violate any copyright policies, and have been editing Wikipedia long enough now to know the rules regarding copyright violations. Most parts of the added content (now removed) were re-written in a style in which I thought would be compliant with copyright rules on Wikipedia. Clearly, this was not the case, and I will continue to work on this. However, it would appear in regards to this article, my efforts are clearly not appreciated no matter how hard I try, so may hand this one over to someone else. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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 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 2023 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Your recent editing history at Ermysted's Grammar School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Onorem (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I am well aware regarding the guidelines on edit warring. I would, however, encourage you to take a look at the arguments for such edits, and would point out the other user in question, Lavalizard101, is reverting to earlier edits of the article on the grounds of my edits to two articles containing information which is not "encyclopedic". The argument provided by this user is, in my eyes, bottomless, considering that he claims information about buildings on the site is not "encyclopedic", but yet continues to revert back to an edit that still contains this information. It would appear that he has been blocked recently, in November, on grounds of edit warring and would assume he is about to again. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Ermysted's Grammar School. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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).

Goodreg3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It was not my intention to engage in an edit war. This is something which I always try hard not to engage in. Despite a strong feeling that my edits were being reverted by the other user unjustifiably, I recognise I did, in this instance, break the 3 revert rule and I strongly regret doing so. I would urge administrators to consider this, and accept my apology as sincere and trustworthy. I have worked long and hard in recent times to improve and add reliable information to articles across Wikipedia, most recently school related articles, and this block prevents me from continuing my current work to improve other articles. I apologise, and will consider my actions in the future. I would encourage administrators to consider this unblock request. (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as the block has expired. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Per Wikipedia:Edit warring: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Per WP:3RR, which you have been warned about in the past, an editor may not make more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period; you made 4 reverts within 40 minutes. You also only need one open unblock reqeust. - Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am accustomed to what constitutes as edit waring. It really is a sad day for Wikipedia when edits designed to improve articles are reverted by other users, and an editor such as myself who merely tries to retain this information to improve the article, is blocked. The other user in question was blocked from Wikipedia only in November for the same issue, so I think the issue here is with him and not me. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that this is an excuse for four reverts in the space of 40 minutes, however, I really struggle to see the other users point of view and argument for the mass reverting in which he was undertaking. Rather than taking the time to add, or indeed to remove, information he claims was not "encyclopedic", the user undertook a mass reversion of all edits, which I would argue were constructive, such as adding an infobox image, sourced content and formatting improvements. Surely this is just as big an issue. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure they also think their edits are designed to improve the articles; not all edits that add content are improvements or should be retained. Once it was known there was a disagreement a discussion should take place on the article's talk page to obtain a consensus for the contested material, especially if, as you mention, you don't understand the other editor's reason for removing the content. While you didn't break 3RR at Wirral Grammar School for Boys you were edit warring at that article as well. The issue is not the removal or retention of information but the edit warring, which you both were actively engaged in across at least 2 articles. Regarding your unblock request, I would suggest reading WP:GAB (particularly WP:NOTTHEM) as your unblock request does not address the reason for the block. - Aoidh (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have considered this and created a new unblock request. As per my unblock request, I sincerely apologise for the recent action and breaking of the 3 revert rule. I do hope that administrators consider this and reflect on my vast contributions to Wikipedia and lift the block to allow me to continue on my improvement works on Wikipedia articles relating to schools and education. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If I might offer some feedback, this edit does add content that is of questionable relevance to the article. For example, the admissions, curriculum, and dress code sections are the types of content that typically does not belong on a Wikipedia article, especially if it is only sourced to the school itself. They would need third-party sources to show that they are relevant or that these aspects of the school are somehow unique. The level of detail that the uniform section has for example, is not an improvement to the article and its removal seems entirely warranted. Not all content added is an improvement to the article, and not all content belongs on an article, this content (especially when only sourced to a primary source) being a good example of that. - Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What will you do to resolve a content dispute instead of edit warring? 331dot (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, rather than my previous reverts, I would engage in a discussion through the appropriate channels in order to reach a consensus amongst other users. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland 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) 21:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate refs.

Helpful tip: In this edit you added the source multiple times. Using <ref name="example">source</ref> for first occurence of that source and <ref name="example"/> for each occurrence thereafter consolidates the ref tags so that instead of each occurrence being treated as a different ref (showing the source multiple times in the reference section), it gets treated as just one ref with multiple occurrences. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. However, was there any need for you to raise this? Consider you were not the user that rectified the issue originally? Goodreg3 (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)