User talk:Goodreg3

Archives

User talk:Goodreg3/Archive 1 User talk:Goodreg3/Archive 2 User talk:Goodreg3/Archive 3 User talk:Goodreg3/Archive 4

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scotland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Goodreg3 -- Goodreg3 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Goodreg3: I saw Scotland listed at WP:GAN. I see that you opened Talk:Scotland/GA1 in error and I have asked for that review page to be deleted so that an independent reviewer can make a fresh start.

Having looked at the article and at the talk page, there seems to be a debate over the wording of the lead. I am also concerned that the citation style is inconsistent (the rp template and sfn template are both used at the moment). I would recommend withdrawing your nomination temporarily (just delete the template on the talk page once Talk:Scotland/GA1 has been deleted) until the current debate has played out and until you have addressed the issues with citation style.

I hope this is helpful input. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm notifying you of this post about my concerns. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kilmarnock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Stevie fae Scotland -- Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kilmarnock you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Kilmarnock for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Stevie fae Scotland -- Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I recalled your comments at Talk:Scotland#Sweeping_and_inattentive_changes that you “do not feel supported by (me) whatsoever” and how much of a slap in the face that felt, in the light of all the work on your edits and copious feedback I’d given, for years now. But it prompted a memory of a similar, lengthy interaction I had with another enthusiastic editor, a long time ago, initially very frustrating but which, to my great surprise, became cordial and productive. I will not be able to devote very much time but, if you are genuinely in search of support and you can slow down and be patient, I’ll see if we can try a different tack. What do you reckon? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome that, and it would certainly be a step in the right direction. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goodreg3, as you've had a fair few disambiguation link notifications here, you may not be aware that there's a useful option that highlights links to disambiguation pages, very visibly. If you go to your user preferences, select the gadget tab, scroll down to the appearance section and check "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange", any such pages will become highly visible, alerting you to change it to the correctly disambiguated page, if that is what is required. I find it really handy.

On another matter, do you remember I asked you if you could "(make) smaller individual edits to allow them to be followed more easily", at the Scotland talk page? This diff might be a useful example, where you seem to be dealing with several different and unrelated aspects of the article in one fairly large edit. To allow others to follow what your intentions are, it's easier if they are broken down individually, into smaller, separate edits. That is particularly the case if it involves moving sections of text from one part of the article to another, as any changes to the text don't really show up in the diff. What's more, if there is an issue with part, but not all, of the changes made, it's then possible to revert one of the several, smaller edits and leave the rest intact. If the various aspects being addressed are all done in one major edit then the choice is between a time-consuming and complicated edit to pick out the problem parts from those that are fine or much more simply reverting the whole lot but possibly throwing the baby out with the bath water. Cheers, Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll elaborate on my amendments to this edit of yours. You've been attempting to avoid your previous tendency to post material that is variously copyrighted, copied without attribution or without sufficient paraphrasing. If you do paraphrase though, make sure you retain the meaning of what is stated in the source. The source notes a record figure in regard to generation but your wording indicated consumption, not the same thing. The word "equivalent" re the 113% figure is required for it to make rational sense. It's "country's overall consumption", as it is the consumption by the country, not that of plural "countries". All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will keep trying to improve and ensure edits are polished. Paraphrasing in order to avoid copyright violations is difficult, but, I will keep trying in order to retain the message intended to be put across. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, I've mainly tightened up the text and addressed some typos and punctuation. I'm assuming "FLC" as an abbreviation for the RFC is an error but thought I'd better check, in case something else is intended. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good, this edit has addressed the requirement for clarification as anti-shipping patrols are one variety of operational mission and the previous wording implied a distinction.

The other tag was that your wording states that "Fighter squadrons on Scotland's east coa(s)t... were co(a)stal command bases". Would something like this be your intention "Fighter squadrons at coastal command bases on Scotland's east coast, at Wick, Dyce, Peterhead, Montrose, Leuchars, Drem, East Fortune, Kinloss and Grangemouth, were used mainly to protect and defend the fleet of aircraft and equipment at both Rosyth Dockyard and Scapa Flow"?

An outbreak is an event, so the meaning of "the end of the outbreak of World War II" is unclear. Do you mean at the outbreak? What does the source say?

Likewise "During the outbreak of the Cold War" needs to be changed to "at" if that is the case, or otherwise clarified. The expression is a closely-guarded secret not a closed and guarded secret and it ether is or isn't one, it can't be partially so. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As your editing on the matter of a national motto of Scotland proved contentious in the past, I'm disappointed that you have returned to it, with similarly insubstantial support. In light of the history, it would have been more conciliatory to raise the matter at the talk page first, to gain consensus. You must know I would scrutinise such a resumption of what could be seen as the return to a slow WP:WAR. I'm afraid it is a continuation of the way you appear to add material, by stating something you believe to be true, googling search terms on the matter and adding your finds, whether it truly supports the statement or not. The Irish Times article mentions "nemo..." but says nothing about "the national motto of Scotland", let alone support that this is it. Do you know anything about the Scotlander site? I don't, I can't find out anything about it, it does not look in any way authorative and, unless you can show otherwise, you should be avoiding such apparently self-published t-shirt vending sites in favour of something more clearly reliable. The NY Times ref is behind a paywall and, with the multiple failures of verification of other sources you have put forward, I'd like to see the full quote, in context. If you require any clarification, please let me know here. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's by no means a return to a slow edit war. Rather, I have been researching this extensively since September, and have found a number of sources which would support the view that the national motto of Scotland is indeed "nemo me....". As per your request, I have provided further references with quotes to the article. Hope that helps to resolve any doubt. Hope you're well, and thank you. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the Irish Times article does it even mention the motto of Scotland? You can not keep using sources like this. 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The Irish Times article has been removed as per the previous revert, so I’m not sure why that’s being brought into question. Its sources since provided are more than strong in my opinion. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added the inappropriate source, which does not support the statement, and I reverted it! The point is that you do this kind of thing all the time. That said, you normally complain when someone reverts such a failed verification, so there is some progress but it does not absolve you from sourcing carelessly in the first place. You can't just expect people to check your uneven work and clean up after if it's not up to snuff. I've been notifying you, supporting you, on this for a long time. Please take things more slowly, check that the source actually, fully supports your material and if there is the merest doubt, don't add it, or ask for another opinion on talk. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this post was ill-considered, baseless and bolsters the indications that you edit on the basis of proving what you believe about a topic to be true, come hell or high water, and that anyone who challenges this must have nefarious intentions. If you wish to post material about a topic, research it with an open mind and record what you find, whether this confirms your previous beliefs or not. One would hope it would be as pleasing to discover new facts as to confirm old beliefs. There are bad people editing on Wikipedia but you should have a solid basis before making such accusations; there was none here.

If you can reflect on this, it may restore some faith in your good intentions if you note below your post that, on consideration, you retract comments made in haste, or the like. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. I do stand by the view that a copy and paste from a supposed email should not be taken as concrete evidence. I merely said that if it was provided in such a way that proved its authenticity, such as from a website, or email/letter with headed paper and/or relevant signature to prove authenticity, then I too may be persuaded. It has nothing to do with the fact that I have, or do not have, a particular view. All I want to do is to establish whether the motto in question is associated with the country, rather than heraldry.

I still believe the references I provided achieved this, however, am open to being proven wrong should there be strong, concrete evidence which supports it otherwise. I am not entirely convinced by something that perhaps could have been a copy/paste job or self-created to further someone else's own view or what they wish to be correct. That is not what is happening here, and I feel it is ill-considered and baseless for you to assume so.

Whether Scotland has, or has not, got an official motto really means nothing to me. It doesn't keep me awake at night, but I have been researching this to provide sourced evidence and I believe I had achieved this. As I said, I am more than happy to accept the fact there is no official motto if a strong, relevant and reliable source states otherwise. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that you have attempted an apology on the article talk page. Read back your original words though. Whether you phrased it clumsily and did not mean it the way it was written, flat out and with no basis it says that you suspect another editor of lying. WP:AGF is a fundamental matter on Wikipedia and impugning another editor's integrity clearly flies in the face of this. Read it back, imagining you are the editor to whom it is addressed. The editor was not putting the letter forward as a RS to be used in the article itself and it's perfectly reasonable to discuss informal research on a talk page.

Your request for evidence that there is no (national official) foo continues to miss the point. Non-facts, by and large, do not get reported, for obvious reasons. There is no onus to somehow prove a negative, only to prove the positive. That you are requesting such extraordinary proof of the negative is why the editor used the initiative that they did. It's not a requirement though.

What are you saying "is not... happening here" and that you "feel.. is ill-considered and baseless for (me) to assume"? I know it is aimed at turning my own words back at me but it's not clear what it means in the context. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the users acceptance of my apology, I think that should be the end of the matter. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious of them in the extreme. Make sure that is the end of the matter and refrain from behaving this way again, with any other user. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I said about help and advice, I didn’t exactly mean for you to critique every single interaction or edit I make on here. I don’t need watched thank you. Perhaps you picked me up wrong when I referred to helping and being more civil. And, enough of the verbal threats thank you. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Goodreg3. Partially related to @Mutt Lunker: stating above about being careful attributing material to sources that do not support such claims: in December last year, you created Michelle McManus' Winter Wonderland and in the reception section, which I've since removed, you claimed that "McManus' vocals on the album tracks, as well as at the live Winter Wonderland shows, were highly praised by music critics and members of the public alike" and cited this Sunday Post article. The album came out in 2019, and that article was published in 2023. It only says "she's arguably a better singer now than she was even then" generally, and doesn't even mention the Christmas album. Maybe some people did say her vocals had improved, but from what I'm seeing from a Google search I don't think the album got much attention at all. Ss112 20:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Relevance? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more receptive to other editors raising concerns about your editing. Surely you must appreciate how unproductive it is to respond to us with surly, dismissive rebuffs and hyperbolic and false accusations? Whether you reckon you “need watched” or not, contemplate how the likelihood of this will be affected by your present response mode and inflexibility. Things will be much easier if you assume good faith and co-operate. Can we go back to that please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask again, please can you not add material to articles that turns out not to be supported by the references you give? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mutt Lunker As a concerned reader, I am highly concerned this user is starting to in some respects ruin the England page with with unnecessary 'template' changes and the removal of an an important image. I have witnessed this user have a very pro-Scottish agenda, which includes repeating edits that remove any mentions of the UK. 2A0A:EF40:E37:4201:7121:2A96:81B7:EEE4 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add to this, as 'England' is a Good Article, I am slightly worried the page will be downgraded, because of @Goodreg3 edit history at Scotland. 2A0A:EF40:E37:4201:D180:910C:3F1F:181B (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Scottish agenda? Please behave yourself! Goodreg3 (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not going to help matters if you seek out grievances that are not there. You are doubling down on the claim that I have referred to something as being your "only trait". It is plain for all to see that I said "a trait". This makes you look foolish at best, if not actively deceitful. That "it is not (your) only trait" is not in contention. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, see MOS:LEADLANG. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you know that I often take issue with changes you make in regard to images so making such changes without a note of them in the edit summary, let alone an explanation, might give an unfortunate impression. If that would be because the edit summary would be very long, as the accompanying changes are unrelated, better to split the changes up into multiple edits so that the individual elements are more evident and more thoroughly explained. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:East Ayrshire arms.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) 18:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kilmarnock Coat of Arms.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) 18:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Ewen Cameron (Television personality has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20 § Ewen Cameron (Television personality until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Presiding officer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sheena Easton into Sheena Easton discography. 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. DanCherek (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

National anthem of Scotland

added links pointing to Angus MacDonald and Michael Matheson

Flower of Scotland

added a link pointing to Angus MacDonald

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Phil Foden 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. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bonnyton, East Ayrshire you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Relativity -- Relativity (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bonnyton, East Ayrshire you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bonnyton, East Ayrshire for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Relativity -- Relativity (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emmanuel here and I have an explanation. Why you did change 4 WTC into a building not in Lower Manhattan? This is not allowed to the WTC Community and I thou can see what you've done.

Emmanuel Emmmacron51 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BBC Pacific Quay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hit List.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Travis (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fran Healy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that per WP:USERNOCAT, user sandbox pages such as your User:Goodreg3/sandbox are not allowed to be filed in categories alongside real articles. Categories have to stay off the page while it's in sandbox, and may be added only if and when the content is actually being moved into a real mainspace article. I note that I or other editors have had to remove the page from categories at least eight times since last year — so please remember in the future that it cannot and must not be filed in categories. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Turning Wikipedia Green Barnstar
		For your contributions to Premiership of Humza Yousaf and Premiership of John Swinney. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you have an article listed at WP:GAN. I recently started a project, Good Article Review Circles, and thought you might be interested. This initiative helps articles get reviewed more quickly through collaborative efforts. By joining, you'll review others' articles and get your own reviewed in return. Check out the page for more details! — GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Andrew's House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Johnston.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Susan Boyle, 2009.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) 05:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dorothy Bain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dorothy Bain you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Dorothy Bain for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Face to Face (Suzi Quatro and KT Tunstall album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Face to Face (Suzi Quatro and KT Tunstall album) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Face to Face (Suzi Quatro and KT Tunstall album) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you change the Scotland page often, but please do not do what you do there to England. Your edits often cause problems and England is a good article. It could have its status removed. Your part of the reason why Scotland will never be a good article.

Sorry to be harsh, but please do not ruin the work of others for your own satisfaction. 2A0A:EF40:E37:4201:DD38:532B:886A:2230 (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you call that friendly….? One edit from an IP address says it all really. Some bold claims. Why am I the reason Scotland will never be a good article? Also, what is your basis for me not editing the England article? Please elaborate. Goodreg3 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The basis is likely Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lam312321321#25 July 2024, the England article is currently semi-protected because of that user. Belbury (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information. Rather bold claims, but then, what do you expect from a sockpuppet! Goodreg3 (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some bold claims you have made. Are you essentially threatening me not to edit articles? I would consider you to give some consideration to the manner in which you appear to be presenting yourself. “Your edits often cause problem…” care to explain? I am currently debating whether to flag your comments under Civility (or in your case, lack off). Goodreg3 (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the nonsense that was posted here giving you an "only warning" about vandalism. It was posted by a stupid troll who has been doing the same kind of thing for years, using numerous sockpuppet accounts. I have blocked the account which posted here. JBW (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I did suspect as such! Thank you. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Gregg Alexander, promotional shoot.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free 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 non-free 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:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk 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) 06:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goodreg3. Thank you for your work on Loch Lomond (Runrig song). Another editor, Bastun, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Excellent work on your new article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: Thank you very much for your kind words and reaching out and for your acknowledgement of the article. Recognition of efforts, no matter how big or small, are always appreciated! Thank you. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goodreg3. Thank you for your work on Empty Glens. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I'm not finding any significant coverage of this song after a search in NewspaperArchive and via Google. Thoughts about merging this with Proterra (album)? Same goes for Book of Golden Stories and The STomping Ground. One solution might be to create ea table with chart and version information for non-notable singles in each of the album articles.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not seeing Things That Are (song) and An Ubhal as Àirde (The Highest Apple) as being notable. WP:NSINGLE says that charting "indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable" (emphasis in original). I think many of these singles you're creating articles for are not notable and they can all be upmerged into the album articles. Upmerging would also be better for readers because they could see all of the songs on an album in comparison to each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Vanderwaalforces, @JTtheOG, @Ryan shell, and @Bastun, who have marked some of these articles as patrolled recently. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts, Book of Golden Stories was (one of) the one I patrolled which I deemed non-notable, hence the tagging. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NPP tool was showing you as having marked one of the ones I listed below as patrolled, but now I'm looking through your patrol log and see that you only marked Maymorning as reviewed and then as unreviewed. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts Yep, that was like almost one hour later after I reassessed it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a full list of singles that I don't think are notable:

• Empty Glens
• Book of Golden Stories
• Maymorning
• Things That Are (song)
• An Ubhal as Àirde (The Highest Apple)
• This Time of Year
• The Greatest Flame
• Wonderful (Runrig song)
• Every River (Runrig song)
• News from Heaven
• Protect and Survive (song)
• Skye (song)
• Loch Lomond (Runrig song) (the one non-chart source, Rocking in the Norselands, appears to be an WP:SPS)
• Flower of the West (the one non-chart source is a blog by an academic listing songs that interest him)

voorts (talk/contributions) 16:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But is the UK Singles Chart not a national-ish chart? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, looking at WP:NSONG, it says the charting might indicate the song may be notable. That is well understood. This means that the song simply may be notable or may not be notable, and that also doesn't mean that the song is notable or is not notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The four articles I reviewed all featured songs that charted on the UK national chart. What adds to their notability, in my opinion, is that Runrig record and perform using Scottish Gaelic, and a non-English-language single charting in the UK is definitely remarkable. Loch Lomond reached number 1 in Scotland, and is certified as silver. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wholly disagree with you. The articles I have spent creating are notable in the sense they have charted in national singles charts, namely UK, Scotland and Germany. Granted, there may not be many sources but that’s because there isn’t much information on historical releases. There are other articles by other artists out there on Wikipedia with the same level of information and sources, and similar charting performance, with no problems. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I came to your talk because I wanted to talk through it first. I will probably start some proposed merge discussions soon. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you say An Ubhal as Àirde (The Highest Apple) is not notable? It became the first song to be sung in Scottish Gaelic to chart in the United Kingdom. How more notable do you want? Cmon…. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being the "first song to be sung in Scottish Gaelic to chart in the United Kingdom" does not make the song notable. A reliable independent source that mentions this can show that it has received some significant coverage and that would make it notable, but again singular statements like this are sometimes better merged into a more encompassing article like the album the song is a part of. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it certainly gives it some significance. The articles created all charted on a national chart somewhere in Europe, therefore, has some notability and warrants its own article. Please take a look at articles on songs released by bands such as Texas, particularly early releases in the late 80s, and you will see the same standard of information (or less) with no issues having ever been raised. If an article with the same level of information on releases such as “Hello” or “Why Does It Always Rain on Me?” is expected then I’m sorry to say the same level of information about the release will be almost impossible to find. That said, it doesn’t particularly mean the song isn’t noticeable and of no interest, rather, it was released during a period whereby coverage wasn’t as extensive as it is now, and that perhaps the song caused little stir or attention upon its release, albeit, charting on a national chart. I feel that labelling these articles as unnoticeable, despite charting, is a little unwarranted. Goodreg3 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Loch Lomond (Runrig song) 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/Loch Lomond (Runrig song) 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.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've instead nominated this for merging. See the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Skye (song) 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/Skye (song) 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.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a merge discussion for Protect and Survive (song). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started another discussion for News from Heaven. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to notify me, as I know you are going to do this for every Runrig related singles article. I still dispute this, given articles such as "She's So High" are still in existence with the same level of information and coverage. I know you will say we cannot draw comparisons, but surely if it is one rule for Runrig singles then the same rules should be applied to all. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Your arguments should be made at each discussion, however, so that whoever eventually closes the discussion will be able to consider them. If you'd like, I can also add something in my statement for each merge/AfD discussion to the effect of "Goodreg3 opposes for the reasons discussed on his talk page and this AfD discussion." voorts (talk/contributions) 16:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful. I appreciate you are only doing your best, however, it goes without saying of course I am going to oppose all nominations on the backdrop of other articles of the same standard and levels of information still standing. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the statement going forward and also add it as a comment to the other discussions I've started. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article This Time of Year (song) 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/This Time of Year (song) 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.

voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I forgot to uncheck the "notify page creator if possible" box. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Skye (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort William.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:This Time of Year by Runrig.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) 17:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Munchin's College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still 60% copyvio. I will have no qualms to shoot it down again.

And please f9ix the links to disambiguation page. The Banner talk 23:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can it possibly be 60%? I have spent the majority of the day rewording the sources to avoid it. Have I to sit with a thesaurus and change every word like I used to do when I was at university? Goodreg3 (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because changing a word here and there is not enough. Rewrite it in your own words. The Banner talk 09:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, now that I have had time to sit down and look at your recent claims through the source (https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=St+Munchin%27s+College&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0), I would just like to highlight a few things.

• The majority of words highlighted in the link are either peoples names, the name of the source, or are indeed direct quotes from the source which have quotation marks to distinguish it from own words.
  • If we live by the truth and in love, we shall grow in all ways - Is the translated motto of the school. It is what it is, it cannot be reworded.
  • Rev John Young, (Bishop of Limerick) - is the name and position held by the founder of the school. Again, it cannot be reworded.
  • The text is taken from St Paul's Letter to the Ephesians: "If we live by the truth and in love, we shall grow in all ways into Christ." (Eph 4:15) - as you will see, the direct quote is in quotation marks to highlight the fact it is a direct quote from the source.
  • with the school aiming to "provide an integrated and an inclusive education". - again, direct quote with appropriate quotation marks.
  • the schools Board of Management - it is what it is. It is called the Board of Management, it cannot be changed.
  • completed sixth class in primary school, be willing to accept the school ethos and be willing to accept the school Code of Behaviour. - was slightly reworded, but that it the admissions policy of the school. It is not up to me as a Wikipedian to change it.
  • boys who are nominated by the College Trustees having regard to the Ethos of the School, Sons, Grandsons and Nephews of current and former staff members who are or have been employed by the Board of Management, - again, it's the policy of the school. Re-wording would ultimately make no sense, and thus, not be entirely accurate.
  • St. Munchin’s College provides a variety of artistic, cultural, social and sporting activities for boys to partake, which aims to "develop the talents of all students and to provide them with the confidence to be involved in various activities in later life". - again, direct quote with appropriate punctuation to highlight this.
  • The school commits to the development of team games for all its students. Extra–curricular activities include Rugby, Hurling, Gaelic Football, Basketball, Athletics, Golf, Quizzes, Tours, Charitable Works Drama and Musical, Talent Competition, Limerick Diocesan Lourdes Pilgrimage, Public Speaking and Debating and various... - Sports like football, hurling, basketball and activities such as quizzes and tours are what they are. What do you suggest they are changed to?

Upon close scrutiny, it would appear that the Earwig site has been rather pernickety and picked up on various things like the name of the school and its founder which just cannot be changed for obvious reasons. As a result, of course it is going to have a ridiculously high copyright violation score given the number of times it is mentioned throughout the article. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Skye by Runrig.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) 17:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Premiership of Alex Salmond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brave (film).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Loch Lomond by Runrig.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) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Runrig with the Tartan Army.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) 17:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2024 Kilmarnock West and Crosshouse by–election has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Council by-election, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG

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.

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have made some more significant edits to this page. I noticed that large parts of the article were copied almost verbatim from the (primary) sources given, so I have reworded them. In the edited version, the information conveyed remains the same. I think you were the one who added these copied paragraphs - in the future, could you please find third-party sources to back up what you have written and refrain from copying sources word-for-word (this isn't allowed!). Thanks Dvdmenu (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Whilst I appreciate your attempts to improve articles that I have spent considerable time on, or in the case of Stewarton Academy, creating, I am a little concerned at both the pace and reasons behind your recent edits. Your recent edits at Belmont Academy claim rewording to avoid copyright issues. Obviously, copyright violations and lifting directly from sources are not permitted on Wikipedia, however, after some minor scrutiny of the text you removed and the source provided, I fail to see any "directly lifted" quotes from the source. Every attempt had been taken to reword this from the source in a way which made sense. For instance, when talking about the introduction and retracting of a school house, certain words such as the name of the school house (lets take Bute for instance) cannot be reworded for obvious reasons.

Again, whilst I appreciate your efforts to help improve the standard of articles, with over 8,000 edits against your 200+, I would suggest slowing down just a little and reaching some consensus first before making swooping changes. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's very nice to start comparing numbers of edits - this says nothing about the quality of the edits or the editor themselves. There were multiple easily-rephrased sentences from the source that were almost exactly the same, with one or two words switched. I can give examples if you'd like, but it doesn't sound like you want to discuss this further. The main issue is that the only source for the whole history section is the school's own website, which I'm not entirely convinced isn't a case of circular referencing. Hopefully we can find more sources to back up the information that is there. Dvdmenu (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is all too common for information based on schools to come from primary sources as a result of either the insignificance of the information to secondary sources or because the primary source uses the information as a means to provide information to the audience (in this case the public, parents etc). The only secondary sources I tend to come across relating to schools is on academic performance in national exams and league tables. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that makes sense, thank you for explaining! Separately, I'm sorry if any of my previous edits or comments came across in the wrong way. I appreciate the hard work you've put into these articles and my intention was to help improve them, not to start an argument. As a relatively new editor I know I still have a lot to learn and I'm sorry if I overstepped. Dvdmenu (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. We have all been at the start of our Wikipedia editing journey. I do, however, thank you for some of the improvements you have made to articles in regards to fixing references and punctuation. Naming references is an extreme bugbear of mine and all too often I either don't do it or forget to. That said, when editing quickly and fast typing it is all too common to make mistakes. So, for that, I thank you. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I've noticed that you often cite the same source over and over without naming it, meaning it appears many times in the reference list. If you want to reuse a source, you should name it so that it only appears once in the ref list. I have fixed this for Belmont Academy and Stewarton Academy. Dvdmenu (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]