User talk:Mabelina: Difference between revisions
Anglicanus (talk | contribs) |
Doug Weller (talk | contribs) →BLP violations: new section |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Mabelina : It greatly concerns me that your editing is still continuing to repeat the many MOS and other problems that you have populated on multiple articles. It is long overdue that you took more notice of the advice of other experienced editors when your editing problems are explained to you and did something to improve matters. Like all other editors I have learned to become better at editing due to my own problems being pointed out to me (sometimes nicely, sometimes not). Unfortunately, however, it seems that you are not very willing for your own problems to be brought to your attention. Can you please begin to do something about this as your continual editing problems are very frustrating. I'm sure your intentions are good but ...., [[User:Anglicanus|Anglicanus]] ([[User talk:Anglicanus|talk]]) 07:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC) |
Mabelina : It greatly concerns me that your editing is still continuing to repeat the many MOS and other problems that you have populated on multiple articles. It is long overdue that you took more notice of the advice of other experienced editors when your editing problems are explained to you and did something to improve matters. Like all other editors I have learned to become better at editing due to my own problems being pointed out to me (sometimes nicely, sometimes not). Unfortunately, however, it seems that you are not very willing for your own problems to be brought to your attention. Can you please begin to do something about this as your continual editing problems are very frustrating. I'm sure your intentions are good but ...., [[User:Anglicanus|Anglicanus]] ([[User talk:Anglicanus|talk]]) 07:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Contrary to what you might think, I don't want you to be blocked again. I would really like it if you became more collaborative. One day we might even catch up in person for a gin or two at a London pub as I'm sure you are an interesting and good person. [[User:Anglicanus|Anglicanus]] ([[User talk:Anglicanus|talk]]) 07:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC) |
:Contrary to what you might think, I don't want you to be blocked again. I would really like it if you became more collaborative. One day we might even catch up in person for a gin or two at a London pub as I'm sure you are an interesting and good person. [[User:Anglicanus|Anglicanus]] ([[User talk:Anglicanus|talk]]) 07:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
== BLP violations == |
|||
Every unsourced or badly sourced edit that you make that relates to living persons, in this case David Cameron, is a potential BLP violation. In your case most of them do appear to be BLP violations, and I see that other editors have complained about your editing. I see that DrKiernan has aLso told you to get talk page consensus. I also note that you are continuing to make personal attacks, eg "those on a blind mission to oppose" at his talk page. Your use of twitter as a source reinforces the suggestion that you don't understand our sourcing criteria at [[WP:RS]]. Then there are the issues over MOS violations. All of this gives me sufficient reason to block you now, but as [[User:Anglicanus]] has appealed on your behalf (above) I'm going to give you one last chance. At this point as an Administrator I can't instruct you not to edit without discussion and agreement first, but I am strongly advising you to do so now. If you don't, and the complaints continue or you commit more BLP violations, it's very likely that you will be blocked. I hope this can be avoided. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 13:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:06, 21 July 2015
Lord Mountevans
Yes, your 13 June edit was really fine. I undid the edit which you did today because it brought the text of the WikiProject in the article. Best wishes!--The Traditionalist (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you are uncertain about the copyright status of an image, not uploading it is the best solution. However, if it depicts a deceased person and it is not from a news site, then you can upload it under the non-free content criteria. There is an “Edit links” note under the “languages” section.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi there - thanks for sorting out the language links to The Lord Mountevans. Ref the other point, I have no doubt myself about the copyright status of the image concerned but having been challenged I don't know what to do because it should be clear it is for free use yet this and other images I have uploaded have been challenged incl. coats of arms. None of this makes any sense to those in the know, but let me just explain, because I don't where to put this on the licensing page: coats of arms don't belong to anyone other than the granting authority (e.g. College of Arms & such usage can only be subject to a legal challenge by a civil counterpart who can prove that a demonstrable loss has been incurred). Likewise with orders of knighthood, the images, insignia, regalia are the property of the Order itself, granted to the recipient to wear and publicly display ad vitam. Since some Wikipedians do not seem to be at all au fait with matters of heraldic law and rules governing Orders of Knighthood, how to explain that the late Provost encouraged the public (appropriate) display of images such as File:Princess Michael of Kent D.M.jpg; should I need to re-explain where to do so? Thanks again M Mabelina (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I have to confess that I am not very familiar with the exact particulars of heraldic law, either. Perhaps someone at the WikiProject will be able to assist you much better than I am.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi there - thanks for sorting out the language links to The Lord Mountevans. Ref the other point, I have no doubt myself about the copyright status of the image concerned but having been challenged I don't know what to do because it should be clear it is for free use yet this and other images I have uploaded have been challenged incl. coats of arms. None of this makes any sense to those in the know, but let me just explain, because I don't where to put this on the licensing page: coats of arms don't belong to anyone other than the granting authority (e.g. College of Arms & such usage can only be subject to a legal challenge by a civil counterpart who can prove that a demonstrable loss has been incurred). Likewise with orders of knighthood, the images, insignia, regalia are the property of the Order itself, granted to the recipient to wear and publicly display ad vitam. Since some Wikipedians do not seem to be at all au fait with matters of heraldic law and rules governing Orders of Knighthood, how to explain that the late Provost encouraged the public (appropriate) display of images such as File:Princess Michael of Kent D.M.jpg; should I need to re-explain where to do so? Thanks again M Mabelina (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you are uncertain about the copyright status of an image, not uploading it is the best solution. However, if it depicts a deceased person and it is not from a news site, then you can upload it under the non-free content criteria. There is an “Edit links” note under the “languages” section.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Titres de noblesse
Dear Azurfrog: the question of how to attend to titles, whether they be noble, honorary, academic or otherwise, seems to have got Wikipedians in a complete spin. Having spotted that there is so much inconsistency in their usage in English Wikipedia, & as one who has been foolish enough to state that I know something about the subject, I now receive continual messages about this from all and sundry. How to get the proper styles and usage throughout Wikipedia, when so many variants of the English language and thereby different protocols are in play? So far as I understand such titles should at least be consistent in the French language (as long as properly understood)? I trust you found my previous amendments of help? M Mabelina (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Grey Egerton baronets (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Baron Grey and Mount Barker
- Leigh baronets (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Baron Kingsdown
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Cameron
Please stop adding adding unreferenced ancestral claims into Cameron articles and vague external links. Like this one on David Cameron, and this on Family of David Cameron. You've been specifically asked time and time again not to do this. You've been blocked for edit-warring multiple times. Why do we have to go through this all over again?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Brianann - I take it that you are gearing up to get me banned again? I hope not, unless you know something I don't. It is totally beyond me as to why you object to describing David Cameron's patrilineal descent from the Chief of his Clan. Anyway, I am in discussion with DrKiernan about this because I have no desire to act unilaterally and then get myself blocked for reasons which still are utterly unclear to me. I am presently in the process of making a massive upgrade of the article about John Cameron of Fassiefern and I hope you won't prevent me from doing that? I wish you would explain why you don't like the info about the Cameron patrilineal line when there is all that stuff (some spurious) about his maternal ancestry. Many thanks & it would be far better to work together (please acknowledge whether my efforts are, in your view, upgrading the Cameron article (there were serious problems before). M Mabelina (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Mabelina, a barelink to a webpage displaying the contact information of a random museum does not verify a man's ancestry [1]. Same goes for barelinks to contact pages of churches [2] and the Burke's Peerage mainpage [3]. If you can't cite a source specifically supporting a claim, don't add that claim into an article. It's a simple concept (Wikipedia:Verifiability).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't finished yet - I have shown you where to find the info under Burke's but that doesn't seem to be good enough for you - wait until I have finished & then comment constructively if you must. M Mabelina (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Look Brian - would you mind giving over for a short while whilst I make the improvements - unless of course you think these articles are perfectly fine as they are. I have a sneaking suspicion that you rather enjoy upsetting the apple cart & frustrating genuine attempts to improve the quality of info on Wiki - please do not let this lead to you reporting me because I have told you where to find the info so look there. M Mabelina (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't finished yet - I have shown you where to find the info under Burke's but that doesn't seem to be good enough for you - wait until I have finished & then comment constructively if you must. M Mabelina (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Mabelina, a barelink to a webpage displaying the contact information of a random museum does not verify a man's ancestry [1]. Same goes for barelinks to contact pages of churches [2] and the Burke's Peerage mainpage [3]. If you can't cite a source specifically supporting a claim, don't add that claim into an article. It's a simple concept (Wikipedia:Verifiability).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Advice and request
Mabelina : It greatly concerns me that your editing is still continuing to repeat the many MOS and other problems that you have populated on multiple articles. It is long overdue that you took more notice of the advice of other experienced editors when your editing problems are explained to you and did something to improve matters. Like all other editors I have learned to become better at editing due to my own problems being pointed out to me (sometimes nicely, sometimes not). Unfortunately, however, it seems that you are not very willing for your own problems to be brought to your attention. Can you please begin to do something about this as your continual editing problems are very frustrating. I'm sure your intentions are good but ...., Anglicanus (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Contrary to what you might think, I don't want you to be blocked again. I would really like it if you became more collaborative. One day we might even catch up in person for a gin or two at a London pub as I'm sure you are an interesting and good person. Anglicanus (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
BLP violations
Every unsourced or badly sourced edit that you make that relates to living persons, in this case David Cameron, is a potential BLP violation. In your case most of them do appear to be BLP violations, and I see that other editors have complained about your editing. I see that DrKiernan has aLso told you to get talk page consensus. I also note that you are continuing to make personal attacks, eg "those on a blind mission to oppose" at his talk page. Your use of twitter as a source reinforces the suggestion that you don't understand our sourcing criteria at WP:RS. Then there are the issues over MOS violations. All of this gives me sufficient reason to block you now, but as User:Anglicanus has appealed on your behalf (above) I'm going to give you one last chance. At this point as an Administrator I can't instruct you not to edit without discussion and agreement first, but I am strongly advising you to do so now. If you don't, and the complaints continue or you commit more BLP violations, it's very likely that you will be blocked. I hope this can be avoided. Doug Weller (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)