User talk:HuttonIT

This user has been on Wikipedia for 17 years, 4 months and 5 days.

Copyright problems with Prof. Joseph Stanley Allen[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Prof. Joseph Stanley Allen, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-professor-j-s-allen-1267172.html. As a copyright violation, Prof. Joseph Stanley Allen appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Prof. Joseph Stanley Allen has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Prof. Joseph Stanley Allen and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Prof. Joseph Stanley Allen with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Prof. Joseph Stanley Allen.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. 99.184.128.247 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that Prof. Allen has been airbrushed from history yet vacuousness individuals justify massive content... HuttonIT (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Darragh MacAnthony[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Judging by your message at User talk:Rachmha, there appears to be some previous bad blood offwiki. Whatever your dispute is, this is not the place to play it out. Continuing in this manner would most likely result in blocks for both of you. When editing, bear in mind that Wikipedia has a specific policy for articles on living persons, which means material on such articles should always be sourced to reliable sources, doubly so for anything which casts the subject in a negative light.

I note that you described yourself as a "Wiki Moderator" on Talk:Darragh MacAnthony. Given that you are not an administrator, please desist from claiming so immediately. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specific concerns about the article can be raised on the talk page; suggesting changes there before implementing them in the article itself is frequently the best approach when edits are contentious. Stopping the back and forth on the article itself is my first priority, as looking at the history it has been going on for a couple of weeks. A productive talk page discussion would be a welcome development.

While you may have concerns about a conflict of interest, we must balance this with our obligation to write articles about living persons in a conservative manner. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources - things like blogs are not sufficient. With regards to deletion, if MacAnthony's property interests were his only reason for notability I might agree, but as the chairman of a Football League club he is a sufficiently public figure to ensure a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion would result in the article being kept.

On a side note, while I am an administrator, I do not have access to the mailing list so I cannot comment on anything you have sent to it. For reasons of accountability, I try to resolve matters onwiki unless there is a strongly compelling reason not to, but if required I can be contacted by using the "E-mail this user" button in the sidebar to the left of my userpage. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing those edits to my attention; they occurred in a week where I was offline and thus I did not spot them on my watchlist. They were obviously promotional in nature, and I have removed the references to self-published sources. While self-published sources can be used in certain circumstances, they were indeed inappropriate as used. Given the ease with which those edits were missed, more eyes would clearly be useful. I will post a notice at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard, which is frequented by many editors experienced in dealing with this type of article.

As you note, adding material about ongoing court proceedings is inadvisable, and rarely fits with Wikipedia's policies. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MacAnthony again[edit]

Apologies for the delay, I am not as active here as I once was, and can often go a week or more without logging in. As I appear to be about the only regular with the MacAnthony article on my watchlist (and even I have no idea how it first got there!) this clearly presents a problem. Going to WP:BLPN was exactly the right thing to do, and I am dismayed by the lack of response there. I shall endeavour to get more regular editors to look over and preferably watchlist the article. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Martin Clunes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source was Martin Clunes: plonker... HuttonIT (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]