User talk:Jgrantduff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMPORTANT NOTICE

All hackers and disrupters are blocked from contacting this Talk Page 

{{}}

NeilN @Redrose64 @Church

are blackballed from this page. No contact will be made on this by them. They are not entitled to TALK.


Thomas Courtenay, 13th earl of Devon[edit]

I have put some questions regarding changes that yourself and others have made to this article in its discussion page - if you could take a look, I would appreciate it. M3txl (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Giles de Badlesmere, 2nd Baron Badlesmere[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Giles de Badlesmere, 2nd Baron Badlesmere, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Giles de Badlesmere, 2nd Baron Badlesmere is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Giles de Badlesmere, 2nd Baron Badlesmere, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bethoc of Angus[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bethoc of Angus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

notability is not genetically inherited

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ironholds (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If you have a certain historical reference then you could possibly consider deletion; however you will find that most of these names have been borrowed from Cockayne's (variously edited by Vicary Gibbs and others) Peerage or Burke's Peerage. The evidence over the internet is somewhat regurgitated and cannabalized by the absence people (like myself) who are doing original research or corroborated values from original sources. Much of the history dating is copied or transcribed from other secondary sources and so on. As for a short entry: i would have thought it axiomatic that the more entry is added to and the more it will grow. To delete a family for lack of detail misses the point of the 'organic' nature of internet articles; and the Wikipedia.

Speedy deletion nomination of John Gathorne-Hardy, Lord Medway[edit]

A tag has been placed on John Gathorne-Hardy, Lord Medway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Edward of Goodrington[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Davnor (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sir Edward Courtenay[edit]

A tag has been placed on Sir Edward Courtenay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Nuttah (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page titles[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Hugh de Courtenay a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Hugh de Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of George Courtenay[edit]

The article George Courtenay has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unclear why this person is notable (WP:N), and the source is not attributed (WP:V)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sir Philip Courtenay[edit]

The article Sir Philip Courtenay has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Source has not been attributed (WP:V)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing your articles[edit]

Hi Jgrantduff, sorry about the "prod" messages above. For now I won't add any more. All you need to do is state in each of your articles where you got your information from - WP:CITE tells you how. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of George Courtenay[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on George Courtenay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. I am a violinist ♫ talk to me here! 15:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jgrantduff, I can help you with this article if you can tell me what the source of your information is. Without verification, the article is just going to get deleted again. Let me know. Marasmusine (talk)
Hi, thanks for your email. You wrote "I do not know why you suggest that you can help me with the page? It makes no sense for a qualified historian to give you resources so that you patronise the web! i know the sources better than you as i have a degree in it! I study at local libraries in England to find the sources. I am certainly not going to hand you the Golden Cup! " ... "DO not please write to tell something about which you know very little: however if you do your OWN research and use your own brain to write the articles, then go ahead and do better!!! No one is stopping you from adding or researching in order to add to these articles, which are about a family that i know a lot about!!!"
I don't quite understand your tone, but it sounds like you do not wish to cite your sources, and that I should find the sources myself.
When you create a new article, the edit page says "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources." You have attempted the article on George Courtenay twice now, and each time you failed to reference your source. Verification is not "my opinion", it is a core policy of Wikipedia: WP:V.
Since you are the historian, I'd like to see you contribute to Wikipedia. However, the onus is on you to provide your references. I offered my help because I didn't know if you knew how to use the citation templates. The offer still stands. Marasmusine (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth de Vere[edit]

I notice from this article's history that when you created it back in 2009 you wrote that her first husband was killed at the Siege of Rheims on 23 January 1360, a statement that remains in the article. I've just started an article for her first husband and he seems to have died in 1348 or 1349. Where did you get the 1360 date? Opera hat (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward (?) Mowbray[edit]

Hi Jgrantduff, on 28th April 2011, you edited Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, by naming Edward, 2nd Earl of Norfolk as "EDWARD MOWBRAY". I am currently researching the Mowbrays, can you give me any sources or references to this specific Edward Mowbray? Ta Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tHERE IS no talk about the history in your comments. The question mark is in the narrative and not for technical internet jargon. The question of the Mowbray family and their title Earl of Norfolk is subject to HISTORICAL dates and analysis that has nothing to do with wikijargon. The Earls of March married into a number of important late medieval families, although they started out as rough soldiers on the welsh march. But their success like so many of the nobility was due to enforcing of the king's law upon a lawless frontier. Mowbray family lived at Kenninghall in Norfolk on the other side of England. They were involved with the Nevilles, Talbots and later Howards in Yorkshire, and wer influential until their line was made extinct, and their estates went to the Howards through the female right of marriage. You will know that they were also connected to the Sudeley family of the castle in Gloucestershire, who also had lands in Warwickshire. Their affiliation with Edward IV made them Yorkists. If you wish to find references to the Mowbrays there a host of references in Medieval history books: recent books include those written by Ian Mortimer, Juliet Barker, Michael Loades, and older books by Michael Prestwich. Old families have plentiful biography and pedigrees, so you can look for the line in the Complete Peerage. Local Studies in Norfolk will have books published on the family and prominent members. Internet Google Books, Guthenburg e books, and such publications have a wider set of trees and lineage books that describe all members place in history. The american obsession with English history includes the Plantagenet Roll, and the Ruvigny Roll, both of which have a detailed account of lineage of the Mowbrays. Furthrmore their castles and houses will have been published by the Archaeological societies in East Anglia. However you will have to be a member to get access to their collections. Universities often store unpublihsed Ph D works on very specific and in-depth research projects. But they may not be applicable at the time if editors then delete all references in detail. (wikipedia tends to be ruthless and cunning when editing someone else's references!!! they tend to delete with gay abandon!!) Any founding of criticism will depend on the availability of reading and research that can be now AVAILABLE TO amatuers and editors. Professionals will not be paid for editing wiki articles and this means they do not bother!! Good amateur research comes free, but at cost to the researcher. Beware!

License tagging for File:JohnTalbot1tif.tif[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:JohnTalbot1tif.tif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Talbot3.pdf[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Talbot3.pdf. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Talbot3.pdf[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Talbot3.pdf. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to William Dana, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Calabe1992 20:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Leonard Maguire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Patterson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Edmund Trowbridge Dana III[edit]

Hello Jgrantduff,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Edmund Trowbridge Dana III for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, -MJH (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Holliday[edit]

Dear Jgrantduff, I have been researching Jessie Holliday for some time, as she appears in a biography I am writing. Please identify the sources of your information for the page you created. Thanks, gpeterw (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Buller (died 1716) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Gowlden, who inherited from her father 17 manors.<ref name="Burke's Landed Gentry, 1937, p.279"/>n)|Francis Buller]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir John Bright, 1st Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Preston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard Haldane, 1st Viscount Haldane may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • than Austria-Hungary’s 6.1%. Army expenditure was determined according to a formula devised by the [[Mowatt Committee]. In 1900, during the [[Second Boer War|Boer War]], army expenditure was £86.8m,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Haldane, 1st Viscount Haldane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Territorial Army. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sir Francis Mowatt and created articles generally[edit]

It would be useful to the project if you wrote and Wikified your articles in your sand box first before uploading, rather than using the uploaded article as a sand box, giving others extra work in structuring articles. This one in the header looks as is it was copied and pasted from somewhere else, which could give the impression that it violates copyright - it might be taken from an old public domain source, but often these sources don't present information in the fashion required by Wikipedia. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STOP SHOUTING!!!![edit]

Please stop giving people shouty advice like this - 'DO NOT DELETE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES.'. This is not an appropriate use of comments. If other editors are deleting citations or doing other 'bad stuff', discuss it on the appropriate talk page. Snappy (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

This edit summary, "You have already cannabalised my article - no more BOTS!!!", is disturbing on a number of levels. Firstly, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is a policy. It says that "No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular page", so referring to "my article" is against policy. Secondly, I can see no evidence that you had any previous input into the article whatsoever. Thirdly, I can find no evidence of "cannibalism" (whatever that means) in the article history: it has remained essentially unchanged for the last year, at least. Fourthly, the appropriate response to a "refimprove" template is to find references, not to remove it, still less to replace it with a non-existent template! Finally (I think), the edit which you were reacting to was plainly and obviously done by a human, so adding "no more BOTS!!!" makes no sense at all.
The purpose of the edit summary is to summarise what you did (and why, if appropriate). In this case, a proper edit summary (albeit for an improper edit) would have been something like "removed refimprove template because I didn't like it." Looking through your contributions, I notice that a good many edit summaries – including the shouty ones that Snappy talked about above – do not actually relate to the edit that you are doing. For instance, this edit merely adds an article to the "See also" list, but the edit summary is "DO NOT unnecessarily divert the name. The present has been changed from MacDermott/MacDiarmada. Please check correct form beforehand." If you have a problem with the way an article is being edited, just click the "Talk" tab at the top and open a discussion, stating what your problem is, giving examples and suggesting alternatives.
You are obviously a prolific editor, and in general your edits have added valuable content to several articles, though they are not without their faults. However, you need to learn to edit collaboratively and use article talk pages, and you need to learn not to lecture other editors when you are apparently not fully familiar with Wikipedia policies yourself. Scolaire (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance was this edit summary – "editing is by its nature a solitary occupation. The work that I do is based on reading and writing from factual documents. Nothing is left unchecked, and all computerised bots or otherwise that "suggestive" of additional inputs" – meant to be a response to my post above? If so, it will not do. You know how to edit pages. You edit talk pages the same way. Please say what you have to say on the appropriate talk page (in the current instance, this page), not in an edit summary of an article that a given user may not even be watching.
In any case, editing Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "solitary occupation", it is supposed to be collaborative. Nobody has suggested that the work you do is anything other than editing "based on reading and writing from factual documents". However, that edit summary strongly suggests that the work of other editors is not "based on reading and writing from factual documents". This goes against the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. Again, as before, the last bit, "and all computerised bots or otherwise that "suggestive" of additional inputs", makes no sense. It is not even a sentence. Can you please edit this section of this page and explain what message you are trying to get across. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:800px-Oscar Traynor under the X 7541615018.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:800px-Oscar Traynor under the X 7541615018.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of Cquote[edit]

Please read Template:Cquote. The template is not ever supposed to be used in articles in place of Template:Quote or <blockquote>. I have reverted your changes on two articles. Please undo any similar edits that you made to any other articles. Scolaire (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a bit like editing while logged out, which is considered sockpuppetry. --Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the logout is carried out by a Bot program involuntarily. No intentional logout, if editing is to be achieved successfully - that s why you are the lore of the people. Jgrantduff (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying you didn't intend to log out, but you did intend to revert against policy? That is very disappointing. When will you learn to be collaborative instead of disruptive? --Scolaire (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Randle William Gascoyne-Cecil[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Randle William Gascoyne-Cecil requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Amortias (T)(C) 20:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Macready[edit]

Hi - Thank you for your edits to this article. I have reverted your edits because they did not appear to be sourced as required by WP:SOURCE. Please can you add sources when you add material to articles. Thanks in advance. Dormskirk (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sir John Auld Mactaggart, 4th Baronet[edit]

The article Sir John Auld Mactaggart, 4th Baronet has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. PamD 17:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cquote again[edit]

Please stop this. It is disruptive to the whole Wikipedia project. Scolaire (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cquote is basic to the whole narrative to the writing of history That means that it is perfectly acceptable in the canon of literature and writing of programmatic materials if it is accompanied by a block of quotation in a longer passage of literature. I do not use it extensively for every footnote from an academic historian. but it can be used to exemplify a passage. When using a Footnote - bind it into the passage at the end of the last fullstop. Then blockquote this inside, because this is tidy, and the cover it with the formatting of a cquote. But this should be used in longer more significant sized passages of direct citation, and not just willy-nilly.
PERSONAL.
I WOULD prefer it if you did not contact me at all, on every tiny minor little alteration. it is annoying to be picked up on the slightest pretext. Please do not question every tiny thing all the time. Or else I will block you out completely from my account. Jgrantduff (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not supposed to be used AT ALL that way, as you would see if you bothered to read Template:Cquote. A number of editors, including myself, have gone to considerable trouble to REMOVE the template from articles where it shouldn't be. By ADDING it to articles you are being disruptive, and if you continue, I will have to take it to the Administrators Noticeboard. --Scolaire (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might to be a little disappointed then by the millions of punters who have and are using it. I do not hold by the perverse autocracy of computerised Hegelian complex. It is far from being as democratic as you are Supposed to Be! So take the hint. If you have something constructive to add to the content of a page, then let know. Otherwise.... take a long rest and well earned holiday on the Bahamas ..........forever! Jgrantduff (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


And you, stop with the wretched Baklava! I know you're not doing it to spread "Wikilove". Your continued disruption is noted. Scolaire (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Mactaggart[edit]

Please address the issues raised at Talk:Sir John Auld Mactaggart, 4th Baronet. Thank you. PamD 10:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links[edit]

Thanks for your edits on Cambrai 1917 but did you know that there's a device for highlighting duplicate links? It's in the toolbox down the left margin of the page. I changed a couple of your edits as the wikilinks were already there. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

I've fixed a few of your edits. The likes of:

1939&nbsp;–5 October 1977

is not correct. Hohenloh + 19:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please stop doing this, it is wrong. Snappy (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, please stop doing this, it is wrong. Snappy (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book template[edit]

Hi. Just a friendly tip: when converting bare refs to templates, such as here, for instance, you need to take out the two quote marks ('') before and after the title. The template italicises the title, so if you leave the quote marks, it will de-italicise it. Also, please make sure to review your work before saving: the template will give you warnings in red if you've missed something or typed something wrong. And please take note of bot messages such as the above three, and go back and repair your errors. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 9 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Manners[edit]

You've added him to the Royal Horse Guards article, but looking at White-Spunner, Granby had Manners translated from a cornet in the Blues to lieutenant-colonel of the Royal Foresters. You might want to take a closer look at the text and make sure of what applies to the Blues and what to the cavalry in general. Choess (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 6 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Eric Hanbury-Tracy[edit]

Hello Jgrantduff,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Eric Hanbury-Tracy for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Mohith:) 15:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Napier (disambiguation)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Richard Napier (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Disambiguation page with one blue link and one red link.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 02:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 2 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 14 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection request for Reginald Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher[edit]

I have declined your protection request for this article. There is no activity that warrants it. Please note protection is not granted to protect your preferred version of the article or to stop other editors from making changes you don't like. I direct your attention again to WP:OWN. --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your plainly incorrect requests at WP:RFPP are becoming disruptive. Please read Wikipedia's protection policy before making any more requests. And please fix your signature. --NeilN talk to me 14:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, see #Edit summary above. This user seems to vent his feelings about what's allegedly being done to him on one article at a totally unrelated article or (in this case) by citing a totally unrelated article at a WP request page. Also, have a look at the history of his user page, which is another place for him to attack people he thinks are getting at him. I don't know what causes this behaviour, but it needs to be looked at. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire, looking at his edits caused me to give the above warning. Jgrantduff, admins can see what deleted articles you've edited - all ~12 of them. --NeilN talk to me 17:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Higginson[edit]

I have attempted to sort out this scrambled biography into two biographies Thomas Higginson (Canadian politician) from Hawkesbury and Thomas Higginson (soldier), the Lieutenant Colonel from Vankleek Hill. If you have access to a copy of Descendants of Reverend Thomas Higginson, can you check for any inconsistencies with that source? Thank you. Any changes that I have made were based on information in other sources. --Big_iron (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 14 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Socialist Crisis in France[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Socialist Crisis in France requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mike1901 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 October[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 29 October[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 12 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undesirable markup[edit]

Hi. Why are you making edits like this? I've just had to clean up about ten of them. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's been doing stuff like that for months, if not years. He consistently fails to explain his edits, never mind justify them. You won't get any more out of him than I or several other editors did. Scolaire (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if this gets his attention:

Information icon Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to John Prophet, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. This is in relation to this edit where you re-added that pointless line after I had already removed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was made after I posted the above message, therefore: Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Orleton. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to make these unconstructive edits, for example with edits like this, so Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Are you going to explain why you persist in doing that? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be helpful if it was explained to the editor why the markup is undesirable and how it is disruptive to the project? It is certainly not obvious to me. Poltair (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What possible use was adding the line 
<includeonly>Infobox templates</includeonly>
in edits like this, this, this or this? How do those edits improve the articles? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. What does that markup do? Does it do any good? Does it do any harm? The articles look the same to me with or without. Poltair (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does nothing unless the page is transcluded, in which case the text "Infobox templates" is displayed, and that is potentially harmful. It certainly does nothing good. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please stop making edits like this. I have already described that the <includeonly>Infobox templates</includeonly> is undesirable; besides that, the {{DEFAULTSORT:Chatham ministry}} is not just pointless, it means that unnecessary amendments will be necessary should the page ever be moved. See WP:SORTKEY for proper use of the {{DEFAULTSORT:}} behaviour switch. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templating this editor's talk page clearly isn't helping. The disruption caused by the addition of markup that does minor or no harm, though I agree is unnecessary and a little irritating, is somewhat insignificant when compared to the useful work that this editor is doing, and he is clearly here to build an encyclopedia. I'm not sure that the problem of encouraging editors, who are otherwise providing constructive contributions, to engage with the community is one that should be handled by escalating templates in the direction of a block. Can we try and find a more constructive way of dealing with this issue? Poltair (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they are unwilling to discuss except like this, what else is there? ANI? That's last resort. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make a perfectly valid point and I understand the frustration. It may be that eventual administrator intervention might spur the editor to engage, maybe not. My concern is that the project needs all sorts of editors to have a long term future, not just those who conform and engage conventionally. We have here an editor who has some 5,000 edits in the last year alone, of which the vast majority as far as I can see are entirely constructive, who struggles to engage positively at community level and at times adds markup which is at worst unhelpful. Is that something that is intolerable? There are a good number of editors who have created enormous drama at ANI and the like who are still here and still contribute a great deal of valuable content. The community tends to tolerate those who are here to build an encyclopedia despite exhibiting other undesirable behaviours. Is removing the odd bit of markup any worse than correcting the odd typo or adjusting an edit to better comply with MOS? Maybe one of the many bots could include removal of the questionable markup and Jgrantduff could go on quietly doing what he does well without ever being expected to engage with the community? Is that an entirely unreasonable possibility? Best wishes. Poltair (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that I have been back through all Jgrantduff's edits (some 1500 articles) looking for the <includeonly>Infobox templates</includeonly>, and have removed a handful. I will keep an eye on future edits. Poltair (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to User:Redrose64[edit]

Information icon Hi there,I'm Class455fan1. I noticed that your recent edit to the above page was reverted by another user (not me), however this is just to tell you that in future, please put whatever you were doing (looked to me as a complaint) on the appropriate user talk page rather than the user page, so that it can be discussed there. Thanks. Class455fan1 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Brinsop Court[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Brinsop Court requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  superβεεcat  09:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop[edit]

You have been asked on previous occasions to stop adding 

<includeonly>Infobox templates</includeonly>

& 

<includeonly>[[Category:Infobox templates]]</includeonly>

to the bottom of articles that you have edited. These these articles are not templates and they are not infoboxes. There is no point to this markup at all, it is misleading, undesirable and, due to the requirement for other editors to search through your many edits to find the numerous examples of this mess and clean it up after you, it is disruptive to the Wikipedia project. You must STOP adding this markup to articles immediately. I have previously defended you but your unwillingness to engage with, or heed advice from, other editors is becoming a problem. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and we must communicate with each other constructively to successfully build and maintain this enormous project. To facilitate this communication we use edit summaries and talk pages. These are not optional or chit chat pages but absolutely fundamental to the collaborate success of Wikipedia. Please use them and STOP adding that markup. Poltair (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Hello, at User talk:A930913 where you commented on a ReferenceBot issue I noticed that your signature currently does not contain a link to your user page, your user talk page or your contributions. Such a link is required (see WP:SIGLINK) for the convenience of other editors who otherwise might need to look up the page history to find what editor left a specific comment, particularly when your username and the name displayed in the signature don't match. When you customized your signature you probably checked the "Treat the above as wiki markup." checkbox in the Preferences; if you un-check that, the displayed name "Justin Grant-Duff" will automatically be linked to your user page when you sign an edit with four tildes. Huon (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 30 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd George[edit]

Hi, I have undone this edit of yours because it broke some references, producing the error message "Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template". DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Rollingcontributor (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillis Baronets for the original deletion reason. —Kusma (t·c) 19:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 6 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss NEW problems from article David Lloyd George.[edit]

I need your help. Please come to this section of the talk page for this article and discuss new problems that have cropped up on the page you recently edited. Thank you Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 22:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: David Lloyd George[edit]

Please come and discuss adopting a consistent citation style for the article David Lloyd George at the article's talk page. Thank you. Poltair (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 24 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battersbys[edit]

Do you think all those Battersbys are notable? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the page relating to William John Battersby you feature a photograph of Edgar Battersby sitting on a fence. I own the original negative of this picture and ask that you remove it from the Wikipedia page because as I understand no permission has been given for its reproduction. Roadtraff (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick[edit]

Can you help me out to find a reference for this article, James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick? There are several referances to "White-Spunner", but this author is not listet in the bibliography. Can we identify him and his book? --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 15 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 12 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ginchy[edit]

If you square bracket something like the [[56th Division]] you are linking to a disambiguation page, which lists all the 56th Divisions on Wiki. You need to search 56th Division, which takes you to the disamb page and then choose the correct 56th Division ([[56th (London) Infantry Division|56th Division]]); same goes for corps and armies. If you wikilink a name it's the full name not surname and then surname only for subsequent use. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to Wikipedia after your block[edit]

I hope that you will return to editing Wikipedia once your block expires as you have been adding a lot of sourced and relevant content to many articles that might otherwise have received little attention. When you do return I would like to ask you to consider how you interact with other editors. It is important in a project like Wikipedia, which relies almost entirely on voluntary effort, to treat each other with civility no matter how irritated we might become. If you have an issue with an action another editor has taken, you can take that up with them on their talk page; and if you do that in a calm and civil way, very often a solution can be found that is acceptable to both editors.

I would strongly advise you to avoid making requests for page protection that aren't properly formatted and relevant under the Protection Policy. Doing so will almost certainly get you blocked again and very likely for significantly longer than 72 hours. You should also take a moment to adjust your signature so that it complies with the guidelines. Going to preferences:User Profile:Signature and unchecking the 'Treat the above as wiki markup' checkbox will probably suffice.

No one wants to prevent you from editing here but when interacting with other users you must try and do so in a way which is acceptable to community standards. If I can help in any way please ask by posting on my talk page here, and I will do what I can. Best wishes. Poltair (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogus Scaccarius[edit]

A treaty between Scotland and England in which the Scots attempted to establish their constitutional right to speak to their own Nation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Chief Bailiff of Hereford[edit]

Hello Jgrantduff,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Chief Bailiff of Hereford for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Cotton2 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick[edit]

in a series of edits in May 2015 to the article James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick you added a lot of text and supported that text with citations. Unfortunately the citations are not complete. Please add additional details such as "year of publication", "publisher" "location/place of publication" and if they have one an ISBN. (see the policy WP:CHALLENGE and the guideline WP:CITEHOW). -- PBS (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page watcher) at a guess the missing source is "Holmes, Richard (2008). Marlborough: England's Fragile Genius. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-722571-2" (found in John_Churchill,_1st_Duke_of_Marlborough). PamD 12:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Earl of Dundee, Sir Ralph Anstruther of Balcaskie, Bt., and Countess of Dundee at Rossie Castle, 1970.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Earl of Dundee, Sir Ralph Anstruther of Balcaskie, Bt., and Countess of Dundee at Rossie Castle, 1970.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sir Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk, Bt., and Mrs Chalmers Davidson.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sir Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk, Bt., and Mrs Chalmers Davidson.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Steven Morewood[edit]

The article Steven Morewood has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

subject seems likely to meet notability, but article is totally unsupported by references

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Parkywiki (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Francis Burn-Murdoch[edit]

Reference errors on 13 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Railway station merges[edit]

Please do not merge railway station articles into articles about towns or villages, as you did with Ledbury Town Halt railway station and Culgaith railway station. They are different topics, and long-standing convention is that they have separate articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP for List of English and Welsh endowed schools (19th century)[edit]

I've declined your request to protect this page. It's clear there's no on-going disruption. What I see is editors attempting to contact you in good faith about some of your edits, and you are removing the messages or replying with borderline personal attacks. Remember that you do not own pages. With your past blocks for disruption, it would be good for you to start constructively interacting with editors who are trying to work with you positively. -- ferret (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this, I noticed @KrakatoaKatie had already given you a final warning about RFPP requests of this nature. I've indefinitely blocked you as a result. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


May 2017[edit]

"If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked" ? What does this mean? What does disruptive editing even actually mean? What does it do to delete another's page, when you are a Sockpuppet? For that is what you mean by "disruptive editing". I cannot give you new reasons for old blocking programs. For plagiarism means the stealing and copying of files and then adding your name to their authorship. You and your trade union of editors are more skilled at "disruptive editing", than i could possibly be. There is a law against it, but trying to reason with people who are impervious is almost maniacal.

1. Separate content from technical programming 2. Stop jealous reporting of another's article 3. Encourage positive additions, and/or corrections to spelling, punctuation and grammar. 4. Stop over-zealous 'hacking' of other's accounts for personal retribution. 5. Establish why and how you are knowledgeable about a page's content and subject-matter.

The above illustrate some of my principles when trying to handle repeated attempts to hack my pages. I never edit pages about which i know nothing, but then you don't seem to know the meaning of "disruptive editing". It cannot be disruptive to check spelling, grammar and punctuation. I cannot be "disruptive" to check that the facts are correct on a page. It cannot be "disruptive" to refuse to talk with an editor who is doing these things to my own articles.

@ferret is just the most recent among another blind twitter accounts to 'hack' . These also include @RedRose64 and @Church who have also hacked my account for personal gain: be less disruptive? Do you really want to know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrantduff (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean me? If so, please take note that I have never posted to Twitter, nor have I ever hacked anybody else's accounts on any website. So if you do mean me, then what you are claiming constitutes libel. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joseph Proctor (academic)[edit]

The article Joseph Proctor (academic) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. FriyMan talk 14:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Joseph Proctor is NOT A LIVING PERSON. So be wrong about that. I an NOT a beginner, so be wrong about that too. I invented the "Reliable Source" insertion, so be advised that i have read more about that than you have! And yes, i am offended by your junk mailing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrantduff (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nancy O'Rahilly for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nancy O'Rahilly 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/Nancy O'Rahilly 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?[edit]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 15 August 2021.

You have been invited to take part because you are one of the top-ten contributors (according to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo) to five of the articles in my corpus: Moshe Sharett, Theodor Herzl, Yitzhak Rabin, Yitzhak Shamir, and Chaim Weizmann. If you believe you have been invited to fill out this survey in error, my apologies and feel free to ignore this. If you are no longer active on Wikipedia, you are still eligible to take part in this survey.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 20:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jgrantduff&oldid=1140170708"