User talk:Caraghm

This is Caraghm's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 23)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Theroadislong was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Caraghm! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Caraghm/sandbox

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 User:Caraghm/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Caraghm. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Rob Speyer, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering about Richard Plepler and Peter Gelb, where you have made clearly promotional edits--which, in addition, aren't properly formatted or verified. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Caraghm! Your additions to Peter Marino have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Just dumping links into articles is not the way to references them. The correct way is to place the references at the end of the sentence. And in the form of <ref>description of the source</ref>. Make sure the description is as accurate as possible, including page numbers when relevant. The Banner talk 07:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please also note that references should support the text they are placed alongside. This Irish Times article, for example, makes no mention of Guinness. And, even if we engage in SYNTH and consider Diageo and Guinness to be analgous, the article does not attribute any visitor growth to a sponsorship deal (or suggest that such growth started or even coincided with such sponsorship). Also note that this source is clearly a Wikipedia mirror and this source is someone's person blog. Neither are reliable sources (and both have been removed). Guliolopez (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello! I'm The Banner. Your recent edit(s) to the page Inner Temple appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Most of the links you added are completely nonsense. The Banner talk 23:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a link to the Petyt Manuscripts which are housed at the Inner Temple library - somewhere wonderful to visit and are where the Manuscripts are housed so why was this "nonsense"? Caraghm (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Competence is required

With all due respect, but upon checking (a number of) your edits I got serious concerns about your competence in editing Wikipedia. Like what I wrote earlier about your edits on Inner Temple, most of your links were nonsense. Completely unrelated. Could you please up your game and check both links and references to make sure that they are really about the subject at hand? And relevant? The Banner talk 23:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caraghm: Can you please respond? The Banner talk 16:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been offline but will check specifically re Inner Temple as i have spent A LOT of time there so not sure what could have been "nonsense"? 2603:8002:B40:EA:1C8B:1855:1C9E:F09B (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Example 1: Hare Court was named after Nicholas Hare, who built the first set in 1567. You linked to Nicholas Hare Architects, founded in 1977. So not responsible for building in 1567. The correct Nicholas hare was already linked.

Example 2: The first building (described by Charles Dugdale as "the Great Brick Building over against the Garden") was constructed in 1628, and completely replaced in 1737. No idea why you link Charles Dugdale to James Dugdale, 2nd Baron Crathorne. The given source reads Bellot (1902) p.71, what makes the source 37 years OLDER than the mr. Dugdale you linked.

I fear that each and every edit of you has to be checked to see if it is correct. Ow, and don't dump sources randomly in a text or even in a word. The correct place is at the end of a sentence, after the punctuation. The Banner talk 23:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will absolutely check the above edits but I genuinely thought I has checked the correct architects. Will be more careful double checking. I doing doing this as a full time job but rather as something to keep me entertained while going through cancer treatments! Caraghm (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Brian O'Driscoll

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

--Blablubbs (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my account permanently. This is such an ill conceived platform at this point. Caraghm (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]