User talk:Grosseteste

August 2019

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. N.J.A. | talk 14:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Grosseteste (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is neither a 'sock puppet' or alternate account, this is an account created to act as a primary account. Other accounts have been created on this IP, but are no longer in use as would be supported by the most recent log in dates on those accounts. Deception was not in anyway the intent with the creation of this account. I can understand the concerns surrounding sock puppetry, but am unsure what flagged this account, has not been used to counteract any edit attempts made by other accounts on this IP, Best Regards.

Decline reason:

Socking is only one concern here, but an ordinary admin should not be unblocking those as there is likely information they are not privy to. There is a deeper reason for the block. Also, the edits stopped by the filter log are concerning. As if that wasn't enough, there is the incivilty recounted below that is probably part of the pattern I'm not privy to -- Deep fried okra 11:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Administrator note Reviewing admins should consider the filter log as well in assessing any requests for unblock. N.J.A. | talk 15:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Please list all other accounts you have used.-- Deep fried okra 19:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only one i can recall, is Slade121. There may be one other from several years ago that i no longer remember the user or password for, which is why i used the plural, just incase there was something i was forgetting. However Slade121 will be the only other account logged into on this IP in several years, Best Regards.

Is there any other information which needs to be provided Deep fried okra? N.J.A. | talk, Best Regards

Deepfriedokra, wow about the incivility displayed here?

"Rather i have noticed a pattern, in which a limited number of individuals have hoped to sneak their own preferences into the article, often after an agreement had been reached previously to do exactly the opposite"
"Hoping to seemingly bore their opposition in submission through frequent and persistent reiteration of niche arguments and view points, and often the use of what can be only be described as underhand tactics, for example the banding together and canvassing of likeminded individuals ( -side note- in effect trying to create an anti infobox movement, a bewildering and in truth embarrassing effort."
"Those who have been the primary instigators of this have in my findings frequently shown themselves up, through an apparent desire to create some sense of ownership over the subjects article and its goings on."
"An educated and concise response would be appreciated"

This editor is clearly not here to collaborate, rather to stir pots which are notoriously controversial. Cassianto^Talk 07:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had that been the case i would have edited the article to promote my own beliefs and preferences without consultation, rather than opened a point of discussion on the talk page (which would have been ironic, seeing as that was exactly what i had accused you of). Every point i raised was a legitimate one, including the mentioning of poor spelling, which you may have viewed as an insult, but actually was an important issue relating to the quality of edits being made, Best Regards User:Grosseteste

Is straight talking a bannable offence DeepFriedOkra?, because that is all that that amounts to, despite it perhaps looking as if it had been intended to be rude or uncivil. Especially taking into account the tone of messages and actions i had seen including those undertaken by Cassinato, who has decided to pitch in despite it not being under his purview. I was banned for 'Sockpuppetry' which is evidently not accurate, Best Regards User:Grosseteste

You received a DS notice which is there to remind people to engage in idiotbox discussions with some civility. You did not do that. Cassianto^Talk 09:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i received that notice subsequent to my raising of the issue, because apparently that amounted to me 'taking an interest in infoboxes' rather than the reality. Which was in effect taking an interest in the supercilious nonsense, as i described it then, which is coming across again now and which at the time was evident in the shutting down of anyone with differing views to your own. Seemingly because you have a vendetta against the use of infoboxes (which is clear from your decision to deride them as idiot boxes, perhaps not the most 'civil' of actions, but again i would ask you to direct me to the parts of my comments which are uncivil) and their use in any context, or perhaps your issues lie in the broadening of the appeal of wikipedia in general, perhaps you could clarify this, Regards User:Grosseteste

There's a difference between plain-speaking and sheer rudeness. Ever read the part about "discuss content and not other editors"? Plainly speaking, that oh-so-sophisticated, browbeating, condescension would have pissed me off if you'd directed it at me. It would not have encouraged me to see your point of view. That you have no problem with creating insults instead of discussing in a collegial manner, and cannot see that it is wrong to do so, is yet another reason to not unblock you.-- Deep fried okra 11:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is yes, and i don't feel i crossed that boundary. As i said any mention of spelling was purely in relation to the quality of edits. I hadn't read that part no, but i feel all points i raised referred exclusively to the content of the article in mention. Which had been edited by Cassianto in order to remove an infobox without any discussion or consultation of the readership, which is why i mentioned an attempt to 'create some sense of ownership' he also refers to infoboxes as idiot boxes the implication being there that only idiots need them as the information is plainly visible. Not only is that condescending (something you have just accused me of but which i reject) but plainly untrue as they enable those who want to learn a basic understanding of a subject or lack the time to read an entire article to do so in a timely manner. If anyone was to raise these issues to him he shut them down, telling them things like 'there are thousands of other articles on wikipedia, why focus on this one', rather than actually responding to any queries or issues with his decisions. I fail to see any relevance to the 'oh-so-sophisicated' part, that was not my intention, i was as i said speaking plainly and those were the words that i felt best played out the situation. I am firmly against needless unpleasantries and bullying, which was the foundation of the discussion i raised, and why i started said discussion rather than doing as Cassianto had done and added without consultation. I apologise for any undue and unintended offence and insults were never the impression that i wanted to create, rather i felt i was continuing in the tone that had been set by those involved in the debate surrounding the Ian Fleming article. I have to add that i'm confused by your summarising point, that it is 'another reason' to not unblock me, as i had explained this is not a sock puppet account, thus surely it would be the only reason to not block me, and i was not made aware that talking in such a manner was a reason for an account to be permanently blocked, if i had known perhaps i would have spoken differently, but i feel it is always better to maintain an honest approach. Best Regards User:Grosseteste

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Grosseteste (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reason=Still unsure as to why i am blocked, it seems the ban was cautionary as for some reason this account was flagged for Sockpuppetry, but this is the only account active on this IP address as i am sure would be confirmed by access to information i imagine admins have. It seems the continuation of the ban now seems to be personal inclination due to what was seen to be incivility which was not the intention and for which an apology has been given. My intention has only ever been to contribute (issues arose from a discussion i raised, rather than edit without consultation) and there are several articles which without me will rarely be updated or maintained, Best Regards Grosseteste (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC). (Bump - am unaware if this is under consideration or whether by default it is being ignored, but as previously stated there is no instance of sock-puppetry, and i am still oblivious as to why that was ever an assumption.) Grosseteste (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have unblocked to allow you to make positive contributions, though be warned that any incivility and or edits that are disruptive may result in an immediate block without further warning. I will not comment on the socking concern, as clearly I was (and remain) concerned although is a chance of inappropriate use of multiple accounts, I cannot say with absolute certainty this is the case and a checkuser has not looked into this. I will not ask for one to do so as I'd like to see what happens behaviourally, though another user may raise an investigation if they reasonably believe it proper. N.J.A. | talk 14:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring the issues raised here about your editing. Any comments on that? N.J.A. | talk 10:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not intentionally, i thought the issue that raised as the reason for the ban was sockpuppetry, and then following that criticism of the wording/language of the post made on an articles talk page (which was deliberately made prior to any blanket editing). If there are any specific issues, i am perfectly willing to comment on them. Grosseteste (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

On looking further i saw something about edits blocked on the filter log, but those appear to be mainly attempted edits to my own talk page and the rest are edits to the talk page of the article in question.

NJA Your consideration and just and fair arbitration is appreciated, Best Regards Grosseteste (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

FYI, when making changes, please normally use edit summaries. Thanks, N.J.A. | talk 16:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

In relation to NJA's comment (that "another user may raise an investigation if they reasonably believe it proper"), I would note that I believe the sock claims to be reasonable.

Even if we overlook the userboxes and NOTHERE behaviours (which overlap significantly with Slade121), the overlap in articles generates a deafening QUACK. Given that effectively every single edit of Grosseteste's overlaps with articles of recurring interest to Slade121. (James Larkin and Lai Guochuan? There's a venn diagram of interest that I'd like to see explained with anything other than "sock" affixed to it.)

For myself, I was drawn here by the effectively identical nature of this recent Grosseteste edit compared to these previous Slade121 examples. Which I recognised immediately. I would say more, but I have a headache from the deafening QUACKs. Guliolopez (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took some Disprin and opened the SPI thread. Guliolopez (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez: note above he had admitted as such and I believe that was handled by admin Deepfriedokra who blocked the account. N.J.A. | talk 01:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing to note surely being the wikipedia statement on sock puppetry, which i will verbatim copy from warnings on such matters 'Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not'. I never once denied that Slade121 was a former account of mine, that does not equate to sockpuppetry. Slade121 has not been logged into for many months and the two accounts have at no point been active concurrently. Best Regards Grosseteste (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks NJA. Hello again Slade121/Grosseteste.

RE: "Admission". Apologies. No, I had not noted that. As per my comment above, I only arrived here because I saw what, to me, appeared to be a sock being used to re-open a previous edit war. I hadn't, with apologies, taken the time to read the full block/unblock thread. I probably should have.
RE: "Handled". In honesty I don't think the issue is addressed/handled. The explanation offered ("I forgot the usernames/passwords of my several previous profiles") does perhaps fall under the "compromised accounts" criteria of WP:SOCKLEGIT. Allowing this (new) profile to be used for constructive editing. But, in honesty, it doesn't look like this profile was created for entirely constructive editing. Given that the very first thing it was used for was a less than constructive/collegiate talk page rant. And the most recent thing it was used for was to reopen an edit war (long since addressed through natural consensus and compromise wording).
RE: "Using socks for legitimate reasons is allowed". While I'll add an additional note to the SPI thread, I am inclined to leave it open. As I don't that WP:SOCKLEGIT is the only consideration here. If it's closed for procedural reasons, then I'll leave that to the closer.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again indeed...

I am unsure as to your inclination here. This matter was resolved, the block was not for as you state in your SPI 'less than constructive/collegiate talkpage attack' but for suspicions of sockpuppetry, which understandably and rightly led to a block, however by the definition of sockpuppetry proved to not be the case, hence the unblock. Whilst reluctant to drag up the same points again, it seems i will have to. The 'talk page attack' as you refer to it was nothing of the sort, rather than make blanket and wholesale changes i decided it was best to raise the issues on the articles talk page, in admittedly a rather short and direct manner (this was was in response to what i had at the time perceived to be the nature of the tone set by those i was responding to), i have apologised for this in earlier posts. As for 'reopening an edit war' i feel this is a rather grandiose description of what amounts to 3-4 edits between the pair of us, relating to one word in a sentence in a rather large article, for which various alternatives have been mooted and never the same repeated edit. As for a 'natural consensus' having been reached, i reject this statement as factually incorrect, the subject has never been raised on the articles talk page (which is why i have now created such a post on there) rather it has seemingly by default remained in line with your own inclination, and it is the supposed 'compromise wording' that i find fault with.

To claim that this profile was not created with the intention of constructive editing is an inaccurate claim, having already addressed the two examples you used this then fails to take into account the already vast number of edits made by this account which have contributed to numerous articles in an constructive (and referenced) manner. You go onto note in your SPI that you are unsure as to whether SOCKLEGIT applies, this account as has been stated numerous times, is and never has been a sockpuppet and as has also previously been stated by the unblocking admin, the account which had been in use previously has been blocked now which is an administrative and de jure resolution to an account which had already been de facto deactivated by way of it being un-usable (by way of me not having access to it). I find it to be a wholly pointless and generally needless ordeal to attempt to re-open something which had been resolved by an admin (in fact the admin who originally blocked this account) without any new information, context or inference. Moreover your statement in your SPI that i claimed to have never 'consecutively used multiple profiles' is either factually or grammatically incorrect, i did in fact only claim to have used them consecutively, as in one after the other and not at the same time or 'concurrently' as i in fact actually stated. Regards Grosseteste 12:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the SPI case should be closed as the multiple account matter was already handled here. He says he forgot his login and created a new account and that old account is now blocked. That's it. As for initial edits, clearly there was concern, which, along with suspicions of socking, led to the initial block and the discussion thereafter. The circumstances have not changed since my unblocking, and I have been keeping an eye on the matter. Aside from not using edit summaries, he has not acted contrary to policy or my unblock conditions. N.J.A. | talk 13:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Your addition to Danilo Butorović has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. (NB: edit was made under your Slade121 account) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first instance of your edits being deleted and needing intervention an admin to WP:REVDEL the entries due to copyright violations. This happened on the 28th Sept, 4th and 9th of October 2019. If this happens again you will be indefinitely blocked from editing. As you were advised when I unblocked, "any incivility and or edits that are disruptive may result in an immediate block without further warning" — I count multiple REVDEL’s as disruptive, but I am giving you one final warning. Please ensure you are complying with our policies in this regard (as linked to in the above message from Justlettersandnumbers, N.J.A. | talk 10:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NJA

I had been under the impression that quoting from a source was an acceptable course of action, as long as quotation marks were used and the source material was referenced.

Apologies, Grosseteste 12:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: West Bromwich Albion Training Ground (October 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Willsome429 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs sources from other outlets besides Express and Star.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:West Bromwich Albion Training Ground and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:West Bromwich Albion Training Ground, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grosseteste! 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! Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:West Bromwich Albion Training Ground concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:West Bromwich Albion Training Ground, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:West Bromwich Albion Training Ground

Hello, Grosseteste. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "West Bromwich Albion Training Ground".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Naby Keïta, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psst

You forgot Sir Jack Brabham ;) GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil language

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

213.205.194.93 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a notification should be done once, just so editors are aware of the ArbCom restrictions. These should only be done once a year. You have done it twice in five minutes, which is harassment. Stop. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored a warning that was removed and updated it to note your uncivil response, namely calling me a prick for having made the warning. Rather than making the warning 'twice in 5 minutes'. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Restoring it is making the warning twice. And it didn’t need to be made in the first place: I’m obviously aware of the restrictions, given I’ve warned other people for breaching them. You included. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Restoring it was intended to make sure the warning was understood rather than disregarded, which is the only real assumption that can be made when your response to said warning was to call the editor who made it a prick, whilst not 5 minutes before preaching the need for civility. This represents either a severe lack of self-awareness and a large degree of irony, or that you don't have any real belief in the message put out by the warning and are instead merely using it as a form of targeted harassment to those who happen to have a different belief to your own. Note the claims from two other editors of the Ian Fleming talkpage that you made edits to their own talk pages immediately subsequent to them making edits to said articles talkpage. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, reverting me was harassment, pure and simple. When messages are deleted, it is taken under WP rules that the message has been read (see WP:REMOVED). So reverting the deletion is exactly the same as a second warning. You should not be edit warring with people on their talk pages if they remove one of your messages.
      - You should not have left the message in the first place. They are to provide information to users unaware of the restrictions. As I’ve left them for others, it’s blindingly obvious I am aware of the restrictions. Leaving it in the first place was an act of petty harassment. Edit warring to leave it a second time is ridiculous. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You will note I have left the warning you made on my talk page, despite it being completely unfounded. It's 'blindingly obvious' that you are not aware of the restrictions as your response to dispute over your apparent belief that I had been 'uncivil' was to be undeniably uncivil. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
        Its not unfounded (obviously). And I was obviously aware of the restrictions before the first act of harassment, let alone the second. Thankfully I won’t have to deal with you again the future: it has been a most unpleasant experience of watching you try to ‘win’ something unwinnable. 213.205.194.93 (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Judging by your childish edits to The King Alfred School, Highbridge Wikipedia article a couple of years ago, and continued immature behaviour in our interactions it is clear that you are perhaps only recently out of education, or perhaps still in it (hopefully this is the case as there are some areas which could do with work and I would focus on that). This is also clear from the playground mentality of perceiving this as something to be 'won' or lost. On the contrary I'm not even quite sure I'm aware what it is that you deem to be 'unwinnable'. Nor do I think you understand the concept of quotation marks, as you used them when referring to the word win, a word that I never used. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you talk tripe. I’ve never edited that page in my life. 213.205.194.6 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take the silence in relation to the other points that I raised as quiet and reluctant acceptance, and draw this unfortunate interaction to its' long overdue conclusion. Best Regards (and hopefully farewell), Grosseteste (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can take it anyway you wish. I do not wish to continue any discussion with you at all, and I’m just glad not to have to deal with you or your incivility any further. 213.205.194.6 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Larkin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dublin South. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Your edit to James Larkin has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to why your edits on the James Larkin article and here appear to relate to me, as the section from https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/the-union-cult-of-larkin-is-built-on-factually-baseless-myths-29079014.html was not added by me, and the small section from irish history live that was added by me was short (amounting to about 8 lines), re written and referenced. However the edit history page on the article now gives the impression of dozens of major edits made by myself having been reversed. The replacement text did not make sense as important context had been removed and included spelling mistakes. An explanation would be appreciated. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sir John Savage born c.1370

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 Sir John Savage born c.1370 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.thehennesseefamily.com/getperson.php?personID=I43198&tree=hennessee and http://miller-aanderson.blogspot.com/2012/02/john-savage-1370-1450.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. JW 1961^Talk 14:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section which was copied is a passage which is taken directly from the 14th century contemporary source and was identified as such by use of quotation marks. I am not sure there is any other way to use this passage. Grosseteste (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rake.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of John Savage (soldier)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Savage (soldier) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of John Savage (soldier)

The article John Savage (soldier) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:John Savage (soldier) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of John Savage (soldier)

The article John Savage (soldier) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Savage (soldier) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of James Larkin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Larkin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of James Larkin

The article James Larkin you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:James Larkin for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Box Hill School Logo.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Box Hill School Logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy McComish moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Roy McComish, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Roy McComish - founder and first headmaster of Box Hill School.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Roy McComish - founder and first headmaster of Box Hill School.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jocelin Winthrop Young and Constantine II of Greece (then Crown Prince).jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jocelin Winthrop Young and Constantine II of Greece (then Crown Prince).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Roy McComish

Hello, Grosseteste. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Roy McComish, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References at Box Hill School

Hi Grosseteste,

In this edit to the article Box Hill School you added some references that I find quite cryptic, all with the same link https://www.jocelinwinthropyoung.com/work/round-square/ . Subsequently, in this edit, a user using a poorly designed script and not checking its output altered all of those references. As part of a cleanup project, I have been trying to undo the damage inflicted by the script; however, in this particular article, because I don't understand the original references you added, I'm not sure how to repair it. Is there any chance you could take a look?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Grosseteste. Thank you for your work on Roy McComish. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]