User talk:SKIBLY101

SKIBLY101, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi SKIBLY101! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies.

Your edits have been filling up my Recent Changes feed (which shows edits that have been made recently), and I didn't notice your earlier contributions. Apologies. As for why: On occasion, editors appear that are intent on vandalizing pages with Extended Confirmed Protection (min 500 edits, min 1 month account age), and their editing generally pattern resembles what you were doing. I made a mistake, sorry!. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi SKIBLY101! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello, I'm Adolphus79. An edit that you recently made to Levy Rozman seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Please see WP:ETHNICITY... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that in this edit to Sir Donough O'Brien, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Sir George Hamilton

Dear SKIBLY101. I see you are an experienced Wikipedian with almost 1000 edits to your credit. I refer to your decision that the portrait of "Sir George Hamilton", NPG1468 in the National Portrait Gallery, London represents Sir George Hamilton, Comte Hamilton ("the younger") rather than Sir George Hamilton, 1st Baronet, of Donalong ("the elder"). This may well be so but I must say I do not know. The National Portrait Gallery (NPG) says the contrary. According to them NPG1468 represents "Sir George Hamilton, 1st Bt." (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp02002/sir-george-hamilton-1st-bt). The book by Sergeant (https://archive.org/details/littlejenningsfi01serg/page/200/) says "Sir George, Count Hamilton. The engraving of the portrait says George Hamilton and indicates "From an original picture in the collection of Lord Beaulieu at Ditton Park". Lord Beaulieu was a descendent of Sir George the younger. The same engraving also appeared in the 1794 London edition of the Memoirs of Count Grammont (https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=_TwrPF3p0u4C&pg=PA237) where George the younger plays a role but not Sir George the elder. The British Museum has a print of this engraving, which is catalogued as "Hamilton, count George" (https://archive.org/details/catalogueofengra02brit/page/n435/).

If we give the man in the painting an age of 40 then the portrait would show the older in 1647 or the younger in 1675. The sitter is clean-shaven. The elder might still have worn the barbiche à la Charles I in 1647. Perhaps flat-lace collars rather than jabots were worn in 1647? One does not see Strafford or Cromwell wear a jabot.

Most of the evidence seem to go your way but it is awkward to go against the opinion of the experts at NPG. I wrote to them and they do not want to change their attribution. How did you find out? Did you find some new evidence? Could you perhaps write an explanation on the talk page of Sir George Hamilton the younger so that editors do not undo your work? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Conall Eachluath. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:04, 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Donough O'Brien moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sir Donough O'Brien, 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} 22:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that he was the 5th Earl, so I have accordingly renamed the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Donough O'Brien, 5th Earl of Thomond has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Donough O'Brien, 5th Earl of Thomond. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Recklessly Defacing Page

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

User talk:Robert McClenon, who has admin privileges, moved the page Sir Donough O'Brien (which was moved into the draft space) to the current name of Draft:Donough O'Brien, 5th Earl of Thomond despite the fact that he wasn't the 5th Earl of Thomond (that would be Henry O'Brien, 5th Earl of Thomond). He was told on his talk page multiple times to change it back but ignored these requests and instead starting picking bizarre issues with the page and leaving cleanup tags. Since these messages were left he just completely forgot about the page and ignored the requests to fix this blunder, and is still editing other pages in his contributions history to date (so he isn't offline). Can someone who has the rights to change page names change it back to the original name instead of this erroneous one since he is clearly unwilling to do so (his ego may be damaged). SKIBLY101 21:40 GMT 31/12/2021

Thanks for posting this help request. You also added it to the administrators noticeboard, and the answer is provided there. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at WP:ANI, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct at ANI is far short of that expected from editors with some experience, and your reaction to his rather mild queries concerning an appropriate resolution to the naming issue is over the top. Please reconsider your approach to your interactions with other editors I have closed the thread, since the behavioral issue that I see is with your conduct, not with Robert's,. Acroterion (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SKIBLY101, you owe an apology to Robert McClenon for your reprehensible behavior. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: your signature

Your signature has the timestamp formatted incorrectly. Currently it is in the format of 00:00 GMT 00/00/0000, when it should be 00:00, 00 January 0000 (UTC) (as generated by ~~~~~). Keeping it in the former format will break archiving bots and scripts, so I advise you to either revert to the default signature, or type [[User talk:SKIBLY101|SKIBLY101]] into the "Signature" field, making sure to check the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup". Once you've done that, do not modify the timestamp in your signature any further with succeeding edits. Thanks, and have a wonderful New Year's. —GMX^{^(ping!)} 00:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of copyright violation

I note that you have recently created the article Sir Donough O'Brien. Unfortunately the article violates Wikipedia's copyright requirements.

You created the article by copying and pasting the content from the Draft version of the article without waiting for the AfC process to complete. This is known as a 'cut and paste move' and is strictly prohibited. To satisfy the copyright requirement all contributions to Wikipedia have to be attributed to the editor making those contributions. By making the cut and paste move, all the attribution to the article is no longer visible under the 'View history' tab and thus the entire article is now unattributed which is a violation of the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence.

Accordingly: the article has been deleted. You are free, of course, to nominate the article for creation in the correct way.86.158.241.251 (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your 4th Earl or not

I see you are now seeking to get your article created in the correct manner.

One thing that you may like to consider: 'Draft:Donough O'Brien, 4th Earl of Thomond' still exists as an erroneous redirect to the guy who was not the 4th earl. You can ask for that redirect page to be speedy deleted by placing "{{Db-g7}}" right at the top of the page (only you can do this). G7 is the code for 'author requests deletion'. There are some issues over deleting redirects, but as this is a draft redirect unlikely to be linked elsewhere, there should not be a problem especially as you are shown as the sole contributor.

You may also wish to request speedy deletion of the erroneous 'Draft:Donough O'Brien, 5th Earl of Thomond' but as you are not shown as the author, you will have to use '{{Db-g13}}' which is the code for abandoned drafts.86.158.241.251 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Draft:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595)

Hello SKIBLY101! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Draft:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https:clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/places/dromoland_castle.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Draft talk:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Draft:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595), in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Draft talk:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Draft talk:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595) with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Draft talk:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Vuehalloo (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sir Donough O’Brien

Congratulations on the rewrite of the offending paragraph on the above article. You have reduced the verbatim quote from the offending website from 51% (which is regarded as unacceptable) to 21% (which is regarded as an acceptable level), though the original offending paragraph was 82% verbatim quote. The new one is still within the acceptable levels.

Unfortunately you did not follow the instructions on the Copyvio notice. First it specifically states that you, “must not restore or edit the blanked content…”. The instructions specifically tell you to create a temporary subpage (and there is a handy link that does all the work for you). In your case, I can put this down to your relative inexperience on Wikipedia. In future, you really must read what the screen is telling you to avoid these problems (and don’t worry I have dropped a few clangers myself).

Your deletion of the template and your rewrite has not resolved the problem because the copyright violation remains, even though it is now buried in the article version history where it is not permitted to remain. Doing the job properly allows the attending admin or copyright clerk to easily construct a new article and then revdel the existing one which removes all trace of the copyvio text (the current article is still flagged as a copyvio on the list so it may yet get revdeled).

My initial reaction was to revert the article to the version with the notice and let you start again. However: in view of the good faith effort that you have put in to create a new article on a notable person and not to discourage you from further creations, I have decided to drop a note on the administrator’s noticeboard and solicit their advice and help. Hopefully: this can be easily resolved on the path of least resistance.

Anyway: keep up the good work and good luck with your future editing. Vuehalloo (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt: investigation revealed that you had copied the offending text from Dromoland Castle. Although copying from other Wikipedia articles is discouraged (mostly because Wikipedia is regarded as unreliable), you did include the references from the original article. There is therefore no suggestion of malfeasance on your part. The fault lay with whoever put the text into Dromoland Castle in the first place. Anyway: all offending material has been revdeled and everything is alright with the (copyrighted) world and you did nothing wrong. Good luck with the article. Vuehalloo (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donough O'Brien (b. 1595) has been accepted

Donough O'Brien (b. 1595), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Toadspike (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ehrmantraut‎

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:SKIBLY101. Thank you for your recent attention to the article Turlough MacShane O'Neill. You seem to say that Shane O'Neill (Irish chieftain), the proud, was not his great-granfather but his grandfather. Unluckily you did not add a reference. Perhaps you were planning to do this later. I looked around and found a family tree in the literature, that I added to the article. According to this family tree, Shane O'Neill, the proud, was neither his grandfather nor his great-grandfather. Of course the pedigree could be wrong. Further confirmation should surely be sought. What do you think? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:12, 24 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]