User talk:Shamshamster1234

Shamshamster1234, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Shamshamster1234! 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 Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Grace Tallon

Hello, Shamshamster1234,

Thanks for creating Grace Tallon! I edit here too, under the username StudiesWorld and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This is currently an Orphan. If there are any pages that should link to it, please link to it there. It also is heavily reliant on primary sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|StudiesWorld}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

StudiesWorld (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Mitchell

Hallo, I reverted two of your edits because as well as adding the cropped image you'd managed to lose all the copyediting I'd done (eg not using "th" in dates, and infobox goes at the top, etc). I then put your cropped image back into the page, so all looks fine now. Thanks. PamD 16:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tadgh Quill for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tadgh Quill 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/Tadgh Quill 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. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hi. In relation to this and related edits/edit summaries:

RE: "I deem them as reliable sources". The reliable sources guideline is what determines the reliability of sources. Not individual editors.
RE: "you were looking for a bloody citation and I gave you one". The civility guidelines have been highlighted for you only very recently.
RE: "and the links worked for me". The verifiability guidelines make it clear that other editors also need to be able to access the links. Other editors cannot access your private Facebook page/profile. A link that only works for you or your FB connections doesn't meet these guidelines. And, in any event, is irrelevant anyway. As Facebook posts are not reliable sources.

At this point I would recommend that you let the AfD discussion run its course. As you're just running yourself into a bit of a frenzy right now. And its worth just taking a breath for a minute. All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re being unbelievably patronizing at the moment. The links are accessible to all. Also, guidelines are not rules, there’s a difference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure you mean well, but I would recommend that you read WP:BLUDGEON and consider how it applies to your deletion involvement. We want to help you improve this article and enter the Wikipedia community. Unfortunately, we have a lot of norms that one can only learn by reading policies or with experience. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not forcing my point of view. Have I coerced anyone? No I haven't. Ye are not being very helpful to me, merely nonsensically critical.

I was just minding my own business before all this happened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs)

Hi Shamshamster1234:

RE: "You’re being unbelievably patronizing". I am trying not to be. Genuinely. But you're not making it easy TBH.
RE: "The links are accessible to all". They are not. Log out of FB (or use incognito mode in your browser or whatever) and try accessing those links. It's academic anyway, as photos and FB posts are not reliable sources.
RE: "guidelines are not rules". Wikipedia's policies (like WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL and the others highlighted) are not optional. Wikipedia's policies are it's rules.

Anyway, per StudiesWorld and my own note above, if might be worth pausing for a bit. Have a quick look over the various links/etc. And perhaps coming back later. I'm gonna take a leaf from my own book and do the same for a bit. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

where the hell did my last comment go it has been some revert yoke has appeared

My response is as follows: WP:RS 'Wikipedia articles 'should' be based on reliable, published sources.' This is not the same as as saying that they are obliged to be based on 'reliable' (wikipedia's definition / objective view), published sources. WP:VER 'In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.' Other people can check all information provided (under a particular set of circumstances. It never said all people had to be able to view it. If I'm browsing an article and lose network connection whilst reading, and a reference I click doesn't load, what happens there?

Oh I just noticed what that revert note was for. So when I revert a page with reason provided, I'm apparently 'edit warring', and when someone else does it, they're not? This section also gives me the opportunity to note the difference between a guideline and a rule. A guideline acts as a basis, a rule is something that is coerced. Note the use of the word 'rule' used in reference to 'edit-warring', which features the threat of a block. There's a difference.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 16:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shamshamster1234. You've been warned per the result of the complaint. If you continue in the same way at Tadgh Quill, ignoring all advice, you are risking a block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hey. You uploaded various images to Commons as "own work" on the grounds that they were photographs you took... of other photographs, and of book covers. That's not what 'own work' means.

However, those photos can (mostly) be uploaded here. But you have to do it properly, or they'll get deleted again. For instance, you need to indicate their provenance.

Let me know if you need any help getting the hang of it. DS (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timothy Quill, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dublin South, Patrick Murphy and Daniel O'Leary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple articles on Mitchell-Quill family members

Hello. Me again. I have no doubt that you are very proud of your family and ancestors. That's laudable. However, you really should take another look at the guidelines relating to refraining from creating articles about yourself and your family, and those relating to using Wikipedia as a memorial site or extension to Ancestry.com or similar. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reiterate the above; Wikipedia is not a geneology site, and you need to stop using it like one. Your research into your family's history is laudable, but this is not the place to publish it; I would suggest you consider starting your own website or blog to document it instead. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Maud Mitchell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maud Mitchell 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/Maud Mitchell 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Herbert 'Sean' Mitchell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Herbert 'Sean' Mitchell 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/Herbert 'Sean' Mitchell 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruth Mitchell-Quill has been accepted

Ruth Mitchell-Quill, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MurielMary (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ruth Mitchell-Quill

The article Ruth Mitchell-Quill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Delete as failing WP:ANYBIO. Or return to draft until notability is established/set-out in article. (Not every medical doctor or consultant or professor meets the notability criteria. As with other articles created by this editor on their immediate family members, WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ruth Mitchell-Quill for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruth Mitchell-Quill 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/Ruth Mitchell-Quill 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. Guliolopez (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Duncan Smith (Irish politician)

The article Duncan Smith (Irish politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable local politician. Local councillors in Ireland do not meet WP:NPOL. No indication WP:SIGCOV is met. The only non-trivial coverage is the very recent (and minimal) coverage of the subject's candidacy in a by-election. Standing in a by-election doesn't contribute to WP:NPOL. Being a candidate for national office is some distance from holding a national office.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Maher (Irish politician)

The article John Maher (Irish politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable local politician. Local councillors in Ireland do not meet WP:NPOL. No indication WP:SIGCOV is met. The only non-trivial coverage is the very recent (and minimal) coverage of the subject's candidacy in a by-election. Standing in a by-election doesn't contribute to WP:NPOL. Being a candidate for national office is some distance from holding a national office.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of George Lawlor

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

Non-notable local politician. Local councillors in Ireland do not meet WP:NPOL. No indication WP:SIGCOV is met. The only non-trivial coverage is the very recent (and minimal) coverage of the subject's candidacy in a by-election. Standing in a by-election doesn't contribute to WP:NPOL. Being a candidate for national office is some distance from holding a national office.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. Me again. A quick recap about what Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are about. Or, more properly, what they are NOT about:

Wikimedia Commons is not a personal repository for family photographs. Per COM:SCOPE, images must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. A picture of a family member's office door/sign may be of interest to you, but is unlikely to be of educational value more broadly.
Wikimedia Commons is not a place to upload images which were just "grabbed from the internet" or "photos of photos" or "photos of books". Per COM:SCOPE, images must be freely licensed or public domain. Multiple scans/photographs of the pages of a family memoir may be of interest to you, but cannot be uploaded where that book is a copyrighted work.
Wikipedia is not a place to create pages on family members, people who do not meet the GNG or NPOL guidelines or who otherwise fail WP:NBIO.

Multiple other contributors (to both the Wikimedia Commons and this Wikipedia project) have attempted to draw your attention to these policies. There is limited evidence that these attempts have been heeded in any way. While all new editors are afforded the presumption of good faith (and new editors are therefore afforded a significant amount of leeway to make mistakes and learn-by-doing), if the community spends more time cleaning up an editor's mistakes (and educating them about policies and guidelines) than is considered reasonable, then it may be that the goodwill/goodfaith has run out. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of George Lawlor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Lawlor 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/George Lawlor 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. Guliolopez (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Duncan Smith (Irish politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Duncan Smith (Irish politician) 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/Duncan Smith (Irish politician) 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. Guliolopez (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John Maher (Irish politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Maher (Irish politician) 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/John Maher (Irish politician) 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. Guliolopez (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi. Given that you have ignored DOZENS of warnings on the Wikimedia Commons project (from a half-dozen Commons contributors), I am going to advise you here. On the English language Wikipedia project. On the off chance that you pay any attention. You have exhausted ALL potential claims of good-faith or ignorance of the rules against uploading material under inappropriate, misleading or just downright misrepresented licences. I will be moving for a block on the Wikimedia Commons project shortly. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Where, exactly, in the Guys' Street Directory is there mention of a cow named "Fedora" which "amazed" its owner with "3,000 gallons for three lactations"? If it is not in the Guys' Street Directory then why, please, is that the "reference" offered to support the text in that section? Also, in what sense is ANY of that stuff in any way relevant to the subject? Guliolopez (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the Guy's Street Directory. It's in 'Views and Interviews' from 1955. That cow is not said to have 'amazed' its owner but a trial on a property was said to have 'amazed' Quill with its results.

-Shamshamster1234 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs)

There are about 10 different issues here. Pretty much all of which stem (despite multiple attempts, by multiple editors over multiple months to advise of the WP:COI, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and WP:NOTWEBHOST policies against it) from your continued use of Wikipedia/Wikimedia as a free webhost to republish family history content as if it were encyclopedic content. In the interests of keeping it simple, I will highlight the following:

WP:INTEGRITY confirms that the "point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed". The ONLY citation supporting that paragraph is a street directory entry. Which supports none of the text that you have added.
WP:COPYVIO applies to the newspaper articles that you have uploaded to Commons. In that you have claimed to have authored those 1950s newspaper snippets. When clearly that is not the case. They will be deleted in due course. Making verification yet more difficult for readers and other editors. (Already nigh-on impossible. As the pictures do not confirm what newspaper they were sourced from, etc).
WP:TOPIC expects that articles contain content which is relevant to the subject and of interest to the reader. Because you are close to the subject you perhaps do not recognise this, but (while your family may be interested to know how much a family member paid for a cow in the 1940s, and what they then chose to name that cow) it does not advance another reader's understanding of the "personal life" of a member of the 5th Dáil. It is entirely irrelevant.

I am pretty much done trying to help you now. Either here or on Wikimedia Commons. If you continue to insist on acting with such overt disinterest in the goals and policies of this project, then there is no helping you. Guliolopez (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're an incredibly arrogant individual. Relevance is subjective. The fact that you say that I fail to 'recognise' something due to the fact that I am a distant descendant of the subject is incredibly patronising. I was born 52 years after the subject died. I do not consider myself to be a close relation. I believe the information provided does advance the reader's knowledge of the subject's life. I began to contribute to Wikipedia with the understanding that it was a close knit community of people looking to add information to the website and that the goal of the community was to spread knowledge. - Shamshamster1234

Hi.

RE: "an incredibly arrogant individual". You are entitled to your opinion. Though we have clear guidelines on whether and how some opinions are to be expressed. Personally I have my own opinions on those seeking to use Wikipedia to promote their own goals. In a way that is contrary to the goals of the project. Especially when the content being added (and the manner in which it is added) is not in line with the community's inclusion criteria policies (or its copyright violation policies).

RE: "a close knit community of people". It is a close knit community of people. It is a close knit community of people precisely because we have all agreed a set of community guidelines (on what the project is about, how we engage with each other, how we work to protect copyrighted materials not belonging to us, and where the line is drawn between the goals of the community and the [potentially conflicting] goals of some unaligned contributors). Frankly, the community has limited time for those who are not aligned with its shared goals and mores. (Put frankly, it is not possible to be a member of the community while simultaneously sticking two-fingers up to the community's policies with every second edit and upload.)

RE: "the goal of the community was to spread knowledge". As has been pointed out to you (by me and a half-dozen others), Wikipedia is NOT the place for any and all information. It is not, for example, intended to be a free webhost for family history essays, for stuff better suited to Ancestry.com, or an indiscriminate collection of any/all "knowledge".

If it is "arrogant" to resort to frank language to try and get a point across to someone who is not listening, then perhaps I have strayed into that definition of "arrogance". But I will not apologise for that -- when faced with repeated and ongoing behaviour which is so blatantly misaligned with the community's policies and mores. Guliolopez (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Ferney House.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ferney House.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ferney House

The article Ferney House has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable building which fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG. While some listed or protected structures may be considered notable, this building was not a listed building when it was demolished. The limited coverage of its existence relate to NUIG's "landed estates" database. Which lists thousands and thousands of often small homes all across Ireland. The limited content that was here (copvio lifted I might add from the NUIG database entry) related to the people who occupied the house. And not the house itself. The other links/refs/etc support that the house existed. Not that it meets the notability criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Shamshamster1234, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Ferney House 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. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) 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.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
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 the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
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 in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

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, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ferney House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ferney House 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/Ferney House 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. Guliolopez (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shamshamster1234. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]