User talk:Goodreg3

Your GA nomination of Scotland

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scotland 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Goodreg3 -- Goodreg3 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

GA nomination

Hi @Goodreg3: I saw Scotland listed at WP:GAN. I see that you opened Talk:Scotland/GA1 in error and I have asked for that review page to be deleted so that an independent reviewer can make a fresh start.

Having looked at the article and at the talk page, there seems to be a debate over the wording of the lead. I am also concerned that the citation style is inconsistent (the rp template and sfn template are both used at the moment). I would recommend withdrawing your nomination temporarily (just delete the template on the talk page once Talk:Scotland/GA1 has been deleted) until the current debate has played out and until you have addressed the issues with citation style.

I hope this is helpful input. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification of post

I'm notifying you of this post about my concerns. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kilmarnock

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kilmarnock 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Stevie fae Scotland -- Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kilmarnock

The article Kilmarnock you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Kilmarnock 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Stevie fae Scotland -- Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Different tack

This morning I recalled your comments at Talk:Scotland#Sweeping_and_inattentive_changes that you “do not feel supported by (me) whatsoever” and how much of a slap in the face that felt, in the light of all the work on your edits and copious feedback I’d given, for years now. But it prompted a memory of a similar, lengthy interaction I had with another enthusiastic editor, a long time ago, initially very frustrating but which, to my great surprise, became cordial and productive. I will not be able to devote very much time but, if you are genuinely in search of support and you can slow down and be patient, I’ll see if we can try a different tack. What do you reckon? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I would welcome that, and it would certainly be a step in the right direction. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Goodreg3, as you've had a fair few disambiguation link notifications here, you may not be aware that there's a useful option that highlights links to disambiguation pages, very visibly. If you go to your user preferences, select the gadget tab, scroll down to the appearance section and check "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange", any such pages will become highly visible, alerting you to change it to the correctly disambiguated page, if that is what is required. I find it really handy.

On another matter, do you remember I asked you if you could "(make) smaller individual edits to allow them to be followed more easily", at the Scotland talk page? This diff might be a useful example, where you seem to be dealing with several different and unrelated aspects of the article in one fairly large edit. To allow others to follow what your intentions are, it's easier if they are broken down individually, into smaller, separate edits. That is particularly the case if it involves moving sections of text from one part of the article to another, as any changes to the text don't really show up in the diff. What's more, if there is an issue with part, but not all, of the changes made, it's then possible to revert one of the several, smaller edits and leave the rest intact. If the various aspects being addressed are all done in one major edit then the choice is between a time-consuming and complicated edit to pick out the problem parts from those that are fine or much more simply reverting the whole lot but possibly throwing the baby out with the bath water. Cheers, Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll elaborate on my amendments to this edit of yours. You've been attempting to avoid your previous tendency to post material that is variously copyrighted, copied without attribution or without sufficient paraphrasing. If you do paraphrase though, make sure you retain the meaning of what is stated in the source. The source notes a record figure in regard to generation but your wording indicated consumption, not the same thing. The word "equivalent" re the 113% figure is required for it to make rational sense. It's "country's overall consumption", as it is the consumption by the country, not that of plural "countries". Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep trying to improve and ensure edits are polished. Paraphrasing in order to avoid copyright violations is difficult, but, I will keep trying in order to retain the message intended to be put across. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

With this edit, I've mainly tightened up the text and addressed some typos and punctuation. I'm assuming "FLC" as an abbreviation for the RFC is an error but thought I'd better check, in case something else is intended. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Good, this edit has addressed the requirement for clarification as anti-shipping patrols are one variety of operational mission and the previous wording implied a distinction.

The other tag was that your wording states that "Fighter squadrons on Scotland's east coa(s)t... were co(a)stal command bases". Would something like this be your intention "Fighter squadrons at coastal command bases on Scotland's east coast, at Wick, Dyce, Peterhead, Montrose, Leuchars, Drem, East Fortune, Kinloss and Grangemouth, were used mainly to protect and defend the fleet of aircraft and equipment at both Rosyth Dockyard and Scapa Flow"?

An outbreak is an event, so the meaning of "the end of the outbreak of World War II" is unclear. Do you mean at the outbreak? What does the source say?

Likewise "During the outbreak of the Cold War" needs to be changed to "at" if that is the case, or otherwise clarified. The expression is a closely-guarded secret not a closed and guarded secret and it ether is or isn't one, it can't be partially so. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

As your editing on the matter of a national motto of Scotland proved contentious in the past, I'm disappointed that you have returned to it, with similarly insubstantial support. In light of the history, it would have been more conciliatory to raise the matter at the talk page first, to gain consensus. You must know I would scrutinise such a resumption of what could be seen as the return to a slow WP:WAR. I'm afraid it is a continuation of the way you appear to add material, by stating something you believe to be true, googling search terms on the matter and adding your finds, whether it truly supports the statement or not. The Irish Times article mentions "nemo..." but says nothing about "the national motto of Scotland", let alone support that this is it. Do you know anything about the Scotlander site? I don't, I can't find out anything about it, it does not look in any way authorative and, unless you can show otherwise, you should be avoiding such apparently self-published t-shirt vending sites in favour of something more clearly reliable. The NY Times ref is behind a paywall and, with the multiple failures of verification of other sources you have put forward, I'd like to see the full quote, in context. If you require any clarification, please let me know here. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It's by no means a return to a slow edit war. Rather, I have been researching this extensively since September, and have found a number of sources which would support the view that the national motto of Scotland is indeed "nemo me....". As per your request, I have provided further references with quotes to the article. Hope that helps to resolve any doubt. Hope you're well, and thank you. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Where in the Irish Times article does it even mention the motto of Scotland? You can not keep using sources like this. 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:East Ayrshire arms.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kilmarnock Coat of Arms.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kilmarnock Coat of Arms.png. 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) 18:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"Ewen Cameron (Television personality" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ewen Cameron (Television personality has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20 § Ewen Cameron (Television personality until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Presiding officer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sheena Easton into Sheena Easton discography. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)