User talk:CraigS1969

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jimmy Curran has been accepted
 Jimmy Curran, 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. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SL93 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Keep up the good work
I saw your contributions on Ted Meredith and James Curran. Please keep up the good work! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :-) CraigS1969 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Pictures
Please don't upload pictures to Commons as 'own work' unless you were the one holding the camera. Thanks. DS (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

March 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hugh Wales, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 16:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that all articles require reliable sources in order to verify information. This is particularly important when dealing with articles about living people. Please no not add any further unsourced content. GiantSnowman 20:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * unsourced additions (and for future reference WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTARELIABLESOURCE); unsourced; unsourced; unsourced...need I go on? GiantSnowman 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, stop with the petty insults please. Secondly, please learn to WP:SIGN your posts and to use WP:EDITSUMMARY. Thirdly, I reviewed a random selection of your edits, all were either unsourced or poorly sourced. It merited a mass rollback. Apologies if any legitimate additions were caught up. GiantSnowman 21:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tom Niblo, you may be blocked from editing. GiantSnowman 08:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone performed multiple rollbacks on my edits. What should I do? Gradually working through them at present.
 * FAO the reviewing admin - I am that someone. Please see for further details, I mass rollbacked after reviewing a selection of this editor's edits and finding them all unsourced or poorly sourced. GiantSnowman 08:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They also continue to re-add unsourced material, see this and this and this and this - do I need to go on? GiantSnowman 08:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You dealt with this situation in a poor way by doing an arbitrary rollback. If you had come to me and said that I'd added unsourced or poorly sourced material, I'd have happily gone back and changed it. An arbitrary rollback was not the way to deal with the situation. I'm not here to be disruptive - you can check all my previous edits and I've never vandalised a page although, as you say I may have forgotten to add some sources. A mass rollback is, however, disruptive. All you had to do was ask me to work my way through my edits and make any changes. Doing a mass rollback on someone who clearly isn't trying to be disruptive doesn't bode well if you desire new active editors to come on board. The way to deal with a child when he spills his milk isn't to slap him, it's to educate him. CraigS1969 (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already apologised if any legitimate edits were caught up in the mass rollback. However, I did (after the mass rollback, admittedly) inform you about our requirement for sourcing, which you proceeded to completely ignore... GiantSnowman 09:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Most of the articles were adequately sourced, so I rolled everything back with an intention over the next week or two to go and check my sources (where necessary). There's no need to think the worst of everyone, we're not all here to disrupt your empire. I do intend to go back and find the original sources. And re you informing me of the unsourced info in Hugh Wales, I went back immediately and added it, so not sure how you can say I 'completely ignored' you. CraigS1969 (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Craig, you should go through the articles that were reverted one by one and make sure what you added was sourced. If it was adequately sourced restore it. If it wasn't sourced, find the source and restore it with the source. What you shouldn't do is a mass restoration and say I will go through these and source them over the next week or two. They have been disputed and shouldn't be restored without sources. ~ GB fan 10:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * it's no good adding the unsourced material back and then stating "I'll source it later", that's not nearly good enough. GiantSnowman 10:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to work like this in future - giving me this info at the beginning rather than instituting a mass rollback would have been of far greater use to me (I am willing to learn). Equally you could argue an arbitrary mass rollback is 'not nearly good enough' as it could then re-introduce erroneous information or vandalism, which I've removed, back onto Wikipedia. For example, I recently deleted some 'notable people' from the Dalkeith page who were not notable people. Had you rolled back this page you would have re-introduced this material. Hence, it would have been helpful if you had asked politely in the first instance rather than kicking the door in.

GB fan, I understand your point. My annoyance stems from the fact that it appeared an overly aggressive, and arbitrary, act, when it would have been much simpler to have a polite conversation about how I edit material. I've already given two analogies as to GiantSnowman's means of dealing with the situation, I'm not sure I need to give any more. CraigS1969 (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also with the conversation being fragmented over two different talk pages it is hard to follow. I just saw your comment where you called Giant Snowman, child.  That does not help calm the situation down, it just aggravates it more.  You rally should go back and retract that as it is a personal attack.  ~ GB fan 10:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I apologise for calling you a child. CraigS1969 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ted Meredith
Yes, better, but ideally we need more reliable sources, and at the very least page numbers of the exitsing source. Please also note how I have formatted the referencing here. GiantSnowman 12:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but in this case I got the information direct from the author (extracted from the book). I don't yet have a copy, but will add when I get it. Normally I will have page numbers and an ISBN (if it exists)

Replaceable fair use File:Floor space at the Museum of the Scottish Shale Oil Industry.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Floor space at the Museum of the Scottish Shale Oil Industry.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 17:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Replica of Young's Paraffin Light & Oil Co. Ltd exhibition case.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Replica of Young's Paraffin Light & Oil Co. Ltd exhibition case.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 17:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Floor space at the Museum of the Scottish Shale Oil Industry.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Floor space at the Museum of the Scottish Shale Oil Industry.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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Otto Bruno Schoenfeld
It looks like the article you shared that mentions Cornell is in error, which is likely why that section has been scribbled out and has an "X" through it on the article. I think the article confused Schoenfeld with his son who was the captain and "weight man" for the Cornell track & field team. See: http://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cornell?a=d&d=CDS19320225.2.34.1&srpos=4 Cornell2010 (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok, no problem. Will leave it our. Thanks. CraigS1969 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William Dornan
Hello CraigS1969,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged William Dornan for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)