User talk:Pauljamesnixon

October 2018
Hello Wintoncastle. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Winton House, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Wintoncastle. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Girth Summit  (blether) 13:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf(talk) 14:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have globally renamed Wintoncastle to Pauljamesnixon, and someone else will review your unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

rename
I thought that looked familiar. The chosen username is too similar to an existing username: Pauljnixon. Please modify your request with another choice.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Your disclosure statement / unblock request
Hi, I noticed that you have created a disclosure statement - thanks for that. Please note though that it should be on your user page, rather than your user talk page (I'm not sure whether you can edit that at the moment - if not, you will be able to swap it once you are unblocked). I also noticed that you haven't reapplied to be unblocked - since your most recent request was declined, you'll need to apply again. I'd advise you to note explicitly that you have read and understood will WP:PAID and WP:COI. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
Hi, I've added an infobox, with coordinates and some architectural details I got from the listing - what do you think? Fun fact - when browsing through the links I realised that the architect who did the 19th century additions lived in the building where my partner's office was while she was doing her PhD. It's a small world... Girth Summit  (blether) 17:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to mention - I've also created a redirect, so that anyone searching for Winton Castle will now be taken directly to this article - hopefully that will assuage any concern you might have that people searching for it on Wikipedia won't be able to find it. I hope you don't mind that I've been a stickler about that, but to my mind, if Historic Scotland and Pevsner both call it Winton House, then that's what it's called. cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  17:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing...
 * I wanted to discuss the images in the article with you. I'm not taken with the one of St David's loch. To my eye, the image makes it seem fairly unremarkable - some grass, some trees, and a pond - I'm sure it looks better than that in real life. With regard to the picture of the house, I understand why you wanted to replace it with a front elevation, since that's what visitors would see first; however, I actually think the image is less impressive. First, it makes the building look rather smaller than it really is, because you can't really see how many floors it has; also, the frontage is obviously a 19th century confection, which doesn't do justice to the age of the building. I think the size and age are much better conveyed by the original image. I have experimented with adding the original image in alongside the others, but there isn't really space with the current amount of content - the text wraps around it awkwardly and makes it look pretty amateurish. My suggestion is:
 * Remove the image of St David's loch
 * Replace your image of the front of the house with the old image of the rear
 * Insert your new image further down in the text, roughly in line with the text describing the early 19th century changes to the house.
 * It seems to me that that would make sense historically, and would also show off the house in the best light possible. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding this info box and the redirect is very helpful.  It really adds to the page. Would you mind if we added an OWNER line as featured on the Dundas Castle listing and a direct link to the Winton website? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dundas_Castle
 * You have used a Governing Body line in the info box, but I was wondering how relevant this is? If you look at similarly owned Castles like Dundas Castle or Hopetoun House - It could be argued that all Historic properties in Scotland are to some degree governed by Historic Environment Scotland.  Is there a need to show this in the Winton House infobox?
 * I have uploaded 2 alternative images for consideration (the Loch picture is my own work!). Taking on board your comments the the front image does not give a sense of scale, the areal view helps achieve this in my opinion.  I have then manage to capture the Loch and show the rear elevation in the image lower down.  Do you think we have ticked all boxes?Pauljamesnixon (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the 'governing body' field - I've removed that, it's implied in the listed status. I've removed that from the infobox, and I've added the website.
 * I think the photos look good - give a sense of scale, and how it sits in its environment - much better.
 * Regarding the 'owner' field, I believe it's Sir Francis Ogilvy, is that correct? It's a shame we don't have an article about him that we could link to, but I don't suppose it would do any harm just to have the name without the link. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - you are correct the owner is Sir Francis Ogilvy.  There is a bio on him on the Winton website, but I'm not sure if it is appropriate to link this to him in the infobox?
 * I'm just sorting the file permission for the new photos. Thanks Pauljamesnixon (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for confirming. I think that the Winton Castle website would be reliable enough for an assertion about ownership. It wouldn't be ideal for biographical details since it's not independent (see WP:SPS for discussion of self-published sources), but for something fairly uncontroversial like ownership of the house I can't see anyone complaining. I'll insert that into the infobox, and leave you to deal with the file permissions stuff (that's not a side of things I have any experience in I'm afraid). Girth Summit  (blether)  10:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Arial view of Winton.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Arial view of Winton.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 18:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I have sent a OTRS pending to the permissions-en@wikimedia.org address Pauljamesnixon (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Winton Castle Front View.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Winton Castle Front View.jpg, which you've attributed to Christopher Lamotte. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)