Loading AI tools
Unspecified source/license for File:Brian McGinley.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Brian McGinley.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 in 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-3.0|GFDL}} (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) 17:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. You appear to be reverting your addition of "United Kingdom" to a number of articles. Please don't do this. If your addition has been reverted with a valid reason, your next course of action should be to discuss it on the relevant talk pages. Simply re-inserting it is not helpful and edit warring. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Can I publicly thank you for the support on articles such as South Ayrshire during what seems to be a terrible troll encounter. It seems the user Simply the Truth is rather fixated on following me around Wikipedia and reverting every edit I make, even where it is the correct information with sourced evidence. Hopefully he/she will filter away shortly and hopefully be blocked. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hello, Brythones. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Be careful ascribing ideas which may turn out to be untrue. Claims of "considering only one user has a problem" may indicate you are unwilling to act in a collaborative and good faith way. The tags were not restored by myself the previous time that you removed them. This indicates wider community dissatisfaction with the use of primary sources in the article, than "just one user". Silence does not equal no support and nor does it equal support. Now I know you are trying to act in the best interests of Wikipedia but continuously making snipes in the way you are doing is not helping with the image you are giving off. The Image is of how dare someone challenge the sources put on the page. I know you are not going to go and say "add secondary sources, yourself. I added primary sources and they are fine add secondary sources if you hate the primary ones", or phrasing to that effect. That is though also not working in the spirit of Wikipedia. It is best to simply do it yourself, than to complain to other to do something. Not liking what someone has done, does not mean you can demand from them to do specific things, no matter how reasonable you believe yourself to be. I will get round to searching for some sources when I have more time, but in the meantime you can take the initiative and make some changes yourself which it looks like you are currently doing. Please though use a full template when updating sources. As for the discussion page; I suggest third opinion if you are unhappy with the level of community input. I am unlikely to comment on the talk page again, as I do not believe it to be constructive when it is simply the two of us on there. The discussions are not very fruitful and as a result I have disengaged from discussions at the present time on that talk page. Sport and politics (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm DrKay. I noticed that you recently removed content from Anglosphere without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Edinburgh Central (Scottish Parliament constituency) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Edinburgh Southern (Scottish Parliament constituency) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Brythones. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British diaspora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Canadians (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) 09:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CANZUK, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Grant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scottish people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southland (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) 09:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, he is not a member of the BPC, but this is based on a technicality (he only does work for himself). He is still a reputable pollster, as he publishes full details, and often uses BPC members to conduct his fieldwork. Per the BPC: "This issue of who is regarded as responsible for a poll has arisen on a couple of occasions recently. One of the most active pollsters in recent years has, of course, been Lord Ashcroft, operating under the banner ‘Lord Ashcroft Polls’. Lord Ashcroft Polls does not have the ability to conduct its own fieldwork and thus sub-contracts this part of its polling to a number of companies, many of them BPC members. However, Lord Ashcroft Polls is responsible for the design, weighting and question wording of its polls, and thus it is the body that is ultimately responsible for its results. As it happens, Lord Ashcroft Polls is not a member of the BPC (and as an organisation that does not do work for multiple clients is not eligible to be a member), but as it happens it publishes full details of its polls in much the same way as a BPC member would be expected to do." Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I also note that Ashcroft's polls are frequently included in other polling articles, such as the 2015 and 2017 UK general elections. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I note that you have not responded to the points above. You are just removing sourced material which doesn't suit your point of view. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British diaspora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: We now have a 
version of the Template 3 map. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
