Please see WP:VANDAL, whether an edit is vandalism is not dependent on being a registered user or not, and also not on how often it has been reverted. Vandalism is bad faith addition of false information, nonsense, deliberately offensive stuff, deliberately disrupting the layout, ... but not the insertion of a middle name, no matter how often. It may be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing though. Like you said, they should start a discussion on the talk page and risk being blocked for a WP:3RR violation. Fram (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification. Noted for future reference. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Fram (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad form @Fram you're out of line here- please show me what text I have copied?
- If you actually check my work, I completely rewrote the text and also added a source link. So it's categorically not copied.
- My uniquely written text:
- The Baron of Bachuil holds a unique distinction in the country, being the only person whose passport title includes the inscription “by the Grace of God,” a phrase that is so ancient it is typically associated only with the monarchy. While the King does not require a passport, this makes the Baron of Bachuil the sole individual in the country with such a title in official documentation.
- You will not find even a close match to the text on the web site https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2017/05/05/baron-shares-passport-title-queen-sells-family-property-1500-years/
- So please kindly explain to me. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your text[1]
- "It is believed it is the oldest aristocratic title and church office in the country – older than the Archbishop of Canterbury, dating back to a Celtic saint Saint Moluag who founded 120 monasteries."
- Source[2]
- "It is believed the Baron of Bachuil is oldest aristocratic title and church office – older than the Archbishop of Canterbury, dating back to a Celtic saint who founded a monastery on the Isle of Lismore."
- And you uploaded the passport picture as "own work" while you simply copied it from the source. Fram (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll deal with the image issue after you apologise for continuing not to check my text as you're now you're quoting an old edit!
- Over the next 4-5 minutes I edited the page further with several more edits MY LAST EDIT SAYS:
- It is considered to be the oldest aristocratic title and church office in the country – older than the Archbishop of Canterbury, dating back to a Celtic saint Saint Moluag who founded 120 monasteries.
- THE ONLY PART THAT MATCHES FROM THE ATICLE IS IN BOLD FOR WHICH YOU REVERTED ALL MY CHANGES AND CLAIMED COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, yes, that is a copyright violation. You are in any case not allowed to post copyrighted text even if you alter it afterwards, but the text you quote is not allowable either. Fram (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- how is it a copyright violation worthy of a full revert - the start, the middle and the end of the sentence have been altered to be unique - but for this you leave a block warning on my page and revert all my changes. I await your apology Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Taking a sentence and e.g. changing "it is believed" to "it is considered" doesn't make it less of a copyright violation. I notice that the previous time you got a copyvio warning you reacted aggressive as well[3]. Fram (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "it is believed" is the same as "it is considered" so worthy of block warning and full revert of changes across the page? You are bully @Fram I will call a spade a spade and thank you for sharing that link - anyone that reads it can see I did not act aggressively previously so I encourage people to click through and read it properly, as Fram it's quite obvious you don't read anything properly you throw accusations around to fit your agenda -this is CONSTANT behaviour from you @Fram in reverting my changes on pages, I've said it before and I will say it again, you are constantly monitoring my edits and causing disruption for the sake of it. I also notice you do this to many other users so this is a last warning to back off Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Self-published peerage websites, please do not use self-published websites as sources on wikipedia. thepeerage,com is explicitly deprecated. DrKay (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for letting me know that thepeerage.com is not considered a reliable source. I’ll make sure not to use it in the future. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad @Kellycrak88, I thought I'd given you that link. One I didn't point you to, but definitely should have, is User:Headbomb/unreliable. This is a userscript you can install that will highlight sources that have been identified as unreliable or deprecated at WP:RSP. It isn't smart about it, so you'll notice, for example, every google books url being highlighted in yellow, but it would definitely have caught one of the self-published peerage websites. -- asilvering (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion about your continued problematic editing at WP:ANI#User:Kellycrak88. This includes a proposal for restrictions on your article creations. You are welcome to join the discussion and give your opinion there. Fram (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is your enemy, except perhaps some vandals. We are all just fallible people trying to do the right thing in our imperfect ways.
I know how difficult it is, but it is super important to filter out the non-important stuff and focus on what is important.
Instead of disengaging, try to learn from them. Ask them questions. Implement their suggestions. Listen to their advice.
If you do, you have a very important asset on your side.
I know how counter-intuitive this advice is. But it works.
Polygnotus (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baron of Ardgowan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barony.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rainer Kensy, Baron of Echlin 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/Rainer Kensy, Baron of Echlin 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 until the discussion has finished.
DrKay (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the ANI thread was archived without consensus for any blocks or bans, but I'd say there was an informal consensus that you should create new articles in draftspace first. If you want me to come have a look at any of your drafts, feel free to ping me on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- understood, will do and lessons learnt - still on a break but will return soon Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your contributions and commitment. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Fram (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)