User talk:Angloscottish

Angloscottish, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Angloscottish! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault

Dear Angloscottish. Thank you for your contributions to the article James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault. You seem quite new in Wikipedia, but you seem to know your Scots. You seem to often move citations that you find in the middle of a sentence to the end of the sentence. That might be sometimes needed but not always. Have you read the "Citing sources" guideline (WP:CITE)? Ideally, all the statements made in the article's main text should be covered by citations. This is difficult to achieve and demands hard work. Placing a citation at the end of a phrase in a sentence but not at the end of that sentence indicates that the end of the sentence after the citation is not covered by the citation. They call that "source-text" integrity (WP:INTEGRITY). I am not trying to lecture you. I am trying to help. I am myself still quite new and on a learning curve with Wikipedia. Perhaps you already know. What do you think? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Armand Patrice de Mac Mahon

Hello, Angloscottish. You have new messages at Rodw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Rod ^talk 18:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rev. Sir Henry John Gunning, 4th Baronet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rev. Sir Henry John Gunning, 4th Baronet 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/Rev. Sir Henry John Gunning, 4th Baronet 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.

scope_creep^Talk 19:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coi

Hi @Angloscottish: You appear to have a conflict of interest over Rev. Sir Henry John Gunning, 4th Baronet, per your comments. Would that be so? Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 19:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dr Nicholas James for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dr Nicholas James 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/Dr Nicholas James 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.

(t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Buidhe, why have you nominated this for deletion? It seems to me to be suitable for encyclopaedic information as an author and academic. I do welcome your insight as I am a newish member of the Wikipedia editing group. I added the page for encyclopaedic information and as a place to compile this person's information. As I said, I welcome your input and would be interested to hear your opinion.

Yours, User:Angloscottish Angloscottish (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angloscottish. I have actually created a lot of articles about notable academics. An important step when creating an article is to cite wp:independent sources—such as book reviews, news coverage, or discussion of their work in reliable sources—to establish notability. For example, Kateřina Čapková article cites several book reviews providing a clear pass of the WP:NAUTHOR notability guideline. A more difficult example would be Hilmar Kaiser where I was able to find several academic works that discussed his work, and cited them to make sure the notability was clear. (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does he not apply to both the WP:NAUTHOR and to the WP:NACADEMICS? Because surely he passes number 3, the extent of a significant number of works? As an influential person in that particular field with his works on Aztecs and Mayans, an admittedly niche field?

I do ask in the wish to learn rather than criticise, as I say I am very open to criticism and wish to become a more accurate and effective Wikipedia creator. Angloscottish (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angloscottish, I get that notability rules are complex. In general, just publishing a work does not count for notability. Independent evaluations are what is counted. A further nuance is that a considerable number of editors disagree with keeping articles that meet WP:NACADEMICS but where there is not substantial independent coverage. So, I focus article creation on cases that are clearly notable, where there are several published book reviews, obituaries, or other sources that can be cited. Thanks for your contributions. (t · c) buidhe 00:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Earl of Hardwicke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant. 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) 09:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve John Moore Lester

Hello, Angloscottish,

Thank you for creating John Moore Lester.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Notability is not inherited and Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. It is unclear what makes the subject notable beyond their family

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Slywriter}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slywriter (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slywriter,

Thank you for your edit, I have just rechecked the notability guide, and this page satisfies 3 of Any Biography "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)" with his Who's Who page. It was not clear the first time because the refencing was not clear, but there is a reference to his Who's Who page in the 1967 edition of Who's Who.

Yours, Angloscottish (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Moore Lester

The article John Moore Lester has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability is not inherited - does not meet WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Melcous (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]