User talk:Daniel Plumber

Welcome!

Hello, Daniel Plumber!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, paul2520 💬 14:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Freeholders of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea (June 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Freeholders of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As this is a subject that hasn't got any attention, it would be difficult to find reliable sources attributed. All I can do is remove unreliable sources - which will make the article poorly sourced Daniel Plumber (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And could you please tell me what sources in the article are unreliable? Any clarification would be highly appreciated Daniel Plumber (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daniel Plumber! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Earls, Marquises and Dukes in the Baronage of Scotland, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wiiformii (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But how come my edit was non-constructive? I just rewrote that to be more neutral-sound. Daniel Plumber (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Martin O'Donnell

You reverted an edit by user 94.189.151.57, saying O'Donnell uses the title "Lord O'Donnell of Fingal" by reference to his website. This is incorrect. His website makes reference to his several titles owned, which should be considered simply a matter of transparent disclosure of interests, but it is clear from his introduction, and other references e.g. under tabs "Clan Revival" and "Clan Association" that he signs off and is referred to as Ambassador, without reference to those other titles. He may own but never uses titles such as "Lord O'Donnell of Fingal". nor "Vice Great Seneschal". In contrast, he was elected President of the O'Donnell Clan Association on 9 June 2024, and uses that, as well as President of the Genealogical Society of Ireland". See: https://odomhnaill.com/ Please familiarise yourself more with Wikipedia policies before making major changes to established articles and pay attention to WP:BLP, NOR, POV 2001:BB6:18E4:9400:937:FEAA:203A:1C92 (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He may not make much references about these titles, but I believe saying he never uses these titles is incorrect. The fact that he is gazetted in the Companies House as "Lord O'Donnell of Fingal" suggests otherwise, because in order to have a title mentioned by the CH, one must write down in the portfolio application saying that he is lord XYZ etc. and the CH won't include titles automatically, even peers of the realm, given that his titles are merely feudal. I think this is what he did. Daniel Plumber (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fmodonnell.org/lineage.html Daniel Plumber (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked that; doesn't quite bear you out 2001:BB6:18E4:9400:5463:B990:F478:1286 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just additional context - I don't use it as supporting evidence tbh, I still stand by my opinion that he is known by the CH as Lord O'Donnell of Fingal indicates that he did use the title. As I said - the CH does not index titles automatically. Daniel Plumber (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not his primary identity, and the CH reference is already included in the text. Globally, he is known as Ambassador Francis M. O'Donnell, and trumpeting that CH-recognised title as his primary one "up front" is rather unbalanced and disrespectful, especially as in "republican" Ireland such titles are regarded often with disdain. In fact to use his diplomatic courtesy title "His Excellency" juxtaposed over the Fingal title is incorrect. He is not "His Excellency The Lord O'Donnell of Fingal", but "His Excellency Francis Martin O'Donnell". Please revert to the original articulation, as the. title is well included under "Other interests" (footnote 141). Discretion is the better part of valour. 2001:BB6:18E4:9400:FCCA:4C45:E8E0:8055 (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better for you to do so yourself. It's up to you what you'd want the article to be. My edit was intended to be providing additional context only, and I actually have no or little interest in Francis. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tulloch Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Charles II. 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) 07:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi, I have asked you a question at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kellycrak88 about one of your edits which is topical to that discussion. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I didn't directly answer your question, I think my newest comment has indirectly done so. Cheers. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Freeholders of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea (September 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by OhHaiMark were:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Freeholders of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

OhHaiMark (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: English feudal earldom (October 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AlphaBetaGamma was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:English feudal earldom and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest editing

Hi, this is just a quick question in relation to apparent conflict of interest editing in relation to articles that fall within the Scottish Baronage project.

Looking through the editing histories of a relatively small number of articles earlier this morning I was quickly able to locate a number of editors who appear to be either the subjects of the articles concerned or people very close to the subjects concerned. That there was a significant degree of conflict of interest editing going on seemed quite clear - and it would seem reasonable to assume that the situation in relation to the relatively small sample group would probably be representative of the situation more broadly across the project's articles.

I understand that you are the coordinator of the project and I wondered if you had any comment to make on this issue, which seems to affect the project's articles to a degree much higher than would be anticipated from a relatively recent project.

Your input would be much appreciated. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. To be honest, I’m currently taking a break from Wikipedia, so I’m not aware of those edits.

My stance on forming an "intended" WikiProject dedicated to Scottish baronage is quite clear: the group will consist of editors who share the same vision and fascination for these historical relics, while remaining unaffiliated with the baronage itself.

I want to emphasise that any edits made - regardless of whether they come from our members or not - do not reflect the true intentions of the group. If any of those edits clearly violate the rules or create conflicts of interest, I will not object to their removal. After all, we all aim to improve Wikipedia.

If applicable, could you please provide some examples of the edits and the editors involved? This would help me understand the situation more clearly. Thank you. Daniel Plumber (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel,

Thanks for your swift response, much appreciated.

The users in question were user:XiaoCielo, user:DeanMc, user:AlisonDevlin, user:Philomeana, user:Rannoch1502, user:71031h, user:Wwombat, user:Roland Zettel and an IP account (the contributions for which can be seen here [1]). As I mentioned above, these accounts were identified by accessing a relatively small sample of articles.

Most of these accounts seem to be effectively single purpose accounts (i.e. WP:SPAs) engaged in (a) editing what were presumably articles where they had a conflict of interest and/or (b) adding the name (or other details) of the subject of those articles into other articles. In some cases unsourced personal information was added, again suggesting that the users were close to the subjects. In some cases the user names indicate a degree of conflict of interest, in some cases talk page comments explicitly state that the user is the subject.

I must say I'm somewhat concerned about the level of apparently CoI editing in this topic area, and in many cases it does seem that this has coincided with the relatively short period in which the baronage project has been in existence. I'm at something of a loss to determine how that might have occurred. To give perhaps one possible scenario, has the existence of the project been advertised off-wiki and thus brought a number of new single purpose accounts to these articles?

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I should probably add that I've posted the standard conflict of interest notice to the talk pages of the users listed above, which should hopefully clarify for them the relevant policies and guidelines in relation to Conflict of Interest, also how to disclose conflict of interest, how to make COI edit requests, etc. etc.

The broader problem, of course, is that this may only be the tip of the iceberg in terms of users, and there will certainly be a lot of COI edits to be removed (something which your project may wish to take on?). Axad12 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a follow-up here...

I've recently been communicating with user 71031h, who is a 13 year single purpose account dealing solely with the Baron of Newton article (and associated articles). The user would appear to have indicated that they are indeed the Baron of Newton by signing off a recent talk page post with 'B of N' (here: [2]).

Returning to the discussion above, it seems that there are two probably distinct CoI activities taking place on the articles that fall under the Baronage project, which I would suggest are as follows:

1) There has been a significant amount of historical CoI editing on some of the longer standing baronage articles. Recent project activity would appear to have stirred this up again. To take just one example, various apparent COI users have repeatedly tried to add middle names to a particular list/article.

(Another case of this, in addition to those previously listed, is this IP address [3].)

2) There seem to be a limited number of COI editors whose activity seems to have coincided with the existence of the project (and who may, for all I know, be members of the project).

Whether under cases 1 or 2 above, the editors in question are often quite open about their identities, or they can be guessed from the fact that they are adding personal info into articles or that their only activity on Wikipedia relates to a very specific limited topic area, which can be assumed to be the topic "themselves".

Can I suggest that when COI editors are located editing project articles a standard warning is placed on the user's talk page, the gist of which is that editors with a COI must not edit articles directly and must instead declare their COI and only use the COI edit request process.

The relevant warning can be found about 40% of the way down this article [4] under the title "Conflict of interest, with an extended legal warning". It consists of the words "subst:uw-coi" placed between double curly brackets, which prompts a longer message as can be seen in this recent edit: [5].

I'm copying in user:Kellycrak88 as I suspect he may find the discussion here either interesting or useful or both.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Axad12 appreciate you bringing this to my attention, the conflict of interest template for posting on a Talk page is useful I will use this going forward.

I actually believe I am ahead of the curve here as the Baronage of Scotland page used to say:

"Below is an incomplete list of Baronies created in the baronage, you can help by adding details below."

I edited it recently to say "you can help by suggesting edits on the Talk page with evidence links"

Far too many random edits (with likely conflicts of interest) which needs moderation and consensus. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kellycrak88, other users are allowed to edit articles without having to suggest edits on talk pages. What you have done there is not "ahead of the curve", it is a straightforward piece of gaslighting.

How would you like it if other people were placing notices on articles that you wanted to edit, saying that you can only suggest edits on talk pages with supporting source material?

Meanwhile, you have personally added a great deal of material to articles without providing any source material at all. So presumably it is one rule for you and another rule for everyone else. Where will your hypocrisy end? Axad12 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad, sorry for the delay.

I believe this is a good proposal, and therefore I support it. I will provide my full response later.

Cheers, and happy belated Canadian Thanksgiving. Daniel Plumber (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Earl of Wigtoun (baronage title) has been accepted

Earl of Wigtoun (baronage title), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tavantius (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland

Template:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3 § Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland articles has been nominated for deletion

Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland articles has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland

A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Convention of the Baronage of Scotland

Hello, Daniel Plumber. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Convention of the Baronage of Scotland, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]