User talk:ClemRutter - Wikipedia

See also:User talk:ClemRutter/Archive/2014; User talk:ClemRutter/Archive/2013; User talk:ClemRutter/Archive/2012

• History of Palestine Wellerman Shanty on the Independant.

We remember better times, when ability and competence mattered, and WP:AGF was a guiding principle. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, ClemRutter. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Diannaa:. Maybe if you could do me the courtesy to inform me which of the 6000 content creating edits I have made this year is causing offence I could take a look at it. You have made valuable suggestions to me in the past, and I considered that each of the incidents had been satisfactory closed I am a little surprised that you haven't posted a note on my talk page to say you had a further concern. As far as I am aware, everything I post is fully referenced so should be easy to check. ClemRutter (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be the immediate cause. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

THanks Johnbod.ClemRutter (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

(ec) I am at work right now but just wanted to post a quick note. I found multiple violations on Thinking School, a new article which you created. I have not finished cleaning it yet, as I had to go to work, and I doubt there will be much content left when I am done. It appears the whole article is blocks of text copied from other (copyright) websites. You've received five warnings, two of them this year, so it seems to me the time for warnings has past, regardless of the amount of good work you do here. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick response. Shall we put this in context: I spawned this article from Thinking Schools Academy Trust(TSAT) which I was examining because of Rochester Grammar School and newspaper report that didn't tie up to our article that was overly saccrine. TSAT is a MAT but about a half of it was an unintellible description of 'Thinking Schools'. I created a new page saying where the text had come from. I did not check then the text I had moved for copyvio- major error. Next stage of the clean up was to move sections to open it up to future edits.

There were two interesting referencing problems here. There were an abundance of references from individual school websites, all seeming to source back to the Exeter university Web site and a lot of similar cut and pastes. Using the policy that Primary Sources are permitable- but only for fact (as here) but a secondary source is also needed. This is still a delicate balancing act. We have two independent source that I could use. I think that we have a disagreement about how closely we should paraphrase (and advice welcome) , but I understand that you cannot copyright fact so it is perfectly acceptable to cut and paste phrases made up of technical terms and do not express an opinion or BIAS by what is omitted. I understand that it is the creative edit that is copyrighted not the words used. There is a permitted percentage of copyrightable text that can be used, and I am very careful to use the minimum. The percentage of any text of the source article or any source paragraph is low and then always reworded or paraphrased. If you think I have gone to close for every international incarnation of copyright law then please just tag the phrase. I am not sure that the tools available are sensitive enough to distinguish between violation and close paraphrasing.

Back to the article, we now need to complete the Accreditation section, there is list there which I am debating on removing and then have a formal process to describe, for which I am still looking for some more independent references. I am sure that when you have looked at this more closely you will wish to delete any violations I missed leaving an inline comment, and restore the framework text. My edit window has now closed so a longer reply is not too urgent. ClemRutter (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are correct that fair use laws allow a certain amount of copying, but that rule does not apply to Wikipedia editing. The amount of copying you should be doing is none at all. Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because Wikipedia's fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. So please, no copying of text from your sources. Exceptions include things like job titles, names of schools, alphabetical lists, etc.— Diannaa (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'll get back to you in the New Year, we really do need to crystalise all this advise so it is prominently and definitively placed in WP:WPSCH. ClemRutter (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kirkby High School, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BTEC and Knowsley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi ClemRutter,

I hope 2021 is treating you well. I have been working on a draft for an additional section to Bank Street College of Education. This new section has information about Bank Street School for Children, an entity within Bank Street College of Education. Info included in this section: Bank Street School for Children description, school structure, curriculum, admissions info, extracurricular activities, and notable alumni and faculty. I would very much appreciate your review and feedback, and, hopefully, its addition to Bank Street's current wikipedia article. Let me know your thoughts. Many thanks in advance. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 19:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Danielklotz: I have had a quick glance, and to do the task justice is going to take some time, and I can start by throwing out some random ideas. Firstly I looked for our article on developmental-interaction. That needs to written- there is no REDIRECT from Bank Street approach which there should have been: Montessori and Waldorf School have something. We need the article and then a paragraph Bank_Street_College_of_Education--#Bank Street approach which gives a description of Approach then a comparison with the others. We need to have all that in place before we can (did I just say we?) before we can demonstrate how the school is an embodiment of the principle or how it has deviated. Thats fine for kindergarden stuff- but how does that all apply in yr 5 and yr 8 (it is the transition from free learning to formal JHS that is the hard bit). All this is 1930s stuff- how did the ethos and the curriculum intent change in the 50s, 70s and through Trump. How did Vygotsky change it? Looking at the organisation- how big are the teaching groups? Does the school have walls or is it open plan, what is the internal and external appraisal system. What do we know about the intake- what is the %age of vulnerable children (free school meals), ESL (English as a Second Language) and gifted, how is the curriculum modified for them. I ll have a further look some time tomorrow. - and may be write in full sentences.ClemRutter (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ClemRutter: So sorry for my late response on this. Thank you for your quick reply! Your recs make sense, and I agree they'll take some time. I'll work with the School for Children to flesh out some more copy re: developmental interaction and your other questions about the school and facility. Thanks again. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ClemRutter: Bank Street is game for tackling an article on developmental interaction. Their team is talking with their librarians to start putting together citation sources. This will probably take them some time, but once I have this info, I'd love to run ideas with you. Meanwhile, do you think we have enough basic info and citations on the School for Children to add a stub to the Bank Street College of Education article? Since there isn't any mention of the School for Children at all, it'd be great if we could at least get some basic info on there. Thanks -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 18:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

• The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
• It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

• As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
• There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[35]
• The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[36] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
•   A large A/B test will start soon.[37] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[38] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clem,

As you seem to be a bit of an article 'rescuer' like me, do you think you could help with Neston High School? It is up for deletion, and i've tried to improve the article, but could do with some back up lol. Bleaney (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Clem, excellent work on Neston High School :-) Bleaney (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would like to say 'You ain't seen nothing yet'- I am a bit slow at the moment- coughing et c, and neighbours phoning to check I am still alive, etc. A bit distracting. But have you checked the building external link- amazing. That and Cheshire On-line we have a fantastic building section in the making. The academics section can be generated from the curriculum intent on their website, with refs from Ofsted. I am collecting on my Home Page in the 'hidden' sections useful template paragraphs on common sections- and common ripostes. Speak soon. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bleaney: I think I am leaving it now. We have the references, and the Ofsted decision to use it in a briefing paper, takes the biscuit- not notable indeed. It is now up to someone wot Spekes betterer Ingerlish (another Merseyside joke) to take it further. ClemRutter (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clem

I noticed you have created redirects for the secondary Oasis Academies without articles (well done with Oasis Academy Arena btw). However FYI the redirect for Oasis Academy Southbank is misspelt I believe, according to the DfE and the schools own website it is Oasis Academy South Bank. Hope you are well! Bleaney (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bleaney: I am hoping to do one a day- and with your assistance get the whole lot up to 'C'. Make any changes that needs to be made, please. Have you discovered Oasis Academy MediaCityUK that was Saturday's focus. Today I am in Oldham- some text will be travelling with me. Oasis Academy Temple Quarter could be a first- we will have a nice article, but its odds on that it will never be built."Bristol Oasis Academy delay means schools must find 200 more places". BBC News. 25 September 2020. Retrieved 8 February 2021. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bleaney: Oasis Academy Leesbrook is done. I have started on Oasis Academy South Bank and gained a bit of anonymous opposition! I think this is going to take more than a day to sort out.ClemRutter (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oasis Academy Lister Park written to gain a little context for the new head at Oasis Academy Isle of Sheppey.ClemRutter (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

WP:Notifications only works if it's done on the exact same edit as a WP:Signature. I didn't get your ping.[39] Fortunately, I have the page watchlisted so I saw it and replied. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Another method- is to fully wake up, and put your glasses on first. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for missing. I stole the presentation from Bish on 4 March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bish changed hers, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oasis Academy Silvertown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free school.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thinking Schools Academy Trust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Overage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Walbottle Academy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Clack School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Community school.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Cox Turner Morse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. PamD 20:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I appreciate not wanting to remove items, the issue is given the merger and history, there are a lot of previous centres to list for the former colleges, this includes Beeston, Clarendon, Clifton, Maid Marian Way, West Bridgford (if you go back that far). I'm not sure there's much benefit having them still listed. A small reference to key sites seems enough without adding further less relevant content. I have declared my status with the college on my profile page. My intention isn't to have bias or influence the Wikipedia page from a corporate perspective, I am trying to remain factual and keep things accurate where possible. Happy to revert my edits if you feel this is better and restructure it. Jamesmacwhite (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Jamesmacwhite There are people out there who are interested in the historical centre, though they must not dominate the article. Great you are putting in the effort- carry on on writing it your way- I won't touch it, and when you are finished we can re-evalute the best way to list the historic centres. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited WMG Academy for Young Engineers, Coventry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BTEC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm so sorry about my snotty tone of voice in the ES there. I meant what I said about the content in principle but I should have said it much more nicely. Apologies. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

 – I was probably taking out some work frustration or something on it. Gah! sorry. DBaK (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered I have such a short term memory now, that the following morning I can't remember the bilge I wrote the night before. I am just delighted that someone else cares. When the first edition comes out of the Guardian- I try to make sure that we have an article on each of their important articles even when I am nodding off at the keyboard. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Clem, that is very decent of you. I was intending then to say something sympathetic to you about memory issues, but I can't remember what it was ... have a lovely day, cheers, DBaK (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crewe Engineering and Design UTC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ramsbottom.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Ron Dearing UTC.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK -the replacement is a better image--ClemRutter (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just wanted to follow up on my previous message regarfing Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors in various Lancashire cotton mills articles. It does not appear that any of the errors have been addressed. Can you please help resolve them?

• Havelock Mills: none of the 4 short refs correspond to a bibliography entry
• Arkwright Mill, Rochdale: "Grace 1891"
• List of mills in Derbyshire: "Cooper 1983"
• List of mills in Lancashire: "Graham 2008" and "Cooper 1983"
• List of mills in Stockport: "Historic England & 1067162" -- could not find such number in the listed building database
• List of mills in Tameside: "Naismith 1894"
• Ellenroad Mill: "Youngs (1991)", "Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council", "Butterworth (1828)", "Hills 1989" (should be Hills 1993??)
• Mellor Mill: "Ashmore 1989"
• Quarry Bank Mill: "Calladine & Fricker 2007" (typo in year?)
• Swan Lane Mills: "Haworth 1993"
• Trencherfield Mill: "Frangoulp 1977"
• Piece-rate list: "Memory 2013"
• Weaving shed: "TICCIH 2007"

Also, please install a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page.

Thanks, Renata (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Clem, when you say "You really needed to have spoken to someone experienced in UK Criminal Damage Law before committing such an egregious error of judgement." you need to clarify who your "you" is - I don't think it's the immediately above poster, SteveLoughran, and probably not the previous editor at one level less indentation, LukeSurl, but perhaps the person who deleted the images? Clarification would be useful. See you Sunday perhaps? PamD 19:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

PamD I missed that one! Edit conflicts and real life intervention meant I was rewriting and rewriting and failing to post in time! Luke has changed the image failing to see that it will/has been reduced in size to comply with Fair Use. More work needed there- sorry out of time- train to catch. See you Sunday.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use image statue-A Surge of Power (Jan Reid) 2020.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

• Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
• The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brownlow Integrated College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craigavon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The content that was submitted in 2007 was a list of eight (then-)current pupils at NCIC, along with the notation that one of them had just passed her driving test.

There are no issues with you starting a legitimate article on this topic; good luck. DS (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

William Coles Finch is buried in the churchyard of St Nicholas Church, Rochester. Any chance of a photograph of his grave? Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mjroots I would if I knew where the graveyard was. The reference just locates it to the south, along the Maidstone Road- Open Street Map variously calls this St Margaret's Cemetery and St Mary's. Google St Margaret's Cemetery . Any further clues? --ClemRutter (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's all I've got. There's no hurry. Might even fit in a trip to Rochester myself once lockdown has ended. Have discovered that there is not only a waterwheel but an horse mill at Eastgate House museum. Amazing what you can find when searching on the internet for a book, isn't it? Am trying to get all nine of WCF's books. I think the one of the Foords will be the hardest to track down. Mjroots (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

A lot has happened at Eastgate House since I was involved in the 1990s. A lot of things have been moved around. This appears to be the safest link. The high street was quite sad last time I walked down there. ClemRutter (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Benet Biscop Catholic Academy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blyth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Was really good to see you at the meetup this weekend Clem. I hope the arm's doing better, and that you had a less eventful journey home! the wub "?!" 20:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

--ClemRutter (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Well all Monday was in hospital-they will fit a distal plate, when theatre vacant over the next ten days. With plaster cast, typing difficult. It was a good meeting.Reply

Oh no, awfully sorry to hear it's that serious! But now even more impressed that you still made it and soldiered on through it all afternoon! Take it easy, and I hope they manage to get you all fixed up soon. the wub "?!" 23:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Integrated education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moira.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Your edit to Integrated education 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Diannaa, thanks for the warning- I am stuck in hospital editing with a broken wrist- I ll get a third party to look over the text tomorrow, I am not really in the position to hold a long discussion until I get control of a few more fingers.ClemRutter (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

So sorry to hear about the wrist, Clem - I heard more about it at this afternoon's online meeting. I do hope you mend completely. Best wishes. PamD 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

• WereSpielChequers Andrew Davidson Johnbod: Can you guys,and anyone else have a look at Integrated Education and associated sites Lagan College etc and give an opinion. I was working on the problem, and going to discuss it at the London Meetup when gravity intervened!(Operation sucessful but cast and further treatment ongoing!). Most of what Diannaa says I agree with, she has better tools than me when it comes to copyvios , but now I am in a difficult position. We have one sound reference-a [NI gov report which can be used to replace most of the disputed text.
• Diannaa.If you wish to get my a attention it is more effective to message me with: Hi, Clem, can you take alook at......, so we can address the problem together. I welcome your edits on Lagan CollegeI hadn't got round to checking that link. That is a clear copyvio from somewhere and unreferenced- I would have deleted that rather than tagged it. It was a historic posting, but a newbie is unlikely to understand the tag and would just walk away. When that is deleted, we could look a WP:RS. This provides more to the story. I was wondering if we could justify using the image on that site under fair use?. How much further do you wish to get involved with content writing for Integrated Education or other NI Education articles? I can use the talk pages more if I know I have a partner.ClemRutter (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

• You've received multiple other warnings and one block in December 2020 regarding copyright. A request for copyright investigation on your contributions was opened in Janaury 2021. Normally with long-time contributors I use a personalized note for the first warning and templates thereafter. I get it that we're not supposed to template the regulars but when personalized notes don't get the desired result, which is a cessation of violations of our copyright policy, I use the templates.
• As I mentioned at WP:CP, the copyright content at Lagan College has been there since 2007, and its removal will pretty much stubbify the article, so I decided to list it there as interested persons will have at least a week to attempt a rewrite.
• The image at this site is not suitable for fair use, as it does not have any source or author information, and it is not likely to pass all ten criteria listed at WP:NFCCP.
• Sorry I am not interested in working on articles on education in Northern Ireland.— Diannaa (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I can confirm that that Clem was injured on the way to the last London wikimeet but heroically bandaged himself up so that he could see it through. It's a shame that he is now laid up in hospital but it's good that he is getting treatment. I have put integrated education and Lagan College on my watchlist and so will keep an eye on them. For another educational topic which is in need of attention, please see cheat sheet. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Yes, get well soon, Clem, and then I'm sure this can be sorted out. All the best. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of integrated schools in Northern Ireland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Antrim, Crumlin and Ballycastle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Diannaa Another impersonal template! You told me that you are not interested in editing articles on Northern Ireland but you appear to be interested in stopping me doing the difficult task. As you have encyclopedic knowledge of Copyright matters I would be interested to know where you perceive I have crossed the line. I have spent 8 hours carefully recasting facts in my own words- carefully cross checking the three definite source text with lesser ones- and at the same time ensuring that I don't confuse by using UKEnglish terms with NI- English. As I pointed out two weeks ago, all that is required to affect a change is a comment on a talk page- that is the cooperative model we encourage on Wikipedia. The simplest way forward is for you to restore the text (of which I have no copy) or to c&p it across to a sub-page here with the changes you wish to see. As a active Schools coordinator I prefer to get on with the editing rather than get involved with Wikilawyering. cc:Mike Peel WereSpielChequers Andrew Davidson Johnbod ClemRutter (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Source document:

Your addition:

Overlapping prose is highlighted in bold.— Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Diannaa. Now we getting somewhere. We are talking about the contents of a list. In my opinion that is an acceptable paraphrase, and simplification of fact. I think you will find the quoted list is quoted from a primary government source. Firstly, do a visual check-do they even look vaguely similar? Look at them in context- does the shortened ennumerated list do exactly the same job as the longer text in the source. I think not. The list is ennumerated unlike on the source. Each item on the list is a simplification of the source and shorter, so the authors creative effort was not violated- the copyvio concern. Now looking at this very short piece of text, I can see how it falsely triggered an automated tool, looking again I saw a huge number of technical terms have been bolded.

I agree that the last line could be dodgy- it passed me as I have heard those same words so many times at union meetings - it didn't register! But that is what we have a talk page for. So have you any further suggestions of the changes that should be made.ClemRutter (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your addition presents the same ideas in the same order, and other than the omitted words, you use almost identical wording. It doesn't matter that the content was presented as a list; it's not a simple alphabetical or chronological list with no creative content. There's enough creative expression in the source document to enjoy copyright protection, and the source paper is marked as copyright. Therefore the edit is a violation of our copyright policy.— Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I will be offline for a couple of days- and hope to get full use of my wrist next Thursday- sorry if the conversation is a bit disjointed today.

You have made our working definition very clear I am happy to adopt it. You can see the rational I was using. So delete all and get the point over by a full article restructure. We need to make your copyright advice more prominent on the WP:WPSCH/AG page: that can wait until next week. ClemRutter (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just to note that the above ping didn't work, so re-pinging @WereSpielChequers, Andrew Davidson, and Johnbod:. Wishing you a speedy recovery Clem, will be watching this conversation when it restarts. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to see this happen, Clem. Wikipedia has likely lost a valuable contributor. The best way to tell whether your content creation is too closely paraphrased is when nobody would be able to tell where you got your information from if they do not look at your references. In my opinion, you should offer to use information from multiple sources for every paragraph you write if you want to get unblocked. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, seconded. You've been on Wikipedia for a large number of years, Clem, and you know how copyright policy works. If you need the source copied and pasted in order to work on it, just do it in Word, on your own machine. If can't reside on Wikipedia even temporarily. Scorpion's advice sounds great too. Use multiple sources. Interpret them in your own words. Then we can move OK from this and get you back here where you belong. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Clem, I hope your recovery is going well. When writing new content, I usually collect together three or more sources, read what they have to say about the topic I need to cover, and then start preparing the prose without looking at the books until I am ready to check and see if my version is unique enough and okay to add. This can be tricky with authors like Shirer or Beevor who write in a simple direct style like mine! but it can be done. Here is an example edit on the SS article, which we brought to GA in 2016. These sample paragraphs took about an hour and a half to prepare and use primarily three books (Weale, Longerich 2012, and Steinbacher). Note the fact that I provided attribution in my edit summary for the material I copied from a different Wikipedia article.So here's a quick overview of the basics. Sorry if some of this sounds condescending, but you do seem to have some gaps in your knowledge of copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia editing, and I want to be sure to cover everything.

1. Don't copy from copyright sources at all. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (other than things like job titles, names of govt programmes, names of schools, etc). One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. This is a lot easier when you have several sources on which to draw. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.
2. When copying within Wikipedia, you need to provide attribution, like I did in the edit summary in the sample edit above. There's more on this topic at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
3. When copying from compatibly licensed sources, like for example many UK Government websites, you also need to provide attribution. Here is an example where I added attribution as part of the citations for some government documents that are released under the Open Government License. We do have some templates such as {{CC-notice}} but I find doing it manually works for me.
4. Please be aware that we do have a bot that checks for copyright issues on all additions over a certain size. So take your time, be thorough with your editing. And when in doubt, leave it out.— Diannaa (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
5. When copying from public domain sources, like you did here, please add the template {{PD-notice}} as part of your citation.— Diannaa (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Scorpions13256: I think you are right. As I stated at the top of the page I work in a wikipedia world where we assume good faith and where we don't use hyperbole to pursue a grudge. I create content and train other to do good legal Wikipedia edits and more recently have been working difficult articles on educational subjects in a difficult areas- meta-articles that explain technical concepts. Obviously I adhere in everyway to policy- I will reiterate that here.

If I suspect that an editor thinks I am being unfair I will call in an uninvolved third party to take over and make no further edits on that article and related articles until consensus has been achieved, if I mention an editor on someone elses user page- I ping that editor. That is just basic good manners. I try to read all the policy page/guidelines and essays I quote, not just the lead. For example, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. There are two sections of interest:Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When is close paraphrasing permitted? and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Existing close paraphrasing#Addressing. Neither of these sections are referred to in the lead and I suspect the search algorithms used by the copyvio searching bots. I get concerned when another editor does not use the Talkpage and and follow the procedures laid out. There is an article with a similar name Close paraphrase that gives an interesting insight into the US law on which this procedure is based that explains concepts such as substantial content. All this is out of my hands now. I will leave it to administrators to sort out, and will be glad to co-operate in any enquiry, they choose to make.--ClemRutter (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Amakuru: Thanks for being so welcoming and helpful. I don't choose to write an article out of love of the subject anymore, I write them because they need to be cleaned up or are articles that are vital in order to clean up multiple red-links. We need these articles. Finding the source is often the problem and verifying the notability and reliability of the source - this is often the reason that noone else has written the article.--ClemRutter (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Diannaa: Firstly thanks for good wishes for a speedy recovery- everything is going right with the treatment for the multiple fracture though slower than I had hoped. The effect on motivation is a different matter. It decimated my typing speed. Tone is everything on Wikipedia, and I didn't take your advice notes as patronising or personally as I have been thinking for a long time that we need to a beginners notes section on WP:WPSCH/AG to address four nutty problems- notability, valid references and close paraphrasing and copyright in the context of the schools project.

Can you go back in and change your editing example to one on a school based topic rather than a history BLP topic. It very easy to do an edit on a incident that has been discussed multiple times ie multiple opinions- while schools editors are editing facts. Now in England we can find a lot in the TES (before it was put behind a paywall), this will then be taken up by the Guardian suitable modified to become a legitimate close paraphrase and this will then source other reliable journals. Or we are left with one source. I suspect that this is the case in many technical articles.

So, addressing the article we are discussing. I wrote a legitimate [[[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When is close paraphrasing permitted?|close paraphrase]], you disagreed, so the procedure is you need identify whether the close paraphrase is a such a blatant breach of copyright that WP is in legal danger or whether it is a minor incident.

Looking closely at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Addressing, well this is so minor that it is beneath the threshold of concern,(Substantial similarity applies). (^[a] It is about the presentation of list of facts, where only the order is perceived to be the same. You then must explain your concern on the Talk:Northern Ireland Curriculum and notify the user by pinging them or using the {{Close paraphrasing}} template. The text does not need to blanked at this stage, you then try to persuade the contributor to fix the problem, or you can fix it yourself. If the contributor reverts you and hasn't responded to the discussion on the talk personally I see this of evidence of 'blatant' and the text should be moved. The aim is always to preserve as much text as possible and of course WP:AGF. The big problem I have with your editing style is that it omits all these essential stages, deletes text and breaks the history log and no-one within the project can verify your POV. From the one example you have left here- the there is one certain fact, two long-standing prolific editors disagree, and we need far more sets of eyes looking at the text and to establish a consensus.ClemRutter (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)ReplyNotes:

Your response to my advice shows that you still do not understand how copyright applies to Wikipedia, and that you believe you were incorrectly blocked. That's a misinterpretation on your part; your addition to Northern Ireland Curriculum was a clear-cut violation of the copyright policy on my opinion, and I think anyone who has spent some time working on copyright cleanup would agree. "Summarize in your own words instead of closely paraphrasing" is the advice at the top of the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing supplement page. This is difficult to do when you have only one source to draw from. Regardless, your version should not contain any wording at all from the source documents (other than things like job titles, names of govt programmes, names of schools, etc). Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing goes on to say: "Note, however, that closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression. The more extensively we rely on this exception, the more likely we are to run afoul of compilation protection." If you can't add content while staying within the limits of what our copyright policy allows, you have to leave it out.The aim of copyright clean-up is not to "always to preserve as much text as possible"; it's to have a copyright-compliant version in place at all times. The patrolling admin is not required by policy to post on the talk page or gain consensus for removal of material that is in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. In fact every Wikipedia page has an edit notice that says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." That's how important this policy is.You say "no-one within the project can verify your POV"; that's not true. Any admin on Wikipedia can look at revision-deleted text and examine my work to see if I have made a mistake. If you would like to get a second opinion, the best people to ask are the ones who are experienced in copyright cleanup. I therefore suggest you ping or talk to one of the people listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters if you wish to get a second opinion on your edit at Northern Ireland Curriculum that was the trigger that got you blocked, or on any other example(s) of your choosing. — Diannaa (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I thought at first that the list of points in question was a direct quotation of government policy. If that were the case, it would I think be OK to quote it here, as long as it was properly attributed. However, looking at the source, I think the "five questions" are actually phrased using the language of the writers of the paper, and as such, Diannaa is right that it is definitely not OK to list them in even a closely paraphrased form. You could summarise the questions in your own words, but that would need to be in a substantially different format. And really, you need to be identifying at least one further source that covers the same material, and build your "own words" summary from a combination of those multiple sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Amakuru, you may already know this, but the copyright status of government works varies from county to country. A few examples: In Canada, government works are copyright and cannot be copied here unaltered. In India, government works are copyright for 50 years from publication date. In Australia and the UK, some but not all are Crown copyright but released under a compatible license, as long as they are properly attributed (here is an example of how to do that). Works of the United States government are public domain; they can be copied as long as attribution is given (typically by using the template {{PD-notice}}). — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Diannaa: ah, thanks for the info, it's useful to know that text from such works can be used when attributed properly. I guess I was alluding more to fair use under WP:NPS#Fair use of copyrighted primary sources, where direct quotes of government policy might be essential for conveying the point being made by the article. Looking at it again, the five bulleted questions would be too much to fit in the "sentence or two" stipulation though. I see a similar case in which the "Ten Commandments for Dogs" were removed from their article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Diff of The Ten Commandments of Dog OwnershipReply

I would describe that as a violation of our non-free content policy rather than a copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:Royd Mill, Oldham 0007.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you have any comments or questions about this image, please post them here instead of at the pages mentioned in the template. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. Of course the images of the same mill but they are not remotely similar. In simple terms the 1983 is a crop showing only the short side of the mill. It fails to illustrate the long side or the range of ancillary buildings to the right which would be the boiler house and the engine house. The 1983 image is of a higher quality but less informative and significantly after 1961 when the mill went electric, and the boilers and the mill engine were no longer used. This image was bot processed in 2017 to lower its resolution. I vaguely recollect the 1983 image being put in the infobox and considering reverting it but concluded that the 83 did illustrate the flavour of the article and the 51 image could safely be moved to a more technical section. We cannot visit it as it has been demolished we know it was built in 1907 and had 3 Tetlow boilers, I can't identify from the image fully, but the placement of the smoking chimney does suggest the ancillary buildings were to do with the engines and boilers- maybe one day a better image will appear! The article was rated as a Start but with hindsight it could be upgraded. ClemRutter (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) sorry to be a downer Clem, but I don't think having a second non-free image of the same mill when there's already a free one in the article qualifies as fair use, even if it does show some different features of the building. WP:NFCC #8 says that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The boiler house etc. aren't IMHO important enough to satisfy that clause (and also aren't discussed in the article anyway at present). This article would not be significantly diminished without the second pic. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Amakuru, you use the {{tps}} tag- can I say you are most welcome. I would have welcomed your opinion all those years back when I was writing this series of articles. Generally it was the later mills that were most impressive and parts of which survived longest. This will go down to matters of opinion. My interest is not to write a pretty, pretty tourist guide- my interest at the time was to accurately describe the architecture, and workings of these historically important buildings."Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". To my mind, the 1951 image is a great find as it illustrates most of the aspects of the mill, the later image is not a replacement as it only shows one elevation. There is no indication of boiler placement or engine house which were of course redundant or had been demolished in the later image. To me that is significant but I understand that you may not. Checking for this response I found this 2013 post with a nice series of copyrighted photos.Derelict Mills But there is no image of the boiler house or the long gone engine. Now the exciting bit- I found a further photo of the later mill at Photo of Royd mill from Heron Close. Look down the description page and it appears that Chris is interested in selling a physical print- but licenses the artifact under CC-BY-SA 2.0. There are other copyright statements so I think we need Diannaa (talk · contribs)s opinion on this. Even so the 1951 image does increase readers' understanding, but the case would be harder to prove.ClemRutter (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here is the image at Geograph. I have uploaded it to the Commons as an example of how I would name the files, how to format the license template, coordinates template, etc. File:Royd Mill, Oldham, by Chris Allen.jpg. Amazingly enough Chris Allen has uploaded 23,034 images to Geograph and it looks like they are all released under a CC-BY-SA 2.0. You are not blocked at the Commons, so you could work on selecting and uploading some of these if your wrist is healed enough! — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply P.S. Don't use the coordinates from Geograph – this one had incorrect coords and I bet others do as well.— Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have copied your remarks to the file talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. I don't think that alters my comment above but it does open a new can of worms. I had uploaded many of Chris's first batch of mills in the 2000 - the image in infobox was one of my uploads! I missed the later ones he added- including the one of three Tetlow boilers. Thanks for infinitely better image- it has been tagged already to say we already did have it. Your comments on Chris's co-ordinates seems apposite.

I haven't actively done any work on mills for years now. It had become a labour of love but I was not getting much interaction with other editors so I broadened out, recently trying to sort out WPschools. But a thought comes to mind- are these images fair use or now permitted under copyright- they are photos by unknown photographers in a book published by a defunct company in or before 1951 (best guess 1950). I uploaded them to commons in 2007/2008 ish and then, when they were rejected, again as fairuse to English WP- 13 years can make a big difference in copyright law. So, is that a valid argument? If so what copyright tag do we need. That would mean we could do a re-scan at a higher resolution- I have the book. ClemRutter (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The place to start when looking at copyright terms is the Hirtle chart. For us to make a definitive assessment as to whether or not any particular photo is in the public domain, several questions need definitive answers. Here are some of the things we would need to know:

• Has the photo ever been published? If so, in what country? What year was it first published? What year was the photo taken?
• Do we know who the author/photographer is? Are they dead or alive? What year did they die?

Most books will have a photo credits section that gives details on who took each photo and when, but determining whether the author is alive or dead will only be possible with well-known people that we can track down online. If you don't know the answers to these questions, you should not upload the photo to the Commons. For more information on copyright laws in various countries, a good starting point is Commons:Copyright rules by territory. If you have any doubt at all about the copyright status of an image, don't upload it.— Diannaa (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:Manor Mill, Chadderton 0005.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

As before, please post any comments here, and I will copy them to the file's talk page for the reviewing administrator's attention. Thanks.— Diannaa (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

You have found a difficult one here, one I find marginal now. The problem is that we have here a baseline image (1951) that displays the mill in its entirety though low res, Chris Allen has donated many shots of this mill but none of all of the mill. Now we have the same problem with its sister mill Kent Mill, Chadderton. I want an image that shows two elevations but also the rope race and boiler and engine house and chimney- when the mill goes electric then the form changes. The rules: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Significantly is very subjective. With technical eyes- this passes the test- as does Kent, but if you are illustrating a tourist leaflet it wouldn't. I would tweak the text to make the significance more obvious. Can you pass on my comments. ClemRutter (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Copied to file talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Clem. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI where you have been mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mike Peel. If you wish to make any comments at that location, please post here, and I will copy your remarks over for you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I will look a little later.--ClemRutter (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be copied: Thanks.Diannaa

I know this is a discussion about User:Mike Peel but I see my name is mentioned here, and today was the first time that I received a courtesy notice. Thanks Diannaa. So I will make a few comments about the process. It may help if you watch my talk page and familiarise yourselves with WP:Close paraphrasing particularly WP:Close paraphrasing#When is close paraphrasing permitted? and WP:Close paraphrasing#Addressing. This is an essay, not a guideline and I would like to see it worked up to guideline. Most of the discussion is on my User talk:ClemRutter

As many of you know I have acted a trainer in the UK, and have written many booklets on the technical side of editing and explained verbal our copyright policies which were particularly important in places like the Wellcome Institute stopping academics c&p-ing their own articles which were published so subject to the publishers copyright. Yes, copyright is subtle- and one can always learn more.Tip: stalk(talk) . I am not an admin: I joined WP to concentrate on content rather than compete and get involved in disputes such as this- I did all of that in my previous life. I can do without the extra Admin tools and all the extra responsibilities. The one tool I could have done with- was the ability to see the text under discussion when it has been removed by a patrolling admin!

I agreed to act as a coordinator on the WP:WPSCHOOLS- I was invited by User:Kudpung who no longer contributes the EN:WP.There is a big question mark there.

Under discussion:Talk:Northern Ireland Curriculum Talk:Integrated education Talk:Thinking School

The dispute is about:

1. Basic Wikpedia stuff: pillars and WP:AGF. We work through cooperation not conflict- tone is everything. Try to fix first. Hyperbola in discussions does't help.
2. Basic editing protocols and using the Talk Page before you escalate an incident. Please read the talk pages of the articles under discussion. There are other protocols- but following the links and you quickly enter confrontational language.
3. WP:Close paraphrasing#When is close paraphrasing permitted? This appears to be highly subjective at the moment and I think we have concensus on Liberal Arts topics- Histories, Biographies, some aspects of geography but when we approach technical articles on educational policy, curricular theory there is a lot of work to do. Trite answers and slogans lead to bad articles. IMHO In an article that is being actively edited {{close paraphrase}} is a better template as it draws other editors into the discussion and leads to better articles- and is less time-consuming than an appearance on WP:ANI.

There are some interesting thoughts on maintaining editor numbers on meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ&A particularly question 1. A lot of work to do. We must solve this by squaring the circle- luckily my memory has deteriorated so much that I can't bear a grudge. ClemRutter (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have copied the post to the discussion at WP:AN. Sorry for the delay – I was at work.Your post contains errors and misinformation:

• You were notified of the discussion at WP:AN about an hour and a half after the initial post (not two days later as you suggest).
• Copyright policy is not decided at the wikiproject level; it's a site-wide policy that is detailed at Wikipedia:Copyrights. The same level of compliance is mandatory for all editors, regardless of the topic the article. Decisions made at the wikiproject level cannot trump the copyright policy. Details provided in an essay or guideline do not trump the copyright policy.
• The patrolling admin is not required to fix copyright violations. The patrolling admin is not required to discuss on the talk page before removing violations.
• None of the editors and administrators who commented at AN were of the opinion that you were incorrectly blocked. You characterise our interaction as a "dispute", which it is not. It is a Wikipedia administrator blocking a person who has violated our copyright policy. The block was placed to eliminate the chance of further damage to the encyclopedia. Unless and until you understand that absolutely no copying from your sources is allowed (subject to certain exemptions, of which I have informed you already more than once) you will not be able to resume editing. — Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clem. I don't know whether you remember me, but we were both on a wiki-meetup on Zoom last summer. We talked about a few different things, mostly about photographs if I remember correctly. I remember being really impressed with your enthusiasm for us having articles (and images to illustrate them) about state schools, rather than just independent schools with posh buildings and long lists of notable students. You inspired me, truly.

I'm here because I am certain of your enthusiasm for the project, and of your enormous capacity to make it better; I don't want this block to be the end of the road for such a positive presence. I want to try to help you understand the copyright policy, if I can. I can't pretend to understand it nearly as well as Diannaa does, and I'm wary of offering to teach someone like yourself to suck eggs and thereby appear presumptuous, but I thought it was better to do something than to watch from the sidelines.

What Diannaa says above is correct. The example above under the 'August 2021' header is indefensible - it's identical to the source, with a few of the words removed. That's not an acceptable paraphrase, it's a blatant copyright violation, of the sort that will always be removed on-sight. You have been suggesting that people ought to flag things like that, and discuss it with the author to see whether it can be edited and improved; have you considered the additional burden that would impose on the people who work on copyvio patrolling? There is a backlog of tens of thousands of cases that need investigating, and the backlog is always growing. To say that investigators need to stop and discuss obvious violations one-by-one before doing anything about them is effectively saying that we just stop caring about violations - given how long it would take, and how few people we have who are interested in dealing with copyvios, it would be entirely impossible to even hope to stay on top things.

The right approach to take when writing articles is to make your best efforts not to use any of the text from any of the sources - write it all in your own words. Sometimes, you find it impossible to be completely original - there are only so many ways of saying that a building was built in a particular year, or in such-and-such a style. So, you might use a particular phrase that appears in the sources, but you limit that to as few words as you can get away with, and ensure that the sentence structure around it is different. You can't get away with 'paraphrasing' whole paragraphs by removing some clauses and leaving everything else intact.

I'd really like to help you get back to editing, if I can. The first step to that, in my view, is for you to accept what Diannaa (who is hands-down our most highly-respected expert when it comes to copyright issues) has been telling you. Please consider what she has said, and whether you can reconcile yourself to it. If you have questions/comments/thoughts, I'd be happy to thrash them out with you, and see whether we can get to a position where you this block can be lifted. Best wishes, truly. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Clem. Likewise; you and I first met at the 2017 International Women's Day Editathon at Newnham College, Cambridge, where I saw your keenness to help and steer new and older editors. I was also highly surprised to see this block and your rather unusual responses for what some newcomers often regard as a small issue, but which I thought every experienced Wikimedians such as yourself knew only too well. I know us older blokes can get stuck in our ways and have our blind spots in life, so if there's anything I can do to offer feedback, just reach out, or email me. I'm afraid I completely see and agree with Diannaa's points and, whilst it adds a little time to rewrite content in one's own words to avoid close paraphrasing, it really is an essential skill to have. Copy vios and close paraphrasing are never disputes - they're simply breaches of core policy, wherever they occur. So, once you recover from your real life injuries, if there's anything I can do to help, feel free to ask for assistance. At a practical level, simply supply a url to a few paragraphs you're stuck on, and I'd be happy to offer alternative suggestions to help you get back on track with content creation that doesn't breach those policies. This really is such an important area to get to grips with, and such a small and easy thing to resolve, that I'm only too happy to offer any support I can. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Clem. What have you done to get yourself in this mess? Your coordship is going to be sorely missed at WP:SCHOOLS; it's down now to just two largely inactive coords and no one for the UK. Although I retired from Wikipedia early last years and certainly don't have any designs on doing any divaesque comebacks to en.Wiki if I can help it, I feel kinda obliged to come back and do something about schools and I sincerely hope you'll be able to get back to editing soon. Unfortunately the new trend on WP is to thrash about with blocks and desysopings of the most valuable contributors. In the meantime I've removed your name from the coords template because it didn't look too good struck through as 'blocked'. I fell nearly 2 years ago and had multiple fractures to the old and fragile carpus and radius of my left wrist. It will never heal again properly but I'm back to playing the piano - gently. Best, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  (Kudpung, FWIW, I would delighted to see you return to active editing, even if you decided to restrict yourself to WP:SCHOOLS. You are missed, as is Clem. Best wishes (in the actual 'I really mean that' sort of sense, rather than the 'I can't think of another way of signing off a post' sort of sense. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC))Reply

No chance of that, I'm afraid, Girth. I'm firmly in my twilight years and I have no time for the pompous, power hungry teenagers and 'average age' Wikipedians who are hell bent on scaling the greasy pole to the dizzy heights of adminship or arbcom after having been around for only 5 minutes and don't know how to write a decent article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Kudpung, Great to see your name here. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Harris Academy Ockendon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Regent Mill, Failsworth 0007.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Trencherfield Mill, Wigan 0019.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia: The project where one worked cooperatively to build an encyclopedia, trusted your colleagues and assumed good faith is dead. I joined this project 18 years ago, to add content and have no interest in internal squabbles; we made mistakes and on seeing one would correct it or if it was contentious we would discuss it on the talk page. The word was always we. We did our upmost to respect another editors work and improve the text they had added. We became more skilled and more precise in our sourcing and referencing. We became adept at interpreting copyright issues- and what cannot be copyrighted.

It was an enjoyable activity for all ages: there were tasks that everyone could do whether it was documenting popular culture, adding photographs, building a great reference book that reflected current research, formatting lists, adding svgs or simply building a gazeteer. It is no longer so.

Some of us took it a lot further, acting as trainers for organisations like the Wellcome Institute, in universities and to develop Wikipedia projects such as Women in Red. We explained basic editing, referencing and Wikipedia policies. We tailored our work to our audience realising that some of our students were experts in their fields.

Some of us helped coordinate projects, doing a lot of correcting and helping other users prove notability, generally cleaning up articles, rewriting them, searching for sources and checking copyright- where there was a problem we would attempt to fix it, or comment it out and discuss it on the talkpage. In fact doing the sort of work described in Addressing close paraphrasing There was a lot of destubbing and a lot of use of the talkpage. Coordinators end up trying to save the most difficult articles and writing articles to fill holes Wikipedia content. This could be challenging but with it came the buzz of helping others and cooperating with skilled colleagues. Wikipedia has changed and has become an exercise in ‘office’ politics. I left that and generally managing people and pupils when I retired.

Wikipedia in its present state is not sustainable, I will be doing no further editting until the culture is reverted. I will be around at social events and available to help again when a serious attempt has been made to reestablish Wikipedia values. I can be contacted through email and social media.

I will no longer be contributing 6000 posts a year. I will no longer be investigating whether our text preceded other published sources. I will no longer be evaluating whether a phrase is a technical term within that subject area thus exempt from copyright protection, or whether an author has taken an established list of copyright exempt terms and close paraphrased them adding creative content that must be removed, and how much in order to clear copyright.

I have been asked by friends and family if it is possible to stop completely when Wikipedia has been a major part of your life for over 15 years. I have tried it for a month now and the answer is surprising easy- yes, but the Wikipedia I knew no longer exists. It is more a case the Wikipedia has walked away from us. ClemRutter (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Clem, we met about six years ago at Clitheroe Castle, a GLAM event I believe you organised (and half of the WP events I've ever attended). It was around the time Eric Corbett was caught in the blackhole of run-ins with the wikilaw that ended as it did. I remember telling someone that his experience had taught me to never be an admin, and now your name will be added for the next person I say that too. It is horrible to loose an editor of your vast experience,[40] and I've been trying for days to think of some way to stop this. I just don't have the words. I don't have sufficient knowledge of the copyright polices to know who was right. I'm very much still at the 'make it mean what the source says, not say what the source says' level, which would hardly be useful advice for you. While it seems outrageous to indef an editor in good standing, apparently for misunderstanding policy, the copyright policies are of such core importance. Our seemingly most powerful admin, armed with the 'protecting the encyclopedia' grenade, is very much not to be tangled with. This obviously could have been handled better but it seems that everyone is just too busy these days. I very much hope that you will able to return in the future and I will certainly miss seeing you around here. All the best with whatever you choose to do in the meantime and thank you so, so much for your vast efforts for the project.TiB chat 18:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Harrop Fold School.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Clem. I have removed your recent post (Diff of User talk:ClemRutter). Soliciting people to edit on your behalf while you are blocked is not allowed, and people are not allowed to proxy edit forthink you while you are blocked. Sorry.— Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think you need to start giving some sources for some of your POVs which may, in this case, be correct. I note also you removed a sub-page here citing Copyright worries- but Copyright does not apply outside main space unless you have a source to say other wise. Indeed it in not applicable. We also have a rule about not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

Subtly hidden in the post, that you think you have a right to remove,- was a reminder that Copyright only applies to creative content not facts, copyright does not apply to technical terms or situations where is no other reasonable way to write a piece of prose. If there is any dispute you take it to the talk page and discuss it or best still you execute a fix. That is the way we work on wikipedia. Round London we meet up face to face, and more recently in Zoom calls to help each other out- lookup London meetup and join us so we can cooperate.

Go back to the file I mentioned on Duke Street Mill- to me the copyright breach needs reporting- if you live in the town, the site is directly opposite the library, so easy to investigate. I don't but I also have been blocked. Part of the problem with coordination of mills is often the standard recent source has cut and pasted details from pre 1926 text which is not copyrightable! The text of the simplistic interpretation of copyright you sent is good as a handout for newbies but you do have to explain to them that in many cases it will not apply.

Moving over to schools, particularly in Northern Ireland a lot of them are stubs, and you need to start with a word accurate description- that will have to be checked with the school website and their prospectus- if the two are the same those are the words you must use. Facts-technical terms- no alternative description. If you are destubbing, you then need to add a range of sections. There may been a rune saying all later edits must be blanked but first you need to explain your intention in detail on the talk page as you must not disrupt WP to prove a point. So how do you proceed in cases like this. Ctrl X the offending text- Replace text with XXXX is a school in County XXXX and save. Go to talk page, new section ==Disputed text== and Ctrl -V and save. There is now no copyvio on the article- check each of the other paragraphs- check they are correctly sourced and save. Get another editor to help you and check out the disputed text and correct it. Save. Now back to the main space and replace your holding sentence.

You will find a lot of what I have said applies across all technical articles- and the use of the talk page is key. ClemRutter (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not so subtly hidden in that post were blatant personal attacks; that's the kind of thing that leads to revocation of talk page access. All the best! ——Serial 17:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for getting involved. You are right it could have been seen that way. I did check up and apart from here I do not have talk page access. Please keep watching. ClemRutter (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Clem, I need to clear up some of the incorrect information in your post: All Wikipedia pages are subject to the same copyright policy. Each and every page whether main space, Wikipedia space, talk pages, sandboxes and drafts, all have the same edit notice: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Our copyright policy does not require the patrolling admin to use the talk page or discuss. Copyright violations are subject to immediate removal and revision deletion.If you notice image copyright violations, the vast majority of our images are on the Commons, and you are not blocked on that wiki, so please feel free to report the issue there. — Diannaa (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the sources you using- I note it says" Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." not whole pages that contain a copyvio. I know that makes for more work for a patrolling admin, but it more informative and save everyones' time in the long run. I mentioned a specific image that is tagged do not upload onto commons (one of the rare ones) I can't see how talking about it on commons would help, if I had sufficient access I would have reported it on your talk page as you are the copyright expert for things like this. I think the conversation will continue because WP does need to discuss the role of the patrolling admin when interacting with a project coordinator. ClemRutter (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The removal of the post seems appropriate - Clem, you can't make posts like that, it's both a personal attack and an attempt at block evasion. You need to either solve the problem here so you can edit the articles again, or address these issues on Commons. You're working yourself more into a hole here, please take a step back and better engage with Diannaa and all. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Mike, all suggestions gratefully received. I am not aware of any issues on Commons where I continue to upload images. The issues over there are technical at PHP level but are being worked on. I think I have described the copyright issues I have here with non-copyrightable facts and technical terms that are flagged up as copyvios- issues that as a project coordinator I was already attempting to address. I can't give specific examples as the text has been zapped. Above I have explained the en only image to Diannaa and await a response ClemRutter (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Joseph Leckie Academy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use low res 50% crop.png Linda Nyland photo of Thomas J. Price and.png with 'reaching out' sculpture.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Category:UTC (school) fair use logos has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Category:Fair use school logos has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Cromer Academy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use image Blue Mermaid.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Phoenix Academy, Shepherd's Bush.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not in a position to respond in person- as I am currently blocked at English wp. Wikipedia is about incremental improvements- it is good news that an alternative has been found. ClemRutter (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo St Andrew's and St Bride's High School.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not in a position to reply in person being currently blocked. I see this image on St Andrew's and St Bride's High School

Hi Clem. I already fixed this on the 12th. Someone had vandalized the page. — Diannaa (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. ClemRutter (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clem. Thanks for your email. I think that article is now sorted. I was surprised to see that you have been blocked indefinitely since last August. I thought I had not seen you around for a while. Whatever you've done, I'd be very surprised if you really deserved an indef block. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article Maidstone mum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources

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. ITBF (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Buckinghamshire University Technical College.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Houghton Regis Academy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Silverstone University Technical College.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clem, I have fixed this. — Diannaa (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. ClemRutter (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Sittingbourne Community College.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clem. This has been fixed. Somebody removed the logo — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Oak National Academy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The file File:Fair use logo Bennett Memorial Diocesan School.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, superseded by File:Arms of Bennett Memorial Diocesan School.svg.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Bennett Memorial Diocesan School.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Condenser spinning flowchart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Shinadamina (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have been blocked from editing for some time though I am still very active in the London Wikimedia group. This article is a valid stub with 2 wiki links and a valid . The buildings in their time were influential, though the Mirror building was too small scale to survive on that location beyond 1963. The practice illustrates the rebulding efforts made after the Second World War. Reference material does exist on line but to bring this up to an FA would take physically search the RIBA archives, the Major of Londons archives and probably the Museum of London, but I would start at the British Library in St Pancras. Wikipedia becomes less and less useful if is principal aim is to remove useful stubs with out understanding what they can become.ClemRutter (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I worked in the Daily Mirror building for a while. The site is quite close to Penderel's Oak so we should make a tour of the area at a future London Wikimeet. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've had a look but not found much in the way of sources. By the way, please don't copy sources like https://www.scottisharchitects.org.uk/architect_full.php?id=204863 onto your talk page, it's not helpful to getting you unblocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think we are down to physical sources here, the topic I feel is interesting enough to explore. Along with that the conversation moves onto brick and clay used in reconstruction and availability, and their limiting properties, in the forties and fifties. Your decisions- I can only suggest. ClemRutter (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I checked my copy of The London Encyclopedia and the architects are briefly mentioned in the contest of the Mirror building, but that's it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Stott family of Oldham has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is potential for adding this to other existing pages, and pages still to be written. I support harmonising the format with other templates, but I think that finding it was impossible without losing information that prompted me to investigate this format. I am not in a position to take this further at the moment! I welcome improvements. ClemRutter (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clem, John here. I saw you created the Cleve Hill Solar Farm/Project Fortress article, about the largest solar farm in the UK. I'm thinking about expanding content on other solar farms in the UK, and wonder if it's something you'd like to help me with. Feel free to send me an email - jwslubbock@Gmail.com. Jwslubbock (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sounds interesting- but I am a little short of time at the moment, and still hobbled by an edit block. I am with you in spirit. I will keep my my ears tuned and feed you anything I hear. ClemRutter (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Cheltenham Bournside School and Sixth Form Centre.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo Dyke House Sports and Technology College.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fair use logo The De Montfort School.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Mill owners in Glossop has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. Mason (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Bahn-Linie has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fair use image Mariusz Stepien.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply