Hi. Please replace the Daily Mail reference at Pizza Club. It should not be used. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 23:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was under the impression it was acceptable to use the Mail as a primary source—i.e. to cite the Mail as evidence that the Mail reported something, as I have done there. From WP:DAILYMAIL, "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." —
Kilopylae (
talk) 08:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Mhm, I don't think so.
WP:ABOUTSELF states: "
Self-published and
questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, […] as long as it […] does not involve claims about third parties;".
Robby.is.on (
talk) 09:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- The citation supports "the Daily Mail described ... and credited ...". The Mail is a reliable primary source for showing that the Mail printed something. It doesn't say in wiki-voice that the Pizza Club forced May's resignation, citing the Mail article claiming that the Pizza Club forced May's resignation—that would be inappropriate. It states that the Mail said something and uses the Mail as a primary source for it having said that. That is fine. —
Kilopylae (
talk) 09:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wiki-voice or not – WP:ABOUTSELF makes no differentiation there – the Pizza Club article contains "claims about third parties" sourced to the Daily Mail which it should not. To imply that the section "Resignation of Theresa May" is about the Daily Mail ("may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities") would be disingenuous. Robby.is.on ( talk) 23:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- The citation supports "the Daily Mail described ... and credited ...". The Mail is a reliable primary source for showing that the Mail printed something. It doesn't say in wiki-voice that the Pizza Club forced May's resignation, citing the Mail article claiming that the Pizza Club forced May's resignation—that would be inappropriate. It states that the Mail said something and uses the Mail as a primary source for it having said that. That is fine. —
Kilopylae (
talk) 09:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Mhm, I don't think so.
WP:ABOUTSELF states: "
Self-published and
questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, […] as long as it […] does not involve claims about third parties;".
Robby.is.on (
talk) 09:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tarka Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burrington. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is
legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Materialscientist ( talk) 16:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Johand199. I noticed that in
this edit to
King's Nympton railway station, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Johand199 (
Talk) 17:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King's Nympton railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Kings Nympton railway station in 2019.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 17:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)