Welcome!

Hello, Russ McLean, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! . dave souza, talk 03:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Secret Millionaire, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Benea (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This small section kind of says it all about the speedy-delete problem. An effort was made to put this Secret Millionaire television programme Wiki page up in January 2008. Then it was speedy-deleted. Only for someone else to have to spend more time and effort to put the page back up in March 2008. Okay some people here are almost on the site against their will, having been dragged to Wikipedia due to their companies or colleagues being mentioned in less than proper or legal ways. Many don't have a masters degree in Wikipedia. But given that the basics are ahered to when creating a page, should there not be some mechanism to counter the speedy-delete issue? Russ McLean (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Caledonian MacBrayne appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. We can't accept any content that is prefaced with the sentence "In deference to the time immemorial and historic MacBrayne poem, a little poetic licence might add a few lines to describe..." That's obviously point-of-view and not encyclopedic (and that poem is already noted in that section) ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your moderators are very quick. I was endeavouring to obtain the citations needed for both poems: http://www.virtualhebrides.com/scalpay/scalpay/scalpay_history/taylor/index2.htm for example. However, before this and the others could be inserted your moderator deleted the contributions.

Perhaps it may be worth considering that the Wiki encyclopedia might be improved if it were not so antiseptic in the content it allows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russ McLean (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your talk page comments with 4 tildes (~~~~), which will insert your name and date. Second, please review our guidelines, which will shed some light on what content is accepted in this encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, on first glance, that link does not appear to be a suitable citation to confirm that the poem is indeed "legendary". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've removed the "Footnotes" section because the links you provided are useless as they require registration at the site to read the content. Please don't re-insert them. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not considered WP:RS; as stated, the Clydesite website requires registration - and has not responded to repeated requests. Finavon (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lochawe Wiki.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) 17:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this and the IoC images. Both transferred to WP:Commons, with your permission statements. This makes them available more widely. Do you know the dates they were taken? Finavon (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your comments at Talk:Argyll Ferries Ltd suggest that WP:COI#Editors who may have a conflict of interest could apply, please note the advice and comply with it. I'm sure you've a great deal to contribute, but care is needed to meet the core policies of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. With good third party sources the coverage of areas of interest can be greatly improved, dave souza, talk 03:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dave, Thank you for your gentle comments above. This is appreciated. I didn't ask for our company name to be taken over by another organisation. I didn't ask for someone to put our company name on Wikipedia. However, when wrong information, or suggestions of 'murky' are placed in the public domain on the Wikipedia publication section titled 'Argyll Ferries Ltd' I have little option but to clarify the matter as we owned the 1988 officially registered company, along with the officially registered 2003 Argyll Ferries Ltd (Official Number SC244859). Following our rationalisation and tidying up of various limited companies (just as CalMac did) we STILL OWN 'Argyll Ferries' as a company, albeit as a division of an alternate formally incorporated body.

Following publications on your website, I have made clarifications, and supplied verification where needed. Now I am accused of having a 'conflict of interest'. You just can't win here. There is a clear 'Catch 22' with Wikipedia. It has the capacity to libel people with impunity. I don't mean the above so much, but a much more serious and actionable occasion for example, where some apparent vandal, falsly using the name of Alistair Carmichael MP placed a highly libellous comment on Wikipedia about Pentland Ferries Ltd. I contacted Alistair and the libel that Wikipedia published was removed.

The Wikipedia site is an enormous wealth of knowledge. But it has many flaws. If you want to publish information, then object to people having a 'conflict of interest' PLEASE do not libel their interests or place misleading information about them in the first place. No matter how lightly, honest or genuine the intent is, you should allow the 'right of reply'. This concept may not figure much in Wikipedia rules, but I can assure you it does apply to many laws in many countries. The right of reply and alleged libel are serious matters and should be respected. Regards, Russ McLean.

Hi, Russ, having looked for sources I've amended the article on the basis of what I've been able to find. Companies House search is a bit tricky, but the evidence is that the previous companies with Argyll Ferries names have been dissolved. To avoid any libel, we require all statements to be verified from published sources: if you can find published sources supporting the other statements you've made, that will be most welcome, in the interim the statements have been trimmed to what can be supported. Hope you find that an improvement, dave souza, talk 09:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I appreciate what you're saying about libel, but you should be aware of Wikipedia:No legal threats policy when discussing this. Similarly, when I wrote "murky" I meant unclear, without any suggestion of wrongdoing, sorry this came across wrongly to you. Hope things are becoming clearer. . . dave souza, talk 09:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Dave. Hopefully the main Argyll Ferries page will settle down now. Best regards, Russ.

Ok, you've rather gone beyond the sources that show on a search, but the info seems reasonable so I'm not going to contest it now: if you can find more explicit sources that would be worthwhile. I notice that Lochmor Shipping Ltd became Lochmor Publishing Ltd, then Argyll and Anglia Ltd before becoming Islay Ferries Ltd. of Aylth, Perthshire. Seems a bit unsettled, but rather much detail for the article. By the way, please try to sign your postings on talk pages by typing ~~~~ which gives your signature and date, in my case dave souza, talk 20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, with all due respect, why are you passing comment on the way we run our companies? On the one hand you make a personal ill informed view that the company seems unsettled, then you infer we are restricted from making any explanation. The last time I looked Wikipedia do not have shares in our company. Since we took our group of companies private, that is by definition what we are. A group of private companies. Would you like me to explain why the nomenclature of a business is changed? It is difficult not to become concerned at remarks made by people who have little knowledge of our business and make comments without the intrusion of facts; then shoot down efforts to put the record straight because this puts too much detail into the Wikipedia hosted intrustion into our business. Frankly I would rather the whole page is taken down until the dispute is resolved. Furthermore the matter is on the verge of becoming sub judice. The whole Wikipedia seems to have it's balance out of kilter. Please can you advise where the Wikipedia HQ is based? Thankyou.

Peter Ayerst, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Russ McLean,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Gavin Patterson for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up that simply being the CEO of a well-known organization - even a very large one - does not make one notable enough for Wikipedia's well-documented standards for an article. You would need to combine it with another major posting, and things like being a "non-Executive Director" is nowhere close to being major. Look, everyone knows BT is WP:NCORP. Nobody is saying that Patterson might not be notable enough in the future. The simple point is that in the version you created, there is not enough information to show notability because such information does not yet exist. Please be assured that the notability guidelines are perhas the single most misunderstood aspect of this project - you're not the only one who cannot find enough valid information from valid reliable sources (hint:bt's website does not count) to support an article - especially about living people.

The person who "tagged" the article for deletion is one of the most knowledgeable editors when it comes to Wikipedia policies - his arguments in deletion discussions hold an extremely high amount of weight because of his knowledge. He would not have tagged the article for possible deletion if it was iffy. The admin who then responded to the request to delete is one of the most fair and knowledgeable admins - you do not typically find them bending the rules, and they're always willing to respond to polite discussion (as are most admins). The sole way to "survive" on Wikipedia is to recognize that admins are chosen because of their advanced knowledge of the rules and policies - the wise editor learns from those editors, and recognizes that perhaps 6 months from now, the subject of an article may have made enough splash in the press to become formally notable. Pissing off the good editors and admins is never a wise idea at any time.

Wikipedia isn't rocket science, but does require patience, and learning. It also requires assuming good faith in everyone. For example, I assume you're trying to add to the project by creating this article - but unfortunately, he does not yet meet the required metrics as published - but I have no doubt he will someday.

A final point: Wikipedia is not "pay for play": saying "I'm going to stop donating because you deleted my article" makes it sound like Wikipedia is supposed to allow the publishing of non-qualifying information simply because you donated - you're smart enough to know how bad that kind of comment sounds. You should be supporting Wikipedia more because now you know that people (volunteers) are doing such a damned good job at trying to evenly apply all of the same policies across the board, which is millions of articles.

I'll keep watching here in case you want to discuss further ES&L 12:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the question you are probably asking yourself right now. Well, there are a couple of reasons your article could have been deleted:

1. It may not have met the General notability guideline. This is the guideline that all articles must meet before they can be included on Wikipedia.
2. It may not have been notable. If a subject isn't notable, it isn't included. Your little brother's garage rock band with 5 fans isn't notable, but Metallica...that's notable.
3. It may not have been verifiable. If a subject hasn't been covered by third-party reliable sources, then we can't tell if an article on it is original research or even a hoax.
4. It may have been deleted as advertising. We are writing a neutral encyclopaedia, sometimes fans, enthusiasts and marketing folk find it difficult to write neutrally about the organisation that they care enough to write about. Any page about a company of any sort must meet strict guidelines so it isn't considered advertising. A page about the local quickie-mart is probably advertising and also probably not notable.

We welcome articles written as part of educational assignments. But such articles must still meet our requirements. It might be useful for your project to be registered at the School and university projects WikiProject, and you can look there for some help specifically with educational projects. If your article is a translation of a Wikipedia article from another language version of Wikipedia, please remember to supply attribution by linking to the page you've translated in your edit summary

Sometimes we can get a little overhasty. So apologies if your article was deleted before you had the chance to add references or mention why the subject is notable. Please request it to be undeleted at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

We welcome new articles, but do encourage new authors to read WP:FIRST for advice on writing articles. Then read all the information you can on the subject. If you prefer working on a draft before submitting it, you can start articles in your sandbox (a subpage of your userpage). Add all the information, references, reliable sources and more to the page. Make sure it meets the General notability guideline. If you aren't sure, ask an admin; they will be glad to help. Then move it to where you want it in the main namespace (on the Wikipedia). From there, keep it updated with pertinent updated information, so the article doesn't become stale. When in doubt with anything, ask the Help desk or an admin. Hope this helps...Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to User talk:Bbb23 could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EatsShootsAndLeaves, Thankyou for at least making an effort to explain before the Speedy-Deleters got to at the article. There are two significant problems for Wikipedia here.

One: What appears unimportant to America and moderators based in the USA can actually be important in the rest of the world, and countries away from America. In relation to the topic extinguished by the Speedy-Deleter, for the record I am NO fan of BT Group plc. But if BT Group plc hadn't been created then ironically Wikipedia WOULD NOT EXIST. Well not for another 20 to 30 years. If in doubt, read your BT Group plc website and the history of that organisation. The fact also remains that Wikipedia has listed BT Group plc as important enough to have a Wiki page. BUT for some arbitrary reason your Speedy-Deleter has ruined work put in to name the person that now occupies the position of CEO of that company - one of the biggest telecomms companies in the UK - a London Stock Exchange Top 100. The easiest way I can explain this is FACT - the office of the President of The United States is important? Yes. But taking your Speedy-Deleters' logic, you cannot have a page for Martin Van Buren because he is commonly recognised as the least important US President and would be a candidate for Speedy-Deletion. To delete any US President from Wiki is absurd. Ergo your Speedy-Deleter's logic is flawed. It would be ridiculous NOT to have a webpage for President Martin Van Buren on the grounds he is unimportant. It is a fact he was the eighth President of the United States. By virtue of his ex-officio status, he SHOULD, and in fact does have have a Wiki page. The argument I present is that whilst the new CEO of the UK's biggest telecomms company may not in, and of himself be that well known or notable, it behoves a website such as Wikipedia - extolling educational values - to at least name the person who holds that office. Hence my addition of Gavin Patterson as CEO of the biggest Telecomms company in the United Kingdom, and FILLING IN A WIKIPEDIA GAP on that BT Group plc webpage.

With regard to your comment about Wikipedia not being "pay for play" - I am sure you mean well. But you misunderstand my point completely. From a brief search of large numbers of ex-Wikipedia contributers, there is a significant number - and I use the term quoted on your website - whom Wikipedia Speedy-Deleters have pi$$ed off. I, and now family members, are not stopping donation because you have deleted an article I put on your website. I simply want NOTHING more to do with a website that has lost its focus and appears to have lost its way. I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia HAS A PROBLEM when it pi$$es off so many people because of structural issues and the over-complex admin-ego problem entity that it appears to have become. All I can do is wish you well in your endeavour.

Originally I only came on because your website defamed my company and the law required I respond. I only kept an eye on Wikipedia because of vandalism whereby an imposter on your site embarrassed the UK Secretary of State for Scotland by libelling another person over here in the UK - where is a Speedy-Deleter when you need one :-) . The last saving grace was to make an effort to contribute - for example with Peter Ayerst who served in WWII as a Spitfire Pilot. To add such people to your website now requires a Ph.d in how to tackle Speedy-Deleters. From this week's experience with the CEO of BT Group plc I know not to waste anymore time here.

Last but not least Bbb23 and Demiurge1000 have indicated that if I choose to contact the UK Regulators regarding Wiki status here as a charity-philanthropic-educational entity, and the fundraising it does in the UK, I am to be banned from Wikipedia. Sorry that is not helpful. Bad enough your current 'system' pi$$es off so many people that they end up avoiding Wikipedia and stop donating. For your moderators to then threaten a ban when someone asserts their legal rights is a quick way to escalate this small matter to something far more serious. Neither Bbb23 or Demiurge1000 has the authority to stop a UK citizen from referring a legitimate complaint about a website that fundraises in the UK to the statutory authorities for a full audit. Regards. Russ McLean (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russ, thanks for your thoughtful discussion above. I will want to add more later, but please allow me to say a couple of quick things. First, nobody is preventing you from referring a complaint to authorities - however, as per the rules that you agreed to on this private website, you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia while such legal action is under way (please see WP:NLT), or even while there is a threat of legal action. Second, our notability guidelines are quite clear that notability is not inherited from association. So, yes, while BT is notable, and the old CEO was notable because of other things plus being CEO, the new guy is not yet notable because he does not have suitable enough background on top of being CEO. Period. Simply being the CEO of a large company does not grant notability - that's the community-determined definition, and it's a policy that cannot be broken. ES&L 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Myself and others have intervened to have your draft restored and expanded. Thanks for your work in starting this topic and please feel free to continue it. If you should have further difficulty of this kind, please consult the Article Rescue Squadron which tries to help in such cases. Andrew (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, Thankyou for the common sense. I am amazed that there is an Article Rescue Squadron. In fact I just love the thought of it. Sounds like a very healthy thing for Wikipedia to have. Certainly restores the faith in Wikipedia by those mere mortals who are at the edges such as myself. I really appreciate your effort at rescuing the page. More so because of the over zealous speedy-deletion system that has a freezing effect on people adding to the knowledge bank of Wikipedia. As a computer dinosaur myself it appears quite difficult for HTML/Wiki wizards to understand the perspective of the slower ones who make best efforts to contribute. The frustration that then results has a potential to lose support for Wikipedia. I think the Article Rescue Squadron do a marvellous job. Of course the editors have to ensure quality, but the speed with which deletion happens doesn't give ordinary contributers a chance to draw breath or properly expand an article. Sincerest thanks for gently resolving what was a prickly issue. Russ McLean (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who tagged the article. I was wrong to do so--it was a downright error. The comments above excusing the deletion on the grounds that he wasn't shown to be notable are mistaken. To pass speedy deletion for A7 , it is not necessary to be notable, it is only necessary to have an indication of importance, and that was present. WP:CSD is totally clear about that, and it is incorrect to delete anything that had the content this article did when I tagged it. It clearly mentioned the CEO in the first paragraph. Furthermore, this shows not only some degree of importance" but actual notability. Both the past and present CEOs of a company that important are clearly notable, and if it were brought to a discussion, it would certainly be quickly closed as keep (there would be some objection from people would say that this had to be shown by 3rd party reliable sources, but though that is true in most cases we do pay some attention to common sense. And in any case it should be trivial to find such references.

What I should have done is tagged the article for WP:BLP PROD, which is our procedure for deleting unsourced articles about living people if they do not get sourced 10 days after the warning. Had I done that as I should have, the contributor or someone else would surely have sourced it.

I have a non-zero error rate, even for stupidities like this, and I have about a 1% rate of misjudgements. Some people say their rates are zero: I am not sure I believe it for any active editor. (I can see why I made the error, and have explained that on my talk p., but tho it's recent enough that I recall my thinking, it was still stupid.) Because we have a non-zero error rate, it normally takes a second person to actually do the deletion. (technically this isn't necessary-- since I'm an admin, I could have deleted all by myself, but because I know I make mistakes, I don't normally do so) A few admins do, and they're wrong to do that, but we haven't agreed on a rule to prevent it.

The admin in question clearly made an error also, and what i do not see on this page or his or anywhere I can find is an apology or explanation. He could have been away from WP, but I see he has edited extensively in the interval since the complaint, including on his talk p. I frankly consider that improper treatment of a contributor. Of course, the contributor did make an impermissible threat, but especially when the threat is based on a true & serious mistake that has made affecting them, even so they need a answer. I assume the failure to respond in a satisfactory way is just an aberration.--and what we have therefore seen here is a number of successive errors compounding each other. In a very large system like ours, such will happen. Russ, I hope you will see by the extent of the responses here that we take things like this seriously and try to deal with them carefully--I can think of no organization I can ever encountered that would have responded so quickly and thoughly.

What I have never understood is why admins and other editors who make errors do not simply admit it. We're not expected to be perfect, and we will only do our work properly if we acknowledge our limitations. Admins have lost their position for not responding to complaints: that will not happen here because of the treat made, which is sufficient to affect someone's normal judgement. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David,

Thankyou for taking the time to reply, and in the considerable detail which your email holds. That is appreciated more than I can say. The original upset stemmed from the speed with which the contribution had been deleted.

I now understand from being helped by folk on Wikipedia why articles have to be deleted speedily.

It would be ignorant of me at this time to try and comprehend how high the volume of additions are, that you and your colleagues need to cope with and edit. Suffice to say, there appear to be a huge number.

Given that the bulk of these are edited by volunteers, it is commendable that you have taken the time to email. Good grace and manners prevail. A heartfelt thankyou is all I can make in return.

This has certainly been a learning exercise. Not least that this Wikipedia supporter now understands you protocols a little better. Especially the speedy-deletion element. I shall endeavour to understand the process more before returning to any article.

Sincerest best wishes,

Russ McLean (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 17:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had such an unpleasant experience when your contribution on Gavin Patterson was nominated for speedy deletion and then deleted: two mistakes made by two admins, and you've had a very gracious and detailed apology above from DGG, one of the best-respected editors around.

I threw together a quick replacement stub, after noticing the incident and before your original was reinstated. Andrew Davidson did sterling work on expanding it so it eventually appeared on the front page as a "Do You Know".

Accidents do happen. I hope you won't be deterred from editing the encyclopedia in future. Happy Editing! PamD 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]