User talk:Kellycrak88

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Baronage_of_Scotland. Thank you. Tieonetwo (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removals of Caps of Maintenance and Coronet

In keeping with Scottish Feudal law and custom:

I had placed a Cap of Maintenance above the Arms of the Lord of Garlies, which you removed. He is entitled by the Lord Lyon Court to such a Cap as both Lord of Garlies and Baron of four separate Baronies. It should have nothing to do with the size of the shield.

The Lord of the Regality of Mordington has his Cap of Maintenance above his shield.

In addition, I had placed a Feudal Circle of Gold as Coronet above the Cap of Maintenance of the Feudal Countess of Crawfurd-Lindsay, both of which you removed. She is entitled to a Cap of Maintenance both as Feudal Countess and as Baroness of Auchterutherstruther by the Lord Lyon Court. This has nothing to do with the size of her oval.

By Scottish law and custom, all ranks of Feudal Dignities are entitled to a Cap of Maintenance. XiaoCielo (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feudalism ended in Scotland with the Scotland Act 2000 which was implemented in 2004, with special protection for baronage titles (that were feudal titles tied to the land) to become personal titles. Therefore post 2004 it is incorrect referring to these titles as feudal. If you wish to make material changes to the baron list that effects the uniformity of the page, then you need to propose it on the Talk page of that page and reach consensus with other editors. As you're claiming a baron should have a coronet (which is normally for peers) on that talk page also please provide your case and evidence links there. FYI there certainly is no Scottish law stating barons are entitled to a cap of maintenance, and in fact Lyons dropped issuing it some years ago since the end of feudalism 2004 law change. Furthermore, the barons list page does have them, but the Lords and Earls page does not as the shields are bigger as there are less barons. As mentioned, if you wish to make a design change suggest it on the relevant Talk page and reach consensus with editors. I also believe that from your editing history you appear to be a baron yourself connected to ones you keep editing, so please be aware of conflict of interest. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baron of Renfrew (title), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barons.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kellycrak88: Is the Bachuil Cap of Maintenance Error yours?

I have not established the source as Kellycrak88, but if you inserted the erroneous Cap of Maintenance in the illustration of the coat of arms in the Baron of the Bachuil page, please consider correcting it. The cap of the Bachuil is "gules furred vair", not "gules furred ermine" like the majority of Scots baronies. See my comment in the Talk page for the Bachuil and its references, and consult the text of the article itself. The Bachuil cap is also shewn wrong in the Baronage of Scotland table of baronies. If you are not responsible for the errors, my apologies, and please convey this corrective message to those who are. 172.56.91.196 (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to correct it, do yo have the image? Also pls consider registering an account and logging to indemnify yourself Kellycrak88 (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed

How can I make this edit without undoing edits to unbroken code on the page? Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with your undisputed edit but you keep changing it back to the way you want the page. There needs to be consensus from editors for changes to the page. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you disagree with this edit? Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see relevant talk page Kellycrak88 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Kellycrak88! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Can we please add Spouse beneath present holder?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EW template

Hi. In relation to this edit on my User Talk page:

WP:DTTR. I have been contributing to the project for 20 years. I am familiar with its policies and norms. I do not need you to highlight them via a generic template. Thanks all the same.
WP:EW. A single revert is not "edit warring". Especially when accompanied (as is the case here) with multiple, repeated and extensive (policy-driven) contributions to an active discussion thread.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. I kindly ask that my edits are not reverted in full, until we reach consensus on the Talk page. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Higgins as patron to charities/etc

Hi. While I personally do not understand the insistence on giving precedence to Higgins' patronage of the Clans of Ireland org (over all other aspects of the org and seemingly as justification for previously asserting "indirect involvement of the Irish Government"), you may wish to note that he is patron to dozens of charities. Including (among others):

Ana Liffey Drug Project [1]
Ballet Ireland [2]
Co-operation Ireland [3]
Habitat for Humanity Ireland [4]
Institute of International and European Affairs [5]
Irish Association of Creative Arts Therapists [6]
Irish Chess Union [7]
Irish Men's Shed Association [8]
Irish Penal Reform Trust [9]
Military History Society of Ireland [10]
Oral History Network of Ireland [11]
Sanctuary Runners [12]
Visual Artists Ireland [13]

Where articles on these orgs exist (and where patronage is mentioned) it is not presented in a way that either (a) holds the patronage as the most important aspect of the org or its operations or (b) holds the patronage an "elevating" factor that implies or suggests presidential or governmental "involvement" in the org or its operations. As you've stated that your edits are not intended to advertise or promote the org, I do not understand the insistence on presenting Higgins' patronage of this org differently to all others. Anyway, just a friendly note as (perhaps) you were not aware that Higgins' patronage of this org was not "special" or unusual... Guliolopez (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your message but in this case as I explained on the talk page there is a unique legal history as to why the patronage is forefront with them, which is understandable workaround of the legal situation. If I had proper citations I would go much further on the page as to why that's the case but I just don't have the documented sources online available to cite. It's true what I'm saying but I can't back it up unfortunately, I've done my best to portray the facts. It was originally setup in the Chief Herald of Ireland's (government) office and over the years has proven its self as a volunteer organisation, hence its recognitions strengthening its credibility over the years, at present it has the highest recognition possible in republican Ireland. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. RE: "It's true what I'm saying but I can't back it up unfortunately". Please read WP:BIT. If you continue to expand articles based on "things you believe to be true but for which no sources exist", then you will continue to have contentious conversations with other editors. Like me. Guliolopez (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of WP:bit I provided sources, you just chose not to accept them Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the statements above, or the claims you added to the article, were supported by any of the references provided. (Including that the org has the "indirect involvement of the Irish Government to authenticate and register Irish clans", is influenced by a "unique legal history", that the charity is part of a "workaround of the legal situation", or has received "the highest recognition possible in republican Ireland". No sources state anything even remotely like this.)

Higgins is the patron of the private charity (just as he is for dozens of other). Government ministers have presented awards at events organised by the charity (just as they do for any number of other orgs and initiatives). Your insistence on interpretting these separate things as "proof" of governmental or presidential "authority" is not supported by any references. Of any kind.

(FYI - I thought we were done with this. You appeared to acknowledge, here and elsewhere, that there were insufficient sources (and no consensus) to extrapolate the factual statements (about presidential patronage and ministerial attendance) into editorial claims (that patronage and attendance means "[governmental/presidential] authority"). And yet, based on a ping I just received at Talk:Ó Comáin, you appear to be relying on the same extrapolations/SYNTH to support changes there. Please read WP:IDHT. Eventually the community, in aggregate, will run out of patience....) Guliolopez (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi Guliolopez those quotes above are from our previous Talk page discussion, the above claims are not made on published wikipedia pages and since then we agreed consenus on wording. I should also mention that I am starting to build out Irish Clan pages in the same vein of the Scottish Clans wikiproject with similar templates and recognition structures. Given this, it would probably be best to agree on a consistent format for these pages now to avoid similar issues in the future. With this in mind, do you have any objections to the following statement as a standard for these pages: The clan was formally recognised in 2020 by Clans of Ireland, an independent national body representing Irish clans, which operates under the patronage of the President of Ireland. In 2013, Clans of Ireland signed a mutual agreement with the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs recognising each other's authority, affirming the clan's status within the broader Gaelic tradition. I think this strikes a reasonable balance and avoids the SYNTH concerns you raised earlier. The UN accreditation I've agreed to drop for now on clan pages until we see quality secondary sources. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. To confirm, while it is true to state that these claims are "[no longer] made on published wikipedia pages", it is not true to state all of these "quotes above are [only] from our previous Talk page discussion". You expressly added the claim about "indirect involvement of the Irish Government to authenticate and register Irish clans" to the lead of the article. In the main article namespace. Without explanation, justification or citation. Not (solely) to a talk page. While it is true that it is no longer on a "published article", that's only because it was removed as unsupported SYNTH/editorial.

I am done with this now. Pending, frankly and unless you start listening to others about what the guidelines state, a seemingly inevitable ping from AIN or something.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not accurate. If you recall, our earlier discussions included the reasons and explanations for adding that line, including the sourced fact that the organisation was initially set up in the Chief Herald of Ireland’s offices (a government department building), and there are source citations that when President Higgins was unavailable, he was represented at Clans of Ireland events by a Minister of State (source quotations and photo evidence). In any case, a consensus was reached, and the wording was adjusted accordingly. Thanks for your continued engagement. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's not accurate? This diff of you adding text which states that the org has the "indirect involvement of the Irish Government to authenticate and register Irish clans"? Or other editors' rejection of the "photo evidence" you keep referring to.

On the latter, and to restate for the umpteenth time, none of those photos:

picture a Minister of State. This photo is of Varadkar in April 2012. When he was Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. This is not a (junior) Minister of State role. It is a (senior) Minister of Government role. The author of the clanwalker.org "about us" page has, very clearly, used the wrong term. At best. And, more likely, is just plain wrong in their assertion/supposition. As no other written sources (even the orgs own website) makes such a claim.
act as evidence that the government ministers pictured were acting as "representatives" of the president/patron at those ceremonies. For all we know, when Deenihan spoke at a meeting of the org in 2013 (when he was Minister for Arts/Heritage/Gaeltacht), he was simply representing himself, or his own office, or the government as a whole, or all/none of the above. Same goes for Varadkar in 2012. While Minister for Transport/Tourism/Sport. Who could've been representing his own department, or the tourism sector, or his constituents, or all/none of the above.

I don't know whether you are trolling or what now, but implying that Wikipedia's diffs and change logs are "not accurate" (and that photos of people at an event represent verifiable "evidence" that they were representing a person/office not pictured) is just laughable. Either WP:DFTT applies or WP:CIR applies. Or both. I'm done. Guliolopez (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"When the President is unavailable, he is represented on Clans of Ireland business by a Minister of State" as quoted from https://clanwalker.org/clan-walker/ Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations nominated for deletion

I have nominated the following four images for deletion as they are a breach of copyright; either not in the public domain, as claimed, or and/or no prior permission to upload demonstrated. You are already aware of the terms of use you are supposed to operate under, following the discussion here, where you stated you understood why a previous breach of copyright that you uploaded was deleted. You have checked with an administrator and should have deleted these yourself, following that discussion with Asilvering. Please don't upload any more photos or scans of copyrighted works. While we're on that subject, a reference to an oocities page that is an archive of a geocities page that hosted a copy of a presumably copyrighted publication is not a reliable source.

== File:Claire Cotter - Discovery Program Reports, page 87.png listed for discussion ==

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Claire Cotter - Discovery Program Reports, page 87.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. File:Claire Cotter - Discovery Program Reports, page 87.png

== File:Claire Cotter - Discovery Program Reports, page 90.png listed for discussion ==

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Claire Cotter - Discovery Program Reports, page 90.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. File:Claire Cotter - Discovery Program Reports, page 90.png

== File:Claire Cotter - Discovery Program Reports, page 83.png listed for discussion ==

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Claire Cotter - Discovery Program Reports, page 83.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. File:Claire Cotter - Discovery Program Reports, page 83.png

== File:Séamus Pender, Déssi Genealogies - succession of kings of Déisi Muman.png listed for discussion ==

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Séamus Pender, Déssi Genealogies - succession of kings of Déisi Muman.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. File:Séamus Pender, Déssi Genealogies - succession of kings of Déisi Muman.png Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun, this is surely out of process. There's a VRT tag on the first three. For the fourth, that an incorrect license is applied is self-evident, so it's my understanding that it ought to be tagged as "no license" or "no permission", which means it will be summarily deleted in seven days if the licensing is not corrected. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Asilvering, sorry, VRT - I'm not familiar? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun, the volunteer response team, WP:VRT. The first three are tagged with a VRT pending template, which means (or is intended to mean) that an email has been sent to them about permission. There's a ticket system that they'll get to, and if they find it insufficient, they'll delete the images, ask for further information, etc. It's obvious from the note on the file that Kellycrak did not have the permission to upload these at the time, so my guess is that it's fine to tag these with "no license" as well. I didn't do that myself when I saw these earlier, because I figured that if VRT was already involved I may as well leave that to them. In any case I doubt a deletion discussion is likely to go anywhere while there's an open VRT ticket. -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing out of process was Kellycrak uploading all these copyrighted works, going so far as to claim that a photograph by someone else was their own work without even mentioning the name of the actual photographer (File:Cahercommane.png). A VRT tag is meaningless when the situation is as described: "Permission is being sought from the Royal Irish Academy. This file will be updated with the appropriate license once authorization is received." Copyrighted files shouldn't be uploaded with a "I'll try to get permission" note: either you have permission to upload them with the appropriate license, or you don't upload them at all. Asilvering, please don't obstruct people who try to uphold our policies. Fram (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Kellycrak did wasn't out of process, it was against policy. You'll notice I already tagged that one for deletion properly. It's hardly "obstructing people who try to uphold our policies" to point out that speedy deletion tags exist. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a process to use with copyrighted images and the VRT system, and Kellycrak didn´t follow it. There is nothing wrong with what Bastun did, there is no telling how long the VRT process would take before the files were finally deleted. Fram (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no telling how long the deletion discussion process will take, either. That's why it's better to use the speedy tags. -- asilvering (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which you could easily have done when Kellycrak literally came to your user talk page and discussed these copyvio images with you. You don´t care enough to get them deleted, but when someone else doesn´t use the best process ( but uses a correct process for deletion anyway) you immediately berate ´´them´´ for acting "out of process". Fram (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, the only one berating anyone here is you. -- asilvering (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"this is surely out of process"? Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I believe it is, and have additionally pointed out an easier way to deal with this kind of problem in the future. It certainly saves me a lot of time and bother, so I hope it does for Bastun as well. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun if you can send me your email I can send you yhe original sources for your perusal. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original sources are not the issue. Photographing them, and publishing the photos on the internet, without already having the appropriate permission, is the issue. Clearly! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but they're being deleted so I think it's addressed, I acknowledge the mistake so it won't happen again. For getting on the same page for the article and going forward, if you need any clarification I can email you my sources directly. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:OComainDraft

Draft:OComainDraft, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:OComainDraft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:OComainDraft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of cononsyth

I will have ypu note that the barony of cononsyth had been added to the roll

P.s I told you it wasn't fake Hiden truth (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for socking, and the roll says about Cononsyth "known fake holder - title not recognised", so not clear how this is helping your cause... Fram (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Posting here as this is general advice not limited to any one article. Please see the Template:Reference page and consider using it. Essentially this lets you cite a work in full, once, as a named reference. You can then add in the "Reference page template" each time you use that source. So:
<ref name="SomeReport">{{cite web/news/book/whatever|url= |title= |last= |first= |with all the other standard parameters }}</ref> Then the first time you use it, you follow it with {{rp|p=23}}, where p is the relevant page number. Then the next time you go to use that reference, you would just write: <ref name="SomeReport" />{{rp|p=34}} - and so on. It saves you time and ensures consistency in referencing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice tip! What are your thoughts on adding direct quotes to source bubbles? I see this in some articles, seems very useful but I don't want to void any policy, I've added some to the draft if checking sources. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Baron of Ardgrain

The article Baron of Ardgrain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

does not fulfill WP:GNG, few WP:RS

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. Nayyn (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Your recent editing history at Bill Gallagher (businessman) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I know you are well aware of the rule, having been warned multiple times before: e.g. [14][15][16], but apparently a further warning is necessary.

Diffs of your reverts:

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Celia Homeford (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only could you well have been blocked for this WP:3RR violation alone, but why are you knowingly inserting unverified claims into a WP:BLP article? Fram (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baronage of Scotland

Your recent editing history at Baronage of Scotland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You continue to assert that this WP:BLP article should include unverified, unsourced information about living persons. Information about supposed titles is neither non-contentious nor uncontroversial. You've reverted several attempts by me and other editors at removing such information despite clearly being against policy. We've discussed this for several days now while the table still contains problematic information.

Diffs of your reverts:

— Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 23:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Just to clarify: no other editors have joined today’s removals of the "unverified" Roll entries — these actions have been made solely by you. The only other revert I made was unrelated to this issue: it was a standard reversion x 2 of an editor changing their own name on the list, per WP:COI and WP:AUTO. That was clearly stated in the edit summary.

Reverting COI edit per WP:COI and WP:AUTO — users should not edit articles about themselves or their titles. Please propose changes on the Talk page for independent review.

I also want to note that I was the first to formally raise the edit war concern on your Talk page via this appropriate template — in case this sequence of events is later reviewed.

As mentioned multiple times on the article Talk page, no consensus has been reached to mass-remove entries, and several editors have expressed concern about disqualifying the Roll altogether. My edits have aimed to follow policy — including WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:CONSENSUS — and to bring transparency by tagging entries rather than deleting them outright.

I remain open to further discussion or to a formal RFC if needed, but I’d appreciate good faith and policy-focused engagement going forward. Let's keep the discussion constructive and on the article Talk page where it belongs. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard discussion, again

See WP:ANI#Kellycrak88, again. I have suggested that sanctions are necessary. You are invited to comment as well. Fram (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kellycrak88,

I see you are actively editing on the project, but you haven't weighed in yet on two separate complaints about you on ANI. It is to your benefit to offer your perspective on the subject of your editing decisions so that we can hear your side. Action can be taken without hearing your feedback but it's preferable to get your understanding on issues like COI and sourcing. Please come to ANI when you have the time available. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lizt thanks for the message — certainly will do. I’m reviewing everything carefully and will respond at ANI shortly to address the concerns raised, I've been working on my response. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my perspective. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Liz response submitted Kellycrak88 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See [26] — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 10:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Baronage of Scotland) for continually edit-warring to include contentious information about living persons in a disruptive manner. Note this is only a block from the article; you can still discuss on the article talk page, and your input at the ANI thread about your conduct is also desired.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, this seems unreasonable considering I've been drafting my AfD response @Asilvering do you know if this blocks me from the Talk page where discussions are ongoing? Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellycrak88, this block doesn't stop you from writing on AfD, or on the article talk page. But in general, best to ask the blocking admin directly when you have questions. Be careful about your participation on the talk page, though, or @The Bushranger may decide to expand the block there as well. -- asilvering (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I specifically noted in the block message that this is only a block from the article; you can still discuss on the article talk page, and your input at the ANI thread about your conduct is also desired.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]