User talk:Pauljamesnixon

Wintoncastle, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Winton Trust on behalf of Winton Castle for their contributions to Wikipedia.

October 2018

Hello Wintoncastle. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Winton House, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Wintoncastle. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Wintoncastle|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 14:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Pauljamesnixon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

PauljNixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I am a real person, not corporation

Decline reason:

This does not address your inappropriate edits. Yamla (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Pauljamesnixon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Pauljnixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

There were historical inaccuracies in the page I edited. Old OS maps and documents in the Castle, refer to Winton as a Castle. The title is inaccurate. This is not a marketing or rebranding exercise - it is historically accurate - http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/16378

Decline reason:

Your request is too similar to an existing user. Please select another username. AGK ■ 22:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Pauljamesnixon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Pauljamesnixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I believe that I have declared my interest and I fully intend to comply with providing accurate and quality content to Wikipedia. I have read and understood will WP:PAID and WP:COI

Accept reason:

Name has been changed, and COI has been acknowledged, so unblocking. Please make sure to follow the processes in WP:PAID and WP:COI. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have globally renamed Wintoncastle to Pauljamesnixon, and someone else will review your unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

There's one OS map on the site showing it as ~~Milton~~ Winton Castle; the other OS map on the same site shows it as ~~Milton~~ Winton House. Pevsner (the go-to source for historical buildings in Scotland) calls it ~~Milton~~ Winton House. Historic Scotland refer to it as ~~Milton~~ Winton House in its listing (and also in all the listings for its various outhouses and gardens). Even the guidebook for the building, prior to the rebranding, called it ~~Milton~~ Winton House. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, for your edits to be appropriate, you'd have had to already disclose your conflict of interest. I don't believe you did so. --Yamla (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Note, though, this is my only complaint with your edits; I take no position on whether it should be Winton Castle or Winton House) --Yamla (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you appear to meet ~~WP:CSD~~ WP:PAID and WP:COI please read and heed those. You'll need to discuss and suggest content for Winton Castle/House on the talk page. Please bear in mind that all content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the user declares their COI openly and is unblocked, I'll be happy to discuss the sources and naming on the article talk page, and to work together to improve the article. (Also fixed my (repeated) typo above - got Milton stuck in my head for some reason.)GirthSummit _(blether) 18:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wintoncastle (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Thank you all for your feedback on this. I think I have declared myself appropriately and in compliance with wikipedia. I am very keen to open a dialogue about the correct naming of Winton Castle, so the article can reflect the accurate history and not a branding exercise.[reply]

Hopefully I can now provide more information on the name of Winton, with a view to having the changes approved. Having researched a Map of 1777 (I will upload an image of this), which shows Winton Castle and interviewed the Ogilvys, who have lived here since 1888, they believe that the name Winton Castle was dropped by the family out of modesty and renamed Winton House. Since the birth of the world wide web and digital records have been introduced, Winton was referred to as "Winton House" and as a result most of the digital content in existence refers to Winton as Winton House. We believe that the correct name for Winton should be Winton Castle and not Winton House. In the village of Pencaitland there is "Castle Drive" which overlooks Winton Castle. The guidebook was written at a time that Winton was called "Winton House". In order for the article to be more accurate, would a title "Winton Castle (formerly Winton House)" or "Winton Castle (also known as Winton House)" - be more appropriate? Pauljamesnixon (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem with that is that you're not allowed to use your own research and deductions on Wikipedia (see WP:OR), but can only use what reliable sources say (see WP:RS). So what reliable sources call it is what Wikipedia calls it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My challenge is that the reliable sources used in this article offer conflicting names. Some reliable sources call Winton a Castle whilst others call it a House, so at what point can a balanced judgement be reached as to what the title should be? Pauljamesnixon (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start a discussion on the article talk page and seek consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to respond to "Winton Castle (formerly Winton House) or Winton Castle (also known as Winton House)": No, we would not use titles like that - any "formerly/also known as" addenda go in the article lead, not the headline, and we deal with alternative names using redirects. If the aim is to make the article content as easy to find for readers (which is really what our titles should be about), I'd suggest the title should be either "Winton Castle" or "Winton House" (to be decided by consensus) and the other should be added as a redirect - so whatever a reader searches for, they'll find the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I didn't respond sooner, I only just noticed that you'd added these comments. I've created a new section on the article talk page where this discussion can be had, where other interested parties are more likely to see it. A good start might be for you to list references that refer to it as Winton Castle - these don't have to be online resources, but they should be published, reliable sources meeting WP:RS. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

rename

I thought that looked familiar. The chosen username is too similar to an existing username: Pauljnixon. Please modify your request with another choice.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your disclosure statement / unblock request

Hi, I noticed that you have created a disclosure statement - thanks for that. Please note though that it should be on your user page, rather than your user talk page (I'm not sure whether you can edit that at the moment - if not, you will be able to swap it once you are unblocked). I also noticed that you haven't reapplied to be unblocked - since your most recent request was declined, you'll need to apply again. I'd advise you to note explicitly that you have read and understood will WP:PAID and WP:COI. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Hi, I've added an infobox, with coordinates and some architectural details I got from the listing - what do you think? Fun fact - when browsing through the links I realised that the architect who did the 19th century additions lived in the building where my partner's office was while she was doing her PhD. It's a small world... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to mention - I've also created a redirect, so that anyone searching for Winton Castle will now be taken directly to this article - hopefully that will assuage any concern you might have that people searching for it on Wikipedia won't be able to find it. I hope you don't mind that I've been a stickler about that, but to my mind, if Historic Scotland and Pevsner both call it Winton House, then that's what it's called. cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing...

I wanted to discuss the images in the article with you. I'm not taken with the one of St David's loch. To my eye, the image makes it seem fairly unremarkable - some grass, some trees, and a pond - I'm sure it looks better than that in real life. With regard to the picture of the house, I understand why you wanted to replace it with a front elevation, since that's what visitors would see first; however, I actually think the image is less impressive. First, it makes the building look rather smaller than it really is, because you can't really see how many floors it has; also, the frontage is obviously a 19th century confection, which doesn't do justice to the age of the building. I think the size and age are much better conveyed by the original image. I have experimented with adding the original image in alongside the others, but there isn't really space with the current amount of content - the text wraps around it awkwardly and makes it look pretty amateurish. My suggestion is:

Remove the image of St David's loch
Replace your image of the front of the house with the old image of the rear
Insert your new image further down in the text, roughly in line with the text describing the early 19th century changes to the house.

It seems to me that that would make sense historically, and would also show off the house in the best light possible. I'd appreciate your thoughts. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Girth Summit: for adding this info box and the redirect is very helpful. It really adds to the page. Would you mind if we added an OWNER line as featured on the Dundas Castle listing and a direct link to the Winton website? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dundas_Castle

You have used a Governing Body line in the info box, but I was wondering how relevant this is? If you look at similarly owned Castles like Dundas Castle or Hopetoun House - It could be argued that all Historic properties in Scotland are to some degree governed by Historic Environment Scotland. Is there a need to show this in the Winton House infobox?

I have uploaded 2 alternative images for consideration (the Loch picture is my own work!). Taking on board your comments the the front image does not give a sense of scale, the areal view helps achieve this in my opinion. I have then manage to capture the Loch and show the rear elevation in the image lower down. Do you think we have ticked all boxes?Pauljamesnixon (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about the 'governing body' field - I've removed that, it's implied in the listed status. I've removed that from the infobox, and I've added the website.

I think the photos look good - give a sense of scale, and how it sits in its environment - much better.

Regarding the 'owner' field, I believe it's Sir Francis Ogilvy, is that correct? It's a shame we don't have an article about him that we could link to, but I don't suppose it would do any harm just to have the name without the link. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Girth Summit: - you are correct the owner is Sir Francis Ogilvy. There is a bio on him on the Winton website, but I'm not sure if it is appropriate to link this to him in the infobox?

I'm just sorting the file permission for the new photos. Thanks Pauljamesnixon (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for confirming. I think that the Winton Castle website would be reliable enough for an assertion about ownership. It wouldn't be ideal for biographical details since it's not independent (see WP:SPS for discussion of self-published sources), but for something fairly uncontroversial like ownership of the house I can't see anyone complaining. I'll insert that into the infobox, and leave you to deal with the file permissions stuff (that's not a side of things I have any experience in I'm afraid). GirthSummit _(blether) 10:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Arial view of Winton.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Arial view of Winton.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ronhjones: - I have sent a {{OTRS pending}} to the permissions-en@wikimedia.org address Pauljamesnixon (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Winton Castle Front View.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Winton Castle Front View.jpg, which you've attributed to Christopher Lamotte. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]