Talk:Highland Mary (statue)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

Usual editor who dislikes Cowal removes Cowal[edit]

A certain editor has a history of removing any mention of Cowal be it in the form of the name or an internal link or an addition of Cowal as a Category!!! 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:F078:1A1E:69CF:C612 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of thumb[edit]

The editor who created this article is very protective of their work it seems! No-one else is allowed to contribute to THIER ARTICLE! 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:5D1A:97DA:20B0:71C4 (talk) 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:5D1A:97DA:20B0:71C4 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description

I placed a thumb on this article, another user has removed because of their opinnion is different to mine. What makes their opinion any more valid than mine? To be labelled obstructive is TOTALLY OUT OF ORDER! 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:5D1A:97DA:20B0:71C4 (talk) Date and time 12:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Comments

Private – One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager. (automated comment) — MajavahBot (talk · contributions) 12:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done – The filter is working properly. Also don't try to edit war your picture into the article. Take it to the articles talk page. Nobody (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are edit waring NO need for the thumb removal at all!!! This is nonsense..... I have only been back on Wikipedia a few days and already having a pointless issue with another editor who thinks they know best!!!!!! NO COMMENT ABOUT BEING LABELED OBSTRUCTIVE JUST FOR ADDING A THUMB TO A ARTICLE!!!!! From the look of this the plaque is where someone lifted the information from in the first place in all likelihood! The editor who created the article is the one labelling ME OBSTRUCTIVE!!!!!!!!!!! I also called the same editor out on this article for HIS opinion that COWAL should't be mentioned on Wikipedia! 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:5D1A:97DA:20B0:71C4 (talk) 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:5D1A:97DA:20B0:71C4 (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:ce0f:6d01:5d1a:97da:20b0:71c4 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you were called obstructive. The image was removed manually by a user who indicated the information was already in the prose. The filter blocked your edit for certain technical reasons that indicated it was abusive.

Would you like to start a civil conversation about what the image of the plaque adds to the article, and why it should be included? —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me the editor who removed the thumb did NOT label my adding the thumb OBSTRUCTIVE? Pull the other one it has a plaque on it!!!! 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:5D1A:97DA:20B0:71C4 (talk) 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:5D1A:97DA:20B0:71C4 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary on the edit was "information is in prose", and they left no message on your user talk page.

Again I ask, what does the article gain by including the image of the plaque? —C.Fred (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does it gain by the removal? 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:5D1A:97DA:20B0:71C4 (talk) 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:5D1A:97DA:20B0:71C4 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting a lot of people’s time due to your misunderstanding of things. Back to the image, I assume you took the photo of the plaque and, thus, feel it should be included in the article, regardless of its adding nothing that isn’t already in it? Seasider53 (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Cowal again as has been removed again!!!![edit]

There is an editor who continually removes Cowal from Wikipedia articles, they have been doing this for years! They also NEVER leave this info in their edit summaries!2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:E52D:AFC9:C238:D38 (talk) 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:E52D:AFC9:C238:D38 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Scotland is a wiki, and not a reliable source. Any time you add information sourced to Secret Scotland or similar non-reliable sources, it is going to be removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems to be reliable to me. Squeef (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you seeing for references on there? Seasider53 (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very prestigious sources, I assure you. As an PhD-educated academic historian, I assure you these sources are very reputable. Squeef (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R-rrright. Well, I think we know who this is... Seasider53 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]