User talk:PlainAndSimpleTailor

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with your comments about new users. Wikipedia is, indeed, at times an unwelcoming place for them. It's nothing to do with sex, ethnicity or anything like that. It's more about a systemic dislike of new users, especially IP users. Many users who think they are "experienced" seek to limit the access of new users in numerous ways (semi-protection and extended semi-protection), even warning them off particular articles. Having said it's nothing about women editors, I know that the sometimes aggressive and confrontational environment of Wikipedia will put off many women from editing. In my not-inconsiderate experience of these things, women are more comfortable in an environment where co-operation is the order of the day. Sadly, such an environment is not often found on Wikipedia. A large number of editors prefer to assail other editors with a deluge of policy links to try and win an argument (the most important policy is WP:IAR). You may find the following of interest: [1]. It comes from this publication [2]. I hope you continue to edit here and are not put off by the prevailing climate. Arcturus (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Wikipedia welcomes a variety of perspectives. Wikipedia depends on consensus and is unaccommodating to the (classically male) approach of just bash it in and wear out anyone who disagrees. There is no evidence of a "systematic dislike of new users", but some whose experience of shared space is based on unevidenced assertion and counter-assertion on social media may be taken aback by the demand for supporting evidence. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you felt the need to jump on this welcome thread and be so defensive, deny the evidence (Arcturus linked two reports), but you should perhaps look and the possessive and mansplaining comments you've already made "Put it all in the shredder" as if you are the arbitor of what belongs in the article. Its very gatekeepery particularly on a message that was welcoming me!!

That was not my intention, so if that is how it came across then evidently I didn't make a good job of it. I read the pubpub.org comments as saying "don't even bother".

Anyway, the reason I'm back here again was actually to thank you for the material you added about the CBI and BRC, especially that you provided supporting citations: that is the sort of contribution that is very welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am just trying to improve the article, and write in a neutral way, I am aware that we all have unconcious bias so would welcome any constructive criticism such as on the suggested text for the new lead, but I just seem to be barraged with a wall of policies i've violated rather than suggestions. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to format a proposed version

I got a bit confused by one of your recent edits to the talk page until I realised that you were contributing a draft rather than you stating a position. So I thought you might like to know about a formatting template that you could use to identify a draft, see template:quote. Here is an example of it in use:

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this our son of York

which I did by typing {{quote|Now is the hour of our discontent made glorious summer by this our son of York}} See how it gets indented and set off. Its normal use is in main articles but there is no harm in recycling it to use in talk pages. You don't have to do this, it is just the way I like to do it. Other editors would just stick an asterisk in front of the draft like this:

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this our son of York

(the asterisk gets turned into a bullet when you publish). Whichever you prefer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that is really helpful 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up

Thank you for making a concerted attempt to bring neutrality and objectivity to the UK Internal Market Act article, you are one of many to have attempted this against what can only be described the a wall of excuses and faux integrity to keep it otherwise. Please do not lose heart; logic and reason are on your side! 146.198.108.131 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind. They don't seem to be able to accept that other people might know things or have expertise.

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. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Market Thanks

I just want to pay thanks to your contributions on the Internal Market article, they have really helped move the article forward. Please keep it up and I hope you stick around on Wikipedia. All the best. DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is really very kind of you! They same to you. I don't understand Cambrial at all how can you think academic opinion that even academics wouldn't describe as facts are facts. Either he's keen on the SNP or he just doesn't understand! It can be like banging your head against a brickwall! PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PlainAndSimpleTailor, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PlainAndSimpleTailor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi PlainAndSimpleTailor! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, At what point do you just ignore disruptive editors?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, PlainAndSimpleTailor, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as 79.66.51.226 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. The policy includes a prohibition on logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. Cambial foliage❧ 13:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello PlainAndSimpleTailor! Your additions to United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PlainAndSimpleTailor: I share some of your concerns about the Internal Market Act article and i understand it can be frustrating when it takes considerable time to get changes. But its important not to get provoked and best to just try and focus on getting agreement on the talk page. Just avoid commenting about individual editors and avoid potentially breaking the rules if you want to make sure that improvements to the article get made. It will take time but it would be worth it. CoiledAmp (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]