User talk:Kellycrak88

"You are also an unregistered user so this is vandalism."

Please see WP:VANDAL, whether an edit is vandalism is not dependent on being a registered user or not, and also not on how often it has been reverted. Vandalism is bad faith addition of false information, nonsense, deliberately offensive stuff, deliberately disrupting the layout, ... but not the insertion of a middle name, no matter how often. It may be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing though. Like you said, they should start a discussion on the talk page and risk being blocked for a WP:3RR violation. Fram (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Noted for future reference. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Fram (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Bad form @Fram you're out of line here- please show me what text I have copied?

If you actually check my work, I completely rewrote the text and also added a source link. So it's categorically not copied.

My uniquely written text:

The Baron of Bachuil holds a unique distinction in the country, being the only person whose passport title includes the inscription “by the Grace of God,” a phrase that is so ancient it is typically associated only with the monarchy. While the King does not require a passport, this makes the Baron of Bachuil the sole individual in the country with such a title in official documentation.

You will not find even a close match to the text on the web site https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2017/05/05/baron-shares-passport-title-queen-sells-family-property-1500-years/

So please kindly explain to me. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Your text[1]

• "It is believed it is the oldest aristocratic title and church office in the country – older than the Archbishop of Canterbury, dating back to a Celtic saint Saint Moluag who founded 120 monasteries."

Source[2]

• "It is believed the Baron of Bachuil is oldest aristocratic title and church office – older than the Archbishop of Canterbury, dating back to a Celtic saint who founded a monastery on the Isle of Lismore."

And you uploaded the passport picture as "own work" while you simply copied it from the source. Fram (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll deal with the image issue after you apologise for continuing not to check my text as you're now you're quoting an old edit!

Over the next 4-5 minutes I edited the page further with several more edits MY LAST EDIT SAYS:

It is considered to be the oldest aristocratic title and church office in the country – older than the Archbishop of Canterbury, dating back to a Celtic saint Saint Moluag who founded 120 monasteries.

THE ONLY PART THAT MATCHES FROM THE ATICLE IS IN BOLD FOR WHICH YOU REVERTED ALL MY CHANGES AND CLAIMED COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Uh, yes, that is a copyright violation. You are in any case not allowed to post copyrighted text even if you alter it afterwards, but the text you quote is not allowable either. Fram (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

how is it a copyright violation worthy of a full revert - the start, the middle and the end of the sentence have been altered to be unique - but for this you leave a block warning on my page and revert all my changes. I await your apology Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Taking a sentence and e.g. changing "it is believed" to "it is considered" doesn't make it less of a copyright violation. I notice that the previous time you got a copyvio warning you reacted aggressive as well[3]. Fram (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)