User talk:Tacyarg

Wellesley Nautical School

You have flagged the wikipage as seeming to include 'original research'. I would be most grateful if you would indicate which sections are of concern so that I can improve the page. Binopippa2 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Binopippa2. Thanks for asking here. There's a few things that worry me about the article in its current state - and I do thank you for adding references. Firstly, there is some commentary, such as So successful was the venture; dramatic increase; It would be wrong to characterise; It is in this context that we can understand (three of these in the same paragraph). Wikipedia articles should be written neutrally, without added commentary. The latter is generally thought of as original research. The sourcing is poor (albeit improved from no references at all before you started working on it). The current 8 sources are:

• something credited to the archives and museums service, but unclear whether it is a publication or a display;
• a pamphlet by one of the heads of the school, which is not an independent source;
• another pamphlet by the same person, but described as "uncredited", which makes me wonder how you know it is by him;
• a draft speech, which is necessarily unpublished;
• an obituary of one of the heads of the school written by his wife, which is therefore not independent;
• a pamphlet published by Sunderland Social Services, which at the time of publication ran the school - therefore also not independent;
• and a newspaper article from 2005, which is ok as a source.

So not very many of those citations are to reliable, published, independent sources.

I'm also worried - and this predates your involvement in the article, I think - about the statement This article contains text from the Wellesley Nautical School Home Site, by kind permission of the author. There's something about this on the article's Talk page, but it is not clear whether the author of the Wellesley Nautical School Home Site gave proper permission for their text to be re-used, nor what that research itself was based on. The site is down now. The Wayback Machine may have an archive of it, but it's not working for me at the moment. I will try again.

Hope that helps. I'll copy this to the article's Talk page, as discussion is probably better there. Tacyarg (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Insight Guides

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Insight Guides, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic title error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add a more descriptive title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • "[unknown]". American Bookseller. 1992. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-910941-01-3. Retrieved 12 August 2026. {{cite magazine}}: Cite uses generic title (help)CS1 maint: periodical has ISBN (link)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

ribbons

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted my edits to Lauren Poultney page, I also added a link to the site where you can see a picture of Lauren Poultney in her official uniform with the ribbons I added. StefanNoviSad (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Your edit reversion on Scots College ( Sydney)

Hey there,

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Scots College page on the basis that the incident did not occur on school grounds. I understand the reasoning, but I don't think the location of the incident is necessarily enough to determine whether it is relevant to the school or belongs in a section discussing controversies associated with it.

For example, Knox Grammar School has been associated with a 2022 controversy involving students who participated in a Discord group containing racist and sexually abusive material. The activity itself took place online rather than on school grounds, but it was nevertheless reported as a controversy involving the school because of the involvement of its students. Thus, the incident is relevant to the Scots College article because the students involved were students of the school and the incident received attention in connection with the school.

lmk what you think Mikirrie320 (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Mikirrie: Thanks for your note. I tend to disagree - there's only a brief mention of the school in the news article. If it gets more attention as for instance being related to the culture of the school, that would be different. In the Knox example, the school itself took action about the chatroom, despite as you say it not being directly related to them, so that feels a bit different. But I understand your point of view, and won't argue if you want to put it back in. I would say, though, it needs a better section heading than "Controversies". I would name what it is, something like allegation of sexual abuse by pupils. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

ah ok I understand now, I agree with you, I won't put it back until more comes out and/or the school gets more involved. I'll see if I can write a longer section about it, under your suggested heading.

Cheers, Mikirrie320 (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Another editor has put it back, I think. Tacyarg (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)