User talk:Iwmackay

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Draft:Edinburgh's Southside, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Your edit to Draft:Edinburgh's Southside 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. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding copyrighted text and then rewriting it is still a copyright violation, as text violating copyright is still publicly available in the page's history. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry, I don't know what I'm doing wrong here or what text you are referring to. I am going to multiple web sites and reading about breweries and then writing it down in my own language. I am not cutting and pasting. e.g. if a brewery started in 1704, I have no choice but to say that. If someone says they had 102 brewers, 4 staff and 2 travellers, I have rounded that up to 110 employees. Please give me an example of what I am doing wrong. Iwmackay (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you copied and pasted portions of text from [1]. Even if you rewrite it immeidately in the next edit, it's still a copyright violation since the copyrighted text is still in the page history and publicly available. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand now. I thought that because this was a draft, the way I was working was to gather together all the info I could on a specific item e.g. a company so I didn't miss anything and then writing it myself, deleting the text I had pasted in as I went.

I assume from what you're saying that even this is my draft and not for publication, all of the history of my workings is carried forward. That appears to be bit daft to me since this would never have been published.

What do people normally do? Should I have done my drafting in MS Word first?

Many thanks for your advice. Ian Iwmackay (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally write my articles first on a notepad on my computer than copypaste. Yes, the entire history of the draft is available here. You may want to be a bit more careful what you put in there in the future. If you have any more questions, feel free to leave them here, on my talk page, or at the Teahouse, a help desk for new editors. My advice would to be abandon this draft and instead add info to Edinburgh, while supporting all of it with reliable sources cited inline (take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for more info). I'll add some helpful links to your talk page (this very page) shortly to assist you further. Happy editing and hope this helps! Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - our group has been working on this draft for 5 months - it has been a massive effort by the Southside Heritage Group, many of whom are in their '80s, literally hundreds of hours and six reviewers have taken part.

We cannot "abandon it".

At our meeting last week, we agreed to rename it as 'Edinburgh's Southside Heritage' and at our meeting tomorrow, I was hoping to report that I had submitted it for review.

How can I do this?

Thanks Ian Iwmackay (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you all using this account to edit that article? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know. Three of the reviewers edited it directly but four of the other reviewers had sections printed out for them as they are all in advanced years and do not use computers. Iwmackay (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that this article is not about Edinburgh's Southside now. It is about the Heritage of the Southside which was largely demolished in the 1960s and the people contributing to this have either already passed away (as in the contributors to the South Side Association books) or we are the last generation to remember these places and firms. Once we die off, this information will only be in books, reminiscences and limited edition pamphlets which are all out of date. Iwmackay (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we want to call it Edinburgh's Southside Heritage - since we are the Southside Heritage Group. Can I not take the current content and create a new entry called Edinburgh's Southside Heritage which removes my workings? (the copyrighted stuff)? Iwmackay (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice about the article: Please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style for formatting guildlines that all articles must follow, and please read Wikipedia's notability guidlines for what can and cannot be an article. The article cannot be titled "Edinburgh's Southside Heritage" since that falls afoul of our title guideline. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The copyrighted stuff (that was flagged from the URL) has already been removed by me and an administrator removed it from the page history (meaning that it is no longer publicly visible). Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that is very helpful. I can't see what has been removed but it looks OK now - many thanks. Iwmackay (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also please take a look through those links I posted below this message. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will read these. I spent about 20 hours reading stuff and watching Youtube videos before I started and just got into an endless cycle of reading and the group were getting impatient that we made a start. Iwmackay (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any help, feel free to contact me to explain anything or ask at the Teahouse. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the offer - I will take you up on that.

It will take me a good amount of time to get through the reading at the links you sent me.

In terms of formatting, my priority at the moment is to apply the 'expand and collapse sections' template. I tried two weeks ago but gave up after a few hours. I don't really know how to apply templates.

I fully intend to comply with the style guidelines as this is something I have always adhered to in my job before retiring but I have focused on compiling the content since October.

Until you messaged me, I was completely unaware of the help and review process. I will be giving the group the status at our meeting today and I will mention that review has started.

Thanks again. Iwmackay (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the 'collapse table' template? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's this one here I need - so that when one looks at the artcile, all one should see are the section heaings until they are clicked on to open - and again to close. Thanks Template:Collapsible sections option Iwmackay (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But most articles don't use that. For a guide, see one of our featured articles, which represent some of the highest adherence to Wikipedia's standards. For example, see the formatting of George Washington. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - My intention was to focus on an encyclopedic approach with readers deciding what they want to read and clicking to open. I find the George Washington example too 'confrontational' - it assumes the reader wants to read everything about the topic - almost like in book form and it dictates 'you must read this or skim over it to get to the bit you want'. For example, the Planning section of the Southside article is key to understanding of the growth and demise of the original southside but I feel it would be wrong to assume that everyone wanted to read it. Your thoughts on this are welcome.

FYI - I have spent a lot of effort going through the links you sent - many thanks - and I have created a list of actions to improve on the formatting etc. This will take a few days after our group meeting on Thursday reviewed the status and your comments. Iwmackay (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Iwmackay!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Edinburgh's Southside (April 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sophisticatedevening was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Edinburgh's Southside and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is a bit of a shock as the previous reviewer did not make such comments. I don't understand the comments and I have tried very hard to follow the guidelines over the six-month development of the article.

Can you please indicate which of the following comments apply?

1) This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. (There is no original thought included - simply matrial from existing sources)

2) Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources (all of the sources are proven and they are numerous)

3) and not contain opinions or original research. (I have done no original research whatsoever - I have gone to the the various members of our Southside Hertigate Group - many of whom are in their '80s - and asked their views on the best sources)

4) Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view (there is no judgemental language and although I lived in the Southside for my early years, I have not included any of the group's opinions)

5) in an encyclopedic manner.(As per the guidelines, the substance of the article 'is detailed and the structure is highly granular'.)

Please let me know. This has taken hundreds of hours of 8 contributors to date. Iwmackay (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and it can be very disappointing, but please do not give up. I declined it for essay-like writing as it appeared to read more like a case report or analysis. It has good potential, but the prose is simply too big of an issue for it to be moved right now. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 14:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iwmackay! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I value your opinion very much - I just need to know what action to take.

1) Can you give ma an example or two of

"essay-like writing"

or "a case report or analysis"

2) In "the prose", do you mean the pace, the volume of words I have used?

Thanks

Ian Iwmackay (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the wording like in the entire 'Southside' or 'South side'? section is problematic because (1) it is completely unsourced, with claims like In general, the single name is now used by most bodies but the variants appear to be interchangeable! and (2) it is not written in a very formal tone that is expected of an article (exclamation marks should be used exceedingly rarely outside of quotes). And by prose I just meant the wording/style/cohesion of the text. Great job creating it, just keep working on it and resubmit when you are ready. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Edinburgh's Southside (April 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Setergh were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not sure why headers are boldened (along with having references and reading like they're part of an essay). Article reads more like an essay. Furthermore, please include inline citations to prove all of your claims.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Edinburgh's Southside and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Setergh (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for reviewing

>Not sure why headers are boldened

I've removed the bold - my mistake

>(along with having references and reading like they're part of an essay).

Can you please give me an example of where the headers "have references and read like they are part of an essay"

>Article reads more like an essay.

I have spent many hours removing the "prose" which a previous reviewer referred to in explaining why they saw it was "like an essay" - Can you please give me an example of how it reads like an essay.

>Furthermore, please include inline citations to prove all of your claims

Are you saying I need to have an inline citation for a statement such as "An engineering company, founded in 1821 by brothers George and William Bertram"? I have included the Reference 6 for the source of the information. Please give me an example.

Our Southside Heritage Group meeting is on Thursday and seven people have contributed to our article. I will ned to give them an update and what I need to do to progress the artcile.

Many thanks again for the review. Cheers Ian. Iwmackay (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - We are a group of 7 working class pensioners who are contributing to this. The oldest of us is 93 and the idea was that we would do it before there are none of us left. Wikipedia has to be something older people can contribute to. For us to do that, we need reviews which guide us as to what we should be doing.

1) Saying that our article "reads like an essay" is difficult for us to address - examples would really help.

2) All the content is factual, none of it is our opinion - everything in the article comes from publications which we have listed at the header of each section. What else can we do to provide citations? Please let us know.

We look forward to hearing from you. Iwmackay (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Iwmackay, you can ping editors (sending them a notification) using the {{re}}, {{ping}}, or {{yo}} templates. @Setergh: Courtesy ping. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that. Who are "Editors" - are these the same as "reviewers"? Iwmackay (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are literally anyone who edits Wikipedia - so you and me are also considered "editors". Grumpylawnchair (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Our group met yesterday so we have four people who are now going through all the sections looking for 'opinions rather than facts' as that is what it seems an essay is. Cheers. Iwmackay (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References do not go in headers on Wikipedia, you should move them inline to wherever is appropriate. As for them reading like essay headers, I would suggest some changes:

Edinburgh's Southside → (Remove header - not necessary for lead paragraph)
Where is Edinburgh's Southside? → Location
Timeline: Establishment and development of the Southside → History
Notable public buildings in the Southside → Notable buildings
Southside Heritage Group → (Maybe change to a general section named Preservation?)
What is a 'Southsider'? → Identity (or Southsider Identity?)
Southside planning proposals and development milestones → (Condense and merge with History)
Planning decisions and their impact - a video summary → (Probably could remove this section entirely)
Southside schooling → Education
Workplaces in the Southside → Industry
Footnote - 'Southside' or 'South side'? → (Condense and convert to inline footnote in the lead paragraph. See Template:Notelist and Template:Efn)

These still aren't perfect, but hopefully it gives a better sense of the tone reviewers are looking for. Another thing to look at would be reducing the number of quotes and inline external links, these are usually very rare in Wikipedia articles.

I'm sure you've got this suggestion a million times above, but it really is worth asking at the Teahouse if you have any questions! REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help. It's good to get your comments now as I was assuming the article would not be reviewed again until we resubmitted it.

I am working on it again today. We are going to remove some sections e.g. schools and workplaces, as although it is valuable material, a reviewer told me that primary sources are unacceptable in Wikipedia. This is a pity as some of the sources have now died off and others in our group are in their '80s and '90s.

I have never heard of 'The Teahouse' and no reviewer has previously referred me to it.

Many thanks again

Ian Mackay for the Edinburgh Southside Heritage Group Iwmackay (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hello there - one of our community members saw your message on the Teahouse and pointed me in your direction. I'm Sara, a Programme Maanger at Wikimedia UK - we're the charity that supports the Wikimedia community in the UK. Part of my remit is Scotland (I'm based in Glasgow), and I see that you've been having some difficulty with the draft you've been writing about Embra's southside heritage. Wondered if I could help at all, always happy to jump on Zoom, if that would be helpful? Please feel free to send me an email - sara.thomas@wikimedia.org.uk :) Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Edinburgh's Southside has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Edinburgh's Southside. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Iwmackay. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Edinburgh's Southside, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely does not apply to us but I see what you're saying about us being a group and not advertising the group. Cheers Iwmackay (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Edinburgh's Southside has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Edinburgh's Southside. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for this

I removed all the external links from the introduction yesterday - I assume your comments and my changes crossed over- see History

" 16:36, 20 August 2025 Iwmackay talk contribs m 83,205 bytes −66 Removing in-line links from the introduction undo Tag: Visual edit"

Two of our group are now addressing the neutrality of the introduction but we added the (non-neutral) quotations some months ago as a reviewer asked us to focus on why the Southside was 'Notable'.

I'll let you know when we've updated for the neutrality.

Thanks again

Ian Iwmackay (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no wiki code

Your recent edit here [2] included "no wiki code" so the content will not display correctly, remove that code and it will be fine. Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt. I was trying to follow a help page which indicated that it was possible to include meaningful headings for the hidden tables instead of 'show' and 'hide' but it didn't work so I removed it. If you have any idea how to do this, it would be very helpful. Cheers Ian Iwmackay (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Edinburgh's Southside has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Edinburgh's Southside. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for pointing this out - I'm sure we included that date because the guidance was to use the date accessed for this but I have removed it for the Irish Citation.

1) Could you please check it and let me know if it''s OK. I assume there are many of these.

2) What is a "codex."?

3) Will you be our reviewer for the article now we have submitted it or may we have a number of reviewers chipping in?

Cheers

Ian Iwmackay (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors don't provide the access date for what they've consulted as codices. And when they do provide an access date (e.g. for a book viewed in PDF reproduction), they use not "date=" for this but instead "access-date=".

(1) You've fixed one error. Good. But this has permitted the software to alert readers to a second error (one that was there all the time). OCLC 1467987829 shows that this book is by the one author James Edmund Handley (and not, say, by the brothers James and Edmund Handley). So remove the comma that's now within "James, Edmund Handley". (Incidentally, addition of OCLC numbers for books that don't have ISBNs would be helpful.)

(2) Your great-grandparents would probably be mystified if [still alive and] shown Bleak House via the Internet Archive. But if they were shown a scholarly, university press edition or a Penguin of Bleak House, they'd immediately recognize it as a "book". To distinguish a book consisting of sheets of paper attached to each other at one of their four sides (your great-grandparents' notion of a book) from any 21st-century substitute for it, we can call the former a codex.

(3) I don't know. But I'm puzzled by your use of "we". Are you saying that "Iwmackay" is not a single person?

-- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>they use not "date=" for this but instead "access-date=".

Thanks - I don't think we have consulted PDF versions of books but we will conduct a sweep of our citations and include this check and addition if required

>So remove the comma that's now within "James, Edmund Handley".

Done

>addition of OCLC numbers for books that don't have ISBNs would be helpful.) Thanks - we will include this in our sweep. No previous reviewer has raised this

>we can call the former a codex.

Thanks - I have referenced many 'traditional' books in the library

>I'm puzzled by your use of "we". Are you saying that "Iwmackay" is not a single person?

I am a single person but we are a group of aging pensioners from the Southside Heritage Group who have been attempting to document the Southside.

Thanks again for your help - we'll sweep the citations.

Ian Iwmackay (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A miscellany:

It's good to specify "access-date=" for any page that seems susceptible to revision. I think it's pedantic to specify it for every cited web page, but must concede that if you specify it unnecessarily, complaints about its superfluity are unlikely; whereas failing to specify it can have people prodding you to add it.
If you can specify the ISBN of the edition you cite of a book, a OCLC number strikes me as entirely superfluous. But if there is no ISBN, an OCLC number can help the reader.
To be fair, codex is a slightly esoteric word (and I think more often than not used to distinguish books-that-everyone-recognizes-as-books from early alternatives such as scrolls).
As an aging pensioner myself, I welcome you and your group's contributions!

-- Hoary (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all the review points on the citations fixed by Keith and I but we still have to ask the library for help on OCLC. Cheers Iwmackay (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Edinburgh's Southside has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Edinburgh's Southside. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]