User talk:TMcB23

Welcome![edit]

Hello, TMcB23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Pelargonium tomentosum. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 06:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.

TMcB23, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The

Adventure

Hi TMcB23!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

Have this cookie for your great new Pelargonium articles! Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and some advice on formatting[edit]

Welcome to editing Wikipedia!

If you are going to edit plant articles, I suggest you look at WP:PLANTS and the links from there. Note that the scientific names of species are always put in italics. Have a look at Pelargonium graveolens which I have copy-edited. I'm always happy to advise on formatting. Don't be put off editing, though, by the complexities of formatting – although it's better to get this right the first time, it's ok to leave formatting for someone to fix later. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oenothera versicolor has been accepted[edit]

Oenothera versicolor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Aloha27. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Taurus (astrology), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Aloha27 talk 02:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back and added a source, it was there for a while but has been reverted back. There is no such thing as a 'reliable' source when it comes to modern astrology but I've read in many places from those who "are taureans" that they feel earth and not venus is their planet so, as a fellow taurean, I changed it because it makes more logical sense... Since there are now twelve heavenly bodies associated with astrology, it seems silly to have two assigned to one.

Disambiguation link notification for May 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman Britain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caesaromagus. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag sources[edit]

Hi there, noticed some of the sources you've added, I am not disputing these "flags" are based on the coat of arms, or the coat of arms design itself. I am however disputing that these interpretations of technically a banner of arms are the "flags" of these places, I believe them not to be. Please add sources that show the flag's design and usage, not of the coat of arms they are based on. The article is about Flags not coat of arms or banners of coat of arms. If you really want them to remain in the article please describe them as "Banner of Arms" (a unofficial flag based on the Coat of Arms; can be official but needs sources) and list them separately as "unofficial flags". If no source can be found proving directly that the exact flag with the exact design is used by a reputable body, they shouldn't be listed as the "Flag of", but either as a "Proposed flag of" and "Unofficial flag of". I respect your efforts, but please do not add flags that are not used, whether you think they should. Thanks for your efforts but unverified flags have to be removed. – DankJae (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I have caused a problem. I began because the Wikipedia article on flags of UK Cities, towns and villages said 'This list is incomplete, you can help by adding". I wasn't ever trying to pass my illustrations as off as anything but the banner of arms. Technically the banner of arms is (by law) the formal flag of a settlement. How can I reword the page to make this more clear? I was only going how the Wikipedia pages (such as the one listing city, town and village flags) was before I began editing (with the flags of places such as Birmingham showing both their new publically chosen flag and their old banner of arms; likewise Durham; likewise Portsmouth. I have seen Durham flags probably because their banner of arms is incredibly easy to draw. I think only London (and possibly Durham) fly their armorial banner flags on their buildings because most cities have their Coat of Arms on their buildings painted - I thought it would be easier to share in a flag format?

Thomas :) TMcB23 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the "Banner of arms" page on Wikipedia for more information as to where I derived my ideas. TMcB23 (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia, but one of the main pillars is Verifiability. I understand you wanted to complete the list, but that should've been done by uploading images based on sources containing the actual flag design, such as the Flag Institute or various news articles on flag contests for example (and additionally images of its use). In terms of "Banner of Arms", that's definitely a more accurate term than "flags" or "flag of" for the images you have uploaded, however these banners still also require a verifiable source, so unless you can prove their design, you shouldn't include them either as Banner of Arms. In terms of Birmingham's Banner of Arms there is evidence of its usage here, if you can find usage of your uploads (of the flags not the coat of arms) then you can add them to the article.

Flag articles have had many issues over the years, with many fictional or proposed flags added and removed. In terms of "easier to share in flag format", the goal of Wikipedia is not to raise awareness or share and promote designs, flags listed in the article must be actually used. I do not want to discard your efforts but if during the graphic-making process you have assumed the banners of these places should be of the shields, then that is original research. Please find reputable sources or in-person use of these exact flag designs from reputable sources, (not wikis, not reddit proposals nor flickr images). Reliable sources would include the aforementioned Flag Institute (link) or books produced by them, local councils, legal documents (if any) and news articles of successful flag contests. Flags of the World could be used, however more likely you should be using its sources instead. If you cannot find the sources, do not include them in Wikipedia. I do not want to mislead readers by presenting these flags as official in anyway with them listed as the "flag of" with no further description. Nonetheless thanks for your efforts, but please when uploading newer flags, have a reference ready of the actual flag itself.

TLDR please remove these uploads, unless you have a source proving the flag's design (not the coat of arms) and some sort of local use. Sorry, but nonetheless I hope this task has helped improve your flag making abilities. :) – DankJae (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I just wanted to add that using the arms of the shield as the banner is not an assumption - its the de jure way to display a flag according to the college of arms. There has been a discussion on the Cities of the UK page re: listing these flags clearly as banners of arms. Hope this is of some use. TMcB23 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just emailed the College of Arms to find out more about this topic, perhaps we could wait for their response, hopefully it will be quite swift. TMcB23 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Arms has replied explaining that there are no official flags for any towns or cities in the UK. The banner of arms is the legal form of usage for a flag but is only official with regards to the governing body associated with it (so even the City of London isn't actually the flag, it's the flag of the City of London Council). Flags produced by the Flag Institute are not officiated yet by the College of Arms. However, there are plans to change this and make an official register soon, they are just requiring funding to make it a reality. Therefore, the banner of arms flags can be shown online and listed as 'settlement borough council banner of arms flag' but never just 'settlement flag'. With regards to Wikipedia, I believe the flags can all stay but must be labelled accordingly. TMcB23 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TMcB23, if possible finding a source to cite based on that email would be a great add to any articles involving purely banner of arms. Following the conclusion of discussions on other articles you may make an article for "Banner of arms in the United Kingdom", but if there is no exact source of the banner it still can't be included, even if the design is the most logical or likely to be true.

I would like to point out however is that some of your images may be a "banner of arms" but may not be those of the settlement. Aforementioned Wrexham does stand out the most being local and I've stated how its incorrect before. However your images for Bangor, Wales and St Davids appear to be based on the coat of arms of the Dioceses, not the cities. Therefore before adding or backing up your images, please check whether you've used to correct coat of arms. (I may seem harsh and I apologise, but this unfortunately makes it very obvious it is original research with this mistake). Bangor for example, your image appears to be based on this Coat of Arms for the Diocese rather than of the City Council (their website does not use the diocese coat of arms in its logo). Indeed the city's is inspired by the diocese but are not the same. St David's use this CoA as their logo.

I will not discuss much whether the images should stay up as there are other discussions at the articles you've said that will involve other editors. Other opinions are valued aside just mine on your talk page haha.

In the mean time, whether they stay up on articles or not, I suggest requesting on commons that your images' names "flag of" etc, be renamed to "banner of arms of" or some other name clearly indicating it is not official (if it is not used by the council I deem in unofficial) or widely used, (seeing your images as the first result on google images, makes me concerned). Additionally rename Bangor and St Asaph to "Banner of arms of the Diocese of" etc. Unless they have a source of the exact flag design, please keep the fictitious flag template. In the image's description describe clearly of what it shows, i.e. "Banner of Arms derived from Coat of Arms of such and such council/borough etc." If a source for the coat of arms is included please use sources from the council website, or some reputable website, not just images or from flickr (is unreliable).

I'm aware sources for banner of arms are hard, it would be great if the College of Arms makes their registry as it will greatly help with sourcing. But until they make it avaliable you can't really cite them, therefore can't include unsourced banners until then. The Flag Institute is indeed not an official body, but due to the scarcity of reliable sources it is at least a reputable one, as council's usually register their (new) flag with the institute which means it at least has some reputability over wikis, reddit posts or random flag blogs.

Thanks again for your efforts, if you're really into flags I may suggest you vectorise (turn into SVG) existing sourced flags, or find flags on the Flag Institute's website not uploaded to commons (and if possible vectorise to SVG). Many Thanks – DankJae (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I add, you may potentially ask the council's in question whether they use a flag themselves or for the settlement and if so whether they can add it to their website and if it matches your uploaded image. Many Thanks – DankJae (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anchors[edit]

Just FYI, I'm not a html expert! There is a clever template should you want to add an anchor like I did: see template:anchor. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UCCF logo[edit]

Hi TMcB23, thanks for adding the new UCCF logo to the article. Unfortunately, I had to request the deletion of that file from Commons because it violates their copyright policy (Commons explicitly does not allow copyrighted images to be uploaded, even under a fair use rationale). We can use that file here on Wikipedia under a fair use rationale but to do so we need to host it here on Wikipedia, rather than on Commons. To do that, you can use the file upload wizard. Please make sure that you select the option for fair use, which will then prompt you to include the details required by our non-free content policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be more than happy to help. WJ94 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The logo you uploaded has been deleted on Commons; I have now uploaded the teal version of the logo to Wikipedia, which I took from the UCCF website, and added it to the article. WJ94 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading the teal version! I wonder bother for the time being to upload the terracotta version.

Thanks :D

Thomas TMcB23 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]