User talk:Tomintoul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Tomintoul, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Reedy 12:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Source parameter[edit]

I can answer that question for you. The source parameter was added to a certain template that is on the page you created. Therefore it had to be added retroactively to all articles. That is all. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Brian Paterson[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Brian Paterson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Paterson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

2nd opinion[edit]

Please review my re-write of Military art.

If you please, I invite your comments at Talk:Military art#Problematic edits and at Talk:War artist#Taxonomy argument. --Tenmei (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Salesian College Battersea[edit]

Re Article Salesian College (London), I am the one who added the name of Tom Champagne to the list of notable alumni. I was at school with him back in the 1950s/60s and can vouch for his notability - not least on the grounds stipulated: namely, that he was the signatory of a junk mailing - ahem, circular letter - inviting people to participate in the Reader's Digest lottery. He retired from this post a few years ago, but not before he had imposed his name on large sectors of the public consciousness. Are you a Battersea Old Boy yourself, might I enquire? If so, do you consider that makes you arbiter of 'notable' v 'non-notable'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.252.175 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


Wiki has strict notability criteria and and you have not demonstrated he is/was notable. Normally a notable person will have their own Wiki article. At the very least he should be referenced against an independent reliable source.Tomintoul (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Apprentice[edit]

Firstly, the wording you have used for this section is not WP:NPOV. Secondly, due to the nature of the content of the section, it absolutely must be properly referenced as per WP:RS and WP:V before it can be included. Do not add the section back until it is written from a neutral perspective and properly referenced. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cupid's Green1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cupid's Green1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cupid's Green2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cupid's Green2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Portrait of "Dusty" Rhodes by Ashley George Old.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Portrait of "Dusty" Rhodes by Ashley George Old.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Works by Ashley George Old[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tomintoul. You have new messages at Labattblueboy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm really glad to see these images in good order. I quite like the two landscapes. They'll be a great addition to the wiki commons --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Picture of 2007 floods[edit]

Hello, I'm very sorry about the time it's taken to reply to your post. I didn't realise anyone had posted on my talk page. If you're still planning to use/have used the image you may do so without any reference to me. Once again, please accept my apologies for the delay for my reply. CR7 (message me) 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP policy on contentious material[edit]

You are restoring contentious, poorly sourced material and conjecture regarding a living person that has been removed on WP:BLP grounds based on policy and OTRS raised concerns. This information cannot be restored until and unless there is concensus to do so - the onus is on you to prove that the sources are adequate and cover all of the information you are looking to add. The best place for review is WP:BLPN where a number of editors can review the content to ensure what material, if any, should be included. As an administrator and the OTRS agent handling this concern, I am providing a clear warning that if you continue to restore material that has been clearly identified as being a WP:BLP violation prior to seeking the consensus required by policy you may be blocked from editing. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of House Move Costs UK[edit]

Hello Tomintoul,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged House Move Costs UK for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Hydriz (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tomintoul! While this page may contain accurate data, I have some doubts about it being inside an encyclopedia. Perhaps expand the article even more so that we can all better understand what the article is about? Thanks! --Hydriz (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Retitle and tweak[edit]

Greetings, I've retitled the article to WP standards, and to make its intent clearer: Cost of moving house in the United Kingdom. However, there's still the issue that it's written more like an essay than an article. I'd suggest taking a look at some articles on similar subjects to see how they're phrased and organised.

For a start, note that Wikipedia articles don't start out "Background: This article is to tell you more about Richard III..." There's a pretty set standard for how to write the introductory para of an article, so I suggest you give that a shot. Following, you have to ensure that you're not veering into WP:Original research, or presenting an persuasive argument. The idea is not to cover uncovered topics, but to summarise what's already being said in authoritative publications (the definition of an encyclopedia).

Feel free to shoot me a line with any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

I have nominated The Apprentice (UK TV series) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Up Series may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 2005 [[Channel 4]] programme, the series topped the list of ''The 50 Greatest Documentaries.''<ref>{http://www.imdb.com/list/Pixb1R4U0t4/]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

References[edit]

Could you try to properly format your references please and not just use bare URLs? This is more helpful to the reader and improves the credibility of your work. See the article on Cost of moving house in the United Kingdom for some examples. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

About Time[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know I've removed the section you added on "Debated Plot Flaws" to About Time (2013 film). I did this because it appeared to be entirely your own original analysis of the plot. It didn't indicate who is having the referenced "debate" (other than a weaselly "some") and didn't cite any of its content, other than the two critics at the end, which I have moved to the Reception section.

If you have some reliable sources that contain the debate you refer to then you may wish to re-add the content, without undue emphasis, and appropriate cites. Otherwise you'll understand that Wikipedia cannot contain you original research. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I created this section, but the extended analysis was done by another editor. I made some changes to this, but I agree it still contains too much subjective analysis. I will give it further thought.Tomintoul (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)