User talk:Lianachan

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello Lianachan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Dvyost 23:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. Once my internet connection is upgraded to ADSL (hopefully quite soon) I will start to contribute more. There are a few articles that I have a mind to create, and a few existing articles that I have a mind to expand considerably. At the moment, I have had to limit myself to minor edits and talks. Lianachan 18:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look forward to them! Again, if you ever need any help with anything, don't hesitate to ask--we were all new here once. Good luck, --Dvyost 20:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Project: Scottish Placename Etymology[edit]

In Scotland, we have a rich variety of placenames drawn from a number of languages. We have places that have names in Gaelic, English, Scots, Norse, "Pictish" or French - and many that are combinations, or could make sense in more than one language. There is a lot of interest in Scottish placenames, not only within Scotland but also in other parts of the UK and beyond.

I think it would be interesting for readers if placename etymology information was added to the entries for places. I was thinking particularly about Scottish ones, because that's my main area of etymological interest, but it could easily apply to places all over the world.

Is this something which anybody else thinks would be a good idea, or would be willing to help out with by adding this information where appropriate?

If interested, please register your support here.

Lianachan 12:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lianachan. I think it's a great idea to include placename etymology in the Scottish articles, particularly as so many have a meaning in Gaelic which is still relevant to gaelic speakers but often lost to speakers of English. The same is true of Wales. The English placename etymology is often more obscure, being perhaps more deeply hidden, but it would be good to have that information too, where it is available. Maybe a good start would be to have a Scotland-specific page similar to List of generic forms in British place names and Etymological list of counties of the United Kingdom (or perhaps to expand the former). SiGarb 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm surprised there isn't one already. A list of place-name elements can be a bit misleading, though. For example, there's ness from Norse (in placenames such as Stromness, and 100's more) - but the ness part of Inverness (ie the name of the river) is of unknown, probably pre-Celtic origins. What might be useful would be a list of Celtic placename elements, as these are found all over the British Isles (and on the continent). Lianachan 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic roundhouse greetings![edit]

Thanks for the comment. Have a Happy Hogmanay....dave souza 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish county etymology[edit]

Re your comment I have responded with a reference. There's no problem, I've just expanded the page slightly. -- Francs 2000 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: The Rainbow Children; Glencoe, Scotland; Goldnigga; Inverness-shire; 3121 (album); The Way It Is; Zebra (band); The Knitting Girl; Scots Vowel Length Rule; Y&T; Krokus; Brychan; Joan Tower; Northumbrian (Anglo-Saxon); Eddie Davis (saxophonist); Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber (Scottish Parliament constituency); Jennifer Holliday; William-Henry Gauvin; River Ness

Cleanup: Ned (Scottish); ~~Alexander Boswell (judge)~~; Discovery (observation)
Merge: Highlands and Islands area; List of best-selling albums in the United States; Rulers of Hanover
Add Sources: Men in Black; Kay Kyser; Fefe Dobson
Wikify: MacGillick, McGillick, Gillick (Irish Surnames); Gillean; Chris Romanelli
Expand: Ninkou Latora; D. Boon; Newsweek

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 06:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clans of Scotland Wikiproject.[edit]

Hello, there. I'm going around to all the listed participants of the Clans of Scotland WikiProject, asking for a short update on whate they're up to as far as the project goes. I want to see if this project is still viable, and I'm wondering if anyone else is still actively participating. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland#Status.3F. Canaen 19:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Lovat[edit]

Hiya. As a Highlander, interested in Scottish History, I gather you might know a bit about Clans and Scottish peerage titles, and such. Someone (plus a friend who acts in much the same manner) has taken to pushing monarch's paperwork law over Highland tradition over at Lord Lovat, and I 'd like it if you would read over the arguments presented, and issue comment if it so pleases you. Slainte, File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I've never had anything to do with Berk before he asked me yesterday - knowing I do edit the peerage law articles - to look at Lovat. I and I hope those others who also edit peerage articles would seek the lawful heir and give correct details irrespective of the country of the peerage involved. We have nor real option but to edit to the reality according to law even where we don't always agree with the law. Alci12 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Stone[edit]

I've seen your change of caption for the Pictish eagle stone, and must admit that I'm a tad surprised. Firstly that the proper name of a Pictish object should be as Gaidlig; and secondly for the second word... I've seen "tiompan" used in a variety of meanings in Gaelic, but mostly for musical instruments and drum like objects, never yet meaning "eagle". The confusion may come from my mixing up modern Irish with ancient Scottish... but it still feels strange, so I'd like your confirmation of the exact meaning of the word. Yours truly --Svartalf 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stone is called Clach An Tiompain by the Royal Commission for the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland, and by all other interested parties. It is called Clachan Tiompain locally. Whenever an anglicisation is attempted, then Eaglestone (note, a single word) is used simply because an eagle is depicted on the stone. It's not a translation of the Gaelic name. Lianachan 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages listed on Categories for deletion[edit]

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies is just about to close. I would really appreciate your contribution, because this debate needs some serious input. --Mais oui! 09:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, I've been overseas and generally out of the loop for a while. I've have a look when I get proper internet access (a week or so) if that's still useful. Generally speaking, though, I assidiously eschew politics. Lianachan 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland[edit]

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Would Die For You[edit]

Hmm. That's interesting, because I seem to remember a lot being made of that change in 2004 for the Musicology tour. I'm not saying you're wrong--it's just interesting that the journalists whose work I was reading at the time seemed to think it was a recent change. I'll update the article to stick a little closer to what I know. Thanks for the heads-up.

BTW, I hope you receive notification that I posted this. I don't know if this qualifies as a "message" or not. I'd never had Wikipedia notify me before. I guess you learn something new everyday. Eric Qel-Droma 01:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has indeed cleaned up a lot of songs, including numerous lyric changes, since about the time of his conversion, but [i]He's your messiah[/i] is definately old hat. Personally, I'd rather he'd just drop the songs from his set rather than serve up Prince-lite :-) Lianachan 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

There is a vote going on at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland to move loads of early Scottish kings to anachronistic English names which are going out of favour in English language publications. People supporting the move have no knowledge or contribution history in the area, yet the wiki pop voting will nevertheless result in a victory unless they are opposed. Regards. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland[edit]

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Loch Steinacleit.jpg[edit]

Hi! I've been trying to locate the loch in the image you uploaded, to obtain more information on the dun located in it, to see if it is a man made, or a natural island. However I keep coming up with Loch An Duin at Steinacleit as per this image on this website here:- [:http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/40247] and here:-[:http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/15428]. The first is clearly the same image, posted, presumably, by you as the name is the same. The second by someone else. Could you advise which name the loch actually has? Richard Harvey 10:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the message. The loch is just called Loch an Duin. Since this means loch of the Dun, and the Island of Lewis is liberally sprinkled with such duns on wee islands (and Loch an Duin is what some of them are called) that probably won't help you much. This one is next to the village of Siadar, and is centred in this map. I have access to archaeological reports and arial photography of the site (all copyrighted). There's no mention of whether the island is natural or man-made, but if you're interested I can give you some information about the dun itself. The loch also contains what is most likely to be either a crannog, or some structure associated with dun.

Examples of similar duns in lochs on Lewis are at Loch Bharabhat (also a very common name), Loch an Duin (see what I mean?) and Loch an Dunain. Please note that's just the first examples that sprang to mind that I know Google Maps have at high res - it's far from an exhaustive list.

I have built up an extensive collection of personally taken photographs of the duns and brochs of the Highlands and Islands over the last few years, and if you'd like any information on any of them then give me a shout. Lianachan 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info, unfortunately the google map links wouldn't work but I was able to use windows [:http://local.live.com/] to see the area. I had originally seen the larger lochs to the east of Tolsta Chaolais and hoped it may be one of those. I had been considering the possibility of doing some underwater research there as a future project, I'm a diver and do underwater photography as a hobby, are these lochs accessible by 4 wheel drive? However the one at Sirdar is closer to the road, therefore probably more suitable. It may be of use to locate which of the lochs do have natural islands and add them to List of freshwater islands in Scotland. Richard Harvey 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the lochs/duns I linked to are right next to a main road. For Loch an Duin (Siadar/Steinacleit version) you should follow the signs for the nearby Historic Scotland site, as the best parking/access accessed by following a minor road for a hundred yards or so. If you're in that area anyway, you should check out the biggest standing stone in Scotland, which is nearby. I wouldn't worry about adding any natural islands to any lists here - there are 100's and 100's of such islands in Lewis alone, and most of them are so small they're not even named. There is an enigmatic submerged site at Rodel, at the SE tip of the Isle of Harris, though.... Lianachan 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callanish[edit]

Hi Lianachan. I can see why you prefer "Callanish stones" to "Callanish stone circle". Unfortunately that rather implies that the article should also be renamed, don't you think? SiGarb | Talk 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed yes. There's some discussion about that on the Callanish Stones talk page. Lianachan 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. And as to the typo, we all make them (and usually only notice them the moment after the page has been saved)! SiGarb | Talk 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning for User_talk:212.219.203.173[edit]

You should follow the procedure at WP:AIV to check it is not a shared address and, if not, ask for them to be blocked. When I put my warning there they had not done anything for a month. I see from looking at their contributions that they are a little more active at the moment. Yes, too many last warnings is not good, but blocking is usually only for 24 hours and so won't do much to deter a vandal that is active only once a month. Phaedrus86 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:[edit]

Yeah, similar sentiments here. This Miskin character is an amateurish editor with no perspective, and talking to him feels like talking to a school kid. Fixing the problems he causes would require me taking out or buying lots of books, and sadly I don't have the time or the will. I assume someone else will come at some stage and fix his editing; that's supposed to be what happens on wiki right? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this here since Calgacus will most likely delete it. First of all, I just had the infobox redirect to the main section so that people won't think this that the 2M is given as factual [1]. Second of all, I never added any information on the "size of the army" section before people started complaining. I was just reverting vandalism and personal attacks from the Talk page. Lianachan read a hostile edit I made towards an anon who had already insulted me for reverting his vandalism, Lianachan didn't get to see the attack as I had already removed it. When "real" editors came I was always asking for their opinion. Except Iblardi, who just follows me around and trolls wherever I may edit. Calcagus, I've been civil to you since the very beginning, and despite your constant hostility I've always answered calmly and within reason [2]. You may have assumed that I've been the one responsible for the article's state, but that was far from the case. On your prompt, I had a look at some sources and made improvements to the article by adding information to the "size" section for the first time[3]. However, instead of getting some credit, I receive a bunch of insults [4]. Then I asked you what was the problem with the article and you ignored me [5]. As if that wasn't enough, I made another attempt to reason with you but you chose to remove my message from your talk page [6], making it seem as if I was the bad guy. You have insulted me many times and I can count up to three personal attacks so far. I could easily report you for NPA but I don't think you're worth it. You have absolutely no reason to badmouth me, and if you take the time to read this post and look at the diffs you'll realise why. Miskin 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Miskin, you may not be much of a historian, but you certainly look like you'd do a good job at a department of lies and propaganda in some third world dictatorship. You call calling someone a POV pusher in edit summaries civil? Lol. Anyways, stop bugging me; I already told you I was done with this. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed the _only_ time I could not restrain myself because I felt I was being mocked at. Right when I asked for your opinion [7] you stuck an ironic tag to the very article you were supposedly wishing to improve. If you never cared about the article you have said so in the first place. Now if you can't find it in yourself to admit to your fault and reconcile, you might as well simply stop offending me. I've never reported anyone for personal attacks because I'm usually not affected. However, seeing a supposedly well-established editor behave in such manner, I really think I might make an exception. Lianachan I'm really sorry for using your Talk page as the medium of dispute, but that was not the scope of my initial message. I only wanted to let you know that your friend has not been fair with me, and that you are always invited to improve the article, just as he was. Miskin 21:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish National Anthem[edit]

Re: Removal of quote from God Save the Queen. The reference is the wikipedia article God Save the Queen which is in itself referenced correctly. I think it should be included because being a Scot and having talked about it in the pub or wherever I am aware of this line as an issue and hence indeed so are others. The paragraph is about the anthem being a problem with the Scots but has no real explanation as to why the Scots would not like it. This line is one of the major issues, I think it should be readded. (I am not a nationalist- i'll make this clear since last time i argued a Scottish article I was accused of it by another user because they didn't have a proper arguement!)Bobbacon 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. In my experience, as a fierce Highlander and vigorous nationalist, it's not a major factor - many people are unaware of the existence of that verse, even - but I've reverted my undo. Lianachan 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lugi (Sutherland) version[edit]

I had intended to create a page for the Scottish Lugi tribe themselves, as they are in no way connected to their European mainland namesakes, but there's not really much information about them (other than where they lived and some placenames) so I thought a mention in the Lugii page would probably be more appropriate. I now see that this is not the case. I am vehemently opposed to providing links to online sources for very commonly held and accepted information, as I feel that such practice on an online "encyclopedia" is wonderfully ironic. By all means, leave your fact flag there. Anybody who's sufficiently interested in them can presumably be bothered to type their name into Google anyway. Lianachan 23:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can write a stub, perhaps later may be added some references and more information.

L:I am vehemently opposed to providing links to online sources for very commonly held and accepted information
N: did you ever think that any 'commonly held opinion' has own source, a beginning period and sometime even its end... For me the links to sources is a history aboot a history - viewed in multiple dimensions. While time travel is a fiction we have to resort to relato refere or to compose 'less than science - fiction'.

one exception: if the common opinion is a folk story, I considering it a valuable resource, however now in global media epoch is very difficult to filter what is inherited - form recently absorbed.

L: interested in them can presumably be bothered...
N: I can't agree... the searches are extremely bothering especially at attempts re-re..searching the pirsest sources.

Anyway if the commudity will try to delete your one sentence stub on Lugi (Sutherland) ah will back support your editions and ya think you may write great article!

Nasz 01:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've misquoted me. There's a huge difference between the "commonly held opinion" you mention and the "commonly held and and accepted information" that I mentioned. While your own statement might refer to things like the (sadly all too) common opinion that Man has never been to the Moon, I am talking about things like a dropped apple falls Earthwards. If I said a dog has four legs, would I need to cite a source for that info, or would there be an assumption that I'd made it up. That's the kind of thing I mean - the difference between opinion and fact. It is not my opinion that a group of people called Lugi occupied southern and eastern Sutherland, it is a well established fact. However, none of this really matters I suppose. Wiki marches on. When I see something I didn't know in an article, I usually think "that's interesting" rather than stick a fact flag on it. Imagine how unreadable wikipedia would be if everybody responded to finding out something new (which is perhaps the entire point in reading articles in the first place) by adding fact flags.Lianachan 07:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlexNewArtBot[edit]

Hi Lianachan, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :) This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broch[edit]

Just back from a short wiki-break and saw your desparing note on the talk page. I had just put it on my watch list as I am curious, but I don't know enough about the subject to do much more than put {fact} tags where there are no in-line references (i.e. almost everywhere). I will keep my eye on it and am happy to assist in tidying it up if you change your mind. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Islands project[edit]

I thought from your past edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look. --MacRusgail 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project. Hopefully the intentions are clear enough, but let me/us know if you need anything. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Scottish kings[edit]

There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling the same way myself. What disillusions thee? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broch[edit]

Thanks for your interest in this topic. I am not aware of using the terms interchangeably. Each term clearly has its own meaning. I think it would be a mistake not to point out which brochs are also promontory forts. Regards. Hadrianheugh (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Factory[edit]

According to the revision history, Dream Factory has always been about the game company. I did notice a few articles relating to Prince linking there, but not even Sign o' the Times (album) links to it. Are you sure the article, at some point, had anything to do with Prince? ~ Hibana 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really concerned about it, I suggest you use the article's revision history and either revert to the version of which you speak or create another article out of its contents. However, none of the versions of the article are related to the album, that I can see. Then again, according to your User Contributions, you've never edited the article titled Dream Factory with that user name. I don't doubt the fact that you've favorited it, as you said, because you noticed the change. But, do you think it's possible you saw/edited the information elsewhere? ~ Hibana 05:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was deleted, which would probably explain your inability to find it and its absence from my list of contributions. Lianachan (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Discography[edit]

Any information in the articles that doesn't have a reliable source can be removed. That's all the justification that's needed. There's been a tag stating that the article needs more sources since September of last year and, if memory serves me, the only sources cited are the various RIAA certs I added a while back. So, technically speaking, that entire article is pretty much up for grabs.Odin's Beard (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online confirmation? How about any confirmation at all? Not my problem nor my fault the article and so many others are like it are a mess. But, if I run across something that shouldn't be in, I'll remove it. If there's info that needs a source, I'll post a citation for a source. If enough time goes by without a source being added, I'll remove it. Simple as that. Even though most articles like the Prince discography article is treated more like havens for fans, Wikipedia's supposed to be an encyclopedia.Odin's Beard (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't make the policy. Take it up with the administration. I'm all for reliable sources of any type. If you've got the info, then provide it, as long as it can be verified by more than just the person that got the info out of a book or magazine. Otherwise, treat it with suspicion. As you said, a number of articles are targets of editors that just want to commit vandalism or are pushing a personal agenda. I know that here in the United States, it's going to be pretty difficult finding a publication that publishes album sales and certifications based on the standards of the BPI. The problem with sourcing a book or magazine is that not everybody has access to said book or magazine while all you need to check the validity of an internet source is access to the internet.Odin's Beard (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rcfc2008.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rcfc2008.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. O sama K 18:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Dun Dornagail.JPG[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Dun Dornagail.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 00:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Atlantic roundhouse.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]