User talk:Kilnburn/April and May 2008

St Johns

No problem, always happy to help improve WP! By the way, quite a few of your refs had the URLs entered incorrectly, so they didn't work without some "investigation" - Just something to watch out for in future. Kind Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

right, i'll watch out for that. thanks Kilnburn (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Map of the Royal Burgh of Kirkcaldy 1824.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Map of the Royal Burgh of Kirkcaldy 1824.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1488.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1488.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1487.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1487.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1498.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1498.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1495.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1495.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1519.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1519.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1517.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1517.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN1507.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Kilnburn!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN1507.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mercat Centre, Kirkcaldy.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Mercat Centre, Kirkcaldy.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

re "approval of Kirkcaldy reconstruction plan"

Hi Kilnburn, nice to hear from you. Just wanted to let you know I'd seen your post on my talk page. It merits a considered and detailed response which I'm not able to give right at the moment so I'll have to get back to you a bit later. If I don't get a chance to respond later tonight it may not be until the weekend but I promise I will get back to you when I can. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

nah, that's fine. take as long as you want. it's just i feel it is time, the Kirkcaldy article underwent a major reconstruction Kilnburn (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Kilnburn. I’ve had a little bit of time to write you a partial response.

Firstly, I’m more than happy to give you some help. It sounds like you have a lot of ideas and are a bit daunted by what you are about to take on, which is understandable. In that case I firstly ought to mention (as I think I’ve said to you in the past) that I often don’t have much time to devote to Wikipedia because of other interests and am quite often travelling and consequently have limited or even no access to the internet for a few days or even weeks. As long as you understand this and won’t get frustrated if there is a delay in my responding, please feel free to get in touch whenever you’d like some help.

Now, in regard to your post on my talk page, here is some feedback, comments and questions for you. I hope you find them useful.

I think it is a wise decision for you to work in small stages as you work more effectively that way and it is easier for other users to follow the changes you have made and to spot any problems. I think you are more patient lately, and that’s good.

I’m unfamiliar with the concept of a “construction tag”. Can you point me to the relevant project page please?

Regarding your subtitle “approval of Kirkcaldy reconstruction plan”, the implication that you value my views is nice to hear from you but as long as you appreciate that my personal agreement (or disagreement) with any plans you have doesn’t grant any special status to them. As we have had differences in opinion and lengthy discussions about wiki policy and so on in the past, if we two can be more closely in agreement that would obviously be good in future. However we are only two users out of the many that are involved.

It’s important that other editors have the opportunity to be involved and co-operate if any major overhaul of the Kirkcaldy article takes place so I think it would be a good idea to also take your ideas to the Kirkcaldy discussion page. I’ll be keeping an eye on the article, as you know I do but, more patient as you are lately, I’m a little worried that if you are relying on quick responses from me personally that you may get frustrated if I’m not able to respond quickly sometimes or devote much time.

An idea I have may seem a rather unusual way of editing but I wonder if it may work for you. As your edits often have issues regarding spelling, grammar, clarity of expression and misquotation or misunderstanding of citations, these edits are then often heavily revised or even reverted by other editors (including myself). I know you find this frustrating and often think that people are being offensive or bullying you, attributing these misunderstandings to your slight Asperger syndrome. Rather than have this “two steps forward, one step back” experience it might be an idea to write a draft of any edited or new text and place it on the discussion page first (with full reference info) for comment, before adding it to the article itself. This way any problems can be spotted and ironed out before the article itself is altered. Obviously this would require some patience as, for this approach to be of worth, a wait of a few days for others to see your draft would be required. If you get some feedback, you could alter the draft accordingly and if you don’t get any feedback, you could feel more confident that your text is well drafted as it stands. That said, it’s important to remember that this would not give it a special “approved” status if added in to the article and that other users can still make edits to it afterwards. You are very open and up front about the difficulties you have editing and, unusual as this approach to editing would be, I’m sure people would appreciate it and it would avoid the kind of situations that you have found confrontational in the past.

In regard to the Kirkcaldy article itself:

Whaling, saltmaking, linoleum and the harbour are all worthy topics. Incidentally, prompted by your misspelling “linelem”, I notice that after an initial improvement, your rate of misspelling has increased a bit again. It was evident when you were making more use of the spellchecker before making edits, so please remember to do this.

I think it’s best to retain media, politics and regional info as separate sections because although they currently concern only modern media, politics etc. they could in future be expanded to include historical info. The current modern Kirkcaldy sub-section is at the end of the history section so is really recent history of Kirkcaldy. I can see your point in regard to “info about the former MP, Lewis Mooney and Gordon Brown's former MP seat”, as you put it. This would have been more notable a couple of years ago but is of less relevance now. Regarding radio stations, the ones that are directly local and specifically cover Kirkcaldy and the surrounding area (Forth One, 2 and Kingdom FM) are of relevance I would say but going wider (Tay and Real) is probably not sufficiently relevant.

I’ve got to head out now, and so my comments about the other matters you mentioned will have to be added another time. I’ll try to get back to you soon but I hope the above has been a useful start. I’m interested to know about the book you mention, "Old Kirkcaldy:North, West and East", by the way. Is this the exact title and can you tell me the publisher?

I’ll be back in touch soon. Aye, Mutt

Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Kilnburn, saw your post on the Kirkcaldy talk page today. Really busy again this week but thought I'd let you know I'll be on the case at some point, as and when I can. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve finally got a little time to reply on some of what we’ve been discussing. Regarding putting on an {{underconstruction}} tag, it was interesting to find out about that as I hadn’t heard of it before. It says on the Category:Articles actively undergoing construction page “While all articles on Wikipedia are by definition unfinished and in need of improvement, these are undergoing a major editing process – help with which is always appreciated – and may soon change significantly.”. I’m not sure at what stage you regard an editing process to be major but I’m unsure that the tag would be entirely appropriate. I know you regard the Kirkcaldy article as being deficient and I would at least agree that some expansions and additions could be made, plus many more citations are required. That said I think the basic pattern of the article is already constructed and although there may be faults, I don’t think there is anything really drastically wrong as the article stands. Also, when it says “it may soon change significantly”, the way we talked about for you to suggest fairly small, incremental changes, posted on the talk page for a while so that others can help you may result in significant changes after some time but is not as likely to be as rapid as the tag maybe implies. We can always review the idea of putting the tag on later I guess.

Back soon, hopefully... Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi K., I've got to take my hat off regarding your productivity if you have 6 full pages of material already. However, if your intention is to post a massive document in a couple of weeks time I can foresee some problems with that. Firstly, if anyone else is to go through your work to assess it, it's going to be a massive job for them and we know that your writing can take a lot of work to sort it out. If you've taken weeks to write it it may take weeks for someone to assess it. As I've said, the time I can spend on Wikipedia has become limited and is likely to become even more so, particularly in the next couple of months as I'll be travelling quite a lot. I don't know if any other editors are interested in pitching in but so far there has been no other response to your most recent posts on the Kirkcaldy talk page. Also, I think it would be a better idea to post much smaller pieces of work, bit by bit as you complete them. That means it would be easier for other editors to assess them and/or work on them and it would also mean that if there are any fundamental problems with the way you are working on this, we can correct them early on. It would be a terrible shame if you did such a huge job only to find out that there are some problems with it that could have been avoided if you'd been making smaller, regular posts as you went along.

You made mention of Duncancumming as someone who may have an interest in all this. I though I might drop him a line to let him know in case he is interested and hadn't spotted your post at Kirkcaldy's talk. That said, I'm pretty sure he mentioned that his time on Wikipedia is also rather limited now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen your message re your "Phase I" - thanks for letting me know. Best just to post it on the Kirkcaldy talk page; no need to duplicate on my talk page as I'll see it at Kirkcaldy anyway and it'll save any potential confusion. I saw the book by Eunson by the way and it says the first mention of Kirkcaldy was 1075 (not 1095 as you said) but nonetheless it is clearly different to that mentioned in the Encyclopedia by Keay and Keay. There's a Civic Society book which mentions 1075 too. None of the three indicate precisely what the primary source for their given date is though. I'll see if I can get hold of the three books and work out a wording accommodating the three texts and two dates. I'm not round much just now, by the way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi K, just wanted you to know I hadn't (quite) disappeared from the face of the Earth yet. It's been preying on my mind that you've posted a pretty substantial proposal on the Kirkcaldy discussion page but with no response from anyone as yet. I'm back from travels for a short while but haven't had a chance to undertake much Wiki-wise and don't know when I will be able to. Anyway, all the best for just now - just wanted to say hi at least. ...by the way, also got some Kirkcaldy photos to add but don't hold your breath. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Glenrothes

Could you please explain why you added a cleanup requirement to the Glenrothes Article? It has received an A-grade quality standard for its content and format. I do not understand why you felt it is a mess and requires a clean up while others feel it is a good article? It is by far the best written of all the Fife town articles.

195.27.12.180 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

the introduction, 195.27..., makes another mention of the New Town (Scotland) Act 1946, which is already present in the first paragraph of the history section. a mention of the Rothes Pit is also made (which i believe is also mentioned in the history section). both are not really neccessary

overall, all it needs is a shorter introduction and yes, i do agree "it is by far the best written of all the Fife town articles". the Glenrothes article has seriously made me determined to improve the Kirkcaldy one, which i intend to surpass this one. Kilnburn (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The introduction was intended to summarise the main article. Someone could review the introduction and know a little about the background of the town. They could then get a more detailed analysis of the town by then going on and reading the main article. All good report formats are set out in this way.

I think you have a considerable task if the Kirkcaldy article is to be made anywhere near as good as the Glenrothes one. Good luck, I hope you achieve it. I look forward to reading it.

195.27.12.180 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

well, thank you. i'm currently working on it and i know what is to be expected. anyway, i recently uploaded Kirkcaldy revamp (Phase 1) on the Kirkcaldy messageboard. if you care to have a look and if you wish, could you leave a comment. Kilnburn (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Kirkcaldy

I don't have so much time free atm, but I'll try to keep my eye on it. You can use your personal wikispace to make drafts btw. I.e. pages under User:Kilnburn/, such as User:Kilnburn/Kirkcaldy. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)