User talk:Oldfaw

I've managed to create a new user box (for alumni of Cuths, Durham) - mostly by trial and error, but still haven't quite got the hang of it. Like many other Wiki-things, the "helpful" information is scattered, and not tremendously helpful to novices. Or maybe it's just me being dim. (I'll try again some other time). John Hamilton (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easy to discover how to correct a license tag if it was incorrectly stated or omitted while uploading an image. I tried (hard) to understand the various guidance - and failed. Then made matters worse by trying to upload the same image again! John Hamilton 16:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on Wild Boar Fell

I stumbled onto the Wild Boar Fell through the "Random article" link, and I really enjoyed reading it. It's entertaining, well-written and informative. Good work on it. I hope you contribute a lot more. Exeunt (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Connery & Cuths

It is tiresome to see the myth/error is still being recycled that Sean Connery is an alumnus of St Cuthbert's Society, Durham. I write as an admirer of Sir Sean - whose early life included a time working as a milkman for the St. Cuthbert's Co-operative Society dairy - and I also write as a (genuine) alumnus of Cuth's (St Cuthbert's Society, one of the colleges of Durham University). Both institutions do share the name of St Cuthbert, but are otherwise difficult to confuse. I have corrected this twice before and others have also done so, over a period of two or three years. Even the most sloppy "contributor" could at least spare the time look up the Wiki article on Sean Connery! John Hamilton (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Greetings from the shadow of Cross Fell Northernhenge (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Ralph Vaughan Williams's Ninth

I've been listening lately to my far-too-long-neglected Andre Previn recording of this work, and I have to agree (I'm at liberty to admit this here, I think) with this assessment you've recently provided us: "It can now be seen as not just the most powerful musical expression the composer had made since the Sixth symphony - with which it shares the key of E minor - but as one of the most powerful he ever made", except that I don't understand why this couldn't be seen in 1958. (I very much envy your having attended the first performance, by the way. I've attended exactly no performances and don't recall any one ever programmed by local orchestras.)

The 1959 Murray Shafer review I've just incorporated bits from into the article amounts, in my opinion, merely to scarcely disguised prejudice, and I have to admit (only here!) that this amuses me. TheScotch (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whinfell Forest

This page has now been edited to include details of the new 'Made' Restaurant at Center Parcs. Arthur7171 (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Hi Oldfaw, the lists were removed from the St Cuths article as they simply do not belong in Wikipedia. By all means mention notable people associated with the society, but full lists such as those are a matter for the societies own records. I note that as a former member of the society, you appear to have a conflict of interest in this case. While this should not prevent you from cleaning up and copyediting the article, I would suggest you refrain from any behaviour that could be interpreted as ownership of the article. Deiz talk 15:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deiz There have been several petty examples of vandalism in the entry for St Cuths - and, as Cuths is the only one of the Durham Colleges that you have singled out for improvement, the removal of the list of Principals & Presidents seemed to me to come into the same category. But perhaps you just started with Cuths and intend to improve all the other College articles in the same way? John Hamilton (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkby Loki

I've left a comment at Image talk:Loki-GerryMillar.jpg. Nice image. Haukur (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a reply there - I haven't got time (or patience) to haggle about this - it's quicker and easier to replace the image.John Hamilton (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great. Thank you. Haukur (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RVW 9

You were at the premiere? YOU WERE AT THE PREMIERE!!! Good heavens. I am seriously impressed, and yes, you can very much leave me a message! Thank you, I'm honoured. I'm intrigued by this business about the "novel" orchestration perhaps overshadowing, in the press coverage, other aspects of the work. My source for this was a rather wonderful interview with David Mason in a brass players' mag - David says that the review he saw was mostly on about the flugel (especially as he had a "technical moment" at that first performance) and then just a line or two about the work itself - which sounds irritating but not perhaps surprising. And yes, we do seem to have a bit of a track record in undervaluing composers - I think it's a sort of national inferiority complex that we're not German, or something! Cheers, and thanks again for the lovely message, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkby Stephen

I was aware that Kirkby won the best village award but as it is described as a town in the rest of the article and in related articles I was just trying to make it consistent Penrithguy (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "twenty five & 20th century are not typos"

Wikipedia allows for variations in spelling between Commonwealth countries and the US, but does not allow for variations in punctuation. There is one style guide for numbers. WP:NUMERAL, bullet point 6, says "Centuries are given in figures or words using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate: the 5th century BCE; nineteenth-century painting. Neither the ordinal nor the word "century" should be capitalised.". Below that, under the "Typography" heading, bullet point 1, says "Spelled-out two-word numbers from 21 to 99 are hyphenated (e.g. fifty-six)". Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 15:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manners

Using phrases like "carried away", "degenerate", "self-important nit-pickers" or "self-appointed instructor" in reference to other editors is liable to make you unpopular. Please read WP:CIVIL, which is a page on Wikipedia policy. Chris the speller ^yack 15:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Thank you for commenting on my talk page - I have responded there. Best wishes. Acabashi (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i removed the categories of "English Socialists" and "English Humanists" from RVW's page because i found no passage in the page that said he was either of those. --Goalisraised (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yo!

Shifted those images to the left on those Mallerstang articles, brotha. Yeah I came out of retirement just because settlements without infoboxes really irritate me... It's a form of Wiki-OCD I expect. Cacolantern 19:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations to Articles on Kirkby Stephen and its Parish Church

I have two suggestions re. the new article on St Stephen's Church, and I have added a Talk page to this new article listing them.

In particular I feel that the "Loki Stone" is more generally relevant to the original article about the town, and that it is not merely a feature of the church. So I would like to restore this section, and the image of the Stone, to the original article - after any comments. John Hamilton (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Oldfaw. You have new messages at Bober166's talk page.
Message added 10:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

M. Caecilius (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Old pendragon castle.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Old pendragon castle.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for updating the source. However, "a print owned by me" is still pretty vague. Could you please add more information about the print? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be necessary to make things so complicated in order to preserve the authority of Wikipedia - but it deters those who, like me, have some things to say but who do not have a geek-like mindset. The "rules" may seem straightforward to someone steeped in the technicalities of Wikipedia but it is an impenetrable, foreign world to most of us!John Hamilton (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:KSchurch-GerryMillar.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KSchurch-GerryMillar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Oldfaw. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:KScloisters-GerryMillar.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:KScloisters-GerryMillar.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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}} 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Loki-GerryMillar.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Loki-GerryMillar.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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}} 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Red squirrel mallerstang.jpg

The file File:Red squirrel mallerstang.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]