Archives

Talk until Feb 2008 Talk from early March 2008 Talk from mid-March 2008 Talk from April and May 2008 Talk from June 2008 Talk from July 2008 Talk from August to October 2008 Talk from October to December 2008

Please don't be afraid to get in touch if you have any enquiries. Just start a new message at the bottom (you know what to do)!

Thanks for uploading File:Sam "Ace" Rosenstein.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K, please can you clarify what is meant by your expression "the top of the town" in the Kirkcaldy article. This expression has no currency in Kirkcaldy as far as I'm aware and in regard to the elevation of the area, at an estimate half of the town is at a comparable or greaterheight above sea level. What makes these houses "main" houses - their size, grandeur, historical significance, number of occupants? --Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry K. but I've added back some tags as they haven't been addressed. I'd already mentioned most of the reasons for the tags in the edit summaries but have now collated this on the talk page, so I hope that helps explaining what I'm asking. Really nice photos in that section by the way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When creating talk page archives, please create them in the form User talk:Kilnburn/... so as to make them a subpage of this page, the ones you made were independent talk pages. I've fixed them for you but please remember this next time--Jac16888^Talk 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilnburn, just wanted to clarify re your question on the duplicate Andrew Carnegie photos. If I understand you correctly, you want to delete the version of the photo on Wikipedia and retain the one on Wikimedia Commons. Is that correct?

If so, only an admin can delete a page but, per Criteria for speedy deletion:

"7. Author requests deletion'... If the author blanks the page ... this can be taken as a deletion request."

Once the wikipedia version has been deleted, I guess the link on the Carnegie page will then direct to the (identically named as it is) commons version of the photo. This is outwith my experience so I don't know for absolutely certain. Also, between blanking the page and its deletion, I guess the photo at the Carnegie page may not display in that period.

Hope that helps, but it may be worth putting a {{helpme}} tag to get more specialised advice. Give me a shout if you need to. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carnegie Hall, Dunfermline (2).jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Carnegie Hall2, Dunfermline.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Carnegie Hall2, Dunfermline.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN1496.Kirkcaldy.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court, Whytecauseway.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mercat Centre, Kirkcaldy.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Mercat Centre, Kirkcaldy.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Victoria Hospital (Kirkcaldy). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete articles and copy their contents somewhere else. If an article is improperly titled, then move the article to the correct name. To do anything less destroys the record of the article's edits and history in general. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed you want to rename this article. The best way to do so is to use the move tab. As you have allready created the title to which you would like the renaming to I suggest you make a request at wp:requested move, Best --DFS454 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Yes, Dundee went through a FA review a couple of months ago as it really didn't meet the current FA criteria (or GA criteria). I've improved several of the sections that were non-neutral and lacking in citations, but have been held up a bit by real-life work. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great and sounds more what I expected. sco:Port is Scots for English "gate", Scots gait/gate means English "road/street", (e.g Wellgate, Overgate, Seagate, Nethergate etc in Dundee). I'll let you re-add the section with the wording changed to match what the reference, it's on my talkpage if you want to cut and paste. Scroggie (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Raging Bull (Sugar Ray Robinson 5th fight).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. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Dunfermline. My remark was stylistic only, attempting to remove from the fine description of landmarks, the exact address, that sort of thing. Its one thing to have the PM as 20 Downing st (I hope I have that right!  :) or Holmes at 7 Baker but generally street addresses should really not be necessary or important in the encyclopedia. That was my only point. It is probably significant that they are "altogether" within a tight radius of what was then the old city limits. That can be mentioned. But I would omit the actual street unless it has some cultural significance in itself (Champs d'Elysee, that sort of thing). Student7 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you have a "watchlist". If you don't, could you periodically look at the discussion page? Talk:Dunfermline#Notables. I try to leave notes there that other editors might want to read. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:UKCITIES in editing.Student7 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your recent work on the article, its looking really good. Mcwesty (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry for the delay in getting round to this one. I've just assessed it as B-class for Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography and I think it has a reasonable chance of making it through WP:GAN. I'm not all that familiar with WP:Scotland's A-class rating, but I would not give it an A-class rating.Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilburn, yeah of course I'll help. You've been doing alot of reading yourself I see? Thanks for all your help on this. I'm really impressed with your work on the Kirkcaldy article, its come leaps and bounds and you should be proud. Dunfermline's coming along too. Could we resinstate the image of Balbirnie House on the Glenrothes article? I really like that image, and I think it acts as a stark constrast to the modern buildings in the town. I'll look through those books and the masterplan document and i'll feed the relevant page numbers to you. Thanks, Mcwesty (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got the page numbers for you.

An essay for today- The Scottish new towns 1947-1997 Cowling, D. Ref a-pg31, b-pg102, c-pg34, d-pg36, e-pg47, f-pg41, g- remove reference, h-pg46, i-pg47, j- remove ref, k-pg36, l-pg47, m-pg46-47, n-remove ref, o-pg47, p-pg47, q-pg47, r-pg43, s-pg45, t- remove ref, u-pg29, v-pg37, w-pg44-45, x-pg28, y-pg28-29, z-pg40-41, aa-pg29, ab-pg44, ac-remove ref.

Glenrothes: A guide to Scotland's new town in Fife. GDC. Ref a-pg2, b-change ref to Cowling Pg29. c-pg9, d-pg12, e-pg2-3 & pg7-8, f-pg2-3, g-pgs4&10, h-pg4, i-pg4.

Glenrothes New town masterplan 1970 GDC. Ref a-pg37, b-pg43-44, c-pg35, d-pg90, e-pg52

Mcwesty (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need my permission to make changes. But thank you for consulting with me, its very much apprecaited. Im happy enough for the view from Falkland Hill image to be used, so long as it doesnt appear too small or distort the page in anyway. I had originally intended to use it in the infobox but was worried for those reasons.

The Ex Terra image you added is good, even if we have to lose the image of the hippos for it. In a ideal world it would be great to include more images of the artworks round the town as there are some great examples, but as you say there just isnt the space.

I would like to make a few more minor edits to some of the changes you made under education and culture sections, just to correct some minor inaccuracies. I hope to add some new images once the new college extension and new Fife Institute are built. Also replace the image of the bus station with a better one.

Some of the references still need work and im really struggling to find spare time to work on them. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Mcwesty (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the more editors who read an article with a critical eye the better. It's often hard to find someone to copyedit, proofread, or review because we're all so busy. If you work with any of the Wikipedia projects, sometimes you can find someone to swap favors with; that is, you can swap reviews (or copyedits). Other editors always see things in my work that I have missed, and their suggestions are almost always helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your handle on the Kircaldy edit history and had to chuckle. Did you know there's a Gaelic tongues twister about a burning kiln? It goes Mas i d' àth i, bàth i, bàthaidh mis' i mas i m' àth i... loosely "if it's your kiln, you extinguish it, if it's my kiln, i'll extinguish it". Thought I'd share this bit of trivia ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilnburn, I've just reverted the last couple of Kirkcaldy edits you made; evidently some mistake as the High Street's a wee bit longer than 4 metres! I could make a guess at what was intended but it's probably better if I leave it to you. Aw the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't suggest any other ways to improve the article significantly. It may be a good idea, as you indicate, to expand the Economy section if you have further relevant information. Otherwise, if I were you I'd read it through once more, take a deep breath, then see what they make of it at FAC. It certainly won't disgrace itself there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give reasons for what are apparently disappearing churches, in the discussion page? It would be helpful to fill in the edit summaries. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new image makes the bridge harder to see due to the light. OTOH, we can see so much more water... - Denimadept (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we don't duplicate the work, I'm working on splicing the history section from Dundee into the History of Dundee article, here: User:Catfish_Jim_and_the_soapdish/History_of_Dundee. Cheers Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It would appear that you are a regular contributor to articles regarding Tayside and Fife. I have proposed the creation of WikiProject Tayside and Fife to improve the quality of all of the articles which fall into the scope of the project. I would hope that you and other contributors would like to indicate their interest in the project. If you would like to join please add your name on WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tayside and Fife. If the project gets a reasonable amount of interest I will create a draft of the WikiProject (after consultation with editors who are interested) in my userspace and then will create the WikiProject. Thank you. Andrewmc123 14:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this article. http://www.cinematical.com/2010/07/14/the-time-i-got-obsessed-with-a-raging-bull-inaccuracy/

Where did you get the idea that the Reagan shooting hurt "Raging Bull's" chances at the Oscars? It's not in the book you cited in the source ("The Making of Raging Bull"), and it doesn't make sense anyway, as voting was finished several days before the shooting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.94.184 (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Kirkcaldy Station.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 website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this? Nice to get some recognition now and again. http://fifeserve.com/_the_lang_toun.html Mcwesty (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own the book in question so I can't comment on whether or not it is a good source for these facts. I suggest that you open a discussion on the article talk page about where/whether the facts should go in the article—I can see why they have been put where they are, but I can also see why you think they would be better in the history section. Possibly one or both sections need re-writing to better incorporate the information.—Jeremy (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think, for the sake of consistency, that the twin town section should probably stay. Having a brief look at other UK cities, they all seem to have twin town/city sections. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the article, it's not a million miles from GA. I'm going to give the Transport section a fairly thorough going-over and I'll have a look at Geography over the next couple of days. I intend to nominate it for GA by the end of the week. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... well maybe the beginning of next week!

I'm going to finish those two sections and make a list of tasks that need completing, which I'll post on the talk page. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilnburn... it's been a bit of a mammoth task so far, but we're getting there. I've had to slow down a bit as I'm slightly occupied elsewhere on Wikipedia, but normal service will resume in a few days. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilnburn, I see you have been busy. Kirkcaldy article's looking great. Anyway just to say, liking the new pics. However, it would be nice to know exactly why you deleted mine in favour of your own? I think you'd agree it would be more constructive to pull our resources and take alternate images rather than competing ones. I think we both share the aspiration to help improve the Dunfermline's article. Mcwesty (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your query, please refer to the "Nomination procedure" at WP:FAC, and complete step 5. You've set up the FAC review page, but you have not listed it on the list of candidates. Until its listed, no-one will realise its been nominated and you won't get any reviews! Good luck with the review, I may chip in if I get time. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kirkcaldy royal coat of arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilnburn, just wanted to let you know I have been and will try to continue doing some basic copyediting at Kirkcaldy, so please be careful in case of editing clashes. You just blootered some clarifcations and rephrasing I did in the Landmarks section when you added in refs. I've reverted to my changes so it's all okay now but please keep an eye out.

Article's looking pretty good, I have to say. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilnburn. Thank you for the tip off. I'll have a re-read of the books. I suspect the creation of Ex Terra was one of a number of contributors for them appointing a town artist.

Yoostar (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Knowle West, Bristol/archive1 as I would like to take it to WP:FAC. Any comments that would help achieve this will be most welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilnburn,

thank you for the advice. I will discuss with the FA reviewer to get his thoughts on it. Its never been raised as an issue before. But I will certainly keep it in mind.

Yoostar (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Drift" is soil/parent material formed from glacial deposits, and "thin drift" is one that is light in texture. I guess it's of insufficient density to support foundations.

Is it necessary to mention the archaeology west of the high street? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my recent edits regarding the raised beach (there's nothing "so-called" about it). I'm not sure if your version of the source is numbered the same as mine but it's clear in mine from pp 5-7, 40 and 46 that it's simply the physical boundary of a steep raised beach inland from the High Street which limited the town's development westward until the 19th century. The 1960s/70s reappraisal was an academic one of the significance of raised beaches, which "laid the foundations for a series of research projects".

Regarding the thin drift, I'm rather puzzled by this. Firstly in regard to where in particular this area is, as it's potentially pretty large and there are some houses and farm buildings etc. on it. Also it doesn't appear to be of such a special character that it would make building difficult, let alone impossible. What exactly does the source say? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the opinion of an outsider is of any use, on seeing the above it made me realise that I do have an impression that there have been some slightly puzzling and often unnecessary changes of pictures on Fife related articles over some period of time. To be honest I can't remember who made the changes I'm thinking of and it may not even have been either of you two but I do remember some unwarranted critical comments in edit summaries along the lines of "replaced with better picture", when I often could either see no clear improvement or in some cases the replacement was actually less good. You are both capable of good work and it would be a shame if you end up effectively edit warring over photos.

As regards the two Pittencrieff house pictures, they both have their merits. The one that was there earlier today was bright and sharp, though as it is taken dead centre to one of the sides it is rather flat and a little sterile. The one which is there now gives a clear idea of the house's shape, perspective and its context in the park and with neighbouring buildings and people. For what it's worth, I have a preference for the current one but I think they are both good.

In future, for the time being at least, it might be an idea to give each other a shout if you are contemplating replacing one of the other's photos to discuss the reason why you think it should be changed. If you can't reach agreement I'd be happy to pitch in with any thoughts - but don't let's make it a competition. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have the permission of the authors/creators to use the waterfront and Maggies Centre images and to edit them? Im reluctant to use them until I have that confirmed.

Mcwesty (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

like Riverside Park, the Beveridge Park also has a artifical lake (pond). the lake is a key feature of the park. Beveridge Park is the main park in Kirkcaldy, a part of the town's history and listed in Scotland The Best as one of Scotland's best town parks (for which there is no mention of any of the public parks in neighbouring Glenrothes). and after all, you have a picture of the Riverside Park Pond in the Glenrothes collage, a park that is arguably not as well known as Beveridge. therefore, i don't see why i can't have a picture of the Beveridge Park Pond as part of the collage.

i can understand why a picture of the Old Kirk Tower hovering over Hendry Hall (the name of the Victorian building which used to the church hall of the Kirk between the entrance to the Kirk and graveyard; the Pancake Place is actually further down a bit) on Kirk Wynd would have been a better image rather than the one chosen for the collage. i have though taken a picture of the Old Kirk Tower which shows both the front entrance and clock to the right. what do you think? good replacement image? get back to me on that one.

Im not sure what your question is? I still think that the image from Tollbooth Street is more distinctive.

the Clock Tower of the Town House is fine and is a landmark in the town. the picture of the Esplanade though isn't that great. i have taken a picture of The Esplanade from the other direction, but i'm not sure if it is good enough. so there will go, that's my view.

I think if you could find a better image of the esplanade it would look better.

In the mean time i'll post the collage and I can evolve it like I did the others when newer images come along.

Mcwesty (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

judging on your comments, mcwesty. i agree with mutt lucker over the picture of the Old Kirk. the building looks as though it is too big for the picture! i am going to upload the picture that i have suggested (the one showing the entrance to the tower and clock to the right). who knows, you might actually like it. i'm just puzzled as to how you can get a view of the Old Kirk Tower from Tolbooth Street? how it is possible?

Check this site out. It has some really good pictures of the Old Kirk as I described. [1] Mcwesty (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

concerning the lake in Beveridge Park, i have taken two other pictures of the lake; one which shows the northern edge of the lake and another showing the far right edge of the lake. what do you think? and please understand i am not trying to start a competition with you over this.

agree with the Esplanade picture; it needs to be replaced and i'm glad we both see that. i'm just not sure about the picture i have suggested. but i'm going to upload it nevertheless so you can see what it looks like. as well as this, i did take a new picture of the Merchant's House a while back (i only used an old one so i didn't have to)

after all, the images can be chopped and changed at the drop of a hat if you are not happy with them. Kilnburn (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is addressed to you both: when I saw this I wondered if I should just keep my neb out and leave you two to sort it out. On reflection, since I've been involved as a neutral commentator regarding the material in question and as, if required, silly-buggeriness-avoidance facilitator, if this is getting in the press now, perhaps I ought to know more details. If though, for instance, there are confidentiality/real life identity issues in discussing this on a talk page, e-mail me (telling me on my talk page that you've e-mailed me). Or if you think it's better I kept out, tell me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to contact you via e-mail to get this sorted out, once and for all, but i do not how to do this safely so it does not interfere with this website. Kilnburn (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to my user pager and under the toolbox at the left of the page click on "E-mail this user". This give full details if you're interested. I don't check this e-mail account very often (I have one which I just use for wiki purposes) so make sure you post on my talk page to let me know you have e-mailed me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to get caught up in anything either but, as I edit and watch some Fife articles, I thought it may be something I'd have difficulty ignoring since you two are major contributors to these articles too. I don't want to duck out of these articles for the sake of a quiet life. For Mcwesty's benefit, yes I was in touch with Kilnburn under his previous username too.

If this is largely related to the Glenrothes article, it's one I'm not so familiar with. I have made the odd edit on it but it's not on my watchlist currently. I'm not particularly keen on trawling through the history so I'll just make general comments about any impressions I have.

I do remember Kilnburn making comments regarding comparisons of Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy quite some time in the past which, to me, did not appear to show a NPOV. I can't remember if these were in talk pages, edit summaries or in articles but I do remember that it did concern me to an extent. It was my impression that more recently this was not manifest in his edits to any significant degree but, if this regards the Glenrothes article, I wouldn't be aware.

I did have a very quick skim through the GA review on the Glenrothes talk page. Some issues of neutrality were raised but all seem to have been amended quickly and without fuss or addressed in some other way, by citation or by considered discussion. I don't see anything problematic here.

I may be misinterpreting the comment on the Courier site but it does seem rather point-scoring and small town chauvinistic. That said, it was made outside Wikipedia and I suppose we ought not to be hampered from expressing our POV in "the real world". Any unsupported cheerleading or sniping clearly has no place here though and any resulting diputes are time wasted that could be spent more constructively improving the articles. I'd agree that this is not a competition to promote one town over the other. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise to you, Mcwesty and i should never have made any of those comments. I hope my apology is accepted.

Now let's get this collage on the Kirkcaldy article sorted out. Of all the pictures in the collage, in my opinion, the Town House Clock Tower is the best and i would like to retain it. I have taken three new pictures: one looking down the slope towards the lake in the Beveridge Park; Merchant's House and the Old Kirk Tower which i want to add to the collage. All three have been approved by mutt. However, if you still want me to include a picture of the High Street in the collage, then let me know. Kilnburn (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this draws a line under the matter and we can now all pull in the same direction. Mcwesty, I hear what you're saying. Kilnburn and I have had a very frank and constructive e-mail correspondence and I am hopeful we can move on without a continuation of the conflict. You may also have seen our discussion below about the care that needs to be taken with edits. Kilnburn, I can't fault you for your hard graft but, as you can see, others are getting frustrated with having to clear up clumsy edits, misinterpreted sources and poorly expressed phrasing. Please be more patient and careful and read back not just your edits but the context in which you've placed them. You show by the far the greatest improvement in editing that I have seen in any editor that I've had dealings with but I still find myself tearing my hair out too often. I hope you've learned a few things here and that your work will strengthen. Let's play nicely now.

Regarding the new pictures for the collage, I like them but I'd appreciate hearing Mcwesty's views on them too, both on their own and in regard to how they'd work together in a collage; and it's the Bevvie Park pond, no a lake. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely, this is why i have taken your advice. i'm in the process of sorting out my own phrasing and to make sure that it clearly reflects the source material. i will though take my time doing the work. anyway, i will welcome Mcwesty's opinion on the pictures. Kilnburn (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kilnburn, apology accepted. Lets draw a line under this and move on.

Mutt, appreciate your input.

I like the images. I need some time to see if I can work them into the collage. I still think there is a need to find a better image of the esplanade/waterfront as well.

Mcwesty (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read over your edits today, imagining you are somebody coming to the info for the first time. There is some copyediting required, for sense and punctuation. I've been dipping in after you when I can in the past but as this is a consistent characteristic of your editing, can I ask that you take more care to read back your edits and address any copyediting issues yourself. The order that the facts are presented in some sentences makes them potentially confusing, even nonsensical and a few commas are amiss, changing the sense of what you have written. You have improved vastly in this regard in the intervening years since we've known each other but there is still some way to go.

For instance, what is the report that talks about salt panning in Kirkcaldy and does it really only "suggest" or does state it flat out? Were Kirkcaldy's salt pans really situated (geographically) behind those of Musselburgh and Prestonpans or were they ", behind" (only those of..,. in terms of production)? Did Smith write a book at the site of a house, or actually in a house? Etc., etc. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done so far is a start but please reread what I've said above, reread your edits carefully and keep going with expressing them more clearly. You may regard this as minor but poorly expressed material could delay or even scupper FA status. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits and placed some tags related to your Kirkcaldy edits today. I'd appreciate it if you'd take some time to look at each one and its edit summary, no matter how small it may look. Some of the (apparently) smallest changes significantly change the sense of the sentence.

Although, as mentioned, your editing has improved almost beyond recognition, much of what I've adressed today is typical of remaining flaws in your editing style. The material you add is usually pretty good but because of some carelessness in expression, various editors, not just myself, come in to clear up and copyedit behind you. This is a luxury you should try to avoid relying on. It would be better if you yourself could learn to avoid the flaws. Take some time to study in detail when changes are made to your text. We're doing it for a reason. If you don't understand any of my changes, ask me.

Lastly, just in regard to keeping the thread: if you're responding to something I've written here, please respond here (I'll see it; this page is on my watchlist). If you want to carry on a thread that's on my talk page, continue it there. If the discussion is on the talk page of an article I've been editing, I'll also be watching that. If I don't respond, drop me a short line on my talk page telling me where to look. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm glad all edits have now been sorted out, some of which i managed to fix myself such as the supply of nails being sent to the royal master of works for repairs at Holyrood Palace. however, i was still making careless edits such as mentioning the word, building twice in a sentence about the renovation of the Museum and Art Gallery which i should have picked up on. i have had a re-read of the article and don't see any other problems. what about yourself? Kilnburn (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've been spending so much time firefighting, making piecemeal clear-ups whenever you make an edit that I'm reluctant to spend more time right now. I'm not convinced they have all been mopped up so am reluctant to give it a clean bill of health unless and until I have a chance to look over the article systematically. I have other things I need to do right now.

As mentioned, you are finding useful material to add but please take more time over your edits, read them back and try to see what they actually say, not what you mean them to say. Look to see if there are any omissions or ambiguities. Maybe read the whole article again, bearing this in mind for every sentence.

If you don't start taking more care I may lose patience and leave errors unaddressed, which is not going to help any future reviews. Take this more slowly so that you can check your edits. Better to get it right slowly than cover more ground but b- it up. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments at the peer review. I would appreciate any comments/support that you may care to offer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knowle West, Bristol/archive1. Tx. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not returning to your old habits of competing over photographs and removing or replacing those of others in articles to which you have contributed photos. I have returned the picture of Path House to the Kirkcaldy article as it is a good shot and it is simply not the case to say there is no room for it. Aye, Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, the Path House is a good picture. why i removed it, was because there was a small gap in the text on the section (it might not be the case on your computer). i can understand your concern and that's fine with me. i'll just have to watch that next time. Kilnburn (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nae bo'r. Displays fine for me by the way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as a matter of interest, how do you think the article is looking now, mutt lunker? is there anything that i have missed that should be mentioned?

also while i'm here, i have a picture of the Kirkcaldy townscape to the south-west and of the hills (are they called the Binns?) above Kinghorn and Burntisland from near the Ravenscraig dovecot, which i would like to add to the collage. i have not uploaded the picture though, but i am wondering if it would make a good contribution to the collage? this would replace the picture of The Esplanade. Kilnburn (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new townscape, maybe after trimming a bit to a panorama/letterbox shape, which I'm sure Mcwesty could facilitate if you ask. Certainly prefer it to the esplanade shot. As far as I'm aware the hills don't have a name collectively. The OS 1:50k doesn't state one certainly. The Binn is the hill above Burntisland but it isn't the highest point. You can see the mast of the Craigkelly transmitting station on it in your shot. The next prominence to the right is Dunearn hill (the highest point), then the hill at Orrock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's very interesting, didn't know the hills don't have a name. i did notice the tower on the picture, thinking it must surely be Craigkelly. i feel though the collage is complete now.

anyway, do you think the article is ready to be put forward again as a candidate for FA status in the near future? Kilnburn (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel well placed to comment as I've lost track a bit with an overall picture of the article since I last did a major copy editing drive on it; also I'm not particularly au fait with the process for featured articles etc. You were given advice after the last nomination - have you addressed all of these points? You may well have done, as far as you can, but my impression is that you have also added a significant amount of new material which will not have been addressed in the last review, or substantially changed sections that had been extensively copyedited by other editors, including myself. MOS and copyediting issues are a, if not the, greatest issue which needs addressed in this article and as you wrote the bulk of the text in the current version of the article (for which, well done with your hard work) this is a reflection of the limitations in your ability to express the information, which I know you acknowledge. The more you add material, or re-write copyedited material the more of a problem this becomes. To get closer to reaching FA we need to get to a stable version which has been extensively copyedited by others who have addressed any deficiencies in your prose and every time you hack it about, the further we get from that. I know you're busting to add in more information but stick to addressing the matters highlighted in the FA review and think of the strategy to adopt in turns of polishing what is already there, rather than making major structural changes, additions or re-writes, unless specifically directed to.

I'd have to say that I rather gave up trying to copyedit the article as it became such a shifting target, often with significant correction work required when you had made significant edits.

Brianboulton offered to look over the article again once further work had been done on it and he may be in a better position to give advice on specific points which need to be addressed. It might be worthwhile pointing him to my comments above though for a view of how the article has changed since he last looked over it. Aw the best. Aye, Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's what i was thinking; it would be a good idea to let Brianboulton look at the article again. i will take your advice and get in contact with him.

you've done more than enough for me. seriously. and i thank you once again for all your work. don't worry i will not be adding any more information to the article. Kilnburn (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun reading through the article and making notes. So far I've only covered the lead and History sections, but have found quite a bit to comment on. Whether I can find the time to give the same level of attention to the rest, I don't know; it will clearly take a while, but I'll do my best. Probably, any immediate plans for another stab at FAC should be put on hold. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely, i want to make sure the article is ready for when it does go under another FAC. thanks for your edits, just see what you can get done. Kilnburn (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, however I'm trying to take a wikibreak at present due to family health issues so can't spend much time on this. I think you've done lots of good work on the article and wish you luck with FAC. On a very quick scan I did spot Jacobites is a dab page, but sorry I will not be looking at it in more detail.— Rod ^talk 08:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'd be glad to help. Here's my first suggestion. Add OCLCs for books in the bibliography that lack ISBNs. WorldCat usually has them. Here's the one for the P.K. Livingstone book, for example, OCLC 12584002. More to come. I'll post my other comments to the article's talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never actually done a conversion of that sort. Googling, I found this site that might help. You might have to calculate by hand and use "approximately" or a similar hedge, citing this site or something similar. Finetooth (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted some comments on the Governance section, on the article's talkpage. I'll have a go at Geography next. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Dunfermline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I completely understand that you did that in good faith. But I don't think any information regarding the awards should be deleted. You can retain the concise paragraph and then provide the list of awards and nominations. Thanks. smaro! 05:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I added some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kirkcaldy/archive5. Great aritcle! --Noleander (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Kilnburn, I see you've contributed to Dunfermline. I've had a go at drafting an article on Viewfield House. I'm not thrilled with it - it's a bit dull and a bit close to the listed building text, but it may be a start. Anything you feel like doing (adding, editing, pruning, rewording, sources, images...) would be very welcome. Maybe you know other editors from the Dunfermline area who could help? And maybe you could let me know whether I should just delete it or risk it in mainspace.

Many thanks in advance for your time Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Berlin up for peer review. Comments would be appreciated. Kingjeff (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review template you placed on the talk page isn't correctly completed. You need to chose a category and tell us why you want one... its showing up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Article alerts but there isn't any way of actioning it at present. Cheers, Ben MacDui 21:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I picked up your account details from the list of Peer Review volunteers and if you get the opportunity to look at an article I've been working on it would be very much appreciated! Wikipedia:Peer_review#Crystal_Palace, London, article at Crystal Palace, London. SheffGruff (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kirkcaldy page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more! Lirazelf (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, linkfail! Here's the correct one... Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon Lirazelf (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Forge Shopping Centre logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Charles II plaque, Dunfermline.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 13:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Malcolm's tower sign.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) 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandford_Fleming#Legacy The historic plaque is somewhere in Ontario, Canada. I'm guessing Peterborough or Ottawa. Do you happen to know? Feel free to make the correction. If not, I'll do some online research to see where it is.Tetsuo (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.