User talk:Brymor

The Winter of Our Discontent
I was [the?] one who went through and "citation needed"-ed the article. You've done a great job finding respectable sources for those. Nice work, keep it up, and thanks. Vincent Moon (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, Vincent. I don't really blame the original author(s) for not including citations, it is hard work! Easier in my case, because I had just completed an article on the Faustian Bargain in fiction, and already had the references to hand. However, I might not have edited the wiki article if you hadn't tagged it, so thanks to you for doing that - it certainly needed it! Brymor (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Sarah Lucas FT Julian Simmons 2015c.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sarah Lucas FT Julian Simmons 2015c.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I have contacted the photographer's agent asking for permission. I will reload the file if I get it, otherwise I will forget it, as I have completely failed to find a free equivalent pic of Sarah Lucas.Brymor (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Medea James Morwood 1996b.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Medea James Morwood 1996b.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Non-free use rationale clarified. Brymor (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored the deletion tag. It specifically states "do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded".  Although you have changed the rationale, the image is still not the subject of significant sourced commentary and so the primary reason for deletion still applies (WP:NFCC). To dispute the deletion, you can make your case on the file's talk page, but please do not remove the deletion tag again. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes,interesting. The deletion tag says "Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern",and I thought I had! Now you have clarified things, I see I had covered the first objection, but not the second. I have now argued for the file's inclusion on the talk page, which answers the second objection, I hope. Brymor (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Wadham College Gazette
Hi, I had a look at User:Brymor/sandbox and I am not sure that the Wadham College article needs to mention the Wadham College Gazette. I checked a couple of neighbouring colleges, Trinity and Balliol and also Trinity, Cambridge and their articles do not mention their alumni magazines.The problem with the paragraph is that information about the gazette is sourced to the gazette itself, while Wikipedia aims to summarise what independent sources say about a subject, not what it says about itself. I think a sentence like "The college publishes an annual magazine for alumni, the Wadham College Gazette" would be reasonable. TSventon (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You make a valid point about Trinity and Balliol not mentioning such magazines. A counter argument would be to point to the article on The Harrovian, a similar publication, which scarcely rates article status, but there it is. I personally think that Wikipedia would be enhanced by a section on the Wadham Gazette because it is alluded to in several articles, but as I said earlier, i am not happy with my draft, so another editor will have to do it. I had hoped that your skills as a Private Investigator might have unearthed something useful, but having searched myself, I agree that adequate references are thin on the ground.


 * In the meantime, I have added the short sentence you suggest. Brymor (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't expect college magazines to be of much interest to independent sources, but I did an internet search to check. I don't have access to any relevant offline sources. I couldn't remember any Oxford college articles mentioning alumni magazines, so I looked at a couple to double check. (I later remembered St Anne's College, Oxford.) Arguments based on WP:OTHERSTUFF can be flawed as the material in the other article may well be nonnotable. As you say The Harrovian doesn't seem to be notable, but I haven't done any research to check.


 * By the way, do you have access to the The Wikipedia Library? If not, I can recommend it. TSventon (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting about St Anne's College, Oxford - well remembered! I am aware of a couple of independent sources that refer to The Wadham Gazette (Spectator, Patrick Leigh Fermor, see Henry Hardy), but would agree that does not in itself make the Gazette notable.


 * Thanks for alerting me to the Wikipedia Library. I do indeed have access, and it looks fascinating. I currently have my own link to JSTOR, but to have Wiley, SAGE and all the rest as well makes this a very powerful resource. Brymor (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have only scratched the surface of the Wikipedia Library, but Oxford Scholarship has several volumes of The History of the University of Oxford, which is a useful source for Oxford University articles. TSventon (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)