User talk:Duncancumming

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate reversion of vandalism, as you did at Texas Ranger Division. Unfortunately, you did not notice that the vandal had not only added nonsense, but also deleted a large section of text. When reverting vandalism, it's always a good idea to click the "diff" in the page history to see exactly what the vandal has done, and to restore the pre-vandalism version, rather than simply deleting nonsense the vandal has added. But still, thanks for helping us fight vandalism! --Angr ( tɔk ) 10:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
duncan, just to let you know, i have taken pictures for the Kirkcaldy article, so you didn't have to. i'll get them hopefully uploaded onto the computer tommorrow, but how and where i do submit them after that?

P.S. i plan to get Ravenscraig Park & Castle and Beveridge Park, Kirkcaldy Promenade and Beveridge Park at a later date although depending on if and where they might fit in the article and i would always submit them onto wikipedia commons if not. Kilnburn (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mutt Lucker
i feel Mutt Lucker is behaving like a control freak to me (don't do this and don't do that, telling me off for forgetting to sign in and not believing me. bothering me over the now lack of info for the Waterfront development which i think was a good idea) and i don't like it. here's some proof

i'm trying my best to please, but he can't stop intervering in pointing out my flaws and it both very annoying and is putting a lot of pressure on me. he just simply has no right to do this to me and by the way he talks about me being a pest. does he behave like this to anyone else? i just think it is sad, that he finds amusement in bullying me. if he has no patience with me, then he should keep away, because he doesn't have to deal with me if he doesn't want to. i also think he is very boastful and has an ego problem personally, if it all right with you, can i report him? would it be a good idea, because i'm stopping edits on this website until this gets sorted out and i'm serious now.

and mate, you have nothing to feel sorry about, because you treated very well Kilnburn (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll keep this reply brief, because I see Mutt has replied elsewhere which I hope has cleared some things up.

Don't take all his comments personally. I think we all have a common goal of an improved Kirkcaldy article. Most of his advice is very good indeed. You should Assume Good Faith, i.e. don't assume he is trying to bully you, but rather assume he is trying to help you. His comments may seem a bit direct or tactless at times, but I'm sure they're not meant to harrass you. --duncan (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

right, that's v. important. managed to get things patched up with Mutt so i'm very happy about that. sorry, anyway Kilnburn (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes
Please join us in discussing a topic concerning a Rotten Tomatoes % in the Wikifilm infobox. It would be appreciated.

Template_talk:Infobox_Film--P-Chan 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Road to Guantanamo
What exactly happened to the image when the IMDB-rating was added and apparently broke the image according to you. Just wondering since it didn't break anything to me and I can't figure out how it could. Martin Ulfvik 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When I looked at it, the image didn't appear, although this may have been due to temperamental Wikipedia servers. Looking at your change, it looked like:

caption       = IMDB  7.4/10 (381 votes) Which doesn't seem quite right to me; what's that bit doing? I assumed that was what broke it, and reverted your edit rather than try and fix it. Also I partly decided to do this due to the discussion currently happening on the infobox_film talk page, where the general consensus seems to be to do away with having the rating at all, and just link to the site. --duncan 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Was not aware of that discussion, thanks for the reply. Martin Ulfvik 07:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding mass bolding in NP articles
I don't believe you're meant to bold every instance of the title.

The only things that should be bolded in Wikipedia articles are the first instance of the title and any other related terms in the first paragraph or so.--coblin 09:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the complexity classes are all meant to be in bold, all the time, based on this, but I'm quite possibly wrong, so feel free to unboldify all but the first instance. Creidieki should be able to confirm/deny if you're correct. --duncan 11:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Space Invader
Hey. I just wanted to let you know that I moved the page Space Invader to Invader (artist), as I've always seen the person referred to as just "Invader" (and that's what it says on space-invaders.com). I hope this is OK. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any problem with it. --Galaxiaad 21:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Freaklub
Hi,

You cite the right guidelines, but we counted differently. You failed to notice MgM, who didn't bold-face his remark, but did support deletion. That leaves us with an even count. Now, from here, there are four tiny things that all added up for me to close this as "endorse deletion":

1. Both TorontoTruthBringer and Badlydrawnjeff gave very spare reasons; Jeff's reason, "undelete per A7" is technically odd. One cannot undelete per CSD; I assume Jeff meant "undelete because I believe A7 wasn't followed" but his reasoning isn't clearly given. TTB didn't cite any policy in his minimal comment.

2. One vote was changed at the end of the debate; at AfD, changes during the course of discussion are elements it is with admin discretion to consider, because "convincing people" is evidence of consensus. While this isn't formally part of DRV policy, admin discretion is, and I think such changes to be marginal considerations weighing my decision.

3. There was a point of contention between Zoe and Trialanderrors over whether the phrase "best known for" (the best claim of meeting A7 in the article) constitutes an assertion of notability for A7 purposes. In my judgment as a neutral closer, Zoe provided superior arguments on that point. I am "best known for", perhaps, being fat and ugly, but I am not "well-known" (in any encyclopedic sense) by any stretch of the imagination.

4. TorontoTruthBringer is, unfortunately, a "serial voter" at these discussions. While I don't discount his comments automatically, I do look more strongly into his reasoning, because his pattern of voting suggests that he would vote to "overturn" almost anything. When he fails to provide reasoning, I do discount his comment. I discounted his comment in this case.

Reason 4 above is the "technical" reason within policy why my count came out as 5-4 for endorse closure, but all of the reasons taken together were what made me feel secure that "deletion endorsed" was right in spirit as well as policy. Don't despair though -- lots of folks agreed a good article could be written here with the additional evidence you cited. You just need to do a better job of highlighting reasons for notability in your new rewrite. I'll be happy to "userfy" the deleted content to you if that will help in the rewrite. This is a wiki, so a speedy deletion (or even an AfD) is never binding on truly improved rewrites. For the above given reasons, though, I stand the DRV closure as the proper one. Let me know if you'd like the content to be userfied. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I still don't buy it, and in fact it seems to me like the whole Deletion Review process the article went through was flawed. "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process".  The main problem with the initial speedy deletion was that the original deletor hadn't followed any of the correct procedure; it should have been AfD'd, and I should have been notified, and he should have put in an appropriate reason for the deletion. However the Review process mostly ignored all that, and concentrated on editors' opinions of the content.  Not much I can do about it other than start again... so yes, please userfy the original page so I can get it to a standard where it won't be speedily deleted by random administrators acting on a whim. --duncan 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is now here: User:Duncancumming/Freaklüb. On one point only, I do understand your frustation: saying only "deleted" in the log is very bad, as the deleting admin needs to give a reason.  I subscribe to the view that the deletion log is only communication needed between article writer and deleter -- if deleter has been mistaken, writer can come to him or DRV.  Writer does deserve at least some reason, of course.


 * In your case, I would have A7'ed this also, and there is a possibility I might have A1'ed it too for lack of context. While short articles aren't bad for that reason alone, it isn't just notability that is lacking in this draft.  Wikipedia needs to know what this group does, exactly.  Are they underground criminals famous for evading police with their art, or legitimate commercial artists?  I suspect that latter, but you didn't even specify that, much less any details of their accomplishments -- something like that is absolutely essential to this article, even as a stub.  Frankly, this was speedy deleted because it was a very spare, unclear first draft.  The content deserved its fate, and I'm sure you can do better. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop it
NOW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Bates (talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 November 2006.
 * Stop what exactly? --duncan 08:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi, I have been just trawling the history of Beefheart et al - and came across the Gary Lucas article which you did some edits some months ago - and I am quite astonished at how the whole thing reads like ad lib pr pieces trather than a proper wikipedia article - and most edits done by a red link who hasnt even a single talk item despite six months nothing other than that article! (?)  I am wondering whether you concur or not - or whether one expects that standard from that sort of art? SatuSuro 14:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi SatuSoro, yes I mostly agree with you. I don't recall how I came across the Gary Lucas article, just at random probably, or from another band's article perhaps.  I recall it was quite badly put together, frequent reference to him by his first name, POV statements etc.  I made a few minor edits to improve it where I could, then left it. I don't know anything about Lucas, but it sounded like either he's a musical and guitar genius and legend, or a complete blowhard. --duncan 18:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Maggie's centre
That's a nice image of the kirkcaldy maggies centre - do you have any more? I'm thinking about a major expansion of the article in the near future and some more pics would be great. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Duncancumming, i have a proposal.

you have an image of the Kirkcaldy Maggie's Centre don't you?

well you see, i started the Victoria Hospital article with information added about the newly built Maggie's Centre. since Kirkcaldy needs some more pictures, it's a bit unbalanced, can you submit where it is neccessary?

what do you think of this? let me know.

I. Thomson 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy
I was going to do some cleaning up of the article myself, but the constant additions made me lose the will to live! Fraslet 23:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the work you did earlier on it, it's a constant battle against badly written POV nonsense about shops and road junctions.--duncan 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It just gets worse and worse, you remove one section of garbage and another two appear! It's almost a legend in its own right, or something. Fraslet 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunfermline and Glenrothes are also getting lots of spurious edits lately too!--duncan 20:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Having spotted your sterling efforts at licking this article into shape I'd like to say how much I agree with what you both say above. Much of it is a bloated rag-bag of barely literate and numbingly trivial insignificance. I've found myself tinkering with sections which I'd frankly rather obliterate. Mutt Lunker 14:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's a constant battle against the addition of brain cell destroying detail, I have tried to tell the particular editor responsible that their edits are way too much information and will most likely be removed but they have taken no notice. Fraslet 14:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work from you both, which helps enormously. User I. Thomson threatens to make Kirkcaldy one of the most impressive Scottish Wikipedia pages! --duncan 15:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried to engage him in some debate but he either doesn't see it or is ignoring it completely. Fraslet 17:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

oh dear, the Kirkcaldy article has some nasty brewing going on, a lot worse than i thought it would be. fraslet, the reason i did not reply in any debate was the fact i could not find the proper link to do the function. i wasn't "ignoring" it.

i haven't exactly been very happy about the way you treat my work (it may or may not comply with the T & Cs) and i feel like i have been treated rotten on the website. yes, my writing style may not be perfect, i know. i don't like to rant or get annoyed, but either i'm not reaching your level of standard or i'm trying new things which you don't like, either way let's be honest, the mention of the shops in the Mercat is only "meant" to be brief and it's going to be there for something you "might" want to know, but you just discriminate it as soon as you see it, do you "seriously" think we are all "clever" people, they have as much importance as anything else, it's what i am and what i'm about. if you have a problem, then you get in touch and discuss what the trouble is! i take a high stance for what i produce, i "really" like to see people adding onto my work if there is something i didn't know about.

i'm afraid, i have also been very hurt by the nastiness you have caused me, yes all the "nasty" comments, so if you want me to stay, then i want a formal apology.

i want to help but i have a form of autism (mild high-functioning asperger's syndrome) and i can at times, find it difficult to understand instructions etc, but i do "think" differently from most people, so you appreciate that, if you and if you do i will admire that all the better

let me have my say, first of all, is there anything you would like "me" to remove or cut down on the Kirkcaldy article, if you think it is appropriate? i'll tell you what i think would be a good idea i saw on the Dunfermline page, is to provide links on seperate pages of add. info. for The Mercat and the Retail Park development, so to save room. leaving Kirkcaldy best suited for the history of the town, i would like to write an article on the cinema trade and the coal mining, pottery and linoleum trades as best as i can. i have removed the areas of Kirkcaldy because i felt it didn't tie in well to the article and it was very messy and uneccesary.

I. Thomson 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ian, apologies if you think we've been nasty to you, I think in all cases we've tried to keep it polite. Wikipedia has policies on this sort of thing that we don't want to violate.

Firstly, writing style. I posted an introductory welcome message on your talk page, which contained links to 6 articles. I strongly suggest you read as much of these as possible, as they will help. For me, these are the main problems with some of your edits:
 * No edit summary. Each time you make an edit, put a small summary in the box at the bottom of the form labelled 'Edit summary', e.g. "added shops information", "removed unencyclopedic content about areas", "fixed spelling mistake", etc.  This helps everyone else know what is going on with the article.  Especially useful if you're making lots of edits, which you do.
 * Un-encyclopedic information. This is usually the stuff that fraslet and I are removing from your edits, such as lists of shops. Again, the articles I linked to will give you guidance on what is and isn't suitable.  I think possibly the asperger's might be reflected in some of your edits, e.g. earlier edits where you went into a lot of detail about things like roads and roundabouts, listing shops and the dates they opened/closed, etc. I suggest also reading WP:TRIVIA
 * Sources. You need to provide sources for most of your edits, there is a policy of verifiability. So even if you know something to be true personally, unless a reliable verifiable source can be found for the claim, it shouldn't be here.
 * Spelling and grammar.  This is probably the least important, no article has to be perfect and these are easily fixed, especially spelling.  Sometimes I find your sentences overly long, and with unnecessary information, and occassionally odd use of words. If I had more time I'd give some examples here.

I think you're right, separate articles for some of the content could be a good idea, as this article is getting long. There is already a separate article for Raith Rovers, and I think there is currently too much duplicated information about them in this article that should only be in their separate article. Similarly one for the shopping centre, if it's suitable, might be an idea to prevent too much information being provided in the Kirkcaldy article. Articles on wemyss pottery and linoleum would be good, go ahead and create them and I'm sure we'll be on hand to edit them with you! --duncan 12:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

right, that's a target i want to reach, i want to start up the links for The Mercat and Retail Park if it's acceptable. the Raith Rovers article will be severly cut down, but first i need to study the coal mining and linoleum trades first, plus cinemas and re-write the small articles of the High Schools. i will need to find suitable sources for both points of view for Vieworth.

I. Thomson 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

i have started a linkage from The Mercat on Kirkcaldy to the new Mercat article. it's not great at the mo. i have cut unneccesary material from Raith Rovers and pasted it in their own article, but the cut material has appeared again! what's going on?

I. Thomson 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another user undid your edit for some reason. I'll sort it out, and make a change to how you've linked the articles.  I'll do a subsection for Raith in the Sport section, with a correctly formatted link to the main article.  Ditto for the Mercat article.

Also I've discovered there's already a Wemyss Ware article, but it needs some work (unless there's some other Kirkcaldy pottery article that you've got in mind for creating?). --duncan 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

well, that's (very) interesting. i haven't thought of anything yet, i want to wait until i get this current mess sorted out on the article, first.

I. Thomson 22:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

i will post an update on what i have done so far on Kirkcaldy. i have altered my own original work to The Mercat, changed layout and it's looking pretty good as a stand alone article, with a connected link from Kirkcaldy, it's cut a lot of info. that didn't really need to be there. thanks, duncancumming for that.

i have found a major gap in Raith's history concerning their stadium redevelopment, so the unneccessary extended info. on Kirkcaldy has been cut and pasted on their article. much better, i say. go have a look.

i am now looking at adding the new articles, plus adding one or two things to the current layouts. i will now focus on the coal mining and linoleum trades of Kirkcaldy, which i will entitle "Kirkcaldy's History" or "History of the Lang Toun" would be better. unfortunely, i don't know a lot of info, but i do have some books about it which will help. i will plan to start it next week.

then, i hope to extend the Town Hall article and write a more managable small article for Balwearie.

i have however been trying to find a picture, to use for Kirkcaldy Town Centre for the shopping centre. here it is:

http://www.fife.gov.uk/atoz/index.cfm?fuseaction=service.display&objectid=1BF82B45-E7FE-C7EA-08F67895CA20B28F

do you think it would be all right to use concerning copyright issues. since you have captured photos from the Kirkcaldy area, etc. are you able to obtain one? let me know, duncancumming

if i need help, then i know where to look.

I. Thomson 21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than use that small picture of the Mercat, I'm sure a better one can be found or taken. I'll see what I can do.  Also if you're using books as a source, that's fine, but you can list them as sources in the article. See Template:Cite_book. --duncan 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

right, that's very good of you, but personally i'm sure i can take a photo of the centre myself. i just wanted to know if i could find one without going to the bother (laziness prevails)

i haven't started on the article, yet. i would like to say.

i wish to discuss the sudden conjured article of town centre future, retail park and proposed lesiure park. the reason i kept them all seperate, was so it would it balance better and be easier to read. i always "find" it a bit ackward to read these sort of things. but this the thing i'm known for, i noticed the shop outlets at Fife Central had gone, but i don't understand why shop outlets have "allowed" to be retained on the Glenrothes article with the Queens Way. go have a look yourselves, it's there. so, i added them back in. what i do, is keep it as brief as possible. maybe it is to with finding source information and the stuff that doesn't match is removed. i have added the Morrisons Supermarket back in, yes it's not going to happen anymore, but i did read about it, but if i can find a source for it, then i think it should be kept.

final thing, is thank you to whoever added the other Roman Catholic primary schools as catchment for St Andrews. i should have known about St Agathas and i know where it is too in Leven!

I. Thomson 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work with your recent Kirkcaldy edits. I'd spotted with alarm the recent spiralling of the article towards rambling misspelled superfluity again but for practical reasons (travel for work, difficulty or impossibility of access to internet) and lack of time I'm essentially not able to edit at the moment. It's cheered me up massively to see someone on the case. Still a lot of dead wood to go though. The minutiae about entrances to buildings and their situational relation to nearby roads and the likes of the Chip shops in the vicinity of St. Andrew's High section strike me as less than essential. Anyway, good to see you stemming the tide. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good to see your continued watch on the article. Just to let you know, from a few hours time I probably won't have much internet access for the best part of a week and consequently won't be keeping much of an eye. Eh, have fun - hopefully you won't be provided with too much though! Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Saw your edits in the article and talk page today (all good stuff) and I've engaged in some amicable correspondence with the-user-formerly-known-as-I.Thomson (although I'm not quite sure which of his guises to address). I believe he's happier now, no longer feeling beleaguered and welcoming the comments from us both regarding channelling his efforts. Aye, Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comments to Silverburn are as ever spot on. I only just realised that Kilburn is the same person! --duncan (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, very confusing isn't it. I'll let him know to illustrate the point. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seemingly settled on the Kilnburn identity, he's been on the go again today and with more focus than previously, but still some of the old traits. I've had a go at a swift tidy up and left some more comments at User talk:Kilnburn but my eyes have started bleeding and I should stop for a bit. Would you mind casting an eye? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Armadale
Any chance you can remove the spam from Armadale, West Lothian so that I'm not the only one doing so? Fraslet 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll keep an eye on it--duncan 13:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I followed this blog link and fail to see any relevance in it - on top of it breaching WP:EL Stewart 20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a page about Armadale on his blog, but the link doesn't even seem to take you there. FWIW, the page about Armadale is full of POV rant about what a terrible place it is, not really suitable for an external link--duncan 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like he loves a good rant or the sound of his own voice, a search on google for his name reveals that. Fraslet 21:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, you two seem to also be major editors of the Armadale, West Lothian page. As I currently live there, I am in a position to add new information quickly and such, but I wanted your opinions on ways to improve the page.  Sorry if this is the wrong location, just didn't want to start a whole new part and have you guessing what I'm on about. Admiralross2400 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking a quick look at it, I'd say there are several grammatical and spelling mistakes that could be fixed. Major rewrite of some of the sentences would probably be best, e.g. Due to the noise eminating from the stadium when in use, especially by the speedway, and the building on new houses on the grounds surrounding the stadium, there are plans to demoilsh it.  Apart from that the article seems relatively short.  If there is any information you could add, I'd recommend creating sections within it.  e.g. as it currently stands, keep paragraph 1, then go Sport (move the sentence about the football team up), Education, Industry (or Development or something).  The bit about Honeyman and the name change could use some work; did he rename it after his estate, and when was that?  Also is it really famous for its pub?--duncan 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll get started.  Admiralross2400 10:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

flickr pics of the maggie's centre
They're great, some nice compositions. The construction photo's are really good too. There may be some sunnier pictures later, but the one's under construction are one-offs and very instructive. Would you mind uploading , , and to the commons. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Graffiti
Dear participant of WikiProject Graffiti, you assistance is needed and input required at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Graffiti. The project has become inactive and unfocused and I'm calling meeting to address these issues, and find a resolution. There is work to be done, and we are the ones to do it. Regards, Dfrg.msc 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Expanding Faile (artist)
Hello Duncan

I was hoping to expand your Faile page in the near future.

One thing I was also hoping to do was to have "Faile" and "Faile (artist)" direct to a page simply called "Faile" i.e. dropping the "(artist)" in the page title. This is because I think someone is more likely to type in "Faile" into the search box rather than "Faile (artist)" Also I'd put a redirection at the top of the page to "Faile Bashere" (which is what you get currently if you simply type in "Faile" to the search box).

I hope that's ok with you? Robertlondon 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, please go ahead and make whatever improvements you see fit. Remember and check what currently links to Faile and redirect if necessary: Special:Whatlinkshere/Faile --duncan 07:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Red road.jpg
Hello Duncancumming, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Red road.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Duncancumming. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Graffiti Newsletter
Greetings from WikiProject Graffiti, you are part of a dedicated group of people working to better Wikipedia's coverage of topics relating to Graffiti. Latest News: If you are looking for something to do:
 * We now have a Graffiti Portal.
 * Banksy became a Good-Article. Help to make more!
 * We still have a To Do list.
 * You can help spread important templates.
 * You can improve these pages.
 * You can also help but uploading pictures or images of Graffiti and Street art.

And remember you can add some input at our talk page. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/D*Face
Courtesy notification. Tyrenius 11:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:DFace.JPG
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:DFace.JPG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:DFace.JPG has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:DFace.JPG itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Red road.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Red road.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing at the same time
Looks like we were editing the Ravenscraig part of Kirkcaldy at the same time, largely making the same changes and rendering what was a more substantial edit by myself look like a tiny nitpicky one of yours immediately beforehand. Sorry for what it may have looked like. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * no offence taken, but thanks for letting me know.--duncan (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilnburn, Kirkcaldy plans
You may or may not have spotted at the Kirkcaldy talk page that Kilnburn has major plans afoot for the Kirkcaldy article. He's been in contact with me in regard to helping him out and although I've been able to offer some comments I'm very limited in the amount of time I'm able to devote to this, or indeed to Wikipedia in general. If I remember correctly, you have said you are similarly constrained. However I thought I'd let you know for your interest and out of courtesy as you have been "mentioned in dispatches" a couple of times in the correspondence. All the best, Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

request for old Kirkcaldy harbour picture
hello, duncan

i'm just wondering if you may have a picture of old Kirkcaldy harbour, since i have been keen to add one and i just can't find anything. Kilnburn (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Jean Charles de Menezes
I am posting this as you have made a substantial number of edits to the above. I have conducted a reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Jean Charles de Menezes/GA1. I have de-listed the article. This decision may be challenged at WP:GAR or the article may be improved and re-nominated at WP:GAN. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Duncancumming! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Invader (artist) -

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland
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. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon, May 2015
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) 09:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, linkfail! Here's the correct one... Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon Lirazelf (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Adam Smith College, Kirkcaldy.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adam Smith College, Kirkcaldy.JPG, has been listed at 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 if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:ElXupetNegre.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:ElXupetNegre.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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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 on 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. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Pez (artist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pez (artist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Pez (artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AviationFreak 💬 21:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Os Gemeos.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Os Gemeos.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The London Police
Hi Duncan, the links you are referring for The London Police Street Artist is linking not to the artist team (The London Police) however it goes to the Metropolitan Police in London. A nice error however I now heard that the team is not able to have their own wiki here. Could you maybe make page / start a page as I couldn't make the adjustment just yet. 1timeextra (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)