User talk:Holford

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Roy Blunt
Thanks for keeping an eye on the POV pushing on this page! TMS63112 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Please participate in this discussion
I just posted a response here to your reversion of some unregistered user contributions to Roy Blunt. I'd appreciate your participation. 66.167.137.199 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

What is the problem with showing the controversial info on Amy Grant?
The information I supplied about what happened in Fort Worth is true, I was there.

The other information is VERY Recent. The only reason to remove it is to protect her reputation, i.e. reverse form of editorializing. I have provided sources for those. To remove the context of Chapmans whole statement is not telling the WHOLE truth. Notoadultery1 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To find that out, you should go to the discussion page for the Amy Grant article. That is the purpose of the discussion pages. Holford (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Douglas-Home.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Douglas-Home.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've not done image upload before. I think I have done this correctly now. Holford (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Douglas-Home.jpg
Where exactly did this come from? How do you know that Parliament is the author, and that it is older than 1958? Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all in the very lengthy discussion at Talk:Alec_Douglas-Home. Holford (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link to the source page is not provided there. What is it? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can find the photo here Holford (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Douglas-Home.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Douglas-Home.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Road Wizard (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only even uploaded this file. Given all the trouble it is, I doubt I will ever do so again. As for the fair use rationale, I'm still trying to figure out how to do that. I see the template, but I don't know how to add it so I can fill in all the fields. Can you help? Holford (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was about to nominate the image for deletion, so you probably don't need to bother. If this image is non-free, it cannot be used in Wikipedia (because free images exist). For the image to stay, we need proof that this image was taken before 1958 and that it is copyrighted by Parliament (rather than just being borrowed for the Parliament website). The 1958 problem is the big one. Thoughts, or should I nominate it for deletion now? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, if you have or can find a free image, by all means use it. I have searched far and wide. Yes, it seems there is a British Prime Minister with no available image under Wikipedia's convoluted policies that bear only a passing resemblance to the law. And of course no free image can be taken because Lord Home is dead. I suppose I could try to find someone living near Coldstream who would go an take a picture of his bloody grave and post it. Parliament would seem to claim the copyright to the photo under the copyright information on the website. Nonetheless, I wouldn't put it past the picture squad to challenge Parliament as well. I suppose my rationale would include something to the effect that he's a dead Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of whom no further pictures can be taken unless someone is willing to apply to the Department for Constitutional Affairs for a exhumation license. Even then, I don't think a photo of his decomposed corpse would be an appropriate reflection of the man and his place in British history.
 * I would therefore suggest that if it is extremely urgent to err on the side of caution to avoid the hordes of civil servants searching Wikipedia for unauthorised images of former Prime Ministers in order to bring actions in the High Court for breach of Parliamentary, Crown, or other such copyright, or, on the other hand, if it equally as important to apply in a draconian fashion the strict letter of a policy rivalled for complexity only by the US Internal Revenue Code, then go for the deletion. My view, which I know doesn't count for much, would be to leave it until we either 1) find an argument that confounds every attempt to get rid of what under any other circumstance would be a perfectly acceptable picture, or 2) find the elusive "free" image of of the late Lord Home of Hirsel. Frankly, I don't care that much. I only ever uploaded the image so I could use it in a Userbox I created and there is yet another policy which says I can't do that anyway. Holford (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I already did find the elusive free image. I posted it on the article's talk page. It's in the National Archives. Someone in DC just has to go get it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the potential screenshot that theoretically could be obtained if someone spend a significant amount of time, effort, and money to go personally to the US National Archives (as one should of course, for the best picture of a British Prime Minister). A volunteer editor ought to do this, since after all the only reason such hoops have to be jumped is because commerical sites use Wikipedia content. I believe the most appropriate response to this suggestion was offered immediately after yours on the same article's talk page by John Kenney. Holford (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. If you and John Kenney aren't interested in Wikipedia's mission (free content as in freedom and not necessarily as in beer), then maybe this isn't the place for you. One main reason wikipedia doesn't allow non-commercial licenses is because non-commercial is extremely vague and badly defined in the one major NC license (creative commons). For example, is a website that pays its expenses using banner ads non-commercial? What if that website is losing money? Non-commercial then? What if the website owner makes a nominal salary? A decent salary? It's all entirely vague. The second major reason is that wikipedia may not be around forever. What happens when our editors leave, and the donation drives go badly? Perhaps the only way the free content would be continued is if someone could make a buck off hosting it. And something in the national archives isn't a crazy thing to get. We don't allow non-free photos of Mount Everest or of Antarctica--we've got to wait for people who go there to upload them. Allowing people to use whatever non-free photo they want of this guy diminishes the incentive to take an hour or two and go get the image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, given that I've edited here for 5 days shy of 4.5 years and this is the first time I've said anything about Wikipedia policy, I hardly think that means Wikipedia isn't the place for me. Or are you the sort of person who thinks that people who disagree with Government policy aren't good citizens and should be eliminated, or at best invited to emigrate? Frankly, I think that that if I'm giving my free time (free as in beer, since, as they say, time is money) as is everyone else who has helped and is helping to create this encyclopedia, then, yeah, I'd go with with the free (again, as in beer) content. Part of the problem is that we have intellectual property law that isn't keeping up with technology, particularly with the behaviour that is relevant in an environment where pretty much anything that can be digitized can be obtained at no cost to the end user. It is almost like trying to bottle and regulated the sale of air. Sure a tiny number of people will need to to go SCUBA diving, but for 99.9999% of users, it just isn't going to be feasible. That is why we are grasping at outdated principles of commercialism to try to define something completely outside the box. We can keep up the illusion for a while, but most people are figuring out that the Licensing Emperor has no clothes. Therefore, I don't think it is worth it, or even a reasonable suggestion, for someone to have to take an hour or two to go to the United States National Archives to manufacture a bloody picture of a dead British Prime Minister, especially given that while we had a picture with the article for 5.5 years no one complained about it and the only quarrel there has been about it has been with internal policy apparatchiks. This is clearly the case where the law (in the form of Wikipedia policy) is an ass. Holford (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Ravenhill
Holford, do you have any fresh takes on Ravenhill's page? Looks like the dispute was short and a very long time ago. I've added a few sources and edited some of the verbage, but I want input before removing the banners, thanks ChildrenOfLight (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I'll look into it. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

November 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to You've Never Seen Everything. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Please mark dead links with instead. Thanks.'' Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia? I've been editing longer than you have. You can feel safe in knowing that as both a responsible editor and a Bruce Cockburn fan, I made extensive efforts to repair or replace the link. It is nowhere on the Rolling Stone website, at least inasmuch as someone with extensive research experience can find. I had the option of deleting the mention of the review and the stars as the source is now unverified, and perhaps my bias in trying to keep as much info about BC led to this error in judgment. I think it is a fairly close call and hardly a reason to suggest or imply that I'm a newbie around here and need to be told how find out about the basics of editing. Holford (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a template. Don't blame me for the wording of content.
 * You should go read WP:DEADREF now before you do something else against procedure. Leaving it tagged as a deadlink is perfectly acceptable because it's also in print form. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a personal pedantic response instead of the template response. It appears to me, from having RE-read the DEADREF page, that I followed procedure. Note procedure No. 3: "Remove convenience links: If the material was published on paper (e.g., academic journal, newspaper article, magazine, book), then the URL is not necessary. Simply remove it." Presuming the material was included in the print version of Rolling Stone, I left the reference to Rolling Stone and the stars. I removed the URL. It seems doubtful the link was ever real. The URL does not even fit the URL format for Rolling Stone reviews. It makes little sense that Rolling Stone would have deleted the review from its archive. Holford (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)