User talk:Mygodfrey

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following: Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.  AVTN  T  CVPS 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Place   on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
 * 2) Make your case on the article's .

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Castle Oliver.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Castle Oliver wiki.jpg. The copy called Image:Castle Oliver wiki.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Castle Oliver.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Castle Oliver.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded the image, I took the picture. GFDL tag is now in place. Mygodfrey

Speedy deletion of Deveren Bowman
A tag has been placed on Deveren Bowman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ged UK (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Deveren Bowman needs references
The article would benefit from additional references. If newspapers or magazines have written about her, please add citations to those newspaper or magazine articles. In general, it is best to include references with every Wikipedia article. --Eastmain (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CO south.jpg


Sorry, my incompetence. I took this pic and have copyright, I'm just inexperienced at uploading images!Mygodfrey (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you for uploading Image:CO south.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Image sources
Hi Mygodfrey. Looking through your image uploads I am concerned about the sources, where you are claiming that you made and own the images. The camera exif information shows that you have uploaded photos taken with a Nikon D70s DSLR, a Fuji F30 point-and-shoot, a Fuji FinePix A330 point-and-shoot, a Canon EOS 300D DLSR and a Fuji Finepix 6800 point-and-shoot. While this seems an unlikely combination for anyone to own - particularly it is odd to own two brands of DLSR - it is possible. I am concerned that the images are not yours but instead belong to others or came from websites....can you enlighten me as to what is really going on here ? - Peripitus (Talk) 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, the reason for the various cameras is that I owned Castle Oliver until 2006. 2 of the cameras were mine at the time, 1 was my wife's, then some pics were taken by friends visiting who gave us many, many shots. I can't possibly remember who took every shot! I have subsequently visited the castle several times between 2006 and now and continue to take photos. None that I've used on wikipedia are taken from any other source, eg web, collections, libraries, etc.

Thanks for the clarification and I'm sorry if the suspicious note came across too accusatory. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to The West Wing
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) anything you want. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hnsampat, I have posted a response under the 'West Wing FAR section of your Talkpage, since I did not know where else to post it.Mygodfrey (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I didn't mean to appear patronizing or to discourage you from making any further edits to the article. From the tone of the section that you had added, I made the mistake of assuming bad faith on your part. I'm sorry about that and please do by all means continue to contribute constructively to the article on The West Wing (which is not "my" article by any means; remember nobody owns an article). All of that being said, however, the section that you added is inappropriate, simply because it constitutes original research. The rules of Wikipedia forbid us from figuring things out on our own and then publishing them in Wikipedia. Instead, Wikipedia requires that all information submitted be referenced to independent, third-party sources. Plus, when discussing the realism of the show, the idea is to talk about the realism of the story and the plotlines, not the minute details. But, that's not the main point. The main point is that what you added constitutes original research and therefor it cannot be included. This isn't my decision; it's how the rules of Wikipedia are set up. Thanks for understanding. --Hnsampat (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation Hn. I too apologize, for using sarcasm and being unnecessarily offensive in my remarks to you. If you have the time for a little dialogue, i'd appreciate it. I must admit I was not aware that such a guideline existed, for which mea culpa. I have created several articles and have certainly tried to make them as factual as possible, but if all content has to be effectively borrowed from a referenced source, surely this places a curiously restrictive limitation on Wiki contributors. If I may split hairs, my point is not speculative, it is literal. It is a self-evident fact that no person on (the first 3 series, being the ones I've recently watched) West Wing ever exhibits any form of perspiration, with the single exception of Josh Lynam in 2 sports-related scenes of one episode, and at no time is there a single example of underarm perspiration. Once I had noticed this, I became aware of further anomalies, eg every central character's hair and complexion is perfect at all times, no one slouches, burps, or makes non-pc remarks. Hence my urge to mention this in the 'Realism' section. It begs the question, why? Why is the viewer being fed these idealised, Ken & Barbie images? Are people so offended by physical signs of imperfection that they must all be erased, lest viewers switch off in disgust? Is this policy not reminiscent of the Nazi eugenics programme, which sought to remove all 'non-Aryan' strains from the human race? Perhaps my view seems extreme, but I think we're looking at the tip of an iceberg here, a symptom of a general malaise which has pervaded US culture over roughly the last half-century. I limited my comments specifically to West Wing to respect the article, and not to US culture in general, although I would dearly like to see this issue discussed in a more public forum. I do in fact respectfully query your point that ' to talk about the realism of the story and the plotlines' is invalid. I believe that articles may very usefully contain cogent observations based on accurate reporting of facts, even though they may be somewhat subjective, ie another person may have noticed the lack of perspiration, but consider it irrelevant to the realism of the series. I realise that the very nature of perspiration, as with the subject of urinating for example, is one with which some people may have 'a problem', yet some of the earthiest and most powerful filmed work ever made contains just this. The Sopranos featured characters both male and female who urinated, burped and sweated and the series was highly acclaimed. Meanwhile, I would like to take your guidance on if and how to include the central 'perspiration' fact within the West Wing article, without contravening rules.Mygodfrey (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several policies and principles working against you here. First and foremost, even more than the policy against "original research," is the policy of notability. In short, that policy is that "just because something is true doesn't mean it should be included in an article." In Wikipedia, we determine notability based on whether something has been discussed in reliable, independent third-party sources. This is how we objectively decide what information is "important enough" to be included in a Wikipedia article. Second, there is the policy of "no original research" that I told you about earlier. That basically says not only that you can't include your own speculation in the article, but that you can't put in anything based solely on what you saw yourself. If you go through all of the episodes and you notice that everyone always looks nice and clean and then you report on it, what you've done is conducted your own research and then published it on Wikipedia, which is not permitted. Here is what I suggest you do. I think you should raise this issue at Talk:The West Wing, the talk page for that article. Explain why you added that section, and make your case for why it should be included in the article. Other editors who work on the The West Wing article will see what you wrote and make comments and suggestions accordingly. The biggest principle governing Wikipedia is the idea of consensus, and so what you want to try to do, if you feel so strongly about this issue, is to try to convince other editors that your edit is notable enough for inclusion. Just keep in mind, however, that people may disagree with you and that, in the end, nobody "owns" any articles or any contributions. (In fact, if you read WP:OWN, it will tell you, "If you don't like the idea that your contribution might get mercilessly edited by other users, don't contribute it.") In my opinion, it's not so much that people have a problem with the idea of perspiration or whatever. I just think it's a trivial detail that isn't notable enough to be included in the article. But, that's just my opinion. Your opinion is that it is notable enough. So, let's ask the community and see what the consensus is. So, please go ahead and raise the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time Hn, I appreciate your advice. I also appreciate that my opinion is probably not going to pass consensus, but I may try anyway! Best wishes Mygodfrey (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:COWest.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:COWest.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

request for edits
Hi, I like most of the edits you made on the David Carradine article. I am working on Barbara Hershey now, and I was wondering if you would take a read and do a little copy editing (I am prone to typos). If you read it you can see some pretty good images before the image police come and delete them.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits to both articles. They are appreciated.  Most people just like to take what I wrote and cut and paste it to other sites.  It is really nice to come across someone else who wants to actually improve what is there.  I'm not done with Barbara Hershey yet.  I have only really researched up to 1993, so that article may expand a little more.  Every time I think I am almost done I find another trove of stuff to add.  Thanks again.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman roads
I haven't reverted you yet, but you need to read WP:LEAD. I've discussed this at the article's talk page. The title of the article should be in the first sentence, now it first appears in the fourth section of the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ancient Roman architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mérida (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) 11:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Deveren Bowman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deveren Bowman 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/Deveren Bowman until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)