Mcwesty

Welcome

Hello, Mcwesty, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Cumbernauld photos

Hi there, you recently uploaded two photographs of Cumbernauld which identify "Michael Westwater" as the source and say that they have been released into the public domain. I would just like to check that you're either "Michael Westwater" and took the photos yourself (if so, thanks) or ask you to post a more specific source.

If you did take these photos yourself then it'd be great to get larger versions (to be honest the current ones look like they've been taken off a website somewhere). Thanks/wangi 14:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hi there, First and foremost Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Please see WP:NOT for more details and WP:EL on what should and should not be linked to. Please do not link in-line to places that do not have their own article (largely because they are not notable). Thanks/wangi 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the details were lost in the changes. I have made further changes to try and get this article more like an encyclopedic one, rather than a shopping guide! Thanks/wangi 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Glenrothes

Hi - I will take a gander at Glenrothes again as soon as I have time. Your persistence is commendable. GA is actually quite easy to apply for. Go to Wikipedia:Good article candidates, and follow the instructions. All these involve are:

1) Adding the article name to the relevant list - in this case Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates#Places_candidates - using the syntax provided at the top left of the page. (# {{la|Genrothes}} ).

2) Add LONG to the above - making it # '''LONG'' {{la|Glenrothes}} . This simply warns the reviewer its not going to be a quick job.

3) Add {{GAnominee|2007-08-13}} (assuming you do it today) to the Glenrothes talk page.

Then all you have to do is sit back and wait for the reviewer to get back to you. This could make a month or a day depending on how inspired someone is to scrutinise it. They will usually come up with something and give you a time limit to fix it, then hopefully pass it.

Optionally you can add it to the list of current candidates at WP:SCO. Good luck! Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Glenrothes concern

hello, mcwesty. can i say your work is astounishing, with a good layout with: references put in neccessary places; examples put in brackets; suitable headings and being straight to the point. you actually brought the best out of the town

however, i have been a bit concerned over some parts which i feel/going to let the article done. the introduction desperately needs to be broken up into several paragraphs. education section needs a re-think and adding more book references if you can. Kilnburn (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

i know all about it, same here. nobody was really all that interested or had time to take those Kirkcaldy pictures, so i did it myself. FA status, is something that i would going to try and achieve for, but it still needs a lot of work done - education, sport, famous langtounians, growth and development (add more info) and twin town and at least three more pictures, one for education and another one for sport. i'm also going to insert four new sections: geograph, climate, landmarks and demongraphics. the pictures section, i have decided, will be removed (for re-location to wikipedia commons). i'm making it up as i go along basically.

what i'll do for you is, when i have time, is to sort out the messy introduction and i may intend to add more sources to complement the existing two. Kilnburn (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

never expected you to get it done so quick. when i used the term "messy" it was because i felt it wasn't clear and it might put someone off from reading the article. more info could be added, but that's a lot better than it was. and yes, i will help where i can and i'll keep an eye on the education section for now, until i can get time to sort it out. Kilnburn (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

tell me which sources are particularly needing re-done and i'll do that for you + add some more book references i happen to have if you wish Kilnburn (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

i have added some info and sources, if you care to look trying my best to intergrate this in the already existing paragraph. Kilnburn (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

the reason i removed the pictures (i maybe shouldn't have done it) was i felt there was a lack of enough info in each sub-section to warrant them. i always think that the article should look better than it does, but it just goes to show that it is difficult to stimulate interest in an average shopping centre which is why many of them (except larger ones like Metro Centre - which are probably more than just shopping centres!) are very short.

anyway, i'm wondering if you could give a hand on the Kirkcaldy article as a copy editor and if you have got anything to add, then you're very welcome! a discussion on the recent revamp if you wish to look at and contribute is here: [[1]] it is nowhere near but i would like to aim for GA status. on the other hand, hope you truimph on getting Glenrothes to GA status. Kilnburn (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:Image-Ex Terra.JPG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Image-Ex Terra.JPG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Image-Ex Terra.JPG is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Image-Ex Terra.JPG, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Glenrothes/vandalism

Hi Mcwesty, I'm not sure why you have me down as some guru but thanks for the compliment. I'd be glad to help if I can. I see you've made a couple of reversions on the Glenrothes article today, to edits made yesterday, and that the previous edit by another editor was also a reversion of material added yesterday. The article appears to have reverted to its state per the last good edit on the 5th April, so good work. What are the problems you have been having?

By the way, I've put a vandalism warning on the user in question's talk page (if you're not familiar, what I added was {{uw-vandalism1|Glenrothes}}, which displays as the relevant message - see also Vandalism Warnings). Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds bizarre - I don't know what could have been happening to the article but at least it's ok now. It's always the way, isn't it - call in help and the fault suddenly disappears of it its own accord.

By all means tackle vandalism when you spot it. Part timer or not you're as entitled as anyone else. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this when you are viewing the article or when editing it or a section? (It looks fine when I look at it by the way.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's good. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Auchmuty Flats Glenrothes.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Auchmuty Flats Glenrothes.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 file. 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. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Glenrothes work

hope you don't mind that i removed places of worship from the article. i decided that it was better to retain the information about the churches and move this into landmarks, since they are considered "landmarks" (particularly, St Columba's and St Paul's). i have also started doing some reference work to help you out, since i feel this can improve the quality. Kilnburn (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC) 22:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (p.s. thanks for the Markinch pictures)

Glenrothes

mcwesty, i need a bit of help with the reference work. recently, i put the article under a peer review and was told by another user that unless the reference work (including adding page numbers) gets sorted out, not only will it not meet the guidelines but will prevent Glenrothes from ever reaching feature article status (probably the same reason the article has failed to reach FA in the past). unfortunely, i do not have access to the two GDC articles nor the Scottish new towns book. since you added those references, can you help by adding page numbers for the sources. Kilnburn (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

you have a good point there. it is a very good article but we have got to make sure it remains as such. the reason i contacted Ben MacDui is to check the article still retains it's A status for the Scotland portal (and if it does then to see if it can upgrade to A status for the UK portal, currently at B status). if it doesn't, then we know what to do. it has been at A status for a long time now. i mean look what happened when Dundee all of a sudden was downgraded to B status from FA status. nobody wants that, but downgrades do happen. Kilnburn (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

i would like to ask for your approval in changing the infobox picture. i personally feel that the picture of the town from East Falkland Hill would be far superior than the bridge over Riverside Park since it would indicate to people unfamiliar with the town how big it is. for example, a similar picture of Cupar taken from Tarvit Hill has been used for the infobox and so has for the Perth, Scotland which was taken from the eastern outskirks of the town. it would also be better for the article too to lose a bit of space where it is not needed (especially the place where the East Falkland Hill picture is currently situated within the article) and remove the bridge over Riverside Park from the article altogether.

p.s. i added a picture of Ex Terra on the culture section, since i felt it was appropriate to show the first artwork to be completed in the town.Kilnburn (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, i know very well about the problem with references. for example, the article of Glenrothes from The Sunday Herald appears to have been deleted from the website, hence why it is now a dead link. i tried to find the article through an archive search on the website but it wasn't there. the information, if possible, will now have to be found from another article. also, going to go ahead with changing the infobox picture and see if it fits correctly. Kilnburn (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Creation of WikiProject Tayside and Fife

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 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi there, I see you have been the lead in developing the Glenrothes article. I am very impressed with the quality of the article, both the images and the text. I would like to help improve the article and have submitted it for a peer review to try and establish what is needed to elevate to to FA if possible. Whilst new to editing on wikipedia I have been researching for a while how to edit and what makes up good artciles. The Glenrothes article appears to meet most of the criteria on the suggested settlement templates on Wikiproject UK geography and Cities. I therefore think it is close to meeting FA requirements if it is not already there. I would like to work with you if possible to bring the article up to the higher standard. Once the article has been peer reviewed we should get a beetr idea of what work is needed. A friend has loaned me some books of Glenrothes that are referenced in the articles bibliography so im hopefully well placed to contribute.

I look forward to working with you. Thanks, Yoostar (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi McWesty, peer review has been undertaken. Im going to need your help on the geology section, I see from some of your edits you have access to, or can get access to a masterplan. Is there any information on geology within that document that can address some of the points?

I was thinking, the landmark section makes barely any reference on the bridge crossing the town park. Given its importance as a town landmark would it be possible to establish the bridge architects and builders and include a few sentences on it?

In demographics, there should probably be some information on the population of the area before the development of Glenrothes, then important milestones in the growth of the population of the new town over the 60 years?

Feel free to contribute to any of the other suggestions made by FineTooth. I shall mark off any work that I carry out.

Thanks Yoostar (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Glenrothes Article

Hi, yes totally agree. I dont think its far off now. The copy editing shouldnt take much longer I hope. Gonna do another check of the references too. I think there are some that need to be marked as PDFs.

Yoostar (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi McWesty, are you and your friends any further forward on reviewing and editing the article? I'm conscious that it has been months now since much copy edit work has been undertaken... Yoostar (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

how's the article coming along, Mcwesty? would you like me to add references for each of the listed art works from Historic Scotland? could also get you the catalogue numbers for the GDC and Family History books, as well? Kilnburn (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much there. Its just needing a final copy edit. Your welcome to help with the references. Mcwesty (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FA Status

Hi McWesty,

I hope you don't mind but I have gone ahead and submitted the Glenrothes article for FA status. Hopefully the result will be positive and there will be few if any changes to be made. Are you ok to help if there is anything contentious? Yoostar (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi McWesty, i answered your FA questions on my talk page. Regards. GermanJoe (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi McWesty, I hadn't realised more comments were made available on the review. Thank you for covering them. I will work on the article over the next few days to help.

Yoostar (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

how do you create a collage

look i'm just wondering mcwesty, if you know how to create a collage of images? i would like to do for Kirkcaldy using my own pictures, but i don't know to do this.

while i'm here, i would like to say concerning the pictures on Dunfermline, i felt that the two pictures which had apperared on the article (one which was of Pittencrieff House) just weren't good enough and were inferior to the ones that you submitted to on the Glenrothes article. since then, i decided to remove my own picture of High Street and replace with one of yours of the extension of the Kingsgate Centre. but i'm not sure about the new Pittencrieff House picture that you have submitted, have you noticed that there is a pigeon sitting on the top of the flag post! Kilnburn (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

that's fine. fair enough, never be afraid to use my own pictures if you need to. i do think you should include a picture of the Pilmuir Works (there is one on Wikipedia commons) within the collage to highlight Dunfermline's role as a centre of (damask) linen in the 19th and 20th centuries. but if you ask me, i would have left the picture of the historic townscape from the south of the city centre just as it is.

i will however gather a number of pictures that i wish to use in the collage. the collage may be made up of pictures of the Beveridge Park, Old Kirk, Clock Tower of the Town House, Victoria Hospital, The Promenade and either the Merchant's House or Ravenscraig Castle. just to let you know, i plan to replace the pictures of the City Chambers in Dunfermline on the governance section and the High Street one on the Kirkcaldy to show the new granite pavement. but i don't honestly think you'll have a problem with that.

before i go, i seriously think that you should replace the picture of the Kingdom Centre Phase 4 with the one of the exterior of the western (main) entrance to the centre on the economy section of Glenrothes. the latter is in my opinion one of your best works and would fit in better. i don't really think it is necessary to show the interior of this rather dull shopping centre. besides, the picture is literally only around the corner from the main entrance to the Rothes Halls and you've got a picture of the halls on the article. Kilnburn (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

right, i have contacted both photographers of the pictures and i have approval to use the picture of Maggie's Centre. if the other photographer doesn't get back in contact, then leave out the picture of The Esplanade. the collage can be altered at a later date to include a picture of The Esplanade, whether or not is it this one.

i am willing to keep you updated on changes to pictures on all main articles relating to Fife. i have though decided against replacing my picture of the City Chambers. the replacement picture i had in mind, was going to be too close up to the building itself. as for the Pilmuir Works, yes it may be derelict, but plans by the owner have indicated a possible redevelopment of the building. however i have decided it is not the right time to use a picture of the works in its current state. you know, i would never have submitted a picture of the Old Kirk for use as part of the collage, if the building had not been bought by the Trust.

also, i would like to submit the Glenrothes article for a copyedit as a favour to you. following the recent failure to achieve FA, i do think you should get more help for the article from professional editors who are unfamiliar with the town. as well as this, i am just wondering if the Scotland Portal still rate the article at A. it would be a good thing to get in contact with and check or maybe you could ask me to do so for you. they may very well do a reassessment of the article and upgrade the article to GA status. Kilnburn (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

right. that's very interesting to hear. of the two collagues you have made for me, the second is better and i wouldn't mind using it for the article. maybe, a picture of High Street could have been added, but there is already one in the economy section and if i'm being honest, i don't want to end up putting pictures in the collague that are going to appear further down the article. but maybe it's not such a bad thing.

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.

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. Kilnburn (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry i've just got back from a 2 week holiday. The images look fine. I didn't recognise the pond at Beveridge Park, or the Old Kirk without the description. With regards the FA review, have your friends had the chance to copyedit it yet? Yoostar (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dunfermline article and new pictures for the Kirkcaldy collage

hello again. i've been looking at the paragraph about the Kingsgate Shopping Centre on the economy section. both sources do not indicate that the shopping centre was built in the 1980s nor is there any reference to the centre car park having two levels. me and you know that the centre was built in the 1980s (specifically between 1983 and 1985), if you want make reference to it, use A Century of Dunfermline or Dunfermline: The Post-War Years. but then, i never thought it was that important how old the centre was, anyway. about the two levels on the car park, it is actually three if you've read the sources.

also, i think you should reinstate info on the actual size of the extension and where this took place. you might also want to say that the extension was built on the site of the old bus station and car park (info is there on the reference Kingsgate extension on schedule for August 2008 opening by Mivan). as we both probably want to get this article to GA, i would remove all references to the word locate within that section. this is one of many words or phrases that should be avoided if aiming for GA status. that's why when i originally wrote that paragraph on the Kingsgate and other retail areas, i specifically kept the use of the word in question to a minimum. if it isn't dealt with now, it will be at a later date.

that aside, i have a new picture of the Beveridge Park which i submitted to Mutt Lucker's home page. (it is now on his talk page if you want to see it) Mutt Lucker thinks it is a good effort and i would like to add it to the collage to replace the picture of the Beveridge Park Pond. as well as this, i have another new picture of the Old Kirk Tower (which was inspired by one on the undiscovered scotland website; the clock has been restored since that pic.) and would like to upload it. Kilnburn (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy collage

Old Kirk Tower

The Esplanade

hello again. i have just uploaded a picture of The Esplanade. but i am not sure if it is good enough for the collage, though. i do think it would have good to show an overhead shot of The Links Market on The Esplanade. what do you think?

i have also uploaded another picture of the Old Kirk Tower. you may wonder why i have done this, but the clock face on the existing picture is far far too bright. you can now see the clock on the new picture. i would like to replace it, however, it is up to you (and mutt).

before i go, i have noticed that the Town House Clock Tower is off-centre. is it worth reducing the width of the picture? Kilnburn (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Esplanade pic is ok. But you'd probably be better with one showing more of the bay and townscape. Why dont you see if you could get one looking down on the bay and beach from Ravenscraig castle? A view of the Links Market might be a good option but getting a decent view of it may be tricky. There's no hurry to eveolve the collage. Rome wasnt built in a day. Wait till you have great photos then change it.

I realise the clock tower is marginally off centre, but I want to get in all the roof/chimney features into the photo, as the add to the character. I'll change it if you would like but its not going to make a massive difference...?

Mcwesty (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

yep agree with the Esplanade. it's alright but i need a better picture. the view of the bay and beach from Ravenscraig Castle. i like it. good suggestion.

no worries with the clock tower. i understand. in the meantime, i will continue to work on the article. Kilnburn (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ravenscraig Sands

following your advice, i have since uploaded a picture of Ravenscraig Sands (from the Castle). i have taken pictures of the townscape from near the Ravenscraig Dovecot or Doocot, but i decided not to upload one, since i felt it would be too similiar to the picture of the bay from Invertiel on the article. Kilnburn (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The pictures nice, but when I made the suggestion I was thinking of a view to the south/west looking from the castle area looking down over the town centre and esplanade towards seafield capturing all the townscape with the backdrop of the hills around Kinghorn & Burntisland. I wouldn't worry about pictures being too similar with others on the article. Mcwesty (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

ah! one of the pictures that i did take from the Ravenscraig Dovecot two years ago does show the backdrop of hills around Kinghorn and Burntisland as well as the the harbour end of the High Street, town house clock tower, spire of St Brycedale's Church and the back of Robert Hutchison's flour millers' building. what do you think? Kilnburn (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds exactly the view i'm thinking of. Can you upload it so I can have a look at it? If its as I imagine it the view is very distinctive, attractive and dramatic and would be ideal for the collage. Mcwesty (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

townscape of Kirkcaldy to the south-west

well, here it is! Kilnburn (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not bad at all. Ive altered the collage replacing the top image with this one. Give it a day or so and it should show up on the Kirkcaldy page.Mcwesty (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

that's great. i'm glad that is getting sorted out.

anyway, while i'm here, do you think it is a good idea to also replace the picture of the Old Kirk on the collage with the one that is shown here? the clock in the Old Kirk picture on the collage is too bright and doesn't show the natural colour of what it should look like on the picture above. but is it worth doing? other than that, i don't really have anything else to add to the collage and i'm happy enough with the way it has turned out, if that is okay with you and mutt. Kilnburn (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree the face of the clock is better in the new Auld Kirk shot. On Kilnburn's talk I suggested trimming the SW-facing townscape from Ravenscraing to a more letterbox/panorama shape but I'll leave that to your judgement. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

To both, yes no problem. In the meantime, I hope you like the amended collage. Can I also say that im also really pleased with our amicable new working and collaborative relationship. Mcwesty (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

that's all right and i'm glad we can work together again. anyway, what i have done is add info to the collage since it is now complete. like i've said above, i don't really have anything else to add to the collage. also aside from the collage, i have replaced my own picture of the Kirkcaldy Museum and Art Gallery, but i'm sure you wouldn't have any problems with that. Kilnburn (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

pictures on the Dunfermline collage

doing some work on the Dunfermline article recently, has made me feel that i would like to contribute two pictures of my own to the collage. i am convinced that a better picture of the Glen is needed and that there is also another picture of the City Chambers elsewhere in the article. what i'm suggesting is a picture of the Glen from the Bridge to the west of Tower Bridge (it has no name, i believe) looking down on Tower Bridge and the other one, a distant landmark at the southern gateway to the city centre - the Bothwell Street Viaduct. what do you think?

p.s. while i'm here, do you mind if i ask Yoostar to do some work on the Kirkcaldy article, while you wait for your friends to get back to you on their work on the Glenrothes article. Kilnburn (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm always open to suggestions. Do you have pictures that you would be looking to use for the park and viaduct? There are already a number of pictures of the Glen in the article, would an image of something like the bandstand at St Margaret's Park not be a better alternative? What pictures in the collage do you feel aren't working at the moment? I wanted to get a night time image of the City Chambers as it is lit up taken from the bus station. I just haven't had time to go and take one that I like. I have seen others pictures and it is a cracking image if you can get it on a clear night. I also wanted to get a picture of the interior of the Abbey to add a bit of variety to the article. Again its finding time to collect images that are worthy of the article.

I have no issue with you asking Yoostar to help. I have heard from them in a while though? Mcwesty (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

right. a night time image of the City Chambers would good superb and i agree. the other picture i was thinking that should be removed is the Italian Garden in the Glen. a picture looking down on Tower Bridge from the Bridge to the west of Tower Bridge would offer a good view of the tall trees in the park. it's really up to you, though. Kilnburn (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Viewfield Obelisk.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Viewfield Obelisk.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 are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Balfarg Henge.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mcwesty. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Areas of Glenrothes

Template:Areas of Glenrothes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jellyman (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ex Terra.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Ex Terra.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. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 23:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:South Parks.jpg

The file File:South Parks.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused (see WP:NOTWEBHOST), unclear purpose

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Kingdom Centre.JPG

The file File:Kingdom Centre.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Glenrothes Police Station.jpg

The file File:Glenrothes Police Station.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)