User talk:DavidFarmbrough

Age of Quatermass

While I entirely concede that Flemyng is indeed only three years younger than Keir, it seems to me that his characterisation was a lot younger than Keir's or anybody else's. Keir seemed to be playing older than he was, and all of the other actors were certainly of or playing the 'greying middle-aged' school. Flemyng just seemed rather younger and a little more dynamic to me, but perhaps that's just my interpretation. Angmering 14:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is arguable. I felt that despite Flemyng playing a young man in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, his Quatermass seemed very mature, lined, and world weary. This is one reason he succeeded IMO. Perhaps it is because we are older the Quatermasses are looking younger?David Farmbrough 16:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm twenty-one... But I take your point. I suppose he did seem world-weary, but still noticably younger. To be honest I wasn't really all that enamoured of his portrayal - he lacked the charisma of the likes of Morell and Keir, who I think were the two greatest successes in the part. But let's leave the article the way you've phrased it for now, as it covers it I suppose. Angmering 15:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course the biggest contrast is Sir John Mills(IMO the best Quatermass) and Flemyng. David Farmbrough 17:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RMF

I just created Peter Glaze, the famous third sensorite. Rich Farmbrough 11:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You might like to see if you can improve the Clangers :-) Rich Farmbrough 11:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Farmbrough

Not sure that the second link to [[Winchmore Hill] is needed as it's linked in an earlier instance. User:DavidFarmbrough 11 Apr 2005 17:22 (BST)

I guess you're right. Rich Farmbrough 16:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And if you use <nowiki></nowiki> you can express wiki construct unwikily.Rich Farmbrough

Chris Langham

I have taken the liberty of moving your addition to the talk page for discussion and/or substantiation. I look forward to this one, I'm a big fan :-) --Phil | Talk 15:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sydney J Bush.. UK Optometrist/inventor/researcher

Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 11:35:38, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Cooking

We just boiled a thimbleful of H₂O using a mini solar furnace made from a bathroom mirror. Big furnace this weekend. Rich Farmbrough 15:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael Medwin

Thanks, that must be the first time I've had a message that wasn't a complaint! JW 21:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Lost episodes

I just created Category:Lost_BBC_episodes. Rich Farmbrough 10:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Snape Maltings

Is it subjective that the most important part of the redevelopment of the Maltings is the concert hall? I'd have thought that it's the only reason that the place is known outside Suffolk (not to mention internationally); aside from the concert hall, and especially the festival, it's just another commercial tourist redevelopment like countless others. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It might argued be that the environmental contribution is more important. DavidFarmbrough 11:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I thought that the sentence was about the buildings. Could you add something about the environmental contribution? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No, because that too would be subjective!DavidFarmbrough 10:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Redesign

I, Mollsmolyneux, have redesigned the List of incomplete Doctor Who serials page. To view it please Click Here. Please leave any comments you have about the page on My Talk Page and tell me if you think I should put the page on. -- Mollsmolyneux 12:51, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hurrah! DavidFarmbrough 14:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne

Hello David,

I noticed you made a couple of changed to the Sylvia Browne article, and most of them were quite good. You managed to rephrase a couple of my edits in a way I think greatly improves the NPOV of the article, which is something I am really striving for, which, to be honest, is hard since I am a very skeptical person. However, I'd just like to clear something up. With regards to the section on her criminal conviction for fraud, you added the following (in bold):

Critics argue that this incident highlights Brownes unscrupulous nature and begs the question, why did Browne fail to forsee her own conviction? In response to this, Browne explains that her psychic abilities do not work on herself. This is also consistent with her stated view that "The only power that I answer to is God and the Christ Consciousness".

I have read this over and over but I still fail to see the correlation between the existing text and the quote you added. Where is this consistency of statements coming from? Have I missed something obvious?

This isn't a personal attack on your contribution (which is much appreciated - like I said, we need NPOV), but a serious question.

I have also posted this message to the Sylvia Browne Talk Page.

-- Qarnos 11:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

David, you might be interested in checking out WikiProject Rational Skepticism. I realise you might not consider yourself a "skeptic" but, in this article at least, you have attempted to provide a NPOV, to the extent that I can't even work out what your view on Browne is, and that is commendable. We are currently discussing guidelines for our work, and trying to work out how to work NPOV into all this, so perhaps you might have something to add to that discussion. You also play/played cricket, which counts as a plus in my book.

Qarnos 10:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I willingly accept that I am a useless cricketer. That part of my user biog is lifted and adapted from the article on Alec Douglas Home I try to be NPOV because I am undecided. Like most mediums, Browne gives a great deal of comfort to bereaved people and to people frightened of death or the death of others. It is possible that she might believe in her abilities, I say this because I think the cold reading technique can be employed subconsciously by empathic people. I consider myself to be a sceptic, rather than a skeptic. DavidFarmbrough 12:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bishop Stopford's School at Enfield

Not sure why you changed Bishop Stopford's School at Enfield from a comprehensive to a public school (you did a category change). Did you do it manually or use a bot? DavidFarmbrough 13:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Subcategories were created for London comprehensive schools, grammar schools and public schools, and I was recategorising each school accordingly. The system of simultaneous "comprehensive school in England" and "schools in London" is pointless and so was replaced. Unfortunately, occasional errors occur when recategorising pages in large numbers. Deano (Talk) 18:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Buster Edwards

(From helpdesk-l) I received an email on helpdesk-l regarding this edit you made on August 9.

To: helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org
Subject: [HelpDesk-l] Re: Article on Buster Edwards
I am writing to you regarding your article on Buster Edwards. I was
distressed and very upset when I read that when he was released from prison
he was allegedly a police informer. How dare you print false allegations
against Buster Edwards. I am very keen to find out how you have actually
obtained this information, and just what the law is with regards printing
false allegations.  I would be grateful if you could withdraw this from your
encyclopedia.

On a company that provides encyclopedias I would expect all the information
that you provide to be accurate and truthful. Obviously this is not the case
and you are therefore selling people a product with false information.

I therefore wish for you to provide me with the address of the company who
supplied this false information to you.

I state yet again you have caused a lot of distress and upset to my family
over this article, and I would like it rectified immediately.

I await your response.

The email is from someone who appears to be a relative of Buster Edwards. Do you remember where your source was for the information that he was allegedly a police informer? silsor 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My alteration to the text was to add his real name of Ronald and Edwards became a flower seller outside Waterloo Station on his release from prison, and also allegedly a police informer. He apparently committed suicide in 1994.

The alleged informer bit was in the news at the time, I believe Radio 4 news, but I do not have a transcript. Please will note that I put 'allegedly', which merely means that it was said that he was a police informer, not that it was fact. I can also direct you to this website where it is clearly alleged that he was an informer "LISA who described BUSTER as a "fu**cking grass.". As far as I can see, this is sufficient to support a statement that he was an 'alleged' police informer. DavidFarmbrough 08:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD nom

Hi. I corrected your AfD nomination, you should put it into a new template, following the Add a new entry link at the AfD page. Regards. --Tone 17:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Tutte lemkow.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tutte lemkow.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

There is no blanket fair use attribution, each use is treated separately. See fair use rational and Wikipedia:Image_use_policy for details.

Regards, Dethomas 23:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

May Day

of course you are right; as a non-native speaker, I simply wasn't aware of the difference between "ironic" and "ironical". In german language, there's only one word for both meanings, and although it is formally correct, it is often considered bad style to call things "ironisch" that do not contain at least a small humorous element. Greetings, 790 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who composers

I am working on a chronological list of Doctor Who composers. I have decided to keep it here:

Ron Grainer Delia Derbyshire Norman Kay Tristram Cary Dudley Simpson Stanley Myers Carey Blyton Richard Rodney Bennett Francis Chagrin Raymond Jones Humphrey Searle BBC Radiophonic Workshop Don Harper Malcolm Clarke Geoffrey Burgon Peter Howell Paddy Kingsland Roger Limb Jonathan Gibbs Elizabeth Parker Dominic Glynn Richard Hartley Keff McCulloch Mark Ayres John Debney Murray Gold

I have just been through and added "Category:Doctor Who composers" to any which didn't have that category before. DavidFarmbrough 11:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Osterleyh.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Osterleyh.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bishops.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bishops.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom and Colin

Hey, David. I noticed that you put the word "directly" into the sentence about Tom Baker not being related to Colin Baker. My understanding is that the two weren't related in any way — what does "directly" add? Are they indirectly related? I didn't want to revert without talking to you, as I figured you probably had a good reason for putting it in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's correct to say 'not directly related to' rather than 'not related to', as there is likely to be be an indirect relationship of which we (and perhaps the Bakers) are unaware. Thus, we can't say for certain that they are not related, only that they are not directly related. DavidFarmbrough 09:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How likely is it, though? "Baker" is a surname which arose independently in multiple communities. It's not linked to a single place of origin, nor to a common ancestor real or mythical (as for example, most O'Neills are probably descended from Niall of Ulster [1], [2]). My understanding is that names like "Baker", "Smith", "Taylor" (tailor) and so forth were derived from people who held those occupations in different towns across Britain. To my knowledge there's no evidence that any two people with the surname Baker are more likely to be related than, say, a Baker and a Miller. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that the sharing of such a common occupational surname has any impact on the likelihood of a relationship, nor that it has any significant impact on the proximity of such relationship. However, I would be astonished if the family trees of Baker T., and Baker C. did not show some common ancestors. DavidFarmbrough 10:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who composers

Since you're working on these, might want to take a look at Beware the daleks! (talk · contribs)'s contributions. They need cleaning up, among others. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Carey Blyton has now been cleaned up. DavidFarmbrough 08:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Spastic "fits"

FYI: [3]

""I would think that anybody in the disability community would see it as offensive," says Babs Johnson of National ADAPT. "It would be looked upon as someone having a fit or seizure or something like that. Body movements that you're not able to control.""

Just wanted to let you know. --JohnO 03:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that puts even more distance between spastic movements and fits. DavidFarmbrough 07:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Please stop blocking AOL IPs!

Without you quoting a specific example I can't comment on the particular IP you were thinking about. However in general I do very much see blocking AOL IPs as a last resort, but sometimes it has to be done. If I remember rightly I only blocked one AOL IP last night, and it had received three last warnings in a row, was engaging in persistent vandalism (ongoing at time of block) and personal attacks against editors. For a long time now there has been a Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal to allow registered users to continue editing when their IP is blocked, you may want to add your support to it (although I think the main thing now is waiting for the developers to implement it).

If you were affected by the block you could ask an admin (via email and/or {{unblock}}) to unblock the offending IP. Hope that helps, feel free to ask me any further questions. Petros471 13:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Dad's Army - the Yeatmans

Last year on Talk:Dad's Army you noted:

I suspect this [Frazer's trade changing] is just a case of the writers not thinking that their weekly television show would be analysed in such detail (in this respect, Perry and Croft are remarkably consistent with only a few contibuity errors, such as the Yeatmans' Christian names).

On the Maurice Yeatman page the question of both his and his wife's first names has come up a few times - can you help elaborate on what seems to be a mess here? Timrollpickering 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. There is an episode in which the Yeatmans are involved in a coach trip for the old folk of Walmington (and (IIRC) in some bizarre car chase with Jones's van and Yearman's motor-cycle with Mrs Fox in the side car). In the location scene, They each use each other's christian names. I think that on this occasion they call each other different names from those established elsewhere in the series. I know Maurice and Anthea have been established, but also Tracey and - I forget the alternative name for him. DavidFarmbrough 09:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

William Hartnell and the Sylvia Young Theatre School

Hey, David. At Talk:William Hartnell, an anon editor points out a contradiction: the Sylvia Young Theatre School opened in 1981 [4], but the William Hartnell article says he studied there. Since you added the SYTS to the Hartnell article and vice-versa, I wonder if you remember where you found that info, or how it can be explained? Thanks — I didn't want to try to answer for you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It was in Who's There?. DavidFarmbrough 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So is the Sylvia Young Theatre School's own page wrong about the date of its founding[5]? Was there perhaps another theatre school by that name before the current one? I'm confused. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be that she founded two different schools. But it seems unlikely that someone around to teach a young Billy Hartnell would still be the principal of the school now. I shall re-check Who's There. DavidFarmbrough 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked and it was Italia Conti - my apologies for the mistake. DavidFarmbrough 21:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

BBC2 Staff

Rowan Ayers seems legit, I have given him a new article. Sam Leach is now protected. Bye for now. Rich Farmbrough, 12:09 21 September 2006 (GMT).

Hank Marvin: EFTP

Hello David,

You are looking for a source for the EFTP (the Echoes from the past) that are used even by "the man himself", too? Well, just have a look on the homepage of Charlie Hall (Director of EFTP) and You'll see, that I'm right. I had been invited to go backstage at the concert in Esbjerg in April 2005 and Brian Benett showed me the equipment Hank and Bruce were using at the tour. Imagine, Hank used two extra-programmed ALESIS-Q20 EFTP's to create his absolute unique sound !!!!!

Yours sincerly

Bruce Marvin

Hmm... a link or two - and a real name would have been helpful. The homepage of the person selling the equipment may not be as unimpeachable a source as DavidFarmbrough 15:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

- DEAR ADMINS, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS MESSAGE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR EV'RY SHADOWS-FAN ! -

Hello David, hello my very dear Shadows-Fans,

if You are looking for the EFTP, just type in www.eftp.co.uk, use the hyperlink "EFTP" and that's it, my friends ! You need an ALESIS Q2 or Q20, send it to the company an they will program it ! If You don't have an ALESIS, no problem, they also sell an already pimped "ZOOM RFX 2200" with 46 different Shadows-Echoes. The Zoom RFX 200 (already pimped) is inclusive shipping to continental Europe at about 460 Euros. And I think, this is absolutely affordable. If You need Backing-Tracks - no problem !- You can purchase them there, too. By the way, I compared it with the ALESIS, and I must say, that the ZOOM is much better, more comfortable and has an extreme clear echo-sound. I used a VOX AC30-Amplifier, the EFTP and my BURNS Prototype Guitar (with REZO-MATIC). Great sound, absolutely no difference to the original sound of Hank Marvin. The EFTP contents several echoes: MEAZZI ECHOMATIC, BINSON Echorec and BABY BINSON, KLEMT Echolette, ROLAND 301, SWISS Echo and (my favourite) VOX Echo "LONG TOM". I even could compare the EFTP with an original MEAZZI ECHOMATIC (for the Apache-Sound) and - believe me or not - (JESUS CHRIST !!!!!) you can emulate the real Apache sound with it. Great Deal. For more information or contact, just write me an eMail to: odrdhs@web.de. I would be very pleased to hear from You !!! (All listed brands are registered trademarks !!!)

Yours sincerly

Bruce Marvin

Trent Players

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Trent Players, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. This page is still a stub after two years. If only one or two sentences have been written in all this time, how notable can it be? 172.129.151.22 21:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, I added the article primarily because I was in the group myself, but would not have done so if I had not considered it notable. I think the membership of Johne Neville and Arthur Newall make it notable, and also its longevity as a society. DavidFarmbrough 10:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

communication from David Fambrough moved from article

Dear David, I hope I'm doing this right.My name is David Fambrough, distant bloodline, dna, genes, etc. I'm the sculptor in Reno, Nevada. Still the wild west with cowboys etc. I myself would rather be sailing on Lake Tahoe. This is where I keep my yacht 41' SIDDARTHA. If you are ever in this area, I would love to take you and family sailing, an adventure for sure.................... best reguards David Fambrough 775.233.5391

"Black Boys Achievement"

Bishop Stopford's Article This has been removed and referred to as racist. In fact it is a Government programme in London worked through the EMAG grant. A 'Black Boys Achievement" program is run within the school by Sarah Hannan focussing on Afro-Caribbean boys who are likely to underachieve. The school is seen as a lead school in this field (hardly suprising given that over 70% of the current intake are of West African, Afro-Caribbean or Black British descent). This is not racist - but an achievment of the school recognised by Government.

What can I say? Sounds like a worthwhile scheme, and probably very well run if it's anything to do with SH, but I am not sure that the term 'Black Boys' should be applicable to anything other than the pub of that name in Tottenham. DavidFarmbrough 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It a term accepted by the Black Community and used by Government. It is very old-fashioned and prejudicial to think otherwise, or do you skirt around the issue or think it is correct to say 'coloured'! ! See

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=ccg&q=Black+Boys+Achievement&btnG=Search&meta=

I had never thought of myself as old fashioned in race issues, but perhaps the world has passed me by....and no, I would never have used the term 'coloured'. DavidFarmbrough 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Guy.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Guy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Liveatab.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Liveatab.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. ElinorD (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill Shankley

Can you please add more background information (and ideally some references) to this article? A search on Google didn't seem to return anything relevant. GlassCobra 08:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Bill Shankley

A tag has been placed on Bill Shankley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.167.83.205 16:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The main reason was to "disambuguate" him from the football legend DavidFarmbrough 10:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC) But as it's been deleted without waiting for my reply, frankly I can't be botheered to reinstate it. DavidFarmbrough 10:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gunnersbury

David, I fully agree with your comments on the identification of the area of Gunnersbury. Gunnersbury park was where I spent much of my boyhood leisure, and I attended Gunnersbury Grammar School. It was while writing the entry on the Park that I realised that the actual area of "Gunnersbury" is very ill defined. In fact, I'm not sure if it is properly defined at all. Some maps show it as an area, some only identify the park. Perhaps we should poll the local residents. Peter Maggs 12:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Gunnersbury School is outside the area because it moved to the Boston Manor area.

Certainly, for the entry to be encyclopaedic, it could refer to Gunnersbury Ward, which is a strictly defined area. DavidFarmbrough 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of locations of British situation comedies

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of locations of British situation comedies, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations of British situation comedies. Thank you. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. It's always embarrassing to send an article created by an established editor to AFD. No hard feelings!

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lord1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lord1.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Joeydeacon2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Joeydeacon2.gif. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of the tag left by BetacommandBot without adding the required FUR is not acceptable. I also somewhat question if the usage actually meets the fair use requirements. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your post on my talk page. Fair use statements need to be on the image page, not the talk page. I went ahead a created a shell fair use statement for you. If you could complete the missing fields description and purpose (other may be left blank) then you can delete the tag on the page. Also please correct anything that I have entered that is inaccurate. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but until the purpose and description fields are filled in, it is basicly the same as not having any statement at all. So the sooner you can do that the better. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Authorized Version

I see you have changed this from UK spelling (..ize) to US spelling (..ise) - on the principle of local usage within quotes. I am afraid I cannot understand your logic, but will not change it back without giving you an opportunity to explain fully. TomHennell (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I appreciate the opportunnity. The logic is that it is commonly known as the "Authorised Version" in the United Kingdom, but it is not known as the "Authorized Version" here. It isn't the spelling of the word 'authoris/zed' that we are discussing, but the title of a book in usage in the UK. I hope this clarifies. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be working under a misapprehension. Far the most common designation of the book in the UK is "The Authorized Version":

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=280570

(on this see the Oxford English Dictionary, OUP, CUP, etc); which is how the article originally read. A minority UK spelling is as "The Authorised Version", which I find in some texts and web-pages - mostly, I think due to variant publishers' style guides where marketing is intended outside the UK. Peake's Commentary, for example, uses this latter form. But the spelling most commonly adopted in the literature, by textual commentators, and by the Prerogative Printers; should, I think, be the one applied here. TomHennell (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Maxwell's silver hammer cartoon, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see anything in Last Memento of The Beatles's deletion log. If you want the article Maxwell's Silver Hammer Cartoon deleted I suggest you use the conventional routes of WP:AFD or perhaps WP:PROD instead of blanking the page ;) --Closedmouth (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that this article has been deleted now speaks for itself. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Deutz Geldermann

A tag has been placed on Deutz Geldermann requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (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. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Still considered noteable, but redirected to the new name for the company, which is simply 'Deutz'. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See Dorothy Hodgkin (nee Crowfoot)

nitramrekcap 91.110.244.42 (talk)

London Meetup - Sunday May 11th

We're hoping to have regular meetups for wikipedia enthusiasts in London. The next one is this Sunday lunchtime (May 11th) see Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9. in Holborn. Come along! -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sydney

You are incorrect. Sydney is a capital city (I should know, I used to live there). Sydney is the capital city of the state of New South Wales in Australia. Figaro (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a proper capital city! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a proper capital city. As I mentioned above, Sydney is recognised as a capital city (if you doubt me, please ask about this on the discussion page for Sydney). In the same way, with regard to other Australian states (and territories), Brisbane is the capital city of Queensland, Perth is the capital city of Western Australia, Melbourne is the capital city of Victoria, Adelaide is the capital city of South Australia, Hobart is the capital city of Tasmania, Darwin is the capital city of the Northern Territory — and all are recognised as capital cities — while Canberra is the capital city of the Australian Capital Territory, and, therefore, of Australia. You can also check the Wikipedia article List of Australian capital cities, as well as checking the following official Australian Government website, for confirmation about what I have said.

However, I assume that you are referring to national capital cities, only (i.e. London being the capital city of England and the United Kingdom, and Paris being the capital city of France). Figaro (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's right - Capital cities of countries is what people mean when they refer to capital cities - otherwise, where will it end? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

preclusion

By the time I saw your message, I had already posted this section, I'm not sure if you read it before posting on my talk page.

Basically, I couldn't find any reference to either stoppel or preclusion on the talk page, and the sentence appears to refer to the US court decision on the visa denial and not to the fraud conviction. I think that the sentence needs to be clarified, because the inmense majority of people reading won't understand what that sentence means or what it refers to. If the intended meaning is that there were no preclusions on the fraud case, then the sentence is in the wrong place or needs a good rewording, since it appears to refer to the US court case on the former sentence and not to the fraud case two sentences before and on the paragraph above. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Wikimedia UK logo

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

Recent thing

Made this cat and 193 sub-cats from scratch. Category:Articles containing non-English language text Rich Farmbrough, 21:29 30 August 2008 (GMT).

Golly. You must have been bored! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request for NZ inclusion on GDS' article

In order to solve the revert war on GDS article over the inclusion of the banning from New Zealand, I have opened a request for formal mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano. Please participate on the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

Did you know (DYK) about Greate Pier? Last king of Frisia (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I didn't until ten minutes ago. Now, thanks to you and to Wikipedia, I am better informed. Why did you mention it? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

River Brent

If Barrett has 'substantially' copied WP (as opposed to a previous editor copying their leaflet) then it sounds like a copyright violation to me. Wikipedia:Copyrights If Barrett's have mixed our article text into text they have written, then perhaps their whole leaflet is now (from a legal point of view) under the GFDL. Without looking at it, I guess, it may be just a innocent error where the copyrighter has not understood the CFDL licence –( but ignorance is no excuse).

The only advice here on WP (that I can find) is for violations on other websites, but not for printed matter. Wikipedia:Standard_GFDL_violation_letter#Letter_aimed_at_a_specific_violation In the absence of any clear policy advice for tackling the example you have discovered, I would suggest you ask the same question on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), pointing out that there is no existing policy guidance for printed material violations. Also ask: in what form you should upload the evidence in; e.g. a jpeg, file or OCR it from a scanned image first ( providing that is, you have OCR software to reduce it to a text file again) etc. This type of violation is bound to happen again, so I think it is worth bringing up. Also, we must avoid the possibility of another editor in the future, deleting our content in the belief that we are violating Barrett's copyright. Therefore, best nip this in the bud before it happens.--Aspro (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Aspro. I think you're right that you don't want someone thinking that Wikipedia copied Barrett. It's word for word the same. I was reading it because it was put through my door a few days ago in an attempt to justify Barrett's supposed status as good neighbours. Well on the whole, I think they would have been better neighbours if they hadn't partially demoloshed and weakly restored one of our best-loved listed buildings, and built 771 flats at the end of our road, but never mind. I was just reading it and thought 'hang on....this sounds very encyclopaedic!' so I checked and...bingo! it's the same! I will get a scan uploaded. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Real name on Star Wars kid talk page

Please don't use his real name in the discussion. The same policy determination that applies to the article also applies to the talk page. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I just used his first name - not his surname. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Freelance Desert Island Discs

My Collins lists freelance first and foremost as a noun, then as modifier as )e.g. freelance journalist), then as a verb, then as an adverb (e.g. working freelance). While I think adding "broadcaster" is useful, it was not necessary.

SimonTrew (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Simon - I am now better informed DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure :) I didn't check other dictionaries. I presume it comes from being a "free lance" i.e. a mercenary fighter, not one beholden to a baron or king. SimonTrew (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW nice to see someone else using (presumably) their real name! I have never had any problems with using my real name, here and elsewhere, though obviously I guard my personal contact details closely so as not to get loads of spam etc. SimonTrew (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I had a lot of stick from the subject of one BLP subject I was editing Giovanni Di Stefano, who kept on saying "Farmbrough, if that is your real name" and accusing me of hiding behind a pseudonym. Having said that, I see no problem with those that want to use a screen name either. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevyn Colgan

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Stevyn Colgan, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome To Wikipedia?

Thanks sonny, but I have been here four years! The edit you referred to was an actor's name commonly mis-spelled, I put in the correct spelling. However I believe the page in question was a vanity page and was just about to add a non-notable tag to it - unless you have better knowledge of the subject than I, in which case feel free to revert my edit. In any event, Cribbins must remain as "Cribbins"! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You did a lot more than change a spelling - replied at your talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Your edit was blatantly vandalistic and inserted libellous material. I suggest you look at the diff (I have requested oversight so it may not be available for long). DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Here is a link to the diff [6]. DuncanHill (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see it, but I suggest that the material you are talking about was inserted by the previous editor. Having looked at this because I *suspected* vandalism, I looked at it and thought that I would not revert the previous edit (as who is to say what is correct in the case of someone not well-known), but would put a notability tag on it. But I had to correct the "Cribbins" as I am fed up with seeing this error. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Burlodge

Declining db-spam deletion; article has been around a long time, edited by many people active in deletion work. Feel free to edit for tone. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't think so from the history, it looked like it had only really substantively been edited by one person, the spammer. Anyway, it's been deleted so presumably a different administrator has taken a different view. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bishop Stopford's School

Hello,

I see that about a year ago you did a big clean-up on this. I have just done another, though I don't have your advantage of having attended the school. I pared down a certain amount of peacock and cruft, and corrected a lot of presentational errors.

I'm a bit troubled that there are so few references to support many of the claims made. I didn't want to go mad with tags, but I think a harsher editor would, and may yet do so. For instance, the business with the caning shorts on the cushion sounds so delightfully weird that I think we really have to cite somebody or something in its support. (The school's current website seems to say nothing about its history at all.) Could it be in the book, "Treading on the Camomile", which perhaps you possess? If so, I think it needs in-line citations, quoting page numbers.

I'm not saying I don't believe these things, but I think others are likely to challenge them.

BTW aren't the English wonderful at inventing instant new traditions? My school was founded in the 8th century and has fewer traditions than this one founded in 1967!

Best, Alarics (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's the source for a lot of it. I am a little weary of personal knowledge being shouted down as "original research" when it usually means that the writer is in a better position than anyone to edit an article. Unfortunately, with an article on a school there are so many vested interests with more time than I to make their petty, niggling amendments that I have for the mosyt part given up bothering. If they want the article about their school to look pedestrian and lame (simultaneously) then let them! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi DavidFarmbrough,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew but I don't think I can help, because my expertise is in English & Welsh law, not U.S. Law. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jerry Schmitt

A tag has been placed on Jerry Schmitt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jerry Schmitt

I have nominated Jerry Schmitt, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Schmitt. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bricks2b.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Bricks2b.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [7], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ww2censor (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page. Ho hum.... DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DavidFarmbrough. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bricks

Okay, where does that image come from? We'll need to know that. DS (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. It's mine, I created it. I took the picture. When I uploaded it, I did indicate that it was all my own work. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the license tag to the more correct cc-by-nc-3.0, thous it will be speedly deleted. _→AzaToth 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

David, the point is that if you insist on "no commercial use", that's not Wikipedia-compatible. DS (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But sorry if I am missing the point here, wikipedia is not a commercial project - it's certainly non-commercial. Are you thinking of the mirrors and clones which use wikipedia content? If so, they don't use userpage data, only articles. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that our policies demand that all uploaded contents be freely reusable — including for commercial use — with limited exceptions that do not apply to userspace. In other words, any image you upload to Wikipedia must allow such reuse; it is (of course) your right to prefer that your own work not be freely licensed for commercial use, but then Wikipedia cannot allow you to store it here. — Coren ^(talk) 02:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)impublic domain? I suppose that nobody would want to use them except ho::::::Ok so for example, I saw a user with pictures of his family and his dogs, all uploaded to Wikipedia. presumbly he then licensed those to them confident in the knowledge that nobody would EVER want to use them! So that means we can't really have the equivalent of a picture showing who we are or what we do unless it's public domain. I think I shall go back to the Durer's Rhinocerous or something! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Stopford.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Stopford.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sfan, I uploaded that image over five years ago. Can YOU remember the source of miscellaneous images you uploaded five years ago or more? I doubt it. I suggest that as the picture is over fifty years old, any copyright would have reverted to the public domain. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne typos

Any particular reason why you're editing other editors' comments? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - because I was reading through the comments and found it difficult to understand quickly what they were saying. They were only typos. The integrity of the original comments was preserved and no alteration of any words was made. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruno Brookes

needs a rewrite. I was wondering if you have a source for this quotation from Trevor Dann? pablo 19:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's from a BBC Documentary "Blood On The Carpet", here on YouTube Not sure the exact second it's said... I might check later if I have time. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

OK checked, re-worded, and now re-added and cited! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Restriction

I'll tell you all about it on Skype some time. Rich Farmbrough, 06:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

OK please do. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Photography articles in Signpost

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-05-31/Photography
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/Accreditation

There may be more. Rich Farmbrough, 11:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Thank you. I'll get right onto that. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Just wanted to try this out! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

CFR

As a previous commentator, you may be interested in commenting to: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_22#Category:Wikipedians_with_BS_degrees Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:File:Stopford.jpg

thumb|The file we seek the source. Good evening,

We recently deprecated the {{PD-UK}} permission tag on Commons., to better review and assert our public domain files.

During this review, I see we don't have the source of your picture. Do you remember:

1. from where you scanned it?
2. if it were a book, the book ISBN (or any element to find it)?
3. the photographer name?

Thank you to help us improve our files description. --Dereckson (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not such an old picture: Robert Stopford was born in 1901 and seems to be c.50 in this photo.

So, I offer to transfer back the image from commons. to en. and use it with a fair use rationale.

Note we could be very near the 70 yo delay, and so it could be restored soon, thus I need the elements indicated above. --Dereckson (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dereckson - see above (item 62) for the comment I made when this was last raised in 2010. Nobody is going to come after us for using this image. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, as for a unknown author / public domain > 50 yo, the UK law requires the author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. Your statements doesn't seem a reasonable enquiry. --Dereckson (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OH FFS delete it then! I don't care. It's this level of 'policing' of Wikipedia pages which causes people to not want to contribute. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I kindly asked our fair use bot to transfer back the image to en. and wrote a fair use rationale, so we can keep the file here. --Dereckson (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good evening back. You've deleted it. Clearly you have nothing better to do. You are not improving the encyclopaedia by your actions, you're making it worse, and alienating those who contribute. Go away. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

David Potter

Hi. I've just added your refs as inline citations. If you still have paywall access, you might like to include the missing parameters. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that - Wikipedia makes 'inline citations' as you call them very difficult. I try to cite in the edit description though. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a little clumsy... but hopefully will be improved as part of the long term goal of attracting more editors and easing the editing process. Anyway, I generally use ProveIt, accessible via "my preferences"->gadgets. -- Trevj (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

<Like> DavidFarmbrough (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I just popped back here to mention Help:Footnotes as a basic way of including refs which isn't too involved... however, I may be too late if you decide to give ProveIt a go! -- Trevj (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it is always important to me to be able to edit Wikipedia quickly, hence the "wiki" in the name. If I can add references quickly enough then that may just encourage me to do so! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject: Doctor Who

Hi

I played the little girl Stellar in the 1987 Doctor Who story Dragonfire.

Is it ok to edit the article on Dragonfire or create an article about myself? Miranda Borman (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Miranda, either would be fine. Just like any Wikipedia user, be prepared for people to query facts, edit the article, etc. As long as the page you create isn't biased or disproportionate to your noteworthiness. it should be OK :) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added a bit to Dragonfire. It's a shame i can't talk about how that dress was way too jazzy and the awful puff sleeves. Dammn John Nathan-Turner. Miranda Borman (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I suppose you're probably grown up now :-) It is amazing how quickly time goes by. I enjoyed Dragonfire enormously, and I have to say never noticed the "error" in the scene you mentioned, but then I probably wasn't looking for it. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WLJY → WHTQ

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give WLJY a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into WHTQ. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this new development, however I would remind you that one of the defining features of Wikipedia is the "wiki" principle, which means that edits can be made quickly. This was a quick edit I made, which preserved the integrity of the article and left the history available on the old article's page. However if I am in a position to effect a similar change in the future, I will look at whether I have time to learn the new software. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Port Edwards, Wisconsin town and village

Hi I saw your question about Port Edwards, Wisconsin-town&village. You need to read the article Political subdivisions of Wisconsin. The town and village of Port Edwards are separate municipalties. Welcome to WikiProject Wisconsin also! Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall look at the article you direct me to. You're possibly related to me through my son, who has Dungar ancestors from Wisconsin. Thanks also for the welcome, but I've been in WikiProject Wisconsin for a number of years now :-) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Joel Goodness for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joel Goodness 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Goodness 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 template from the top of the article. JaGa^talk 04:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Susan Williams

Hello. It was Steven Wells (Seething Wells, Swells) who performed his 'punk' poetry under the name "Susan Williams". I'm not aware of CC using it in parady. ClareGC (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will re-watch the ORS if I can find them, but if you know of Steven Wells using the name it's less likely that Craig Charles using it. We might have to ask him! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the ORS. I'd be very interested to hear if CC had any alter ego, especially if he wore a dress! If you can't find the tapes, maybe you should ask him? I'd guess though, that this will turn out to be like when he was asked in interview about once being a professional footballer, and his reply was simply "no". ClareGC (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ClareGC. I should hate to think that my memory failed me on something as important as this, but I am prepared to accept that it could have....The ORS was usually about 25% good musical acts with a lot of filler, typical of youth-oriented programming of the 1980s, made by the old people at the BBC :) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll enjoy watching the show, and finding out CCs part, if I come across it. If you don't add more, for now, I'll take the reference out when I next update the page. ClareGC (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Captain Gatso

The article Captain Gatso has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dlohcierekim 20:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not agreed - multiple newspaper articles and other news media make him notable. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your user page

I don't know if you've been told this before, but I think that much of your user page is inappropriate. It looks like a Wikipedia article. It has far too much material about you that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Would you consider making some significant changes to it to comply with user page guidelines?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but it seemed like the logical way to construct a user page. People do their user pages pretty much according to their own whims, some have photographs of their dogs, others have numerous awards and "barnstars" that they've been given. I choose to do mine in biographic form. You will appreciate it's far too un-encyclopaedic to be mistaken for a Wikipedia article, even supposing someone didn't realise it is a user page. It's also written in the first person. Oh, and no, in seven and a half years of editing, NOBODY has told me this before :) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask another admin to take a look, but it still bothers me. Your point about the first person is interesting because I was so struck by the Wikipedia-article-like organization of it that I didn't even notice it was mostly written in the first person.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just happened by this. WP:USERBIO would be the relevant policy section, possibly along with WP:FAKEARTICLE. might I propose that the simplest solution would be to slap {{Userpage Blue}} either at the top or the bottom, that should allow David to keep the material without the risk of confusion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, those were the two policy sections I linked in my original comment. I'm not sure that the template solves the problem, actually. It may mitigate one of the problems, the fake article part (I'd put the template at the top to be sure that people see it), but it doesn't resolve the excessive personal material unrelated to Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• At minimum this kind of userpage should be disclaimed with a {{userpage}} template. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Given your extensive contributions to the encyclopedia, I think the content of your userpage is fine. I agree with the suggestion that you should adopted some sort of userpageish decorations or designations to avoid the theoretical possibility that someone would confuse the page for an actual article. This shouldn't be terribly difficult to do, and if you have any questions about how to do it I'm sure someone will be glad to help you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Goodness me I never realised it could be so important to other people! Well I have designed a small graphic to go at the top, just in case, to prevent any extremely dim users from thinking it's an article page. BTW the words "Fake article" seem a bit disingenuous in this context. The word "fake" suggests an intention to deceive. I hope it's clear that there is no such intention in my case. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just the name of the policy shortcut, I agree with your contention that the first person perspective along with the fact that it is in fact a user page make it unlikely anyone would actually think it was an article, and I certainly did not mean to imply you were being intentionally deceptive. I also don't believe, as a matter of policy, that you could or would be made to alter or delete it. Your solution is a bit sarcastic but it certainly does get the job done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's sarcasm born of a weary exasperation. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Forbidden Planet (bookstore)

Please do not remove fact tags from articles without a valid rationale, as you did with [this edit]. The statement that a store is the largest cult megastore in the UK, and that it hosts genre signings and events notable enough to mention indeed requires verification. The fact that it's "just what they do" does not mitigates this. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not - the "citation needed" (or "fact tag" as you call it) appeared to be referring to the sort of thing that they sell and host, NOT the claim about its size. I would suggest you move the "citation needed" to a more appropriate place - after the word "largest". Thank you. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DavidFarmbrough. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, DavidFarmbrough. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doctor Who (series 8)

I apologise if I have offended you. However, I must continue to disagree. In addition to being used in various Doctor Who production blogs, the word filming is analogous to the word recording, and is more familiar to those unaquainted with the terminology of moviemaking. Also, I have yet to see the word "recording" in place of "filming" in the Production section of any major movie.

However, as I do not pretend to be an expert, I won't say that I should have the last word on this subject. I merely hope that this issue shall be resolved satisfactorally for the benefit of both parties and the accuracy of Wikipedia. G S Palmer (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not in the least offended, I just want Wikipedia to be right. Also.... I won't enter into a revert war, so I didn't revert the last revert. I have just left it to others to decide. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Can We James Corbett Entry Removed...

Please see my comments on the talk section in James Corbett which you cleaned up... Thanks, Canadaman1 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen your comments. What do you want me to do? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hello, Good to know you are a lawyer too! Happy editing! Sign my Guestbook. The Pakistan (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And like you I am an alumnus of the University of London, a heterosexual, a speaker of British English and someone who enjoys photography. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of John Quarmby for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Quarmby 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Quarmby 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. j⚛e decker^talk 19:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleting articles like this seems to be a bit of a waste of time. Why not expend the energy in improving them? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

List of serial killers.

I've re-started the discussion on the separation of medicals professionals in the list of serial killers page, a subject to which you have previously contributed, and may wish to discuss again. The discussion is here. Guinness2702 (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bishops.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bishops.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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Stefan2: According to the file history, DavidFarmbrough's image was overwritten with something completely different by Searover2011 (talk · contribs). Have you informed that user? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked that. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, chaps. My picture was of the school yard, circa 1984, taken by me, uploaded by me, and licensed for use on Wikipedia. Now we have an "architect's impression" which, as you know, seldom bear any relation to the actualité.DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of contemporary comedians using blackface for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of contemporary comedians using blackface 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of contemporary comedians using blackface 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. Vrac (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2015 (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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon in Madison

inline

inline

DavidFarmbrough, I'd like to invite you to an upcoming edit-a-thon:

ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

• Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon
• Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)
• Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. czar 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You received this message because you are a member of Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin. To opt-in to future Madison event messages, add yourself to the mailing list.

Billy Paul

If you are going to delete a sourced entry from Deaths in 2016 you could at least show the courtesy of listing the reason for your edit. (The source has been used multiple times in the past) BurienBomber (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, you could have shown me the courtesy of assuming good faith. I believe when I made the edit I hadn't finished typing in the description of the change when the edit was completed. I was not best pleased with that myself, either. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Glowing speedometer pointing to 70 mph.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Glowing speedometer pointing to 70 mph.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Stevie Riks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stevie Riks 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevie Riks 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. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar

David Farmbrough - Hi and thank you so very much for all the work you've done for Steve Riks' page on Wikipedia - and for trying to prevent it from being deleted. My name's Nancy Foster and I'm Stevie's Admin on Facebook - as well as a very good friend. In July, we updated his Bio on Facebook and I copied it and pasted it here. I knew I needed to add citations and - to be honest - completely forgot. I know that's not a great excuse or reason but I only wanted to update this page - especially after the Bowie mix-up. There's absolutely no PR or advertising intended! I can't work out how to add a comment to the Delete page that's been created. This is the only "in" I've found and this will probably be the only time I ever update a Wiki page. So with that said - could you help me or explain that it was a complete mistake on my part and I've edited his Bio in a chronological way to reflect his almost 40 years as a working and known musician in the UK? It's incredible just how many people do know of Stevie! Thanks again for the citations etc. - brilliant job all around. I hope the edits I made reflect more validity to keeping the page and again - it was totally my mistake to use the Bio from Facebook which is a different concept altogether I know now! Again, many thanks - Nancy Mandamayson (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barn star :) I should repeat what I said in the deletion talk page, which is that I am in no way linked to Stevie or interested in promoting him. I created the page to improve Wikipedia. I'm just someone who enjoys music and comedy and (without being a fan), much of Stevie's work. However the problem we face on Wikipedia is the idea of setting the notability threshold really high. I can ALMOST understand why people wanted to do that in the encyclopaedia's early days, but now, we really can afford to have articles on less well-known people, as it's grown a lot in terms of breadth and depth of coverage. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DavidFarmbrough. 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)

An article you created, Coventry Street...well?...

	Congratulations, it's a...
	Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It was considerably smaller when I created it :) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of David Warwick for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Warwick 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Warwick 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. Quasar G ^{t - c} 19:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Joanna Kirkland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joanna Kirkland 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Kirkland 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. Quasar G ^{t - c} 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

File:A graphic to remove the scintilla of ambiguity that might be present in a user page in relation to its potential confusion with an article page.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A graphic to remove the scintilla of ambiguity that might be present in a user page in relation to its potential confusion with an article page.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blue Marble Jack Cheese

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Blue Marble Jack Cheese requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. FiendYT ★ 05:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It makes no sense to tag the article for speedy deletion when it has been present for over three years. Speedy deletion may have been in order in June or July 2014, but it hasn't now suddenly become urgent in November 2017.

The deletion of articles on the grounds of non-notability is the weakest, and becomes progressively weaker as the encyclopaedia grows more comprehensive. In this case, the article was created objectively, with adequate citations, and without a vested interest (the usual problem with non-notable articles). To delete it does not benefit Wikipedia nor its users in any way, and serves only to add to the deleting Admin's delete count.

Please revert the article forthwith. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DavidFarmbrough. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Cine film for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cine film 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cine film 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nik Carter, Saxophonist.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nik Carter, Saxophonist.jpg, which you've attributed to Nik Carter. 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 Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia: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 in section F11 of the 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I was given the file by the copyright holder with express permission to use it on Wikipedia. I uploaded it using the new file upload wizard and dealt with all the necessary copyright aspects in that process, including confirming that I had the copyright holder's permission and that I could upload evidence of that later if need be.

DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DavidFarmbrough. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DavidFarmbrough. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Reigate Grammar School, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Beginners indeed! I've been editing since 2005. It would be beneficial if you assumed good faith and that users know about the edits they make, otherwise they wouldn't make them. Anyway I am adding it again with a reference for your benefit. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi - apologies for offending you, and thanks for adding a source. I'm still not sure that the fact is relevant to the school article, but will leave it be. Tacyarg (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That's OK DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Miranda Borman hoaxer

I think you might find (Redacted) enlightening. Best regards! Option 16 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting, yes. Though why anyone would impersonate such an obscure figure is beyond me. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I also set up a Facebook profile in the name of Samantha Smith. It was for the same reason - I was not 100% as Mum said and i was bored. I took it down when one of Samantha's friends contacted me and said a Facebook profile acting as if i was her was not a tribute. Paul Benjamin Austin 15:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: You have been editing Wikipedia for a decade. In that time, you don't seem to have had any serious disputes. You were trusted enough to become an admin. So you clearly have the ability to control your behavior when you decide to. Impersonating Miranda Borman in the way you did was probably a criminal act. I don't think charging you with a criminal offense would be helpful to anyone, but if you don't stop what you are doing it is a foreseeable result. I strongly suggest that you seek professional psychological counseling. Option 16 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Please take this discussion elsewhere. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Finding Out (TV programme)

The article Finding Out (TV programme) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable TV show, hardly any mention online re this show

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Finding Out (TV programme) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Finding Out (TV programme) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Out (TV programme) 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.   Kadzi   (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Muscadine Bloodline moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Muscadine Bloodline, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Telos (Doctor Who) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Telos (Doctor Who) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telos (Doctor Who) 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.

TTN (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Griddy

Hi, there's a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griddy (the notification about this discussion went out to the first editor)  – Thjarkur (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of Griddy, I don’t appreciate being accused of vandalism. -- John Reaves 03:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nik Carter

The article Nik Carter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fail WP:BIO

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sonofstar (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sanne Wohlenberg

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sanne Wohlenberg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

What?! That's ridiculous! She's a Doctor Who producer and on that basis alone is notable, even if the rest of her career were ignored. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Sanne Wohlenberg for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sanne Wohlenberg 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanne Wohlenberg 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 until the discussion has finished.

Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Broken ref at Claudine Gay

I think something went wrong when you added a reference in this edit, and I don't want to try to guess at which article you were trying to reference. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes you're right. I was editing it while mobile (walking through some shops) and needed to finish it quickly. When I submitted it, I got an error message stating that the reference I was using wasn't acceptable because it was an abbreviated URL. So I removed the link, and determined to come back to it today from my computer and add a usable reference... DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New teeth newsletter. That's weird... Hello! Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of WikiProject Doctor Who. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (yeah... I'm a little confused too), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly. For this first edition, we have created an updated version of our mailing list that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in our participants list. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list. I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the Doctor Who side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo..... Big Spike in Productivity During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of OlifanofmrTennant, TheDoctorWho, and Pokelego999 having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees. Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "Boom", "73 Yards", and "The Devil's Chord" having made it to GA. 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "The Star Beast" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by frequent collaborator (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "The Giggle" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "Wild Blue Yonder". WBY received help by JustAnotherCompanion, a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "Destination: Skaro" and quickly got GA status. The Daleks' Master Plan was also sent to GAN by Rhain. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check. Peter Capaldi: The filmography and newly created awards of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed. Proposals to the WikiProject A recent proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows: The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces. The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site. Due to the low quality of Lungbarrow and Jubilee despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section. An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by Wikipedia:VGCHAR. Radio Times's Doctor Who sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise. The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates. If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Doctor Who robots for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Doctor Who robots 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who robots 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 until the discussion has finished.

Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who: September 2024 Newsletter

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who You like Doctor Who? What's his name then? Welcome Hello and welcome to the second issue of the new newsletter! Following the success of the first newsletter we are back to write more stuff. Articles for deletion Several articles have been nominated for deletion, such as Time War (Doctor Who), and several articles have been deleted, or merged or redirected, especially those relating to books, due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Editors can always help either by participating in the deletion discussions (which are noted on the project page), adding to such articles, or bringing attention to other such articles through AfD or the WikiProject talk page, to aid in clean-up. Notice of Draft Articles A new Doctor Who spin-off was announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con, called The War Between the Land and the Sea, and will feature old and new Whoniverse characters working for UNIT as they battle the Sea Devils. The main space article currently redirects to Whoniverse, but collaboration is currently underway in a draft article. As filming on this miniseries has recently begun, its relocation to the mains space will presumably take place soon per the recommendations laid out at WP:NTV. There is also a draft article in progress for the upcoming 2024 Christmas special. While this article won't be moved until the episode airs, any new contributions are welcome. Doctor Who News A small number of editors have recently raised questions regarding the reliability of Doctor Who News. This website is particularly used for information regarding viewing figures and the Appreciation Index of most episodes as well as some news information. If there is a better source for any information supported by this website, it should be replaced in good faith. A full consensus on whether or not to remove the information that can't be supported by a different source has not yet been reached. Any editor who has opinions on this matter should contribute to the discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content There has been lots of progress made towards recognized articles in the last two months, related to such diverse categories as series, specials, lists and episodes A sub-page has also been added to the WikiProject, to list any possible goals we can aim towards. Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject Several proposals have been laid out regarding fictional elements in the WikiProject, which includes fictional characters, locations, and more. Due to a concerning quality state regarding the large majority of them, several methods of tackling them in order to improve these articles' quality for the future have been proposed. The primary three proposals are as follows: 1. A priority list should be made to determine what articles are most pressing and in need of improvement in the WikiProject overall. Focus would be put onto important subjects and articles in a state of dubious notability that would make them viable for deletion processes such as AfD. 2. A group of articles is selected for improvement, which are ones deemed most relevant to the WikiProject for the future. Any lesser important subjects can be sidelined and worked on as editors see fit. 3. A long term goal is made to improve all elements. This will come at the caveat of taking significantly longer and requiring more heavy participation than the above two proposals, but would guarantee a slow and steady way to solve the issue. If any editors are interested in chiming into the conversation and sharing their piece on how this should be handled, or if any editors wish to help with this proposal and improve fictional elements articles, then feel free to share thoughts at the discussion's section on the article's talk page. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) "I'm not appalled by it" - The New New York Times If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)